The URL can be used to link to this page

Council PKT 06-16-2009 Special/Regular A Federal Way AGENDA FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL & REGULAR MEETING Council Chambers - City Hall June 16, 2009 www.cityoffederalway.com SPECIAL MEETING - 5:30 P.M. 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2. DISCUSSION: MUNICIPAL COURT OPTIONS 3. EXECUTIVE SESSION Potential Litigation Pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1 )(i) 4. ADJOURN REGULAR MEETING -;7:00 P.M. 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PRESENTATIONS a. Proclamation: Amateur Radio Week b. Student Art Winners - Arts Commission c. City Manager Emerging Issues / Introduction of New Employees 4. CITIZEN COMMENT PLEASE CqMPLETE A PINK SLIP & PRESENT IT TO THE CITY CLERK PRIOR TO SPEAKING.. When recognized by the Mayor, come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. PLEASE LlfI. IT YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE (3) MINUTES. The Mayor may interrupt comments that exceed hree minutes, relate negatively to other individuals, or are otherwise inappropriate. 5. CONSENT,AGENDA Items listed below have been previously reviewed in their entirety by a Council Committee of three members and brought before full Council for approval; all a Councilmember for separate discussion and subsequent motion a. Approval of Minutes: June 2, 2009 Special and Regular Meetings ...pg.3 b. ORDINANCE: Long-Range Financial Planning & 2009-10 Budget Adjustment 1st Reading 6- 2-09 11 . ....pg. c. 20th Place SW - 100% Design and Authorization to Bid LUTC 6-1-09 .. .pg. 19 d. RESOLUTION: Setting Public Hearing Date for 2010-2015 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) LUTC 6-1-09 .. ..pg. 21 e. Bid Award: SWM 20 Ton Heavy Equipment Tilt Bed Trailer LUTC6-1-09 ...pg. 26 f. Approval of the Agreement between The King County Flood Zone Control District and the City of Federal Way for Opportunity Fund Projects LUTC 6-1-09 .. .pg. 28 g. Community Preparedness Grant PRHSPSC6-9-09 ....pg.46 h. Reprogram 2009 CDBG Capital Funds as Part of the 2010 CDBG Capital Allocation Process PRHSPSC 6-9-09 .. ..pg. 48 i. Federal Way Community Center Cafe Construction PRHSPSC6-9-09 ....pg. 55 j. Federal Way Community Center Cafe Equipment PRHSPSC 6-9-09.. ..pg. 56 k. Retainage Release: CHG Building Systems PRHSPSC 6-9-09 .. ..pg. 57 I. Application for Ballistic Vest Partnership Grant PRHSPSC 6-9-09 .. ..pg. 58 m. Renewal & Extension of Red-Light Photo Enforcement Professional Services Agreement PRHSPSC 6-9-09 .. ..pg. 63 n. SECTOR Service Level Agreement with the Washington State Patrol PRHSPSC6-9-09 .pg. 67 o. Letter of Commitment Neighborhood Stabilization Program II PRHSPSC 6-9-09.. ..pg. 76 6. COUNCIL BUSINESS a. City of Federal Way Housing and Job Targets Update ....pg. 83 b. Centerstage Management Contract .. ..pg. 85 c. RESOLUTION: To form North Lake Management District Number Two; Calling for a Vote by Affected Property Owners on the Formation of the Proposed District. .. ..pg. 135 7. INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES a. Pacific Hiqhwav South HOV Lanes Phase IV Project Condemnation ....pg.424 An ordinance of the City of Federal Way, Washington, providing for the acquisition of certain property for the purpose of oonstructing right-of-way improvements in the vicinity of Pacific Highway South from South 31 ih to Dash Point Road, know as the Pacific Highway south HOV Lands Phase IV project; describing the public use and necessity of such property; directing staff to exhaust reasonable negotiation efforts to purchase such property providing for the condemnation of the property; and directing the city attorney to initiate all necessary actions and proceedings in the manner provided by law for said condemnation if attempts to purchase are not successful. INTRODUCTION AND ENACTMENT OF ORDINANCES b. Amendments to FWRC 4.05.060 ReQardinQ Park Hours ....pg.519 An Ordinance of the City of Federal Way, Washington, relating to park hours; amending FWRC 4.05.010, Definitions; amending FWRC 4.05.060, Closing Hours - Unlawful entry; and declaring an emergency. 8. COUNCIL REPORTS 9. CITY MANAGER REPORT 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION Potential Li~igation Pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1 )(i) 11. ADJOURNMENT The Council may add items and take action on items not listed on the agenda. .~ . . "... **Ir1 an effort to "Think Green" sheets of paper were saved by eHminating duplicate copies of the Consent Agenda supporting documents. COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 16,2009 ITEM CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES POLICY QUESTION: Should the City Council approve the draft minutes of the June 2, 2009 Special Meeting, and the June 2, 2009 Regular Meeting? COMMITTEE: Not Applicable MEETING DATE: Not Applicable CATEGORY: ~ Consent o City Council Business o Ordinance o Resolution o o Public Hearing Other ~!~!!~!'2~!~Y.:~~!~~1.Y.J:~~~!.!!Y~~~!Y~.!~!~ Attachments: Draft meeting minutes of the June 2, 2009 Regular and Special Meetings. DEPT: Human Resources Options Considered: 1. Approve the minutes as presented. 2. Amend the minutes as necessary. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the minutes as presented. CITY CLERK ApPROVAL: N/A DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: N/A N/A Committee Council Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED". (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: o APPROVED o DENIED o TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED - 02/06/2006 COUNCIL BILL # 1 ST reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # CITY Of Federal Way MINUTES FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Council Chambers - City Hall May 19, 2009 www.cityoffederalway com 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Deputy Mayor Faison called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. Councilmembers present: Deputy Mayor Eric Faison, Councilmembers Jim Ferrell, Linda Kochmar, Mike Park, Jeanne Burbidge and Dini Duclos present. Staff present: Interim City Manager Brian Wilson, City Attorney Pat Richardson and City Clerk Carol McNeilly. Deputy Mayor Faison excused Mayor Dovey. 2. LONG RANGE FINANCIAL PLAN & BUDGET ADJUSTMENT Interim City Manager Wilson stated that at their May 5 meeting, the Council directed staff to prepare a long range financial plan in an effort to meet the changing economic climate. Mr. Wilson reviewed the recommended cuts and re-allocations, which include: . Layoff 12.88 FTE's (7.5 filled, 5.38 vacant) . 2% wage reduction for Directors . Re-structure Assistant City Manager positions . Maintain current police officer staffing, with a hiring freeze of four (4) unfilled commissioned positions . No COLA increase for staff in 2010 . 2% wage benefit reduction for all City Employees in 2010 . 75% transfer of available utility tax funds to operations, 25% to capital . City Contingency fund reduced to $500,000. . 3% COLA budgeted for all City Employees in years 2011-2014 The Council discussed the plan and directed staff to explore maintaining the Government Affairs position and City Newsletter. The Council discussed Police staffing levels related to Proposition One. Council would like to volunteer 2% of their salaries back to the city budget. Council also directed staff to schedule a study session to discuss court administration options. ('ilv Council /l/linutes May! 9, 2009 Special A1eeting Page J of2 Finance Director Kraus reviewed proposed long range funding re-allocations from one-time funding to on-going funding. Assistant City Manager Bryant Enge reviewed proposed budget reductions. 3. EXECUTIVE SESSION Potenti31 LitigatiBR--Jdursu3nt to RCVV 42.30.110(1 )(i) The Council did not conduct the executive session. 4. ADJOURN Deputy Mayor Faison adjourned the Special meeting at 6:53 p.m. Attest: Carol McNeilly, CMC, City Clerk Approved by Council: June 2, 2009 Council Iv/inutes May /9, 2009 Special i";Jeeting Page 2 ofl A Federal Way MINUTES FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Council Chambers - City Hall JUNE 2, 2009 www.cityoffederalway.com 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Mayor Dovey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jack Dovey, Deputy Mayor Eric Faison, Councilmembers Jim Ferrell, Linda Kochmar, Mike Park, Jeanne Burbidge and Dini Duclos. Staff present: Interim City Manager Brian Wilson, City Attorney Pat Richardson and City Clerk Carol McNeilly. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmember Kochmar led the pledge of allegiance. 3. PRESENTATIONS a. OutQoinQ Commissioner - Arts Commission Councilmember Burbidge presented Maggie Ellis a certificate of appreciation for serving on the Arts Commission. b. Certificate of Appointment - Arts Commission Councilmember Burbidge presented Lorie Woods a certificate of appointment. c. City ManaQer EmerQinQ Issues / Introduction of New Emplovees Interim City Manager Wilson stated there were no emerging issues or introductions. 4. CITIZEN COMMENT Susan Honda is Chair of the Arts Commission. She spoke on behalf of the Commission and encouraged the Council to keep the Parks Recreation & Cultural Services Superintendent position. Diana Noble-Gulliford stated her concerns with the Council re-allocating Utility Tax revenues to the General Fund. Donald Barovic complimented the City Managers Office for responding to his concerns in a timely manner and providing information he requested. City Council Minutes June 2, 2009 Page 1 of 5 Regular Meeting Maureen Hathaway serves on the Arts Commission. She encouraged the Council to keep the Parks Recreation & Cultural Services Superintendent position. Betty Taylor thanked the Council and City for having an open door policy and meeting with her to address her concerns. 5. CONSENT AGENDA Items listed below have been previously reviewed in their entirety by a Council Committee of three members and brought before full Council for approval; all items are enacted by one motion. Individual items may be removed by a Councilmember for separate discussion and subsequent motion. a. Minutes: May 19, 2009 Special & Regular Meeting APPROVED b. Vouchers FEDRAC 5-26-09 APPROVED c. Monthly Financial Report FEDRAC 5-26-09 APPROVED d. ORDINANCE: Amending Red Light Photo Enforcement Penalty First Reading 5-19-09 APPROVED Ordinance 09-613 e. ORDINANCE: 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments First Reading 5-19-09 APPROVED Ordinance 09-614 f. ORDINANCE: Tacoma Department of Public Utilities, Water Division 1-year Franchise Extension First Reading 5-19-09 APPROVED Ordinance 09-615 g. Community Center Building Generator Electrical Installation - Final Project Acceptance and Retainage Release LUTC 5-18-09 APPROVED h. Acceptance of Grant Funding for Transportation Improvement Projects LUTC 5-18-09 APPROVED i. Bid Award: Easter Lake Flood Control Improvements and West Branch Joe's Creek Culvert Replacement Projects LUTC 5-18-09 APPROVED j. Use Automation Fees to Upgrade Permit, Application, and Business License Tracking System FEDRAC 5-26-09 APPROVED k. Bid Award: Purchase and Installation of the Automatic License Plate Recognition System (ALPR) FEDRAC 5-26-09 APPROVED MOTION: Deputy Mayor Faison moved approval of the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Kochmer second. VOTE: Motion carried 7-0. 6. PUBLIC HEARING North Lake ManaQement District Surface Water Manager Will Appleton stated the purpose of the Management District is to manage vegetation, educate the public and monitor water quality. The duration of the district is ten years. Maintenance for North Lake has been funded via grants; however, with the formation of the Management District, assessments on lake front properties will ensure funding for future maintenance. The estimated cost to maintain the lake is $12,240.00 annually. Mr. Appleton reviewed the timeline if the city moves forward with the creation of the district. Citizen Comment: Charles Gibson spoke in support of creating the North Lake Management District. City Council Minutes June 2, 2009 Regular Meeting Page 2 of5 MOTION: Council member Kochmar moved to close the public hearing to accept public comment regarding the formation of North lake Management District Number Two, direct staff to prepare a resolution calling for the vote on the formation of said lake Management District for Council's consideration at the June 16,2009 City Council meeting. Councilmember Burbidge second. VOTE: Motion carried 7-0 Mayor Dovey closed the Public Hearing. 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS a. CDBG-R (Recovery Act) Allocations CDBG Coordinator Kelli O'Donnell reported the City is designated to receive $194,128.00 in Community Development Block Grant funding. The grant requires the City to submit an application by June 5, 2009. The funds will be spent on street light improvements in various parts of the City. The energy efficient LED lights will improve neighborhood safety and the construction projects will create jobs in the City. MOTION: Councilmember Burbidge moved to allocate the 2009 Community Development Block Grant Recovery Act Funds as presented, designating $174,715. 00 to the street lighting project in the vicinity of 17th Avenue S/20th Way S and 20th Avenue S between S 324th Street to S 330th Street, and $19,413.00 to planning and administration of the CDBG-R funds to be shared equally between the City and King County. Expedite the public participation process in order to meet the June 5, 2009 deadline. It is further moved that the Interim City Manger, or his designee, be authorized to enter into the required agreements to carry out Federal Way's 2009 CDBG-R program. Councilmember Duclos second. VOTE: Motion carried 7-0. b. EnerQY Efficiency and Conservation StrateQY ICMA Fellow Scott Pingel stated the City is applying for an EECB Grant. If approved, the City could receive up to $777,700. The application process requires the city to provide a summary of potential projects that would be funded with the grant. Mr. Pingel reviewed the proposed projects and stated that grant funds must be used within three years. MOTION: Councilmember Ferrell moved to direct staff to move forward with the grant application. Council member Park second. VOTE: Motion carried 7-0. 8. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES a. LonQ RanQe and BudQet Adiustment An ordinance of the City of Federal Way, Washington, relating to Budgets and Finance, Revising the Adopted 2009-10 Biennial Budget. Assistant City Manager Enge provided a summary of the budget amendments to the 2009-10 Budget. Recommendations include: City Council Minutes June 2, 2009 Regular Meeting Page 3 of5 . Layoffs off 11.88 FTE's (5.38 vacant, 6.5 filled) . Hiring freeze of 4.0 FTE's . Suspension of Cost of Living Adjustment(COLA) for staff in 2010 . 2% wage and/or benefit reduction . Capping the Annual Overlay Program funding at 1.4 million dollars . Deferring several Capital projects City Clerk Carol McNeilly read the ordinance title into the record. MOTION: Park moved to forward the Ordinance to second reading on June 16, 2009. Councilmember Duclos second. VOTE: Motion carried 7-0. The Council discussed future funding options for the Communications and Governmental Affairs Manager position, as this amendment funds the position on a one time basis. 9. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Ferrell had no report. Councilmember Kochmar reported on an upcoming Suburban Cities Association meeting she will be attending. Council member Duclos reported on an upcoming fundraiser sponsored by the Multi- Service Center. Councilmember Burbidge reported on upcoming community events and stated the next PRHSPSC is June 9, 2009. Councilmember Park reported on a meeting he attended that focused on King County providing Mental Health Court Services. Deputy Mayor Faison had no report. Mayor Dovey reported the Puget Sound Regional Council Transportation 2040 report was available for review. The Council will discuss Court Administration at a study session on June 16, 2009. 10. CITY MANAGER REPORT Interim City Manger Wilson announced the Council would be adjourning into Executive Session for approximately 15 minutes to discuss the qualifications of applicants for public employment pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1 )(g). 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION Evaluation of qualifications of applicants for public employment RCW 42.30.110(1 )(g). The Council adjourned into Executiye Session at 8:38 p.m. The Council adjourned from Executive Session at 8:48 p.m. City Council Minutes June 2, 2009 Regular Meeting Page 4 of5 12. ADJOURNMENT With no additional business before the Council, Mayor Dovey adjourned the meeting at 8:48 p.m. Attest: Carol McNeilly, CMC, City Clerk Approved by Council: City Council Minutes June 2, 2009 Regular Meeting Page 5 of5 COUNClL MEETlNG DATE: JtlR81, 1Q09 J\A.ne \\Q. ~ CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL 'S.b. lTEM_#:~6G . SUBJECT: Long Range Financial Plan Update POLICY QUESTION: N/ A COMMlTTEE: Finance, Economic Development, Regional Affairs Committee (FEDRAC) CATEGORY: MEETING DATE: May 26, 2009' o Consent o City Council Business [8] Ordinance o Resolution o o Public Hearing Other ~!~~!:.~P2~!_!!'r':____~ry~~~!1~1._~~~~_~nt Ci~_~a!!~g~!:I.~f9_____________~~~~__\i~~~~~~~~___._____._______._____ Background: This item was discussed initially at the City Council Special Meeting/Study Session on March 17, 2009. Since this time the Long Range Financial Plan Update has been brought and discussed at the Finance, Economic Development, Regional Affairs Committee Meetings on March 24, 2009 and April 28, 2009, and at the May 5, 2009 and May 19, 2009 Special City Council Meeting/Study Sessions. Attachments: l. Staff Memo dated May 22, 2009 2. Draft Ordinance revising the Adopted 2009-20 to Biennial Budget CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ;. - J). .(.J ,tJ.klr\ J DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: Council mmittee Member ~~,-G~ Committee Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: HI move approval of the Ordinance Revising the Adopted 2009-20 I 0 Biennial Budget as presented" COUNCIL ACTION: o APPROVED o DENIED o TABLEDIDEFERREDfNO ACTION o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED - 02/06/2006 (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED 8 Y CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL 81LL # t ST reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO BUDGETS AND FINANCE, REVISING THE ADOPTED 2009-10 BIENNIAL BUDGET (AMENDING ORDINANCE NOs. 08-589 AND 09-612) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Federal Way adopted the 2009-10 Biennial Budget on December 2,2008, in accordance with RCW 35A.34,120; and WHEREAS, on May 5, 2009, the City Council enacted Ordinance No. 09-612 to carry forward funds that had not been expended in 2008; and WHEREAS, the global economy continued to decline and as a result the City's revenues were less than the projected amounts used for the 2009-10 Biennial Budget; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the best interest ofthe City to revise the 2009- 10 Biennial Budget pursuant to RCW 35A.34.200(3) because the appropriated expenditures will exceed the revenues; WHEREAS, the potential adverse impacts on the public health, property, safety and welfare ofthe City and its citizens ifthis Ordinance did not take effect immediately, justify the declaration of an emergency and the designation of this ordinance as a public emergency ordinance necessary for the protection of public health, public safety, public property or the public peace by the City Council; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Amendment. Exhibit A(1) entitled "2009 Revised Budget" and Exhibit A(2) "2010 Revised Budget" in Ordinance No. 09-612 is hereby amended to Exhibit B(l) - "2009 Revised Budget" and Exhibit B(2) - "2010 Revised Budget" to include the long range plan Ordinance No. 09- Page 1 of 7 Rev 3/09 adjustments for 2009 and 2010. Section 2. Administration. The City Manager or Interim City Manager shall administer the Biennial Budget and in doing so may authorize adjustments to the extent that they are consistent with the revised budget approved herein. Section 3. Severability. Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this chapter, or its application to any person or situation, be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter or its application to any other person or situation. The City Council of the City of Federal Way hereby declares that it would have adopted this chapter and each section, subsection, sentence, clauses, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 4. Corrections. The City Clerk and the codifiers of this ordinance are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance including, but not limited to, the correction of scrivener/clerical errors, references, ordinance 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 ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from the time of its final passage, as provided by law. Ordinance No. 09- Page 2 of7 Rev 3/09 PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this ,2009. ATTEST: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY day of MAYOR, JACK DOVEY CITY CLERK, CAROL MCNEILLY, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY, PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTNE DATE: ORDINANCE NO.: K:\ord\2009\revised 09-10 biennial budget Ordinance No. 09- Page 3 of7 Rev 3/09 ti '" 8 ~ -< ~ t:: ~ ~ ~ 0-. <::) <::> N 0, M o M 0,. '" 000 -.0 I 0 o 0,- o N 00 o oN' o 0,0, - '0 N' "" M 0, N ~ - - o::tt"--~o::tOOlr)("I')O\ -OOO('r')OOO\ 0\ V) :'~3:~~6N~ -V'lt'---oot'---oo 00 ........ -o:::t M o::t N ("f') .- orlNo\ N - '" '<I" ."" , , o t-- '<I" 01 0 M '<I" '<I" 01 N' N' 0 NOON M '<I" M t-- 0, ~ M t';, - "" o N M 0\ t-- '"'). M '<I" '<I" 0 0 '<I" NO'" M ~~~~^ 0"'1\0 In 00 ~^~^~o::t - "" t-- t-- M orl o '" orl '<I" '<I" 0 '0 N ........ 0 00 ("f') :^~~~ -\ONO ~~~o::t - "" 01 '0 '" '<1"' '0 N N OIl.{) I 01 0, '<I" '0 N' ..,; N 0 M 01 "" 00 o 00 o '<I" N, M '<I" '<::t 0 .-; N NOOlM ~~~~ 0'\ \0 ...... 0 ~~~-o:::t - "" t-- o M N' '<I" '" orl 'OOV)C"f")t' ooNOI'" r--- -o:::t N .- N v) 00" t-- '0 - N - - '0 t-- '<I" orl N 'N o t-- --0 '0 o N tr) 0'\ I lr) r- oo- - N Noo '0 '0 ~v) r--:.n o::::t ("1') N 0 l.()...... ........ ('-" - '0,0 '<I" 0 00 0 orl"'; '" N '<I" N ,-., . 01 . '" '" '-' '000 00 '<I" 0 '0' ..,; '" N '<I" N '010 '<I" N 00 '<I" l.{)"' 00 '" '" '<I" - ,-., . 01 . '" ~ '000 ON '<I" '<I" --000 Or> Or> '<I" - o r---oo 00 00 V) M-o:::t 01 0000-0070\00- O-..:::l"-("I')['"---NOIOO ON'O,.,.)N''''; orl Ooo'<l"t--t--OI M -o::t("l')-C"l- .- --0 "" 01 '0 Or> ~ 01 0, - ,-., ,-., I_NC-OOlr)("t") ON ("f')OO-..::t 0\ ("f")lf'lNt"---N ~orl..,;N'..,; \OO\-t"--O\ ",,"~"-'N- "" 00 M t-- '<1"' '<I" '<I" '<1"' O\OOV) I 00...... l/) o ...... r--- lr) Corlorl~ o .- ("I') 00 - '0- '0' "" 't:l = = r.. -; :.. ... = ... '" '" .. bJ)~ ~ .S ;:1 = U ...... = ~~ r.. ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~8 &j OJ _',f'_ ~ OJ - B'5 ~.~ .~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ... =- rn '0 '" t-- --0 00 - '0 '0 - 0' M t-- N ,-., . 0 N t-- 00 ~ '0 Or> t--, - o - '0 t-- '<I" orl - N '0 - '<I" 00 N '0 N' , M . 00 '<1", - - - ,-., 01 01 01 - '<I" 00 Corl - M - - '-' ~ ~ 5 E-.o:l~ 1)..... ~Q,)Cl'-" o.s~iu:;; ~",Oju~a Q,)<S~tEdJJ o~~~E!~ ::r:: N "" E-< c.:J p... . Or> 01 - M 01 - , 0 - ~ - . Or> 00 or:. - 01 - 00 t-- o N '0 '" ..,; 00 t-- o N '0 '" ..,; 00 M o '<1"' o '" '<1"' '0 o t-- 0\ N t-- N M M '<1"' t-- t-- ,.,.) t-- '0 '0 ,.,.) '0 t--, - ,-., N 01 '<I" ,.,.) '0 - '-' 01 '" - ~ N 01, - '0 = = r.. ... OJ .~ ... ... rn ;!l ... ~ O("l')O--M ooOo.N '<I" '<I" 0 00 0\"' N .0 r-: '0 MOO \0" 0" l.fl 0"1" ("1') ........ - ("I') lr) 0 V') ....... 0 NOOlN'O -..::tr--:oo-<o:::t v)("f') 'l5l.{) 00 ...... 0'\ 00 ('r') l:"- t-- N, '0 '"'). t--. r-:......r.:('1')("f') M oV)-o OOlN'O r--- 00 ,.....; o:::t r-: \0" ..n M MOOOOMO \O-l.rlOM v5-NNN N NOOOO '<I" 0 0 0 0 010000 N'--oCCorl 00 00........ r:--- 3-~:}~ - o o o 0' is' i~ '<I" 0 01 M 0\0-0 M Cl. '<1", '0, 0'" 00 If) ("I') '0 t-- '" '" ~;..."""" ~... N ,-., ,-., . 0 0 o 0 o 0 N'~ - '0 '-' - '-' , M o '0 N' '" '" N' - 0'<1"0010 00\0-0 ~...~~~:... o t-- '<I" Or> 0 :"~~-~ "'OI"'MO MOOO\O\OO ~~~,,~~ -l.{)t"---- ~:2~~~ - V)V)-.:j'"O\lrl N-OOOo::::t 'o::t ........ 'o:::t r--- M orlOCoO~ -V)l.f)O- ~...S~l'd- - 1-..::t--..:::t"lIl t-- 01 0 M '0000'<1", NC~'" ONOOl '" M 0 '0 N"';N' d <J.) 8 0- .. 0 ~ 1) = 5> = "'0 ~ ~ _:~ .~ ~ e 0 'g ~ d "" '" 3~G~ .s....... - Ol U '" ;;s a:; ~ ~ rn Cii - 0 00 01 ..,; N M '<I" 00 t-- ::... ~ t-- '<I" '"'). O. M - t-- N 00 M 01 00 ..,;..,; '0 N N 'ON 01 '<I" '<I" 01 --ON' o N M 00 ,.,.) 01 N 00'<1" - 01 - N' M N '"').00 M OIN 00 '<I" - 01 -N M N M 00 ,.,.) '0 N t--M N 00 orl"'; '0 N N ,-., 00 N '" M '0 00 orl"'; t-- N '-'N i a ~ ~ '5 .t; ~ u = ~ ~ ~ ~ 03 .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 a OV1\Or---r--- r-r-coor--- 0"1 If) ("f) 0 f"--" t.r)" ~ ~ 0-," V) '<I" t-- N 01 -.::tOOMO","": orlN ..,;- '00'0000 lr)r-V)V)N M........NNOO orlNoOoOC ~~;!~~ N ....... , t-- o '<I" 0" '0 - . 00 M o ..,; '" 'OM'ON Or>'O,,", ~:"~" ~ ~:!:!~ N - ,-., '0 01 '<1", M ~ ,-., . 00 01 M 0 '<I" '<I" ar)M -t;. 'Ot--Or>000 ltiOO-.::t........N :6~,~~~ t-- t-- 0 N M t"'--NN-ln N N' 000t--0I'O t--'<I"0I0oo :'~6~~ '" t-- '0 01 t-- ('f") 0\ N N ...... .nN' M....... ,-., tnl'-MNOO 01 N N '<I" '" ~~,,~,,~~ 01 Or> '-'01 Or> M N- '<I" 0 M 01 0' '<I" - l(j...... 0 r-oo t--NN'ON ;;: ~ ~ ~:" \0......\00\...... ~~N~S ~ .. ~ ~ 5 to ~ i ~ .~ OJ !:: .. a ,sa ~ OJ rn :;s E c;~tS = ,- !:: ;; ~ - :5 tjb !:: :E ~ ~ '~ os; .~ ~ ~ 6- o<l ~ ~ tjb s Cd .5 P-Q:):9 g. <J.) 'S CIl ~ o:l l'-. 0'1 "C'~ (") ":I- ;;.- ~ Q) ~p:: Q., . 0\ c:, ~ ~ <..l ;;: ~ ;;: ~ , ~ 6: S < ~ E:: S ~ ~ ,ww_ o :; N "0 = rZ -; .. .. = w~ C N 0, ~, - l"') I""- ~' o 0 r---- lJ') I 0 o on '" o 0" N, <:5 r() r- o 0 - on N <A l"') '" - N l""- N .,f ~ V)ONon ~00,0 "l0"l~ l.r) 00 ........ 1:"1"' l"') '" 0, 0 ~~~on - <A o on o ..0 ~ 0' 0, ~, - ~ '-' <A l"') - - ..0 N N .,f ~ V)ONon l"') 0 0, 0 ~~~~ ~ '" 0, 0 ~ ~~"' lJI - <A ~ '" N '"" I""- o '"" ~ onOo,~ ~oonV) NOo,oo vi" 00 ~' ..0 ("'I') \0 0 ....... 0, 0" \D, ~ .,f-V) - <A o o o ci ,...., o I I I 0, ~, - - '-' <A ~ \D N vi" I""- ~ l"') ~ V)00,~ ("f')OV)V) 1""-00,00 ...aOO~-..a <o:::t\OO- ~~~<o:::t - <A - 0, l"') 0' l"') 0, vi" OOO\D '0 o 0,- o N 00 o ON o 0, - .<A V) \D - ,...., '\D o ~ l"') .,f on - - '-' V) '-' o \0 ........ ('ti OOV)V) o ........ 0 0 Ovi"Nr-:' o - 0 0 - - ~ N' <A ~ = ~ .. = = !:! ~ -; '0 rJ'J CfJ bJ}:.6 ,S ;:l ~~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ i 8 g~] 5~~ .www '0 o V) N 00 - ,...., 'on V) N 0,' l"') '-' ,V) V) t;, - N N '0 o on N 00 - ,...., ,V) V) N 0\" C ,v) on t;, - N N '0 '1""-0, o ~ V) 00, 00V) N l"') "l~ - , \D N '" '"" N - N 'l"') ~ l"') o N - N 1;i f-; OIl ,a "CI o CfJ >-l 1:: " < '0 v ~ ~ ll) <2 ~ ~ ~.w '-0 l"')0 ~"' :"' V)\D ~ - l"') 00 N. l"') ,...., , - , 00 V) '-' 'NO - 0 V)~ o' - \D \D ~ - '00 ~ 00 V)' o 00 N , - 00 l"') V) 0, \D 0\"0 V) \D ~ - , 0 V) 1""-. - V) ,...., , - , 00 ~ '00 0, o .,f V) l""- N 'Noo - V) V)\D 00 \D '" ~ - 'V)o, 00 - N 00. ..0 V) ~ l"') V) - ,...., '\DOl 0- 0, 00 ..0 vi" N l"') - - '-' , - , 0, - l"') I""- \D ll) '5 u ~ o 0 CfJ U >. i!l ~ l? ~ Q f-; i$~~] "'a ~ 2 .g~a.s Q.} $0.; I-< Cd ~i:. .~ ~ 'l"') l""- N r-:' N ,V) - \Q 1""-' N - '0 - \D. - ,V) o o ..0 N - V) V) 00 .,f o 1""-, V) o 00 vi" l""- N .,f V) o ~ V) l""- N .,f l"') l"') o vi" l""- N .,f l"') l"') o vi" l""- N .,f l""- N ~ V) o t;, - ~ - N ..0 \D V) l"') - ~ 0\" l"') - "0 = = ... .. .- 'f .. rJ'J .... .::> .. ~ ..q- r"") 0 r-r-, 1""0 0000 0 lJI(".l oo,~~,~oo M ("f') tf") if) N ........ 1.0 lr) ('ti 0 N", (-- r-.. V) V) \Q ~ ~ 115 00 0, - \D - ~ ..0 00 o. - 0000,0 000-0 01""- 0 ~ 0 OMan M 0"' o ~ ~ N l"') : ~ ~ ~"' ,...., , 0 ' o o N :;:, 0000,0 000 0 01""-0 ~ 0 0"' .n v-) M .r) Oon~N\D : ~ ~'" ~'" o ("f') 0........ ("f') ooOo,N ~~ooo o\"N..or-:' -\OMOO ~s~~ ooV)'=N'oo t.nOOO'\('f')OO 0V)"":l"')l"') r-:'o\"l"')..o..o C;~3s '-' OOOO-rt')tr) V)\Do,Nl"') ::.~~~~ -\O\OlAN 1""-. "loco, l"')-NN '5 s 0. o '" " "0 > = ll) = "CI ~ ~ ~ 'S ~ 'G t. .8 (Ii Uj Q.,c~Ul;;203 c;gC~~~ :a Q U ~ ~, OJ ~ U '0 o o .,f on o N I""- 0 on 0 \D. ~ l"') V) N - oo~ V) It'- 5' V) 0 \D O. r-:'V) - 0 ~ o. ~ '0 o o .,f on o N o 0 00 o 0 ..00 ON I""- \D o - ,...., '0 o o vi" l"') - ~ I""- N ~ 0, t;,"l - l"') 00 V) o ~ l"') N o\"r-:' 00 ~ r<J.00 l"') ,...., ,...., \D - \D 0, - N. t:':c ~ \D I""- l"') ~ V) ..00 0, V) r<J.00 l"') ~ \D ~ l"') o V) 1150 \D V) l"') 00 '"" ~ \D ~ l"') OV) 1156 \D V) l"') 00 '"" - - 00 0, ~. N ,...., \DO ~ \D o ~ - '-' I""- 0 N \D vi" \D - '5 ~ g !:i ;;2 '5 -g !:i U = tu l? ~ i$ i!l .~ 8 ~ .. ~ s Cl. ..... ;:l ~r55Q ....~w~. ~ OOOV)("')f'- I""- \D I""- 0 I""- oO\O\r----.,\O r-:' 00 1""-' 00 <t l"')\D\D0,0, lfl 0\ ('f) V) N" v)N <t~ \QI""-\Ql"')~ l/) ...... l.r) r--- 0- ~-NC"!,\O" t() ~"' 00 ...... M OO~~V)~ \O~,,-~<o:::t ,...., '0 o \Q -:i ,...., ,~ 00 ~ \DI""-\DI""-~ V)-l./')l.()0\ ~~~~~ eg~:!~;:J: N \Q0V)0,~ lJI-V\OO\ :;"~~6~ I""- l"') 0 N ~ r--.. l""') N"""" l.() N N ,...., , 0 o \D ~ ,...., I~ 00 V) '-' \D0V)l"')~ lJI-vl.()O\ :",;",~Vl~ I""- l"') 0 N ~ r---- ("f') N"""" If) N N OV)\DI""-I""- I""- I""- 00 0 I""- 0,V)l"')01""- vi"o\"<to\"vi" vt'--NO\ ~00l"')0- v) N" <o:::t"...... . ,...., V)Ol"')No\ o,l"')N~~ ~0,1""-l"')~ c;~e~~ - N V)V)0\l.f) I""- ~ 0 \D N\O-\O <t..o-N V)~NI""- r'l t'- r'1 r-: ........" V) N" ("f)""'" ~ .. c ~ S _;.a = -; [i'~ ~ [i CfJ ~ S E .. s 8J.S:l 0. ~ 'E~g~~~ .. a .~ 1:: ~ ~:Iifllg, ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ rJ'J ~ i!l .$ t-..O\ ~Q t"') .,., > ~~ ~ , 0\ C ~ (U '-' ;;:: <::l ;;:: ~ a '""' ... '-' ~ S I:Q S ~ ..... <::> <.;; '" I:Q l: ~ r-- o ~ ~ H I ~ I" lr) M o 00-01 o 0 '" -, o 0 '-0" 00' 00 M NI 00000\ - '" - M "l M 00 ~ lr) "" o '" .... r-- - .... OO^ Nlr) N M '" - \0 lr) ~ - .... O^ M '" ....r--M"'OOlr)M....OO'O .......Ot-MOOO\O\V)O'<::tO ("t)'o::t......Nr-OONOOOOOO If'lO..<fo;'NO ""0 If'l ",^ t.r)lII\OOOr-OO OOOOl()N OOOOO"=1"Nl"f') -V)~N ..<fNr-: N - "" r M r-- If'l N o ~ G) S;::' I I I I 0, 0 - 00 M 0;' 0 r--^ lr) 0 0 ~~v:. :::: 10 I I o o o 00 lr) "" M 0, N r--' - - If'l '" ~^!~,~~^~~~ -lIIr-OOt'--OO 00 ..... """ ("f') ~ N f'\") ...... If'lNo;' N^ - "" N \0 '" N M - M '" 0\ 0 ("fj N ...... 0 ("f') ("t') ~O\Or- If) 00 r-"' 00" lr) -0 0 0 :... ~ ~ ~ - "" ;;:;- - 0, N^ r-- M ~ V) I ;) I I I 0, lr) o .... 0\ M a S '-' "" r-- r-- M lr)^ o lr) lr)' '" :! g ~1811 ~ '" 0 lr) r-- r-- :f~~rc::i~ g ~~~~ ...... - "" 0000000 0000- o 'V ...... ("!j ON 0 M^ o 00 '" r-- ...... "I:t rf')...... -.0 '000 '0 lr) r-- -.0 00 - 10\00',0 "'O"'N 00000",," ,,3' 0" v) 00 o 00 lfl l.r) \0 V) -.::t ...... N^ r-- 1-0 I -0 MO MO NOO ::::lr) I 0 I 0\ \0 '" - 00 o If'l M lr) r-- '" N 00 lr) M '" .... 00"""'0\00_ t--NO\OO N ",^ If'l r--.... M N - - Ul ~ ~E-- ;:l OIl ?Z! .~ "0 ~ 0 ... ....:i ~ di 8 0 ]~ u <l) <l) - Jl-~ '0 '00 Or--OOOOOOlr)M"'0, 0000-00,,",,"0\00- 6~':;'~;::;'..<fN 0, ~ ooo",r--r--o, M ...... --::t ("f')...... N ...... .- -.0 b ~ U ~ Ul 0 "Ul t:U>.I:Q'S <: 1? 0 cd:: ..2~~u"O ::ca~~~ ~~~~] ~~~,,~ '0,0 "'0 000 If'l ",^ lr) N '" N , \0 -0 r-: N - , S' o o o o o N '-' ~1iI _ lr) ..<f '\0 0, - M' 0, - '0 'lr) 0, - '" 0, - ;::;1 M , ..<f -0 r-- N '" 00 '"'l M o ~ - .. ~ 0, \0 00 lr) o C 00 r-- o N \0 lr) ..<f 00 M o ..<f o lr) N r-- \0 "" M \0 r--, - S' '-' r-- \0 \0 ",' \0 r--^ - '0 = = ro.. aJ .. 'E aJ rJ:J :c aJ ~ - ....'0 - oo~o 0<- t-f'"1" 0 gj~ ~ MIS ~. l If) oilll ........ 0 N 010"\ N \0 """ ("--100 ...... ..q- ~ ~I~ ~ ~ M N""" ("")" 1:"'--" r-: "r-:("f')rf') M .. . g '18 I o 10, o .'" o i~ ~ i '-' ! i l L ~~!Ii~^ 5 ~ lrlf'\")\Olf)OO -O\oo("")r- ~^ ~i:::'^ '"'l r--^ ,- !'- M::::: l o 010 0, M 000-0 or--o"'^,," o"'_"~V)("f') o 0\ V') l/') \0 ~-N M ..<f N I l "II s~ls I I o .... 0 o \0 0 ooo..<f o lr) 00 ~rr;,~ c o "'0"" M 00\0-0 OMO"'\O OOoolf'lM o \Ot-V) V) .- ('1')............ N ...... rr) """" -.q" N \0 0, N 00 '" r-- If'lN lr) ~" ~ lr)MO .... .... 00 ~:;,~ r-- - - lr) r-- lr) -q: """" d "" '0 = = ro.. OIl ~ .S = Q = >. ro.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "0 0) :-g ~~~5~ aJ i:lo rJ:J -; .. aJ = aJ ~ 00 lr)O'\V)("t')O NOOO\O\OO '" r-- N^ r--^ -0 v)N......l.(")N _tnr-__ ~~~~,,~ l I III ~ v ;; ~ I ::: ~ ~I CJ ~ g! .~ ~ 'ui e E "'I Ul ~~~J.qrJ)~;) ~ .ql'~ e Cl U Po. Cii I -; .... '5.. '" U r'). ~I ~' 00 ....^ M I~ 8 ,~ ..<f N '" '" 00 r-- "'^ r-- - t--' r--", ~s M '" 00 r-- ::~ ~ r--", '"'l~ M - 0, N 00 '" - .... - N^ ''IN M 00 M o,N 00 '" - 0, -N M N M 00 M^ ~ ~ a b ::s ~ -g!!U = '" 1? ro..~1:Q aJ <l) Ul .c J9 E ~ ~ 8 ~ lr)N r-- M NOO If'l ",^ -0 N N ss '-' '-' \0 N r--", NOO If'l ",^ \ON N ~~~gr::~ ~~:!g;~~ ~ ~ M ~, ::; t..,J \00\0000 l.() N l.() l.() N ~\ONNOO If'llf'l00^00^6 00 M '" .... '" \O~".-:}~ r-- 10 I I I lr) lr) -.0 ~ \00\0000 tnr-V)l.()N ~~~"~6 00 0 '" .... '" \O~.-~"" \0['---1./')000', l.() ~ oo;::t ~ ...... ~~":"~~ I:::::!~~~ N' N ~ , 0 ' lr) lr) -.0 ~ \Or--lr) lr)o,,,, ~ "': OO^ r-- r-- 000, "'- '" M ..n~ M \0 - '" N' :: ;:; N N N^ 000 r--o lr) r-o::rO\-oo ~66~6 lnt'-\OO"Ir- rf')O\NN- tON ~- O€008 OOOr--o,\O r--",o,ooo :"6~56 lr) r-- \0 0, r-- ("f")O\N~- ..r) ('.I'" ("f')...... ] - ~ ~ l b) 'E '" g ~ i'~ -; .:.: <s E ~ .s aJ :s :E 15 .;a .~ a g i:: .S- ~ ~ ;:l o<J t:$gn o o<J .S ~~:s ~~~ t'-- 01 'C5'~ ~ '0 > ~ Q) gr~ 0.... I 0- <:::> ~ ~ ""' :::: <:::l :::: ~ <, -- M '-' ti 1.:1 9 ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ;: .... ;: 1'1 N ~ r- o' r- r- <<t' o o o o o ~ v; \0 o N o l"'1 <<t. ..... <<t 00 M l.() ("'f)O("f')Q 0'\ 0 00 <<t OOO.,[N ...... 0 M 0 ~,~ ~ <n ~ v; -- r- <n 0'). ~ <<t 00 N '--' o IE) 10 o \0 l"'1 N 0\ r---" <<t O. <n '0 o <n N 00 ~ -- -- -- V)OO\III ~ 0 <n c<"\0<<t >.DOO>.D ~ \0 <n c,~~ o v; c<"\ \0 ~ N' r- N .,[ <<t ~8~tr'8 ,,!ON<<t <n If) 00 ......" N" N l"'1\OO'\O 00 ~~,,~V) v; 0'\ ~ r- OO 00 <n o <<t 00..... <<t c<"\00<n 0'\ 0 00, 00 000c<"\>.D -000- ~ S;, <<t ~ v; -- <n <<t <n .,[ 00 <<t d ,-. <n ~ 800 o <n ~ ~:... ~ \0 N CeVl v; <<t \0 <'!. l"'1 r- q c<"\ <<t <n 0 0'\ <<t <<t 0 <n <n NOO'\oo .r;00.,[>.D M \0 0 ...... 0'\0'\,~<<t ~.......... lJ) ~ v; 0'\ 0'\ ~ N ~ \0 .r; OON\O o 0 l"'1 ~ o 0 l"'1 00 OOON 000 0'\ ~ <<t <<t, l"'1 v; ,-. N 0'\ ~ 00 ..... o '0 o <n N 00 ~ ~ '--' , 00 0'\ <<t ~ o ~ O<n <<t l"'1 q~ ~ '\00-0 NO l"'1 0 ~;""d:5- Noo<n\O -lJ)~- N I 10 I o o o 00 <n '\0 N \0 l"'1' N ~ N 10\0_00 000c<"\<n c<"\OO'\\O r-: 0' 0;' 0 -OOVl\O \0 lO o::t ...... N ,-. I 0\ 0 I I <n 0 <<t 0 000 00 00 ~ <n '--' '0 o <n N 00 ~ '00 '-00 <<t l"'1 <n 00 0'\ \0 .r; 0;'0 o <n \0 00 <<t ~ N' '~O c<"\ 0 O'\q 0'\' ~ <n \0 <<t ..... ION I I 0 I I I I I o <<t o 0 00 o ~ <<t r- IV; ~ 0'\ c<"\ 0' c<"\ 0'). <n o ' 0 o 0'\ o N 0' 0' o 0'\ ..... \0 N' V; '0 = = ... '; ... Q,l = Q,l 1.:1 .. '" '0 = = ... Q,l 0 = Q) = ~ ~ 1: v, f-< ~i3]~ ~t5<5 !S. <~.w ,. r:/] '" ~ Oll :B f-< .5 ;:l gjl U ~ '51) g g "8 '" ~ ... ...:i 1:: ~ Q <l < ~UOo] ~ OJ ~ ';:: :'S2 .~ ~ cB ~~~~ '0 '<nO'\ 00 ..... N 00 >.D.r; <<t c<"\ <n ..... '<n0'\ 00 ~ N 00 >.D.r; <<t c<"\ <n ..... E 5 U ~ 8 ?':> ii ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ O'l c.:; "" "@ ~ ~ a ~~ alJ 'E~~td ~ .t:.~ Il.. , l"'1 r- N r-: N ~ <n ..... \0 r-: N ~ '<n ~ \0 r-: N ..... 00 <<t ":. <n o ":. ~ <n o ~ l"'1 l"'1 ..... '"" ,-. o o o N <<t ..... ..... '--' <n o 00 .r; r- N .,[ c<"\ c<"\ o .r; r- ~ ~ 8 o o o o <<t N '--' l"'1 l"'1 o .r; r- N .,[ o N l"'1 <<t' \0 r- N l"'1 0'\ \0 00 <n q r- N \0 .r; o l';. ..... '0 = = ... Q,l ... "E Q,l r:/] :s Q,l I:l '1" 0'\ 0 l"'1 l"'1 OOOOOlf){"'\) 00" "'T 7" 00" 00 MMMV)N -\OtrlMO N r--- r--- l.() \0 ~ 10r-O o <n 0 o \0 0 ~" rr)' v1 <n N ..... 00 00 \0 .r; -0 00 <n ,-. ,-. o 10 I o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 ~ C'! ::, ..... ..... >.D 00 q ~ 0000'\ 0 000 ..... 0 o l';. q '1", 0 0"""" If) rI') 0 o <<t N l"'1 \0 <n ~ N 888 I I 000 000 ONO o <<t 0 ~~.... ~" '--' '--' 00 00'\0 000 0 0r-0<<t0 o rr) v1 ('f')" 0"- o <<t '1" N c<"\ ~ ~ ~ ~" '0'\ 00 r- o \0 N ,-. 17 I I I 0'\ \0 00 <n l"'1 '"" '--' I MO-rI') 00 0 0'\ N <<t <<t 0 00 o;'N>.Dr-: -\OMOO \0. O. ":. 0'\, M - .....-I M ... 5 a p. o ~<l = 6; = "" ... ~ ~ d 'Q ~ ... Q ~ ~ ... 0 '5. a ~ U '" ~ 'g ~ '" .q~ UIl.. . '0 o o .,; <n o N' r- 0 <n 0 ~ 0, l"'1 <n N ..... 00 \0 .r; o ..... l"'1 OO'\N <<t 0 00 N>.Dr-: \0 l"'1 00 S~~ '" ~ ~ v, Ui 'w ..,.. r- ~ ~ 0'\ l';. N, ~ l"'1 00 <n o <<t l"'1 N o;'r-: 00 <<t r'J.00 l"'1 00 <n o <<t c<"\ N 0'\' r-: 00 <<t l"'1 00 '"" ~ ;;; o <n >.Do \0 <n c<"\ 00 '"" <<t \0 <<t l"'1 o <n -00 \0 <n c<"\ 00 '"" ..... 0 00 0'\ .,; N ..... ..... 00 0'\ .,; N -e = = ... Q,l .~ Q,l ~ '5 i g ~ ::iE '5 ~ u ~& 8 ~ ..s a ~ 8 QOOV\Mt-- r-\Or-or- o 0'\0'\ r-\O r-: 00 r-: 00 '1" I: q ~ ;;; ~ ~I; <nN .,; \0 r-\Ol"'1 '1" l.() l.() r--- 0\ ~~;);~~ 00'1"<<t<n'1" \O~-~7 ,-. '0 ' o ..... o o ..... '--' \Or-\Oc<"\<<t l.()-1Or---0\ ~:;...~~~ ~;:!;:!~~ N ~ \0 0 lriO'\<<t lri ..... <<t \0 0'\ <<t<<t,~O'\lri >.Dc<"\.....ON <r- l"'1 0 N <<t r---NN-l.() N N ,-. 10 I I I o ..... o o ~ '--' \OOlriO'\<<t V"'l-"'I:j-\OO\ ~"'~~6~ r-c<"\ON'1" r-MN-l.() N N o lri\O r-r- r-r-ooor- ~~~~~ ~~~8~ v1('.l" ~- ,-. '8 o lri\O r-r- r-r-ooor- O'\lril"'10l';. .r; 0'\' .,; 0;' <n <<t r- ~ N 0'\ ~OOMO- v)N" ~- ~ ~ = '5 1ii ~ a ~ "~ ~ d ~ d .9 Q,l OJ ~ r:/] ::iE E ';~<2 E i:2 E Q,l :s ~ d :.a (/) "6 .~ .~ a ~ ~ .8- ~ Q) ::s _Y ~ $"'" ... o p. ~ t--. 0'1 'o>~ t--. :> ~~ ~ I 0- C ~ ~ '-l ::: ~ ::: ~ a ITEM COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 16,2009 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 Committee MEETING DATE: June 1,2009 CA TEGORY: o Consent D City Council Business STAFF REPORT By: Brian Ro e o Ordinance D Resolution o D Public Hearing Other .E., Street Systems Project Engineer DEPT: Public Works Attachments: Memorandum to the Land Use Transportation Committee 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. ......m........__m_..._.___._.._..._.m.____m_..m..~_.___..._.__...m_m....................__ ....... ............,......____..___.......... . .............. ......... ..... ....... ._....................__........__........__....... no.. . .n_.........n. ...... .. _n __....n... ..._..................._.._._............._.....___.._..___ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding Option I to the June 16,2009 Council Consent A enda for a roval. CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: t,(Wt Committee COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Committee recommends forwarding Option I to the June 16,2009 Council Consent Agenda for approval. CL iLt-- Dini Duclos, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: HI move to thorize staff to bid the2dh Place SW Emergency Slide Repair Project, and return to the LUTC Committee to award the project to the lowes/responsive, responsible bidder; and approve the transftr of additional $150,000 from unappropriated transportation capital funds to theproject. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: o APPROVED o DENIED o TABLEDIDEFERRED/NO ACfION o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED - 02/06/2006 K:\council\agenda bills\2009\6-t6-09 20th PI SW Emergency Slide Repair.doc COUNCIL BILL # I Sf 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 Brian Roberts, P.E., Street Systems Project Engine4~ 2o'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 maintenance 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 $24,3 10 $30,387 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $349,831 AVAILABLE FUNDING: Total GrantFunding Budgeted City Fund (Year 2009 to date) Budgeted City Fund (Year 2009 this request) TOTAL A V AILABLE 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 _____m__!_!~M #:m~.d. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Setting Public Hearing for 20 10-2015 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 USErrRANSPORTATlON COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: June 15,2008 CA TEGORY: ~ Consent 0 Ordinance o City Council Business ~ Resolution ~!~~~~~!'2~!J!y'~~i~l<:_f(:!:(::z:?~~~:,_~!tY!~~~~(;__~l1gil1~~~_{__ o Public Hearing o Other DEPT: Public Works Attachments: Memorandum to the Land Use and Transportation Committee dated June 1,2009. Options Considered: L 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option I. CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: ~ l1W\hv-- lol':}.~ DIRECTOR ApPROV AU Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward staff recommendation for Option 1 to the June 16,2009 City Council Consent Agenda. d1uJ~ m Ferrell, Member Dini Duclos, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: HI move cVoval 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 TABLEDIDEFERREDINO ACTION o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED - 02/0612006 COUNCIL BILL # 1 ST reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: June 1,2009 Land Use and Transportation Committee Brian Wilson, Interim City Manager Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer fIf/ 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 (ASIP) 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 minimum of one public hearing on the revised plans. Staff proposes that this occur at the July ih, 2009 City Council meeting. 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 43.2IC, 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, RESOL YES 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 lof3 Rev 3/09 Section 3. Corrections. The City Clerk and the codifiers ofthis resolution are authorized to make necessary corrections to this resolution including, but not limited to, the correction of scrivener/clerical errors, references, resolution numbering, section/subsection numbers and any references thereto. Section 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 MA YOR, JACK DOVEY ATTEST: CITY CLERK, CAROL MCNEILLY, CMC Resolution No. 09- Page 2 of 3 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 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL ITEM #: 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 of the SWM Butler 12 Ton Ramp Trailer)? COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee MEETING DATE: June 1,2009 CATEGORY: [gI Consent o City Council Business o Ordinance o Resolution o o _~!.:\:!!_;RF:_~Q~!_!!Y=-~i!L~pj>J~~2~~_~_llEf~c:;~__~<:!!~~M~~~g~~_~____ Public Hearing Other DEPT: Public Works Attachments: Memorandum to Land Use and Transportation Committee dated June 1,2009. Options Considered: 1. Award the SWM 20 Ton Heavy Equipment Tilt Bed Trailer purchase contract to Case Power and Equipment, the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, for the amount of $20,040.69, including sales tax and trade in of the SWM Butler 12 Ton Ramp Trailer. 2. Do not award the SWM 20 Ton Heavy Equipment Tilt Bed Trailer purchase contract to Case Power and Equipment, the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, for the amount of $20,040.69 including sates tax and trade in ofthe SWM Butler 12 Ton Ramp Trailer and provide direction to staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends option 1. CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: hwt... J)W~IM \,'f~1011 DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: to Committee to Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Committee recommends forwarding Option Council Consent Agenda for approvaL .J) fc) . ._ lIJ~"u, A-/ ()~- (OJ Linda Ko ar, Chair 1 to the June 16, 2009 City Ak~ Dini Dulcos, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "[ mo 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 TABLEDIDEFERREDINO ACTION o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED - 02106/2006 COUNCIL BILL # I 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 Will Appleton, P.E., Public Works Surface Water Manager r-- Surface Water Maintenance 20 Ton Heavy Equipment Tilt Bed Trailer-BidAward 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 of the funding for its replacement. VOLVO J&K CONSTRUCTION OL YMPlC TRAILER CASE POWER & ASSOClA TES 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:\lutc\2009\06-01-09 SWM 20 Ton Heavy EquipmentTilt Bed Trailer bid award.doc COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 16, 2009 ITEM CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Approval of the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement 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 InterIocal 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 Committee MEETING DATE: June 1,2009 CATEGORY: [g] Consent D City Council Business o 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 InterIocal 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 Agreement between the King County Flood Control Zone District (FCZD) and the City of Federal Way for Opportunity Fuad Projects and provide direction to staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option I. CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: ~ D: \,J,llV\ ,,11}1 DIRECTOR APPROVAL: Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Committee recommends forwarding Option to the June 16, 2009 City Council Consent Agenda for approval. a&- Dini Duclos, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move to authorize the City Manager to enter into an Inter/oca/ 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 T ABLED/DEFERREDINO 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 I, 2009 Land Use and Transportation Committee Brian Wilson, Interim City Manager Ken Miller, P.E., Deputy Public Works Director ~ Approval of the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement 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 maintain 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 member 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 often 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. AU 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 i:md 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 FlCO and CFW Opportunity Fund.doc 'ORIGINAL I INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF FEDERAL \VA Y FOR OPPORTUNITY FUND PROJECTS THlS fNTERLOCAL COOPERA nON AGREEMENT is entered into between the CITY OF FEDERAL WA Y. a municipal corporation of the State of Washington (""City"), and the KfNG COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE {)lSTRICT, a quasi municipal corporation of the State of Washington (""District") ("Parties" or when singular "Party"), and shall be dfective upon execution by the Municipality and the District. Article I. Recitals. (n April 2007, the King County CounciL as authorized by chapter 86.l5 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 rhe District. In Resolution FClD 2008-15.2, the Board of Supervisors approved the Di.,Lie's 2009 budget and annual \York program, and allocated lO percent of the District's annual property tax revenues tor a sub-regional opportunity fund to be used by King County municipalities. The Board of Supervisors further determined that eligibility of projects tor oppoltunity funds be based on consistency \vith chapter 86.15 RCW; provided that expenditures under RCW 86. I 5.035 and RCW 39.34.190 for salmonid habitat protection be linked to the construction of a nood 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 acti vities described in Attachment A to this Agreement in an amendment to the District's annual budget and \-\ork program tor 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 Interlocal Cooperation Act), and agree as follows Article n. 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. LUnder RCW 86.15.110, Opportunity Funds may be expended tor either flood control improvements or storm water control improvements that are extended, enlarged, acquired or constructed, provided that the City has developed a comprehensi ve 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. In 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 RCv\' 86.15.035 and RCW 39.3-U 90. as moditied by Resolution FClD 2008-15.2, District funds may be expended tor cooperative \vatershed management actions, including watershed management partnerships and other intergovernmental agreements, tor the purposes of \vater supply, "vater 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 tlood or storm water project, and provided further that all such funds shall be used for the implementation of w'atershed management plans, including but not limited to the tollowing: a. Watershed plans developed under chapter 90.82 RC\V; 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 RC\V; d. Watershed management elements of shoreline master programs de\..:lupcJ under the shoreline management act, chapter 90.58 RCW; e. Nonpoint pollution action plans developed under the Puget Sound W;Jte . quality management planning authorities of chapter 90.71 RC \V all~ chapter 400-12 WAC; f Other comprehensive management plans addressing watershed healtll at ~l WR1A level or sub- WR1A 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: I. 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 ternl --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 \vork program. or amendment thereto, and are described in an attachment to this Agreement that is approved pursuant to this Agreement ') ~ _.J Opportunity Funds. The teml -'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 propoltional 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 office). For the years after 2009, this teml means District funds that dr,,' 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 resolutioll. 2.4 Service Provider. The term "Service Provider" means the Water and Land Resources Di vision of the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. Article [H. Duration of-Agreement--Survival of f~g~eemen~~ This Agreement shall be etlective upon execution by both Parties, and shall remain in effect until terminated by one or both of the Parties. Either Party may terminate this Agreement by providing \vritten 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 tcnninated 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 lamination of this Agreement. ~E!~I~ IV. Conditions_of i-\~~_~ment. 4.1 Project Descriplions. The initial approved Projects are described in Attachment A, which is incorporated by reterence. Subsequent approved Projecls shall be described in new Attachments to this Agreement that are approved through the amendment process of Section 7.2.2, which Attaclmlents shall be incorporated by reference into lhis 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 City. 5.1 Project Application and Description. The City may submit an applied: tcn for distribution of Opportunity Funds \\ithin a period of time designated by the Service Provider and on a form approved by the Service Provider- As palt of the applicatit1ii to receive Opp0l1unity Funds, the City shall submit to the Service Provider the tollcl\\ing information for each proposed Project: 5.1.1. Name of proposed project or acti vity; 5.1.2. Description of the nooding. storm\vater, or watershed management problem to be addressed (one to two paragraphs); 5.1.3. Description of how the proposed project or activity \vill address the problem (one to two paragraphs): 5.1A. Type of project or activity (e.g., feasibility study. design. construction, acquisition. programmatic activities, ctc.); 5.l.5. Description ofhO\v the project or activity satisfies the "Eligibility Criteria." as defined in this Agreement: 5.1.6. Identification of the plan (Hood control. storm\\iater control, or watershed management) that includes the Project; 5.1.7. Product/deliverable and, tor constructed Projects, design plans or studies~ and 5.1.8. Schedule, milestones, costs and budget for each Project, consistent \vith 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 of OpPol1unity Funds after an actual expenditure is incurred tor the Project, provided that the City may request distribution of up to 10 percent of Opportunit j Funds for a Project upon approval of a Project by the Board of Supervisors. After appc, ,!; of the Project by the Board of Supervisors, the application form, a<; approved by the Board of Supervisors. shalt become an attachment to this Agreement through the amendment process in Section 7.2.2. - ) ).~ City Obligations tor Projects. The City shall implement the Project as described and provided tor in the approved attachment to this Agreement. Upon receipt, the City shall deposit Opportunity Funds in a 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 tor the District's budget and arumal work program, provided that District approval of 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, providcd 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 tor a Projcc, have been spent. the City shall provide semi -alUlually to the Service Provider brief written reports describing the progress on and status of the Project and any other rclevant information that the Service Provider may request to detemline compliance with this Agreement 5.4.2. Upon completion ofa Project, or upon expenditure of all of the Opportunity Funds for the Project, whichever occurs first, the City shall submit a tinal report to the Service Provider within 90 days of such completion or expenditure. The final report 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 verifY compliance with this J Agrecment. The tinal report also shall contain a certification that all Opportunity Funds provided to the City \Vere expended solely on the Project in accordance with this Agreement and the Project approvaL [f a Project is not completed plior to tcnnination of this Agreement, a report as described in this Section shall be provided to the Service Provider within 90 days of such tennination. All records relating to a Project shall be retained by the City tor a minimum of seven years. unless required by law' to be retained tor a longer period. in ...vhich case the longer period shall apply. 5.5 City obligations upon Project completion or telmination. As consideration tor receipt Opportunity Funds to implement the Project. the City agrees that: 5.5.1. [f the Project involves developing a report or study. undertaking a study or collecting data, or producing wTitten 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. If the Project involves the acquisition. extension, enlargement, or construction ofa physical improvement. the City shall take mvnership of and shall be obligated to operate. maintain, and repair such improvement tlX 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 approv'ed 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 t<.>r ~istrict projects and aCli vilies. ~rt~!~YJ: Respo!1sibi~tie~~f ()j~~.-LC!: 6.1 Upon timely submission of a Project application by the City, the Service Provider \vi1l review the application, provide reasonable and appropriate kedback, and consider including the Project as an clement of the District's annual budget and work program. 6.2 [f the Board of Supervisors approves the Project application by including the Project in the District's annual budget and \vork 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 hereo[ 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 tor a Project as set forth in the appro\'cd schedule for the Project, provided that upon request of the City. the District shall pay up to 10 percent c f the total Opportunity Funds allocated for a Project upon appro\al of an attachment ,0 th', Agreement. The Service Provider shall pay the Opportunity funcls after confirming that the expenditures have been made consistent with the Project approval and schedule. 6.4 The District assumes no obligation tor future support 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 annual work program, provided that the District shall distribute to the City after such appropriation year any Opportunity Funds that \vere allocated to the City in such appropriation year and in previous years and that have not been distributed to the City. Article V([. 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, indemnit), 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 ( I ) 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 cOIwection 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 reprcsentati ves. 7.l.3. The City shall protect, indemnil)' 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.LL This Agreement also may be modified by additional attachment tor 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 \Vaiver. No waiver by either Party of any teon or condition of this Agreement shall be deemed or construed to be a \vai vel' 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 ditlerent provision of this Agreement. No waiver shall be eff\:dive unless made in writing. 7.4 No Third Party Rights. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construeu L<' create any rights in or duties to any third party, nor any liability to or standard of care 'vvith reference to any third pany. 7.5. Entirety. This Agreement is the complete expression of the temlS 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 betvveen the parties. The palties recognize that time is of the essence in the pertomlance of the provisions of this Agreement. IN \,\'lTNESS WHEREOF. authorized representatives of the parties hereto have signed their names in the spaces put torth below: By Mayor (or City Manager or Executive) Date: Approved as to form: Municipal Attorney KfNG COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DlSTRlCT ~~~ utl~ Dhct~r Date: '/ J~ () 7' Acting under the authoritv of Resol~tion F(/J;;60f>-/C I II~ Kli\.\. ~ \. 'IF'-J r I Klflg Coullty Water Land Resource DivIsIon ~ II ,.',,--'1) ,.'i'\. 1/(,_'1 RIVer and Floodplalll Management . ' _"~.__m__~_~_~~~~I_~:gjonal Opportunity Fund Project Application _ _ Application Due Date: December 8, 2008 Jurisdiction: City of Federal Way ti King County ------, -_.-- ------ 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 fZl No 2} Would you prefer to apply your Opportunity Funds toward an existing project on the District's 6-year CtP? o Yes ~ No 1/ Yes, lease rovide the name of the roect: f(YQ.I!..~<3ld Yes to either ( 1) or (2) above. you do not need to com fete the remainder of this form. 3) Proposed prolect or activity name Easler Lake Stormwater Rood Control Improvements: 10m Ave. South- S 3()6li> SI. to and location: S. 308'. SI. & S 308'. Street- 10th Ave. S to 1250 Block 4) Description of the flooding, stormwater, or linked watershed management problem that this 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 308h Street and 630 lineal feet 0; 18-inch diameter pipe along 10'. Avenue South (between S. 306"1 Street and S. 30ar,. Street). does not have enough cap3clty to prevent chronic flooding of lake shorelands (which includes habitable space within a large nursing home facility and unileat8d vehicle parking and storage units in an adjacent condominium complex). Addillonatly: the 1200 block of rhe S 303'e Street mlOor arterial. which serves Ihe Federal Way High School and Memorial Stadium sports complex. mllst be closed due to roadway flooding up to several times per yeaL The flooding is caused by insufficient flow capaCIty in the eXisting outfall frunk which extends between a roadway sag and the existing 10lh Avenue South trunk pipe. Due to backwater created from flooding on the S. J08" Street roadway, a parking lot and garage are often flooded at the lake Easter EslaL;; condominium complex located Immediately south of the low pOlOt on S 308'. Street 5} Description ot how the proposed activity Will address the problem outlined in number 2 (1500 character maximum)' The proposed project Will IIlstall approxlmateiy 630LF of 24' diamater slormwaler trunk along 10'" Avenue South para'::1 eXlsling conveyance system. II1stall an intake structure with debos guard on the south side of S. 308'h Street to intercept flows fmn: existing lake outlet channel, and install a 30-mch diameter pipe along S JOB'. Street between 10'" Avenue South and the rod:hvd\' sat] in the 1200 block. Addllionally: the project wi!llnstall a new 30-lIlch diameter combination inlet f outlet lake connection pipe c,dcnur. the NW corner of the lake an,j S. 308" Street Dunng penods of high lake water levels. stormwater flows from S. 308" Street and Ihe lake would be conveyed through the proposed new pipes dIrectly inlo the S 308" Street and 10'0 Avenue South trunks to reduce peak lake levels and related lakeshore and habitable structural flooding to above a lOO'year frequency and reduce roadway flooding to above a 25-year frequency. 6) Type of Activity 10}easibil'ly StudyTCZl Prglect Design I !2J Project Construction o Pro rammatic.::-_~Q.~~ii!L.. o Other - Identify. 7) Describe how the proposed project or activity satisfies the eligibility criteria lor at least one of the three categories listed in Section III of the attached document (1500 character maximum): This project satllies eligtllty cnleria #2 to correct "NO known stormwater 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 Increasmg the flow capacity of the Easter Lake outlet system Page 1 012 8) Identity the management plan (i.e. flood control. stormwater control, or watershed management) within which implementation of the project or activity is an element or is recommended~ Stormwater Control 9) Identity deliverables and any relevant design plans or studies (for construction projects): 100% Design to be compleled iby March of 2009 with construction to be compleled by lhe fall ot 2009. 10) Identify a timeline for this project from inception to completion. List any relevant milestones, and provide a rough estimate of project costs and budget The tOO% Design and environmental permitting are scheduled to be completed and accepted by Cdy Council on Februafy3. 2009 With co Jelion of construction and Cit Council r 'ect Acce tance scheduled for the winter of 2009. For I"formatiot/a! PwpMes Ollly' We wish to infotm the Flood Control District Board of Supervisors on how Opportunily Funds leverage other resources, and we appreciate any information you are willing to provide in this regard. II you plan to partner with other jurisdictions 10 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 ulhe.- resources arc anlici '\led. For Internal Use On! . Z'!I.f: ted Page 2 of 2 ti King County ;,;;.';>.:;.,. ,i;~""-"'" l~>! ~~.~ C' r~ i \ Ie r" ~.L. jC,j VL~u APR 2 7 2009 i~~:~~~;~~:,~~;~~~; Water and Land Resources Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks Kin9 Street Center 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 206-296-6519 Fax 206-296-0192 T1Y 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 [nterlocal Cooperation Agreement Dear Mr. Miller: Enclosed in this package is an Inter/ocal Cooperation Agreement between the City of Federal Way and the King County Flood Control District governing the administration of the FLlod District's Sub-Regional Opportunity Fund (Opportunity Fund). The Opportunity Fund was established by the Flood Control District Board ofSuperviscrs 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 ^- [n 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 of2008 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 2010, we ask that you return the signed [LA at this time. Kc:n 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, -'WV'h"'-- fVvw, '1 Brian Murray , Supervisor, Countywide Policy and Planning Unit River and Floodplain Management Section Enclosure COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 6/16/2009 ITEM #: C;;, a m__._._.__.__....__...____._.~ CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: COMMUNITY PREPAREDNESS GRANT POLICY QUESTION: SHOULD TIffi CITY COUNCIL AWARD GRANT MONEY TO TIffi THREE RECOMJ\.1ENDED ORGANIZATIONS TOTALING $49,919.65 AND SHOULD CITY COUNCIL EXTEND TIffi COMMUNITY PREPAREDNESS GRANT INTO 2010 USINGTIffiREMAININGFUNDS OF $50,080.35? COMMITTEE: PARKS, RECREATION AND PUBLIC SAFETY MEETING DATE: 6/9/2009 CATEGORY: X Consent o City Council Business ~!~..~~Q~!-~x::.--~Y..E!.~Q~-~-tk--_ Ordinance o Resolution o Public Hearing o Other DEPT: Public Works Attachments: Memo Options: 1. Approve the Community Preparedness Grant award recommendations and extension into 2010 usmg remaining fund. 2. Don't authorize the Community Preparedness Grant award recommendations and/or extension and provide direction to staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Option (1) Committee approve Community Preparedness Grant extension as written. CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Dw( .{) W.I<tM ltJhIJ~IRECTORAPPROVAL: Committee Council 8wt Committee ~ Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: f PROPOSED COUNCILMOTION:r:\ flp(""O\l~ +~e... L()Vh~;t-~ pr~p~eJ-\-' 5 b..(""/4'"~ o..wc;..v) r~...W\tr..~....~.o>-~ ~ e-{.-kY61u,,- \"'+~ ~f;)h:l \...\. 'S,....... tk fL~\...; N .p~ (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) O-F .a 50,08"0. :g5 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 PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT Date: OS/27/2009 To: Parks, Recreation, Human Services & Public Safety Council Committee Ray Gross, Emergency Management Coordinator ?6 From: Via: Cary Roe, Assistant City Manager (J/1<<.... Subject: Community Preparedness Grant Program POLICY OUESTION: Should the City Council award grant money to the three recommended organizations totaling $49,919.65 and should City Council extend the Community Preparedness Grant Program into 20 10 unsing the remaining funds of $ 5 0,080.3 5? BACKGROUND: As part of the 2007/08 mid biannual budget adjustments the City Council authorized a grant program of a $100,000 dollars to help the community better prepare itselffor prolonged power outages and other emergencies. The $100,000 dollars of the grant has three areas offocus, those being power related, communications improvement with the Federal Way Emergency Operations Center, and general emergency preparedness projects. Below is how the money is allocated. $60,000 of the grant has been designated for backup power related projects. $25,000 of the grant has been designated for general emergency preparedness projects. $15,000 of the grant has been designated for communication projects A panel reviewed and scored all submitted grant projects that were submitted for grant funding. Below are the eligible projects and cost listed according to what grant category the project fits into. Back up power projects ($60,000) St. Vincent de Paul Catholic Church project cost $20,123.10 $60,000 - $20,123.10 = $39,876.90 remaining General emergency preparedness projects ($25,000) Multi-Service Center emergency operations equipment $5,111.00 Multi-Service Center community outreach brochures $5,041.65 Multi-Service Center emergency supplies & training $4,647.90 $25,000 - $14,800.55 = $10,199.45remaining Communications projects ($15,000) Federal Way Amateur Radio Club Dstar project $14,996 $15,000 - $14,996 = $4 remaining Total remaining grant funds is $50,080.35 Two grant applications were received and are not recommended. One application was from an organization outside of the Federal Way City limits and the other application was from a internet business that the review board determined that the businesses' project did not benefit the community. COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 16,2009 ITEM#: S. h. .........................------- ....--...............-..................-...--........-, ,-,............... . .,..,- CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: REPROGRAM 2009 CDBG CAPITAL FUNDS AS PART OF THE 2010 CDBG CAPITAL ALLOCATION PROCESS POLICY QUESTION: Should the City of Federal Way reprogram available 2009 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) capital funds as part of the 2010 CDBG capital allocation process? COMMITTEE: PRHS&PS MEETING DATE: June 9, 2009 CATEGORY: ~ Consent D City Council Business D Ordinance D Resolution D D Public Hearing Other STAFF REPORT By: Lynnette Hynden, Human Services Manager DEPT: Community Development .._~~~(;~~Q~P~l?~!m Attachments: · Memorandum to Human Services Commission dated May 12, 2009, with attachments outlining the 2009 CDBG program and options for reprogramming capital funds. Background: The City of Federal Way allocated 2009 CDBG capital funds to Valley Cities Counseling and Consultation for the acquisition of a mental health clinic in Federal Way. Due to the downturn in the economy, Valley Cities declined the funding award and has renegotiated the lease for their existing clinic in Federal Way. This means that approximately $240,000 needs to be reprogrammed to another eligible CDBG capital project. The adopted 2009 CDBG Contingency Plan provided the option to reallocate funds to the open projects noted in options 1-2 or consider the internal project noted in option 3. The Human Services Commission concurred with the staff recommendation to forward option 4 to add these funds to the 2010 CDBG capital application process to determine if there are additional projects that may benefit the community. This will enable the Commission to consider the full range of available options before making a recommendation to the City Council in the fall of 2009 on whether to fund one of the existing options or a project under development. Options Considered: 1. Allocate available 2009 CDBG capital funds to the Korean Women's Association to assist with the completion of the public facility portion of the building that will provide an array of services to the community. (King County is recommending partial funding of this with their CDBG-R funds.) 2. Allocate available 2009 CDBG capital funds to the King County Housing Repair Program to provide zero interest forgivable loans for housing repair and emergency grants for life threatening repair needs in owner occupied homes to qualified residents. 3. Allocate available 2009 CDBG capital funds to a Public Works Department street lighting project that would serve a low-income Census Tract area. The project would install approximately 11 street lights along 17th Ave SnOth Way South/20th Ave S between 324th and 330th to address safety concerns. (This project was recommended for the use of CDBG-R funds.) 4. Allocate available 2009 CDBG funds as part of the 2010 CDBG allocation process noting that Federal Way has 2009 and 2010 CDBG funds available and reserves the right to split the funding between years or allocate all funds in 2010 based upon the merits of applications received. 5. Not allocate available 2009 CDBG capital funds at this time and request further information. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept option 4. b'^^"~ b~ECTORAPPROVAL: Council CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: (J/W{ Conunittee ~ Conunittee Council CO:MMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: 1 move approval of option !:i- . PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "1 move approval of option _ . " ~ (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACfION: o APPROVED o DENIED o TABLEDIDEFERREDINO 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: FROM: SUBJECT; May 12,.2009 Human Services Commission Kelli O'Donnell, Human Services/CDBG Coordinator Allocation of 2009 COBG Capital Funds and 2010 CDBG Capital Allocation Process 2009 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds: Final 2009 funding amounts.for Feder~I..Way's CDBG program have been received. Agencies will be notified of the final funding amounts and Scopes of Service can be finalized for agency. contracts when Federal Way has signed our contract with King County for ~009CIDBGfunds. Federal.Way's2009CDBGallocation was increased by Congress by just over $8;000. Below isJhe revis~dfundingby category with the August 2008, estimate for comparison. The King CountyGDBG Consortium has indicatedthat they have additio~~.18~ilin~available for PLJ.plic;.~.~~ic~f~~e.in~categ~ri~s but. 99 ~ot have additional funding~~rilable for planning~nea9rn.ini~lr~ti~n asorigin~llxi~di8~ted. This allows Fe VIlp:y t9fYlp:int<:iin tD~.~007f~.nSUQ~I~~13I~f()[ publi9~l3rvi9~~~~e means that th f<:iIFlIn9 wiHp<:ickfiln\flg~pd <:idmini 'o.tl..Ttl~::9h~rt below compar Pr13liminary f;pnd" d...Finaf2009CD Alloc;atiof)~py . category: Final Federal Way 2009 CDBG Program Funding Category Prelim Final 2009 2009 Allocation w/Recap Funding & Prog Income (Aug 2008) (May 2009) Entitlement Program Income Recaptured Funds Housing Repair Housing Stability KC Admin Toted to AHocate $ 714,719 $ 59,702 $ 2,668 ($193,605) ($ 42,988) ($101,465) $ 439,031 $ 723,114 $ 8,508 $ . 5,378 ($ 182,905) ($ 42,98~) ($ 87,796) $ 423,311 Total Prelim 2009 Funding (Aug 2008) $267,076 $ 85,977 $ 85,977 $439,030 Final 2009 Allocation w/Recap & Prog Income (May 2009) $ 264,172 $ 85,977 $ 73,162 $ 423,311 Funding Category Capital PublicSe rvice Planning & Admin (p-( Applicant Big Brother Big Sister of King and Pierce Counties HealthPoint (Formerly Community Health Centers of King County) Federal Way Senior Center Institute for Family Development Multi-Service Center Orion Highline Community College Valley Cities Counseling & Consultation Project/Program Youth Mentqring 2009 Funding Level $ 14,648 Primary Dental Care $ 15,104 Adult Daycare PACT (Parents and Children Together) Emergency Feeding Program Rehabilitation Services $ 16,000 $ 15,225 $ 10,000 $ 15,000 Total COSO ..Public Services: $ 85,977 Small Business Development Center Federal Way Clinic Acquisition $ 22,500 $ 241,673 Total COBG - Capital: $ 264,173 As noted previously, the 2009 CDBG award ofcapit~l<fuhdsto Valley Cities Counseling & Consultation for the acquisition of a new facility in liederalVVVay to replace the facility currently being leased was witMrawn,ijFederal Way has notiyet formerly canceled this pr()Jf;!~~!"1q reprogr~mOleqthf;!$241J.E37:3Jo another project, The 2009 CDB various options CDBG projects Consortium or is required t ities Cou Ii ons ion pro . and al funding. Following is a list of open projects that the City may add funding to per the contingency plan and our interlocal agreement with King County. Potential Existing erojects to Allocate 2009 COBG Funds to: ,,:,it@}I,g.,~ 1. The KOrE~an~omen's Association project iQ Federal Way may receive funding from the King County CbBG program should the . ,Moines Food Bank project not execute a purchase and sale agreement by June 20 . Should the Korean VVomen's Association receive King County funding, Fedf;!ral Way could add 2009 assist with t ompletion of the public facility portion of the building tha array of to the community. Fed ral VVay CDBG funds were util the prop develop senior housing a community facility. 2. The King Cqunty Housing Repair Program has been funded by Federal Way to provide ~nterest forgivable loans for housing repair and emergency grants for life threatenin epair needs in owner occupied homes to qualified residents. This program is heavily used by Federal Way residents. Federal Way funds the program with 25% of the annual CDBG allocation and has added funding to the program as needed. The housing. would receive $180,807 in CDBG funds based on the'current 2009 es ity allocated $260,092 to the program in 2008 and 32 Federal Way ho 370,439 in funds. Additional funds could be allocated and designate in 2009 and/or 2010. This may also allow funding to be e available for the repairs needed in the Neighborhood Stabilization Progra,m elines are adjusted to allow this use by the King County Consortium. This may not ~ good use of the CDBG funds allocated by the stimulus package due to the special reporting requirements. ~-7-- 3. The Public Works Department has identified a potential street lighting project that would serve a low-income Census Tract area. The project would Install approximi;ltely 11 street lights along 1 ih Ave S/20th Way South/20tfl Ave S between 324lh and 330lh to address safety concerns. The engineers estimate to complete the project is $188,700 including in-house design. Since this is an internal project, the City may designate funds to the project without an application process. This project may be a good fit for the additional stimulus funding. See following agenda item for allocation of COBG-R funds. 4. The City could choose to allocate the available 2009 CDBG funds as part of the 2010 CDBG allocation process. A few agencies have indicated that they may have projects although a full review has not been completed to determine if they are CDBGeligible. Additional. projects may come forward in response to a request for applications. The request for applications could note that Federal Way has 2009 and 2010 CDBG funds available and reserves the right to split the funding between years or allocate all funds in 2010 based upon the merits of applications received. 2010 CDBG Funding Process: The COBG capital allocation process usually begins in the spring of the prior year but the 2010 process was delayed due to the pending CDBG Recovery Act funds and waitingto see what the final 2009 allocation was. As noted at the March meeting, the President's proposed 2010 Budget increases the COBG formula to $4.5 billion but may have new requirements to target funding. It is unknown at this time whether Congress will support this increase or propose a decrei;lse in CDBG funds. The allocations for 2010 will be made based upon the final 2009 entitlement with a contingency plan should funds increase or decrease. Attached.is a draft allocationcalehdar for consideration with the goal of completing the allocationprocessil1 time to submit projects to the. County by the September deadline with projects goingl;inder contract in 2010. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends option 4 above to allow for an open application process for 2009 CDBG funds as partofthe 2010 COBG application process. ShQuld the city decide to allocate 2009 CDBG funds to a project that is ready to start before 2010, the 2009 Contingency Plan could be amended to reflect the decision and notice given to the County to reallocate these funds in November of 2009. Commission Recommendation: Forward Option _ to/be forwarded to the June 2,2009, City Council meeting under Council Business. The above information will be discus$ed in more detail at Monday's meeting and any additional information received will be shared. Please contact me at (253) 835-2653 or keIlLodonneU@citvoffederalwav.comifyou have questions regarding COBG or this agenda item. C,-3 r'-l r'-l cu C.J e ~ == Q ~ ~ C.J Q = ~< ~- ~~ _ ...-1 E ~ ~u cu~ ~~ fojoo(Q Qu C ...-1 <:> US M /0.4 ~ CU > S ~ /0.4 bJ) Q /0.4 ~ QJ c:7'\ = C,; Q M ~ = o .... ... <':I .~ -a Co < ~ lXl QJ ~ ;:I ~U~ ~~ Vl ~ ~ g 5 ~~u O_C/J .- ~ ~ OJ)'ii1~ ... U ~ :E .- ..... .... bJ} 2::';;; x QJ ~ .S J.Ll ~""'S8] ~~~S] =::io8g l/) .... o \:) o co o N Cl OJ) !a Vlo(lU ... 0.. ~ 0- \o'l 0.... 0 I=< 0 !:: ~,... 'f!<<!o - u...... w.... N S rn=8~588 QJ "O=~Il..Vl <J ca ~ ';:l 8 ~ ~ .... 0 = \:)._.... y 0 .- 0 co Vl ~ QJ = 'Q ~ Cl .:> 0 ~~ tt 0:: U ~ l5. 0'1 N OJ) <<l ... VJ l-t .~ :E 80Sfa"' .9 Vl ~ OJ) '02U B8~ :E ~ .~ ~ 0 tl ]I = U 'a 'S co .g, .fS;..::: u ~.~~ rn ~~8 ~ = QO ~~ .... 1: ~ ~ ~ c5 -2 .... ~ .~ ~ J5-= ~~ :E ~ Vl Q) ij'~ o~ ~ m oS El 8~:E .~ 5 =" Q) '~[.Q ~ o ~ g'~ U l1> Q) 0 ~Oci:::U 'E ~ o(l 13 Q) .~ ~ f3 C/JEl~o ~ g ~~. =Urn~ ~1I~rn 1I0C/Ju ~uco~;":::. ~~8g:~ (P -- <f OJ) ~ OJ) ~ U rn = .... M l.. QJ ,.Cl e ~ o Z OJ) ... :E OJ) ~ U rJ"1 = \C .... l.. QJ ,.Cl o ... y o OJ) ~ CIl ~ U rn = 0'1 .... l.. QJ ,.Cl ~ ... it' rJ"1 itl ] .= Q) (I) Q)O (I)~o..Q)'p Q) l5'''' l:l ~ tt tt ~. '8 .= ~ I Q) a C1) = rn 0 '0'8 j ;::l Il.. co.... .. 0 ..bloll.. U ;:: U . 13... ~ ga ~ i~.... (:) ~ ~ (3. u oS .9 QO ! ~ uO b ;.:::l...... .j:Q ~~Q I g~~ OJ)~~g ...~ 6hN ~~e.9 ~ooll..~l .S o.s ~ ~ ~.~ e =::r:u....o.. t- ... ;;.-, ~ s ~. C\ o 000 ~~ J: ~ ~ :Eo.... 6h ~J) ~~.~ ~ ~.~u.l;!o U;":::C:;>~j:Q rnQ).........O t:l:let~Q'8u Q M p. Vl 0'3 8 "0 ."", ..... i fa""~ 0 _u"", .00..... co =j:Qc!dCl 68~~~ U ....0'"'- ;;.-,0 bOO OIl ........ONO u~et.9et l('l ... o o "0 ~ "0 Q CI) <a u Q o ..... ~ o o ~ Q o ..... "" .~ o U o ....... o N ~ ~ OJ) i OJ) ~ U rn = ... M 0\ o o N ....... M ..... ....... V) o Council Adopted 08/05/08 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2009 CDSG CONTINGENCY PLAN The allocation process for 2009 Cammunity Develapment Block Gr~nt (CDBG) funds is based upan an estimate .of Federal Way's 2009 CDBG funds. The City will nat know its exact grant amount until after Cangress passes the Hun Apprapriation Bill. This is expected to .occur between the fall .of 2008 and spring .of 2009. Because the final CDBG apprapriatian is not knawn, the allacation pracess includes a cantingency plan. The plan allaws far adjustment up .or down based upan the final grant amount and/ar any additianal funds received as the result of praject cancellatians .or additional recaptured funds. 2009 COSG Capital Prajects: The City's interlocal with King County for the distribution .of CDBGfunds limits Federal Way ta a maximum of twa new stand-alene capital projects per year with a maximum .of .one canst(t.Jction praject that may trigger Davis Bacan annually. Capital funds not used far these prajects m~y be allacated to sub-regianalprajects by the City unless returned by City ta the sub~regiana1 fund. Federal Way may add capital funds to prajects funded bytne King Caunty CDBG/HOME Cansartium ever and above the twa project capital limitations. Since it is unknawn at this time which projects will be funded by the King Caunty CDBG/HOME Consartium far 2Q09Gapital prajects, the fallawing cantingencies relate to the projects funded by Federal Way under the cantract requirements: Funding Order of 2009 COBG Capital prajects: 1" Highline Community Callege - Small Business Develapment Center: Funded in the ameunt .of $22,500 · Federal Way's first stand-alone constructian praject thatdaes nat trigger DaviS-BacOn. 2. Valley Cities Caunseling & Consultation - Federa.1 Way Clinic Acquisition: Fundedintl1e an10lmt .of $244,576 · Federal Way's secand stand-alene project that daes nat trigger Davis-Bacon if netfunded by the CDBG Consortium. SHOULD THE GRANT AMOUNT INCREASE OR ADDITIONAL FUNDS BECOME AVAILABLE: CElpitaJ Projects -- The City Will apply any increase in theamounf .of CDBG capital funds. as fallaws: 1. Valley Cities Counseling~CansuJt~tian - Federal Way Clinic Acquisition up tcfatotal award of $500,000: and, 2. If additianal capital funds are received, openCDBG prajects serving Feder~J Way residents that have be~nflJhdedbYthe City .of FederClIWay and/arthe King Caunty CDBG/HOME Cansartium wiUbe con$idered farfunding: and. 3. $heuld na open prajects be identified and/ar the Council decides it is not in the best interest .of Federal Way residents ta add Federal Way CDBG funds ta the project(s),additianal funds will be carried over ta the 2010 CDBG program year. Public Service Programs - The City will apply any increase in the amount .of CDBG public service funds as follaws: 1. If any additianal public se.rvice funds beCOme available, funds will be allacated tOO.rion Industries Warke;nhancementServices PraWi:3m<.\Nithadditional service units required praportianate ta funding .up ta $~O,OQ?tat~1 J~nding; and, 2. If any additi~nalp4pli.cservic~fYnd7R~coro.eav~1'able,funds will beallpcatedto ~hr Institute for Family Devel~pmentPACTPro.lra~lwith ~dditional service units required praportianate ta funding up ta$18,225totalfunding; and, Page 1 on (p-s COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 16,2009 ITEM #: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: FW COMMUNITY CENTER CAFE CONSTRUCTION POLICY QUESTION Should the City accept the Cafe Construction bid and authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with the successful bidder? COMMITTEE: PRHSPS MEETING DATE: June 9, 2009 CATEGORY: [gJ Consent D City Council Business D Ordinance D Resolution D D Public Hearing Other: ~!A!.!.~!,g~!~x:~!~ph~~~~E~?!1.?.!~tiP.?....J.?.~g~.I.:?~~~~!2~mm ... ......._._....__m......._.....m.................I?~.~~=.~~~~mm...._.__________ History: Staff worked with a design team and vendors to develop a new Cafe stand that will be added to the waiting area near the main entrance and adjacent to the Senior Lounge in the FW Community Center. Prior approval was obtained from Council to solicit bids for Construction and related Equipment. Bid Result: 7 Construction companies from the Small Works Roster were invited to bid and 2 responded. Both Companies were responsive to the bid and Rush comes very highly recommended from reference checks. All references indicated they are very reliable, professional and deliver high quality work. · Rush Commercial Construction - $54,047.13 + $5,134.48 tax = total contract amt $59,181.61 · ASAP Construction ---------------- $66,979.00 + $6,363.00 tax = total contract amt $73,342.00 This project will be funded out of a 2009 carry forward account approved by Council on May 5th, 2009 The current balance in the Cafe line item is: $111,124.00 -59,181.61 $51,942.39 - remaining balance Qp!~~.:I.!~..~.~.:I.!~~4~!::~4~ ..I'!}~I.:??.'?2.~.~!.~~.!....!h~.g.~f.~~mm.........m'!!~~...I.:?? ~?!_~<?~~~c:.!...!h~...g~f~._ ................. ........... .......................____.._...._..._.__.....__...m.m STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council accept the bid from Rush Commercial Construction and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract for Cafe Construction in the amount of$59,181.61 CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: o-w1. i.w./~ I,/Id;)l.,., DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: to Committee to Councit ~ To Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Committee Chair PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move approval to accept the Cafe Construe IOn bid from Rush Commercial Construction and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract for services in the amount of $59,181.61 (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: D APPROVED D DENIED D TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION D MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED - 02/06/2006 COUNCIL BILL # 1 ST reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 16,2009 . .....mmmmmm.____.._E!:~M #: ...m..mm5d CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: FW COMMUNITY CENTER CAFE EQUIPMENT POLICY QUESTION Should the City accept the Cafe Equipment bid and authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with the successful bidder? COMMITTEE: PRHSPS MEETING DATE: June 9, 2009 CATEGORY: [gJ Consent D City Council Business D Ordinance D Resolution D D Public Hearing Other: ~!!'\~~~!'.Q~!~y.:~!~ph~p.:P.st;:!4..'.....~!~!.ip.?f~~~Pi!.~~!~!.mm. DEPT: PRCS History: Staff worked with a design team and vendors to develop a new Cafe stand that will be added to the waiting area near the main entrance and adjacent to the Senior Lounge in the FW Community Center. Prior approval was obtained from Council to solicit bids for Construction and related Equipment. Bid Result: 3 Commercial Restaurant Equipment Supply companies were invited to submit application to the Small Works Roster and bid, only 1 responded as follows: (design estimate: $28,147.00 + tax) · Smith & Greene Company - $23,249.54 + $2,208.71 tax = total contract amt $25,458.25 This project will be funded out ofa 2009 carry forward account approved by Council on May 5th, 2009. The current balance in the Cafe line item is: $111,124.00 -59.181.61 construction cost 51,942.39 sub total -25,458.25 commercial equipment cost $26,484.14 balance Options Considered: #l-Do purchase the Cafe Equipment. #2-Do not purchase the Cafe Equipment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council accept the bid from Smith & Greene Company and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract to purchase Cafe Equipment in the amount of $25,458.25 CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: ~ttee .f,.WI(~/tYl bf4tIJiPblRECTORAPPROVAL:~. ~ to Conncil to COlllll1lttee To Conncil COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: jj PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: HI move approval to accept the bid from ith & Greene Company and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract to purchase Cafe Equipment in the amount of$25,458.25 (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: o APPROVED o DENIED o T ABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED - 02/06/2006 COUNCIL BILL # 1 ST reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 16,2009 ITEM #: ...5'-m~__'m CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: CHG BUILDING SYSTEMS RETAINAGE RELEASE POLICY QUESTION: Should the City accept the contract with CHO Building Systems as complete and authorize staff to release their retainage? COMMITTEE: PRHSPS Committee MEETING DATE: June 9, 2009 CATEGORY: [gI Consent D City Council Business D Ordinance D Resolution D D Public Hearing Other DEPT: PRCS .~!:\':!!~~Q~!~~:_~~~ph~!.!.Ils~~~?..~~~ti!J:l:~gg~:r?~~~~!~~.m_ History: The City contracted with CRG Building Systems to provide and install a metal maintenance building at Celebration Park in the amount of $168,599.02 including tax. CRG Building Systems has completed all the work within this contract. Prior to the release of retain age on any Public Works project, the City Council must accept the work as complete to meet State Department of Revenue and Department of Labor and Industries requirements. Expenditure Summary including tax: $168,599.02 - Contract total 120.25 - additional tax with the 9.5% change in Apri12009 $168,719.26 - Total project cost $7,733.91 - 5% retainage held from the $168,599.02 Attachments:~A Qp!~~~~~~!!~~~~~~~;A'?'?.~p!.!h~....~g~!!~~~~.~'?.g!J:l:p!~_!~._~~4~_~~!...~~~~p..!.!h.~(?g!l_1!_l:l~~..l:1.~m~g.!J:l:P!.~!~.:.mmm......_.___...m___.m STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council accept the contract as complete and authorize staff to release retainage in the amount of $7,733.91 to CRG Building Systems. CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: ~ 11,W,hV'llo/ll/~DIRECTORAPPROVAL: ~ to Committee to Council to Committee ~ To Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward to full Council on June 16 for approval; the acceptance of the CRG Building Systems contract as complete and authorize staff to release their $7,733. ret inage ROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "] move to accept the contract as camp e and authorize staff to release retainage in the amount 01$7,733.91 to CHO Building Systems" (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 # 1 ST reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 16, 2009 ITEM #:~L. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Application for Ballistic Vest Partnership (BVP) Grant. POLICY QUESTION: Should the City of Federal Way, Federal Way Police Department apply for the 2009 Ballistic Vest Partnership (BVP) Grant'? COMMITTEE: Parks, Recreation, and Public Safety Council Committee MEETING DATE: June 9, 2009 CATEGORY: ~ Consent o City Council Business o Ordinance c- 0 Resolution o o Public Hearing Other .~.!~.l!'...~!'.Q~!..!:ly.:~~t.~1?:g...~.~.~.~r.~1?:4Y..."E:I.~~1?:g...... .. Attachments: 1. PRHS&PS Memo 2. BVP Application Options Considered: 1. Approve that the Federal Way Police Department apply for 2009 BVP Grant 2. Deny that the Federal Way Police Department apply for 2009 BVP Grant DEPT: Police Department STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends Option 1. ~ITYMANAGERAPPROVALJ,I\I.k'VI \h1h'1 L1w.~1)7J1>1RECTORAPPROVAL: ~ Committee Council Committee liiTfl - Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: PRPS recommends Option ~ ROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move approval of the 2009 Ballistic T& Partnership (BVP) Grant application, and authorize Interim City Manager Brian Wilson to sign such Agreement.. " (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!O6/2006 COUNCIL BILL # 1 ST reading Enactment realling ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: VIA: June 9, 2009 Parks, Recreation, Human Services and Public Safety Council Committee Brian 1. Wilson, Interim City Manager FROM: Andy 1. Hwang, Acting Chief of Police SUBJECT: Permission to apply for 2009 Ballistic Vest Partnership (BVP) Grant. The total number of Ballistic vests that will need to be replaced by the Federal Way Police Department by the end of2011 equals 78. This number includes quantity 67 vests that will replace existing (expiring) vests. It also includes 3 vests that will be needed for 3 new COPS grant funded officers. Because Ballistic vests are somewhat custom fit to officers' measurements, we will also need an estimated 8 vests for officers that will be hired by the end of 20 11 due to attrition. It is my recommendation that we apply for half of the vests during the current 2009 BVP grant application process. The grant application period is now open until June 24, 2009 and requires matching police department funds. If the Grant is approved, it would provide $15,165.00 to the police department to use toward the purchase of vests and require $15,165.00 to be matched by the police department to purchase additional needed vests. The police department fuel savings has been identified by the finance department as a source to provide matching funds for the 2009 BVP grant. The 2010 BVP grant application will open in May of 2010, at which time we may apply for the remaining needed vests should Council approve. 1 Submit Application for Funding for BVP Approval Page 1 of2 Section AppHcation ;> Submit Application > Submit Appllcation for Funding for BVP Approval OMS *'1121-0235 (f.'xpir,1S: 10/31/2006) PLEASE NOTE: AppHcations for funding may be s.ubmitte:~d for thl:; purc!lasl:; of any armor that meets tile estabHshed NIJ ba!l!stic or stab standards ordered on or after April 1,2009. Once the open application period doses, funding levels will be established and all appHcants wi!! be notified. Jurisdiction: FEDERAL WAY OTY Open Application (Not Submitted) Status( Last Submission Date): Jurisdiction's 'i.e,~tJ~,enl{t(;~m~nt 5 Years C-Y~'-~: Un$.P-JmL6.YEJ:W:1Q$.. Remaining $4,040.84 Unspent BVP Funds Q!;tUg;;;t~d_ for Vest Purchases: $4,040.84 tm~r:n~m:;y-J~.J~P-J;,l~~msmU\!!~g\.:t~: 0 _lIp.!;t~:t~n!?[e,_ARD.l1\;at!!;!n Submit Application for Fundi"g far evp Approva~ Name Quantity Application for Funding Extended Cost Tax, S&H* Total Cost FEDERAL WAY OTY Grand Totals 78 $55,395.60 Requested BVP Portion of Total Cost, up to: 78 $55,395.60 $5,262.66 $5,262.66 $60,658.26 $60,658.26 $30,329.13 * Tota! Taxes, Shipping and Handling Cost for each Application Customer Satisfaction Survey Please indicate your customer satisfaction regarding how easy this ["s~-i~~t'Diffi~~-iiY'L~~~nlt form was to understand and use: :....... ......................................'f';;>?. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ur customer experience using the Internet to L~~I~i(~~-~~~i~~~:~:_~~:~~i--11 CERTIFICA nON Chief Executive Certification: As chief executive officer (or authorized designee) of this jurisdiction, my submission of this Application for Funding Form under the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act, represents my legally binding acceptance of the terms set forth on this form; and the program's statutory and programmatic requirements, restrictions, and conditions, including the following: In the case of any equipment or products that may be authorized to be purchased with financial assistance provided, using funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act, it is the sense of the Congress that entities receiving the assistance should, in expending the assistance, purchase only American - made equipment and products. The recipient acknowledges that this grant is for Federal preparedness assistance. Therefore, the recipient agrees that it will implement and comply with the National Incident Management System (NIMS) as required by Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 (HSPD-5). http://www.fema.gov/nims. The recipient acknowledges that the Secretary of Homeland Security https://extemal.ojp.usdoj .gov/bvp/vests/roles/apps/submit_app _to _ bvp _ admin.jsp?level1... 05/19/2009 Submit Application for Funding for BVP Approval Page 2 of2 will develop standards and guidelines for determining whether a State or local entity has adopted the NIMS. Finally, the recipient further acknowledges that the Secretary of Homeland Security wit determine compliance with the NIMS and the recipient agrees to abide by the Secretary's dedsion on compliance. The applicant will give the sponsoring agency or the Comptroller General, through any authorized representative, access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers or documents related to this application and any subsequent payments received as a result of this application. [ill I acknowledge and accept the Chief Executive Certification. Funding Limits Certification: If the submission of this application for funding is in conjunction with transactions for the purchase of vests, I understand and agree to abide by the following: I understand that all funding awards will be subject to the availability of funds and I acknowledge that there is no guaranteed level of funding associated with the submission of this application to the BVP program. I agree to meet my financial and contractual obligations associated with any purchase transactions, regardless of the amount of funding received through this application. [ill I acknowledge and accept the Funding Urnits Celtification. IE I certify to the best of my knowledge and belief, aU information in this application is true and correct, Signature: As the jurisdiction's chief executive officer (or designee), authorized to submit this application, I .herE!~Ydel1tE!rrTlyfLJII..n(;ll11E!il1..~~E!d spCise provided below: '.hh__ ____h_un___h__._.un__n..__nn_nu._n___ ........... d U. .......... d......... U.... .... .......... ..... ...... ..... ........ "u,,,."" if.""" .. . :1~il{lil1I!:i@H900it!i~j!liti!1J!INftMBiAtmt!tt@MM:M~t~@1 Paperwork Reduction Act Notice Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. We try to create forms and instructions that are accurate, can be easily understood, and which impose the least possible burden on you to provide us with information. The estimated average time for all components of a jurisdiction to complete and file this Application for Funding form is two hours. If you have comments regarding the accuracy of this estimate, or suggestions for making this form simpler, you may use the Suggestions e-mail option on this BVP web site, or you may write to the BVP, c/o Bureau of Justice Assistance, 810 Seventh Street NW, Washington, DC, 20531. https://extemal.ojp.usdoj .gov/bvp/vests/roles/apps/submit_ app _to _ bvp _ admin.j sp?levell... 05/19/2009 BVP Application for Funding Section Application> rlJanage Appfication > ViewfUpdate Application Page 1 of 1 OMS #1121-0235 (Expires; 10/31/2006) Usted below is each of the vests which you included in your application. You may view, change or delete the information shown for each type of vests listed by clicking on its 'Model Name'. Y~~tuR~Rlg~~I]J.~DtCy~l~ : Un~LtenU3.YeJ)Jng~ Remaining Unspent BVP Funds QI:tl!ggt!;.Q. for Vest Purchases: f;n:l~r.gem:y..R~pl~H;~m~nUl/.gg~:ls. : Model Name Sf;.QJ2f V'''<IUA :;iEQ12 Grand Totals Quantity 5 10 63 78 5 Years $4,040.84 $4,040.84 o 1J.p.dgt!;..Er~_ARP'[j~~ttQn View IUpdate Appflcation Vests for 2009 Regular Fund Specification Gender Unit Price Extended Cost IlIA F $710.20 $3,551.00 IlIA M $710.20 $7,102.00 IlIA M $710.20 $44,742.60 $55,395.60 .._,---....."............................................-.-.. . .:~[;j;1111::1:gf9g~"9.J9:::BMBrrHt~P!!E!!jRrE:::111::::n:~ TaxjS&H $337.35 $674.70 $4,250.61 $5,262.66 Total Cost $3,888.35 $7,776.70 $48,993.21 $60,658.26 . . - - -.. -..,........ , ,..., . - - -.. - - -................... ........-.."...... . [:.:.:.:.:.:.::1:::::eW;t.f*"~W:19::&Rmj~D.1:111:{~ https://extemal.oj p.usdoj .gov/bvp/vests/roles/apps/editorder.j sp?isReceipt=N 05/19/2009 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 16th, 2009 .... ......E!.~~~=..............~:.m.......m CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Renewal & Extension of Red-Light Photo Enforcement Professional Services Agreement. POLICY QUESTION: SHOULD THE CITY RENEW & EXTEND THE TERM OF THE EXISTING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH 'AMERICAN TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS, FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY CAMERA SYSTEMS. COMMITTEE: Parks, Recreation, Human Services and Public Safety Council Committee - (PRHS&PS) CATEGORY: MEETING DATE: June 9th, 2009 ~ Consent D City Council Business STAFF REpORT By: STAN Attachments: 1. PRHS&PS Staff Memo D Ordinance D Resolution COMMANDER D D Public Hearing Other DEPT: Police Department Options Considered: 1. Renew our existing Professional Services Agreement, with 'American Traffic Solutions', for Traffic Safety Camera Systems, for one additional year, until June 16th, 2010, with the option to extend this agreement for two additional three (3) year terms. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Option #1 - Renew our existing agreement. . . ... i 9plM CITY MANAGER ApPROV AL:_'".I~W1 S/J'1!0u.J0 ./] IvJhl) 7 DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: Committote i Council ~I Committee t/ilxl Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: PRPS recommends Option ~ PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "1 move that the City renew and extend the ter (f the existing Professional Services Agreement with 'American Traffic Solutions', for an additional year, with the option to extend this agreement for two additional three (3) year terms." (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: o APPROVED o DENIED o T ABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED - 02/06/2006 COUNCIL BILL # I ST reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: June 9, 2009 Parks, Recreation, Human Services and Public Safety Council Committee Brian J. Wilson, Interim City Manager Andy Hwang, Acting Chief of Police SUBJECT: Professional Services Contract Renewal - American Traffic Solutions Backe:round Summary Intersection safety is a priority for the Police Department and through Red Light Photo Enforcement, (RLPE), municipalities can use available technology to focus on citizen compliance with traffic control devices at intersections. For more than a year Staff members researched the advantages and disadvantages of RLPE Programs. Research was also conducted into the public's perception, and acceptance of, red light traffic cameras and the potential vendors available to provide this type of traffic safety technology. In February 2007, staff recommended to the City Council that the City enter into a one-year Red Light Photo Enforcement 'pilot' Program. Council agreed with staffs recommendation to proceed with a program under Seattle's contract with American Traffic Solutions (ATS) and the City entered into contract negotiations with A TS in December of 2007. Research was conducted to install the necessary camera equipment and the City Council authorized a one (1) year pilot program ofRLPE, which began at the end of August, 2008. Weare confident that the contract with A TS is appropriate and we believe the fees included are reasonable. Our current program continues to be 100 percent violator funded. The fees and reported revenues are being closely tracked by our Finance Department. Recommendations: The Professional Services Contract with A TS has provided data which indicates that our RLPE program is achieving the desired voluntary compliance results we anticipated. The City may renew and extend the term ofthis contract consistent with other Professional Service Agreements entered into by the City. Such renewal requires the approval ofthe Federal Way City Council. We recommend extending the term of the existing contract with American Traffic Solutions to June 16, 2010. The City, at its sole discretion, may extend the term of this contract for two additional three (3) year terms upon approval by the City Manager. Photo enforcement technology does not replace traditional methods of traffic enforcement. Rather, it serves as a supplement to traditional traffic enforcement techniques, in addition to educational and engineering efforts designed to enhance traffic safety. The Police Department will continue to measure and evaluate the effectiveness of the red-light photo enforcement program with regard to safety, traffic flow and citizen compliance with traffic control devices. 1 SECOND CHANGE ORDER TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY CAMERA SYSTEM This Second Change Order ("Change Order") is dated effective this _ day of ,20_, and is entered into by and between the City of Federal Way, a Washington municipal corporation ("City"), and American Traffic Solutions, INC, ("Consultant"). A. The City and Consultant entered into a Professional Services Agreement dated effective March 28th, 2008 whereby Consultant agreed to provide red light photo enforcement services ("Agreement"), as amended by the First Change Order on October 21 st, 2008. B. Section 24 and Section 1 of the Agreement provide that the Agreement may only be amended by written change order. C. agreement. The City and the Consultant desire to amend the Agreement to extend the term of the NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree to the following terms and conditions: 1. Term of Contract Section 3 of the Agreement shall be amended to extend the term of the contract until June 16th, 2010. The City, at its sole discretion, may extend the term of the contract for two additional three (3) year terms upon approval by the City Manager or the Assistant City Manager/COO. 2. Ratification. Any act done by either party consistent with the authority of the Agreement after the previous expiration date and prior to the effective date of this amendment, is hereby ratified as having been performed under the Agreement as it existed prior to this amendment. 2nd Amendment to Professional Services Agreement - 1 - 3. Full Force and Effect. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement not modified by this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect. DATED the effective date set forth above. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY By: Cary M. Roe, P. E. Assistant City Manager/Chief Operating Officer Emergency Manager 33325 8th Ave S PO BOX 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk, Carol McNeilly, CMC City Attorney, Patricia A. Richardson AMERICAN TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS, INC By: (Signature) (Name) Its: (Title) (Address) (Phone) 2nd Amendment to Professional Services Agreement - 2 - ..~g~~!~.~~~!~~...~~ !~.~.......~~~.~....~.?~m~.~.~.~.......mmmmmmm m....mm..mmm................................mmmmm .!!~~~=..m5:n~mm._ CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: The Police Department is requesting permission to enter into a Service Agreement with the Washington State Patrol in order to implement the Statewide Electronic Collision and Ticket Online Records (SECTOR) process. This agreement defines roles and expectations for the two parties and has no budgetary impacts. The SECTOR program will allow officers to more efficiently complete collision reports and issue traffic infractions in the field electronically. POLICY QUESTION: Should the Federal Way Police Department enter into a written agreement with the Washington State Patrol (WSP) in order to implement the Statewide Electronic Collision and Ticket Online Records process? COMMITTEE: Parks, Recreation, Human Services and Public Safety Council Committee - (PRHS&PS) MEETING DATE: June 9, 2009 CATEGORY: ~ Consent D City Council Business STAFF REpORT By: JOHN D Ordinance D Resolution COMMANDER D D Public Hearing Other DEPT: Police Department Attachments: 1. PRHS&PS Staff Memo Options Considered: 1. Enter into the service agreement with the Washington State Patrol. 2. Disregard the agreement and forego implementing this new technology. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends OPtiofo 1, ~/(j'1J~uifi tal 41awri CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: 13.l1\Lsc.-n J1.W.ISvn IRECTORApPROVAL: Committee Council /7' Committee 51\ Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: PRPS recommends Option L ROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move for approval of the request by the Police Department to enter into a written agreement with the Washington State Patrol to implement the SECTOR process, and authorize the Police Chief to sign the Agreement. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: o APPROVED o DENIED o TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED - 02/06/2006 COUNCIL BILL # 1 ST reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: June 9,2009 Parks, Recreation, Human Services and Public Safety Council Committee Brian J. Wilson, Interim City Manager 4r ~~\'1 Stephan Neal, Acting Chief of Police SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreement with Washington State Patrol for the SECTOR Program Backe:round The Statewide Electronic Collision & Ticket Online Records (SECTOR) program, is automating the collision and traffic citation reporting process for law enforcement officers around the State. By taking advantage of the new bar coded driver's licenses and vehicle registrations, officers in the field can now scan and upload this data to a central server to be routed to the appropriate agencies for processing and disposition. The SECTOR program can allow agencies to streamline and automate their collision reporting and traffic citation processes. The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (W ASPC) have agreed to coordinate a project for implementation ofthe SECTOR program throughout Washington State. This program is provided at no cost to loca11aw enforcement agencies; however, the agencies must have the hardware and network availability to support the program. SECTOR is a stand-alone program installed on law enforcement laptops. We have secured two sets of required hardware to implement a pilot program. A User Agreement between the Federal Way Police Department and the Washington State Patrol is required before the SECTOR program can be implemented. The SECTOR User Agreement has been reviewed and approved by our Legal Department. The Police Department is also working in concert with our Municipal Court on each step of this project. It is anticipated that when additional scanners and printers become available, the SECTOR program will significantly reduce the data entry workload for court personnel. This reduction in workload will occur because the usual data entry for traffic citations will no longer have to be done at the court, since this information will be sent electronically from the officer's laptop. We are requesting permission from the City Council to execute this SECTOR User Agreement with the Washington State Patrol (WSP) in order to implement the Statewide Electronic Collision and Ticket Online Records process. There are no fees or costs associated with the SECTOR program or the User Agreement. 1 WSP No. WSDOT No. WASHINGTON STATE PATROU WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ELECTRONIC COLLISION REPORTS & ELECTRONIC COLLISION RECORDS USER'S AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT is entered into between the Washington State Patrol (hereinafter "WSP"), the Washington State Department of Transportation (hereinafter "WSDOT"), both agencies of the State of Washington, and , a {insert type of organization} (hereinafter "the User"). RECITALS A. In 1938, state law (currently RCW 4652.060) authorized the WSP to file, tabulate and analyze collision reports and produce certain statistical information about collisions. For the next thirty years, the WSP maintained a largely manual system for filing collision reports generated over approximately five-year periods. The WSP also produced some limited statistical collision data, primarily fatality and accident rate summaries, using paper punch card technology. Analysis of collision data for highway safety purposes was not possible because the state did not have a uniform collision report, data on collision reports was primitive and inconsistent, collision reports were not coded by precise roadway location, and no computerized database system existed. B. In 1966 and 1973, the federal Congress enacted laws requiring states to create computerized collision databases in order to analyze the need for highway safety improvements and participate in federal programs to fund those improvements. The federal laws, and associated funding, provided for states to adopt uniform collision reports containing detailed highway safety coding, and provided that information from these reports would be maintained in a computerized collision database with precise location coding of all collisions. These laws were implemented by WSP and WSDOT jointly. Beginning in approximately 1970, the WSP collected collision reports and entered the raw data into a computer. The data was then transferred to WSDOT for creation of the coli is ion database required under federal law. The WSP maintained copies of individual collision records as well as its database, while WSDOT maintained their own collision database. C. The WSP and WSDOT systems for filing individual collision reports, entry of raw data into a computer, and creation of the collision database, remained unchanged until 1996. By this time the original WSP computer system used for data entry and storage and retrieval of collision records had become obsolete. An attempt to convert to an optical character recognition system was not successful. After extensive discussion between WSP, WSDOT and the Washington State Office of Financial Management, the agencies concluded that functions related to the maintenance of copies of collision reports and computer input of raw collision report data could be most efficiently performed by WSDOT in conjunction with its already existing collision database function. Beginning in 2002, WSDOT not only created the collision database required by federal law, but also, pursuant to an interagency agreement with WSP, began entering all raw collision data into WSDOT's computer. In addition, pursuant to this same interagency agreement, WSDOT began work to develop an electronic imaging system to store and retrieve copies of individual collision reports. This imaging system was implemented in May of 2003. D. The current system for filing paper coilision reports and creating the collision database as to this User will remain in effect until WSP, WSDOT and the User approve this Agreement establishing the new electronic system to file collision reports and transmit collision report data to WSDOT. The Statewide Electronic Collision and Ticket Online RAcords (SECTOR) software was developed through a collaborative partnership that includes the WSP, WSDOT, Administrative Office of the Courts, Department of Licensing, and local law enforcement agencies. SECTOR enables officers to create electronic collision reports and other forms in the field, pursuant to federal, state and local requirements. This data is then transferred to a central database where it is available for review, analysis and reporting by the local law enforcement agency. E. The Department of Licensing is an agency of the State of Washington authorized by law (RCW 46.52.030) to receive full access to collision reports for purposes of maintaining case records under RCW 46.52.120, supplying abstracts of driving records under RCW 46.52.130, and to administer the financial responsibility requirements WSPIWSDOT ELECTRONIC COLLISION REPORTS USER'S AGREEMENT Rev. 5/22/08 Page 1 of 7 WSP No. WSDOT No. when drivers are involved in traffic collisions under chapter 46.29 RCW. To perform these functions, they must review collision reports that are filed by law enforcement agencies and citizens. F. The procedures established in this Agreement are intended to satisfy federal law (23 U.S.C. S 409) which provides that information from the collision database created pursuant to federal highway safety laws not be available for use in damage litigation against transportation authorities. However, under this Agreement individual collision reports are ava1!able to all who satisfy requirements of state law for access to such reports and collision database information is available to all who request such data except for those who request it for purposes which violate the federal restriction on the availability of this data for use in litigation against transportation authorities. In Pierce County v. Guillen, 537 U.S. 129,123 S. Ct. 720, 154 L. Ed. 2d 610 (2003), the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the federal statute as a proper exercise of federal commerce clause power to act to prevent state tort liability from interfering with federal efforts to improve highway safety. The Federal Highway Administration subsequently required state compliance with 23 U.S.C. S 409 as a mandatory condition for state participation in the federal highw::lY program. G. The User under this Agreement is a general authority law enforcement agency within the State of Washington and a criminal justice agency as defined in RCW 10.97. H. The User, WSP, and WSDOT are authorized to enter into this Agreement pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW. AGREEMENT NOW THEREFORE, in light of the foregoing understandings and conditions, and other valuable considerations more fully set out or incorporated herein by reference, the parties, by their duly authorized officials, do mutually agree as follows: SECTION 1 - PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to provide the User, the ability to submit traffic collision reports electronically to WSDOT and the Washington Department of Licensing, and to protect the confidentiality of such reports as required by law. SECTION 2 - DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS "AOC" shall mean the Washington Administrative Office of the Courts. "DIS" shall mean the Washington Department of Information Services. "DOL" shall mean the Washington State Department of Licensing. "IGN" shall mean the Washington Intergovernmental Network. "JINDEX" shall mean the Washington Justice Information Data Exchange. "SECTOR" shall mean the Washington Statewide Electronic Collision and Ticket Online Records application. "SGN" shall mean the Washington State Governmental Network. "User Contact" shall mean the User employee assigned to be the primary contact for the User in matters relating to electronic collision reportil1g under this Agreement. "WSDOT' shall mean the Washington State Department of Transportation "WSP" shall mean the Washington State Patrol. "WSP SECTOR System Administrator" shall mean the WSP employee designated to be the primary system support contact for users under this Agreement. SECTION 3 - RESPONSIBILITIES 3.1 User Requirements. The User hereby certifies that it operates electronic equipment to create vehicle collision reports pursuant to federal, state and local requirements. WSPIWSDOT ELECTRONIC COLLISION REPORTS USER'S AGREEMENT Rev. 5/22/08 Page 2 of 7 WSP No. WSDOT No. 3.2 Submission and Distribution of Collision Report Data. Upon performing a review and/or approval of the collision reports to ensure that they have been accurately completed by the investigating officer, the User will submit the collision reports and related information electronically to the JINDEX (Justice Information Data Exchange). The JINDEX will distribute the electronic records to the authorized agencies for analysis and reporting purposes. These agencies include, but are not limited to, WSP, WSDOT and DOL. 3.3 Reportinq Requirements. The User will submit to WSDOT collision data that is compliant with the state's business rules and data format and in the standardized collision report form approved by the Chief of the Washington State Patrol. This information is available at http://www.trafficrecords.wa.gov/etrip.htm. 3.4 Modifications to Reportinq Requirements. Because business rules, data format, report forms and other items may change in the future, the User agrees to comply with any such changes. WSDOT and WSP will endeavor to not make changes to these items any more frequently than once each quarter per calendar year. These items are described in the document "Hardware and Software Requirements for Submitting Electronic Collision Reports", available at http://www.trafficrecords.wa.gov/etrip.htm. Changes or updates to these requirements will be set forth at this same web address. In addition, the User will be notified when any changes or updates to these requirements occur. 3.5 Laws. The User agrees to comply with all applicable federal and state laws, regulations, rules, and procedures regarding the reporting and dissemination of collision reports and record information. 3.6 Electronic Submittal Authorization. The WSP and DIS, through the Washington Intergovernmental Network (IGN), the State Governmental Network (SGN), or the Internet, and JINDEX, will furnish the User with the capability to submit collision reports electronically to WSDOT and DOL. 3.7 SECTOR Software, 3.7.1 The User will use either the SECTOR software or other User-supplied software to create and transmit electronic collision reports. If the User desires, SECTOR software will be provided to the User at no charge to the User. 3.7.2 Alternative Software. If the User desires to use electronic collision reporting software other than SECTOR, the software must maintain compliance with the business rules and data format and the standardized collision report form approved by the Chief of the Washington State Patrol, and must be approved by the WSP and WSDOT. 3.8 Equipment. Equipment, including computers and associated software, bar code scanners, printers, servers and server certificates, including purchase and maintenance, are the responsibility of the User. For further information on these items, please refer to the document "Hardware and Software Requirements for Submitting Electronic Collision Reports" at http://www.trafficrecords.wa.gov/etrip.htm. 3.9 Servers. 3.9.1 At its option, the User shall use one of the following servers to store and transmit electronic collision reports: User's own server; a WSP SECTOR server if available; or an alternative server identified by User. 3.9.2 Use of the WSP SECTOR server is included with the approval to use the SECTOR software. Upon approval, WSP will provide network connectivity and security information to each user that will allow them to access and use the WSP SECTOR server. If the User chooses to use the WSP SECTOR server, the WSP wili provide authorization for the User to access their (the User's) collision records for the following limited purposes: A. For the review of the User's unapproved coiiision repvrts; and B. For the analysis and reporting of WSDOT-approved collision reports. WSPIWSDOT ELECTRONIC COLLISION REPORTS USER'S AGREEMENT Page 3 of 7 Rev. 5/22/08 WSP No. WSDOT No. 3.10 Network Connection. At the option of the User, the network connection to the JINDEX will be made through either the IGN or SGN administered by the Washington Department of Information Services (DIS), or else via the Internet. The operation and maintenance of the IGN, SGN and JINDEX is the responsibility of DIS. For further details on JINDEX connectivity, please go to the following web site: http://www.trafficrecords.wa.gov/etrip.htm. The User shall promptly notify the WSP SECTOR System Administrator of sustained or repeated network problems that affect electronic collision reporting services. Such notices shall be given by em ail to the following address: SECTOR@wsp.wa.gov The notice address as provided herein may be changed by written notice given as provided above. 3.11 Secure SYstem. The User shall take necessary measures to make its electronic collision reporting equipment and system secure and prevent unauthorized use. WSP reserves the right to review and approve equipment security measures, and to suspend or withhoid service until such matters are corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of WSP. 3.12 Software Updates. The User shall take necessary measures to upgrade their electronic collision reporting software as updates are provided to them. This includes updates provided by WSP to the SECTOR software, or if utilizing an alternative software, updates necessary for the User's alternative software to remain compliant with WSP and WSDOT requirements. WSP reserves the right to suspend or withhold service until the latest upgrade has been implemented to the reasonable satisfaction ofWSP. 3.13 User Costs. The User agrees: to pay all personnel, operating, maintenance, and data transmission costs; to submit collision reports to WSP and WSDOT as required by law; and to pay the costs and maintenance related to any interface developed between the User's electronic collision reporting application and the User's local records management system. 3.14 User Contact. The User agrees to assign a coordinator to serve as the primary contact person for the User in matters relating to electronic collision reporting. The User also agrees to notify the WSP immediately, in writing, of any changes to the User Contact person. 3.15 Technical Configuration. As a prerequisite of entering into this Agreement, the User has completed the SECTOR assessment survey. The User also agrees to notify the WSP immediately, in writing, of any changes to this Technical Configuration. SECTION 4 - TERM This Agreement is effective on the date of final signature, and shall continue until terminated as provided elsewhere herein. SECTION 5 - TERMINATION 5.1 Termin8tion for Convenience. 5.1.1 Termination by User. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the User may terminate its participation in this Agreement upon thirty (30) days written notification to WSP and WSDOT. 5.1.2 Termination by WSP and WSDOT. WSP or WSDOT may terminate this Agreement as to the User upon not less than thirty (30) days prior written notice, unless an emergency exists, as determined by WSP or WSDOT, then immediately, if WSP or WSDOT determines that it is in the best interest of the State of Washington to terminate this Agreement. 5.1.3 Termination of WSP and WSDOT Participation. A. WSP and WSDOT may jointly terminate their participation in this Agreement upon thirty (30) days written notification to the User; Provided, that any such termination must be mutually agreed WSP!WSDOT ELECTRONIC COLLISION REPORTS USER'S AGREEMENT Rev. 5/22/08 Page 4 of 7 WSP No. WSDOT No. upon by both WSP and WSDOT prior to the issuance of the notice to terminate as provided in Subsection 8 below. B. WSP and WSDOT acknowledge that in order for the electronic transmissions contemplated under this Agreement to operate, it is necessary for both WSP and WSDOT to remain parties to this Agreement. In the event either party desires to terminate its participation in this Agreement, such party shall notify the other party of this desire, WSP and WSDOT shall resolve any matters that may result from the termination of this Agreement, and WSP and WSDOT shall issue a joint notice of termination to the User as provided in Subsection A above. 5.1.4 In the event this Agreement is terminated for convenience, the parties shall be liable only for performance in accordance with the terms of this Agreement for performance prior to ihe effective date of term ination. 5.2 Termination for Default. 5.2.1 The violation of any term or condition of this Agreement by the User, or (he failure to fulfill in a timely and proper manner any requirement in this Agreement by the User shall constitute a default of this Agreement. 5.2.2 In the event of a default by the User, WSP and WSDOT may, upon the mutual agreement of WSP and WSDOT, terminate this Agreement without penalty or further liability, upon not less than thirty (30) days prior written notice to the User; Provided, that the User has failed to cure such default within that thirty (30) day period, or such longer period, as may be reasonably determined by the mutual agreement of WSP and WSDOT if the User is diligently working to cure the default. If the default is not cured within the cure period, WSP and WSDOT may, upon mutual agreement between WSP and WSDOT, immediately terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to the User. The option to terminate shall be at the sole discretion of WSP and WSDOT. 5.2.3 In the event of a User default, WSDOT and WSP reserve the right to suspend all or part of this Agreement (A) during the investigation of the alleged User default; (8) pending corrective action by User of a default; or (C) pending a decision by WSDOT and WSP to terminate this Agreement. 5.2.4 Waiver or acceptance of any User default of the terms of this Agreement by WSDOT or WSP shall not operate as a release of User's responsibility for any prior or subsequent default. 5.2.5 If the User defaults on any provision in this Agreement three (3) times within a six (6) month period, the third default shall be deemed "non-curable" and this Agreement may be terminated by WSDOT and WSP on not less than thirty (30) days written notice. SECTION 6 - INDEMNIFICATION The User agrees to indemnify and save harmless the State of Washington, the Washington State Patrol and its employees, and the Washington State Department of Transportation and its employees from and against any and all claims, demands, actions, suits, including but not limited to, any liability for damages by reason of or arising out of any misuse of the SECTOR software, or any cause of action whatsoever, and against any loss, cost, expense, and damage resulting there from, including attorney's fees. . SECTION 7 -- DISPUTE RESOLUTION 7.1 The following individuals are the Designated Representatives for the purpose of resolving disputes that arise under this Agreement: WSP: The WSP representative will be idefliified upon negotiation of the user agreement. WSDOT: General Manager, Transportation Data Office WSP/wSDOT ELECTRONIC COLLISION REPORTS USER'S AGREEMENT Rev. 5/22/08 Page 5 of 7 WSP No. WSDOT No. User: Agency Contact Name: Contact Information: 7.2 The Designated Representatives shall confer to resolve disputes that arise under this Agreement as requested by any party. The Designated Representatives shall use their best efforts and exercise good faith to resolve such disputes. 7.3 In the event the Designated Representatives are unable to resolve the dispute, a representative from WSP to be determined upon negotiation of the User's Agreement, the Chief of Staff or her/his designee for WSDOT, and {insert title for User representative} for User or her/his designee shall confer and exercise good faith to resolve the dispute. SECTION 8 - GENERAL 8.1 Recitals and Exhibits. The Recitals and Exhibits attached hereto, are hereby incorporated by reference into this Agreement. 8.2 Assionments. This Agreement cannot be assigned. 8.3 Modifications. This Agreement contains all the agreements and conditions made between the parties hereto pertaining to the User's ability to electronically submit collision reports to WSDOT and DOL, and may not be modified orally or in any other manner other than by a written agreement signed by all parties hereto. Failure on the part of any party to enforce any covenant or provision herein contained shall not discharge or invalidate such covenant or provision or affect the right of said party to enforce the same in the event of any subsequent breach or default. 8.4 Interpretation. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. The titles to paragraphs or sections of this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have no effect on the construction or interpretation of any part hereof. 8.5 Venue. The parties agree that the venue of any action or suit concerning this Agreement shall be in the Thurston County Superior Court and all actions or suits thereon shall be brought therein, unless applicable law requires otherwise. 8.6 Totality of AQreement. It is understood that no guarantees, representations, promises, or statements expressed or implied have been made by the WSP or WSDOT except to the extent that the same are expressed in this Agreement. 8.7 Notices. Unless otherwise provided herein, wherever in this Agreement written notices are to be given or made, they will be served, personally delivered or sent by certified or overnight mail addressed to the parties at the address listed below unless a different address has been designated in writing and delivered to the other party. WSP: Specific contact information to be determined upon negotiation of the User's Agreement. WSDOT: General Manager, Transportation Data Office PO Box 47380 Olympia, WA 98504-7380 User: Name: Contact Information: Title: WSP/wSDOT ELECTRONIC COLLISION REPORTS USER'S AGREEMENT Rev. 5/22/08 Page 6 of 7 WSP No. WSDOT No. 8.9. Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, in the event of any controversy, claim, or dispute arising out of this Agreement, each party shall be solely responsible for the payment of its own legal expenses, including but not limited to, attorney's fees and costs. 8.10 Contract Execution. The signatories to this Agreement represent that they have the authority to bind their respective organizations to this Agreement. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the duly authorized officials of the respective parties have executed this written agreement on the day and year first hereinafter written. USER AGENCY WASHINGTON STATE PATROL BY BY TITLE TITLE DATE DATE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BY TITLE DATE APPROVED AS TO FORM Assistant Attorney General Washington State Department of Transportation Assistant Attorney General Washington State Patrol Date: Date: WSP/wSDOT ELECTRONIC COLLISION REPORTS USER'S AGREEMENT Rev 5/22/08 Page 7 of 7 ITEM #: 5. O. COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 16,2009 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: LETTER OF COMMITMENT NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM [[ POLICY QUESTION: Should the City of Federal Way sign a letter of commitment regarding the State of Washington's Application for Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP 2) funds? COMMITTEE: PRHS&PS MEETING DATE: June 9,2009 CATEGORY: ~ Consent o City Council Business o Ordinance o Resolution o o Public Hearing Other STAFF REpORT By: KeUi O'Donnell, CDBG Coordinator DEPT: Community Development ___~_~~~<::~~~~P<:l!!':ll~~t_m__________mm Attachments: · Draft letter of commitment regarding the State of Washington's application to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) funds for the second round of Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP 2) funds. · Maps of foreclosure NSP 2 eligible Census tracts in King County and Washington. Background: The City of Federal Way received an allocation of the Washington State Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) funds to address the impacts of foreclosed properties in the City. Funds were distributed to States based upon estimated risk of foreclosures with all states receiving at least a minimum allocation and those with a higher need receiving additional funding. Federal Way was designated to receive $651,688 in NSP funds and has submitted a local plan to the State. We expect to receive the contract from the State and, once executed, will contract with the Washington State Housing Finance Commission for the implementation ofthe program to assist with homeownership of foreclosed properties in Federal Way. Congress has allocated an additional $2 billion to the Neighborhood Stabilization Program for a second round of funding known as NSP 2. The new funds will be distributed on a competitive basis with no guarantee of funding to any State or applicant. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has updated the risk of foreclosure by Census tract based on various data predicting foreclosures and vacancies. Census tracts are scored between 1 and 20 with 20 being the highest risk of foreclosure/vacancy. Applications for NSP 2 funds must serve Census tracts with an average score of 18 or higher and there is a minimum application of $5 million. Federal Way has only one Census tract (303.11) that received a score of 18 and none that received a higher risk score. On its own, Federal Way does not demonstrate a high enough need to compete nationally for NSP 2 funds. The State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED) is putting together an application for NSP 2 funds. CTED is proposing a combined application for five counties: Clark, King, Snohomish, Pierce, and Thurston. The application is currently proposed for $50 million and would require the formation of a Neighborhood Stabilization Program Consortium by December of 2009 should NSP 2 funds be received. If successful, CTED is proposing to use the 10% allowed for administration to implement and maintain an early warning syStem, housing stimulus plans and local recovery team(s) The remaining funds would be used for recovery strategies including down-payment assistance, purchase/rehab of foreclosed properties, removal of blight, and redevelopment of foreclosed properties. These activities will be finalized through planning workshops in the participating Counties prior to the July 17, 2009 due date. CTED is proposing that if counties with higher foreclosure scores such as Pierce County participate in the application, Census tracts with a risk score of 17 may be included in the application. Federal Way has three additional Census tracts that could then benefit from the program if fully funded. Information on the State's NSP 2 application was not received until after the May Human Services Commission meeting. Should the Council concur with supporting the State's application for NSP 2 funds, the Human Services Commission will be included in the review of the NSP Consortium agreement. Options Considered: l. Support the State of Washington's application funds for NSP 2 funds and authorize the signature of the Letter of Commitment by the Interim City Manager. Staff would then be authorized to participate in development of a Neighborhood Stabilization Program Consortium Agreement to bring back for Council approval should the application be successful. 2. Federal Way applying directly to HUD for NSP 2 funds. 3. Not apply for NSP 2 funds or support a regional application at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept option 1. CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: /JLdh (/of!J:uj Committee tw.\"" ~~~CTORAPPROVAL: Council &ef Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDA nON: I move approval of option ~ . ~-~.,/~ Michael P rk, ~ PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move approval of option _ . " (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 - 02/06/2006 COUNCIL BILL # 1 ST reading EnaCtment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # ~ Federal Way CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com June 17, 2009 /)~~f:, Ms. Karen 1. Larkin, Assistant Director Department of Commerce Local Government Division 906 Commerce Street SW Olympia, W A 98504-2525 Subject: Letter of Commitment regarding the State of Washington's Application for ARRA Funds for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP2) Dear Assistant Director Larkin: The City of Federal Way is pleased to make this commitment to participate in the State of Washington's application to the U.S. of Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the next round of funds for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP 2) from the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Since the State of Washington's application for NSP2-funds includes several targeted areas in five counties, the formation of a consortium will become necessary. This consortium will be referred to as the NSP Consortium. If the State of Washington's grant request gets awarded, then the NSP Consortium will administer, evaluate, and monitor funds for these multiple jurisdictions. The proposed NSP Consortium will work to stabilize some key neighborhoods that, in turn, will help us mitigate the damage caused by the economic effects of foreclosed properties. This letter expresses the City of Federal Way's intent and commitment to participate in the formation of the proposed consortium in the event that the State of Washington' s application for funding for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program 2 (NSP2) is approved by HUD. Members of the NSP Consortium will eventually enter into "Consortium Funding Agreements" regarding the assessment, disbursement, evaluation, monitoring, and reporting of funds associated with the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. These "Consortium Funding Agreements" will be executed by the consortia members no later than December 1, 2009. The involved parties will need to follow any and all adopted laws, regulations, policies, and procedures of their respective agencies. Ms. Karen J. Larkin, Assistant Director June 17, 2009 Page 2 of 3 DRAFT In the mean time, the following outlines the relationship of the involved parties as they begin work to form a NSP Consortium and wait to learn if the State of Washington's application is approved by HUD. · The State of Washington's Department of Commerce will be the lead agency for the proposed NSP Consortium. It will act in a representative capacity for all the members of the NSP Consortium. The Department of Commerce will assume the overall responsibility for ensuring that the NSP Consortium's Neighborhood Stabilization Program is carried out in compliance with all NSP2 requirements. · The proposed NSP Consortium members agree to participate in the successful implementation and completion of the State of Washington's Neighborhood Stabilization Program. This integrated program will include, but will not necessarily be limited to, the following program components: (a) Collection and integration of financial data into local geographic information systems to analyze and evaluate abandoned and foreclosed properties, and monitor their abatement and/or recovery. (b) Determination of an appropriate response for the recovery of abandoned and foreclosed properties and the implementation of recovery activities which are eligible for NSP2 funding requirements. ( c) Provision of land use planning and development regulations necessary to assure the continued and long-term affect of the recovery strategy started by the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. (d) Formation of a local "Foreclosure Recovery Task Force," consisting oflocal officials and representatives from the lending community and non-profit agencies to analyze data regarding their local housing market and monitor the implementation of recovery strategies. · As the lead agency, the State of Washington's Department of Commerce will submit the application for NSP2 funding. If selected for funding, then it will execute the NSP2 agreement with HUD and assume responsibility for the grant on behalf of the consortium in compliance with all program requirements. · The City of Federal Way agrees to cooperatively participate in the formation of a NSP2 Consortium. If the NSP2 grant application is funded, then it will work diligently with the Department of Commerce to execute a consortium funding agreement by December 1,2009. · Upon the execution of the above consortium funding agreement, the City of Federal Way will assume the responsibility for ensuring that the Consortium's NSP2 program is implemented within its jurisdiction in accordance to the NSP2 requirements. Ms. Karen J. Larkin, Assistant Director June 17,2009 Page 3 of 3 . Both the Department of Commerce and the City of Federal Way reserve their rights to exercise their discretion as to all matters which they are by law entitled or required. In addition, any agreements, amendments, or approvals are subject to approval by the party's governing authority and will be subject to and considered in accordance with all legal requirements. The Department of Commerce and the City of Federal Way will designate a contact person for all communications and notices. These individuals are as follows: F or the Department of Commerce: Bill Mandeville, NSP Manager Local Government Division 906 Columbia Street SW, PO Box 48350 Olympia, W A 98504-8350 Email: billm@cted.wa.gov Phone: (360) 725-3051 For the City of Federal Way: Lynnette Hynden, Human Services Manager Community Development Services PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 Emai1:1ynnette.hynden@cityoffederalway.com Phone: (253) 835-2650 On behalf of the City of Federal Way, and using the authority given to me, we are committed to forming the proposed NSP Consortium and the successfully implementation of the goals, objectives, and program requirements of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, should the State of Washington's grant application receive approved. Sincerely, DRAFT Brian 1. Wilson Interim City Manager c: Greg Fewins, Director ofCormnunityDevelopment Services Lynnette Hynden, Human Services Manager Kelli O'Donnell, Human Services & CDBG Coordinator ~ c::c a:: CJ o c::: ~ z o - l- e:( N - ...J - co <( t- V) C o o J: c::: o CC :I: C) - W Z N I V) ~ Z (/) ~ u ro ~ l- (/) ::1 (/) C ill o ill ..Q 0) W N I a.. (fJ z (/) c o ~ C> C $ . :; t '" ~ e ::l ~ " ,. ~ c: ~ " :; I I i J ~!~) I 1~ .51~i ~ /.'".. I~"~':J:' ,lL '" ;"'r__.-Ji;.t:r j"',..,J-6-- :.e ).j:P0~"13$h~ t;.';:'-~~:rt~~~ IV ' '/~~~J '<;-""7,'~'~ il~ ~~k' 1,_ '"S,-",,{q ~:=. -~?...~ ..:::~? ...._ll l" . 2<-, I '>.'. '\ -~r I .~... ~~/ ,\,!r'-. '{" e K" ~ r;;:~' '" /', \ "lit /.1?f")~G":: ,/ .\~ :; ;..;;,-'!-_I _.'~......~", , L-c?./ ^'''t' ~', ' '? V' r :'i , \ g ~ / l ~ J I / -,-,"" f~ v-....... ~ t .,: . - (/) ro S \ ; "'" / /' ~ J ~~!- I ~__ __..r { // . .....--.--.".- g ~ \ ,~ \ ~ ;2- i ~ l [J ~I~ u .."" g ~'w d\. a.~ . , I, "-r,--' \ ~ :' ~ -!~..." (,'..t,.,r-'\.-- ___ '>-_r> --'- - ~~ C) o III a: - U Itl ... I- III ::l III C QJ o c nl E o '":lC - OJ ii E ~ c. '":l0 ~- ~ OJ ....> - OJ "-0 ~u n " 0 ~ " - 0 Q u v.... ~ ~ I 1> :; '/J -'2 J 1> :> ~ " J; ~ ;; -:> '3> ~ 1> " :J ~ ! ~ " Ii if) ~ o a.. if) ..,. Cl ::> I Ii :.J :i :J (1) . n1 Washington's NSP-2 Eligibile Census Tracts: King Co Source: HUD NSP Data Sets. http://www.huduser.org/datasets/nsp_foreclosure_data.html 30?OfR, w~ ~S~~S; ~_ ~ ~~ l~ I\lSP:;2 ~ 30d.Oa./~-S.O:' ~. S~ \~~ S~ tZ..p~~ ~ ScDJL ~ ~(.01.Q ~ VP" -. -..-J ~ [So t="e..&..u-t:L\ 303. II COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 16,2009 ITEM #: L.> . t:l., . ..---.....----.--.-....---.-...----.....---.....--..-..........------.-.---.....--.---------.------.-..--.---..-.-...........---..--------...-.--...--.-----...--.-..-.-...--.---..---.-.-..-.----...---..--------.----.-.......-- 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 andjob 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: o Consent 0 Ordinance 0 Public Hearing [8J City Council Business 0 Resolution 0 Other f'1:~!':!':_~_PO~~Y:__~~nior P1anneI:!~~rg,!!"et H. ~~~h~~~_____~~~T~_Communi!Y De,,-:~pm~n~~~~~~ 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 o~ler 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, Redmond, 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 for ratification in the Fall or Winter of2009. Attachments: None. Options Considered: N/A. Information only. .-....--.-----.-.-..--..-..----..-.--..----.-.----..........-.--.-...----.-.--..-..--.--.-.--__..____...___._.._.._____._____........_..__m_.._____.m_..___._..._._......____..____......_._._m_._._.___.__.___._____.__._._..._. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: N/A.lnformation only. CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: ~1 ^' w\I"vl 19/1~~DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: Committee Council 6ftt; Committee ~ Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/A. Information only. Ul::1LL- Dini Duclos, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTlON(S): N/A. Information only. (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: o APPROVED o DENIED o TABLEDffiEFERREDINO ACTION o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED - 02/06/2006 COUNCIL BILL # I ST reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # 1:\Margaret Correspondence\060109 Agenda Bill.doc COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 16,2009 ITEM#:~ ..........................................................-........... CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: PROPOSED KNUTSEN F AMIL Y THEATRE MANAGEMENT AND OPERA nONS AGREEMENT POLICY QUESTION: SHOULD THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE PROPOSED KNUTSEN FAMILY THEATRE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS AGREEMENT WITH CENTERSTAGE? COMMITTEE: N/A MEETING DATE: CATEGORY: D Consent k2:J City Council Business D Ordinance D Resolution D D Public Hearing Other STAFF REpORT By: CARY ACM/COO DEPT: CITY MANAGER On April 7, 2009 the City Council awarded the contract to Centerstage for managing and operating the Knutsen Family Theatre; directed Staff to negotiate an agreement; and return to Council for approval. Staff met with Centerstage and negotiated the proposed attached agreement. For the most part, this contract contains the City's standard contract language. However, there are some parts that were specifically negotiated. Those provisions include the following: the beginning date is July 1, 2009; the City's recreation events already scheduled in 2009 will continue on the specific dates identified in Exhibit "A"; the City's historical recreation and cultural programs will continue into future years subject to written confirmation of availability from Centerstage; Centerstage will provide janitorial services for the Theatre and will pay prevailing wage as required by State law unless a volunteer does the work; Centerstage will house their offices in Dumas Bay in the caretaker's apartment or some other equivalent space and will store props and costumes in the identified area on the second floor; the City will pay $70,000 for managing and operating the Theater commencing July 1st and the fee will increase 8% July 1,2010; Centerstage will repay $29,095.13 for back rent over a three-year period, which will be deducted from the management fee ($404 per month for the first year; $1,000 per month for the second year, and $1,021 per month if the agreement is extended for a 3rd year); in the event the agreement is terminated by either party or not extended a third year the outstanding sum of back rent is due within 60 days; Centerstage will pay 1/3 of the utilities commencing September 1, 2009 - the estimated historical split; and the City will pay the hourly rate for theatre technicians set by Centerstage. Attachments: Proposed Knutsen Family Theatre Management and Operations Agreement with Centerstage. Options Considered: 1. Approve the Agreement as proposed. 2. ModifY the Agreement as directed. 3. Reject the Agreement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: N/A -Al.J\I~~DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: Council N/A fU#'( Council Committee Committee COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/A Committee Chair Committee Member Committee Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "1 move approval of Proposed Knutsen Family Theatre Management and Operations Agreement with Centerstage. " (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 # I ST reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # ~ Federal Way CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South' PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 w\<Vw.cityoffederatway com THEATRE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS AGREEMENT This Theatre Management and Operations Agreement ("Agreement") is made between the City of Federal Way, a Washington municipal corporation ("City"), and Centerstage, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization ("Manager"). The City and Manager (together "Parties") are located and do business at the below addresses which shall be valid for any notice required under this Agreement: CENTERST AGE: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY: Centerstage P.O. Box 3141 Federal Way, W A 98063 253. 661.1444 (telephone) aabrvce@hotmail.com Parks Director 33325 8th Avenue South. P.O. Box 9718 Federal Way, W A 98063 -9718 (253) 835-2412 (telephone) (253) 835-6929 (facsimile) RECITALS A. On February 11,2009, the City issued a Request for Proposals ("RFP") for Knutsen Family Theatre ("Theatre") Management. B. Centerstage submitted a response to the RFP, and stated that it would the use the Theatre for five (5) of its own productions. C. On April 7, 2009, the Federal Way City Council awarded the contract for managing the Theatre to Centerstage. D. Under the terms of the RFP the City will remit a flat management fee, and will not receive any income from the productions at the Theatre, including Centerstage's productions. E. The Parties recognize that the use of Dumas Bay Center will likely affect the use ofthe Theatre. To the extent possible, the City will use its best efforts to avoid a use at Dumas Bay Center that is incompatible with Manager's management of the Theatre. F. This Management and Operations Agreement is not intended to have any bearing upon the Manager's artistic endeavors and neither prohibits Centerstage Theatre Arts Conservatory Inc. from applying for other grants or contracts for artistic services nor prohibits the award of said grants or other contracts for artistic services from the appropriate body within the City of Federal Way. The Parties agree as follows: 1. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall commence upon the effective date of this Agreement, which shall be the date of mutual execution, and shall continue until the completion of the Services, but in any event no later than June 30, 2012 ("Term"). This Agreement may be extended for additional periods of time upon the mutual written agreement of the City and the Manager. The Parties agree to commence discussions for an extension no later than 120 days before the expiration of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES. The Manager shall perform the services more specifically described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated by this reference ("Services"), in a professional manner consistent with the accepted professional practices for other similar management services within the Puget Sound region in effect at the time those services are performed, performed to the City's satisfaction, within the time period prescribed by the City and pursuant to the direction of the Parks Director or designee. The City and the Manager will meet on a quarterly basis, or more often if necessary, to discuss management and operation of the facility. The Manager warrants that it THEATRE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT - 1 - K:/ Agreements\Parks\2009\ Theatre Management 6/8//09 ~ Federal Way CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South' PO Box 9718 Federal W~, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 WI1fWdtyoffederafway com has the requisite training, skill, and experience necessary to provide the Services and is appropriately accredited and licensed by all applicable agencies and governmental entities, including but not limited to obtaining a City of Federal Way business registration. Services shall begin July 1, 2009. Services shall be subject, at all times, to inspection by and approval of the City, but the making (or failure or delay in making) such inspection or approval shall not relieve Manager of responsibility for performance of the Services in accordance with this Agreement, notwithstanding the City's knowledge of defective or non-complying performance, its substantiality or the ease of its discovery. 3. TERMINATION. Either party following a meeting of their respective governing bodies may terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, upon providing the other party one hundred twenty (120) days written notice at its address set forth above. The Parks Director designee may terminate this Agreement immediately if the Manager fails to maintain required insurance policies, or materially violates Section 10 as determined after an investigation; and such may result in ineligibility for further City agreements, which action will subsequently be ratified by the City Council. In the event that any lapse in insurance is not the fault of the Manager, such as a failure of, or an error committed by the Insurance carrier, the failure will not be deemed a material breach of the contract provided the Manager rectifies the changed circumstances within 5 business days. 4. COMPENSATION. 4.1 Amount. In return for the Services, the City shall pay the Manager an amount not to exceed a maximum amount and according to a rate or method as delineated in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. The Manager agrees that any hourly or flat rate charged by it for its technical services contracted for the City's use herein and its rental rate shall be the same as other users and remain locked at the negotiated rate(s) for a period of one (1) year from the effective date of this Agreement. Except as otherwise provided in Exhibit "B", the Manager shall be solely responsible for the payment of any taxes imposed by any lawful jurisdiction as a result of the performance and payment of this Agreement. 4.2 Method of Payment. On a monthly basis, the Manager shall submit a voucher or invoice before the 5th day of the following month in the form specified by the City, including a description of what Services have been performed. The Manager shall also submit a final bill upon completion of all Services. Payment shall be made on a monthly basis by the City only after the Services have been performed and within thirty (30) days after receipt and approval by the appropriate City representative of the voucher or invoice. If the Services do not meet the requirements of this Agreement, the Manager will correct or modify the work to comply with the Agreement. The City may withhold payment for such work until the work meets the requirements of the Agreement. 4.3 Non-Appropriation of Funds. If sufficient funds are not appropriated or allocated for payment under this Agreement for any future fiscal period, the City will not be obligated to make payments for Services or amounts incurred after the end of the current fiscal period, and this Agreement will terminate upon the completion of all remaining Services for which funds are allocated. . No penalty or expense shall accrue to the City in the event this provision applies. Provided however, thirty (30) day notice will be given by the City before such termination takes effect. 5. INDEMNIFICATION. 5.1 Manager Indemnification. The Manager agrees to release, indemnify, defend, and hold the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, representatives, insurers, attorneys, and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, demands, actions, suits, causes of action, arbitrations, mediations, proceedings, judgments, awards, injuries, damages, liabilities, taxes, losses, fines, fees, penalties expenses, attorney's fees, costs, and/or litigation expenses to or by any and all persons or entities, including, without limitation, their respective agents, licensees, or representatives; arising from, resulting from, or in connection with this Agreement or the acts, errors or omissions of the Manager in performance of this Agreement, except for that portion of the claims caused by the City's negligence. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by THEATRE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT - 2 - K:/ Agreements\Parks\2009\ Theatre Management 6/8//09 A Federal Way CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South' PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 wl"wcityoffederatvlI8V com or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Manager and the City, the Manager's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Manager's negligence. Manager shall ensure that each sub-Manager shall agree to defend and indemnify the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, representatives, insurers, attorneys, and volunteers to the extent and on the same terms and conditions as the Manager pursuant to this paragraph. The City's inspection or acceptance of any of Manager's work when completed shall not be grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification. 5.2 Industrial Insurance Act Waiver. It is specifically and expressly understood that the Manager waives any immunity that may be granted to it under the Washington State industrial insurance act, Title 51 RCW, solely for the purposes of this indemnification. Manager's indemnification shall not be limited in any way by any limitation on the amount of damages, compensation or benefits payable to or by any third party under workers' compensation acts, disability benefit acts or any other benefits acts or programs. The Parties acknowledge that they have mutually negotiated this waiver. 5.3 City Indemnification. The City agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the Manager, its officers, directors, shareholders, partners, employees, agents, representatives, insurers, attorneys, and volunteers and sub-contractors harmless from any and all claims, demands, actions, suits, causes of action, arbitrations, mediations, proceedings, judgments, awards, injuries, damages, liabilities, losses, fines, fees, penalties expenses, attorney's fees, costs, and/or litigation expenses to or by any and all persons or entities, including without limitation, their respective agents, licensees, or representatives, arising from, resulting from or connected with this Agreement to the extent solely caused by the negligent acts, errors, or omissions of the City. 5.4 Survival. The provisions of this Section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement with respect to any event occurring prior to such expiration or termination. 6. INSURANCE. The Manager agrees to carry insurance for liability which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the services or work by the Manager, their agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors, as provided in Exhibit "C" , attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, for the duration of the Agreement and thereafter with respect to any event occurring prior to such expiration or termination. The provisions of this Section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 7. BOOKS AND RECORDS. The Manager agrees to maintain books, records, and documents at the Theatre which sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect costs related to the performance of the Work and maintain such accounting procedures and practices as may be deemed necessary by the City to assure proper accounting of all funds paid pursuant to this Agreement. These records shall be subject, at all reasonable times, upon forty-eight (48) hours notice to inspection, review or audit by the City, its authorized representative, the State Auditor, or other governmental officials authorized by law to monitor this Agreement. The City intends to review these records at least quarterly and report to the City Council. 8. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The Parties intend that the Manager shall be an independent contractor and that the Manager has the ability to control and direct the performance and details of its work, the City being interested only in the results obtained under this Agreement. The City shall be neither liable nor obligated to pay Manager sick leave, vacation payor any other benefit of employment, nor to pay any social security or other tax which may arise as an incident of employment. Manager shall take all necessary precautions and shall be responsible for the safety of its employees, agents, and subcontractors in the performance of the contract work and shall utilize all protection necessary for that purpose. All work shall be done at Manager's own risk, and Manager shall be responsible for any loss of or damage to materials, tools, or other articles used or held for use in connection with the work. The Manager shall pay all income and other taxes due except as specifically provided in Section 4. Industrial or any other insurance that is purchased for the benefit of the City, regardless of whether such may provide a secondary or incidental benefit to the Manager, shall not be deemed to convert this Agreement to an employment contract. THEATRE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT - 3 - K:/ Agreements\Parks\2009\ Theatre Management 6/8//09 ,~ Federal Way CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South. PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 wwwdtyoffederafwaycom 9. CONFLICTS. 9.1 Service. It is recognized that Manager mayor will be performing professional services during the Term for other parties; however, such performance of other services shall not conflict with or interfere with Manager's ability to perform the Services under this Agreement. Manager agrees to resolve any such conflicts of interest in favor of the City. 9.2 Financial Interest. Manager confirms that Manager does not have a business interest or a close family relationship with any City officer or employee who was, is, or will be involved in the Manager's selection, negotiation, drafting, signing, administration, or evaluating the Manager's performance. 10. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER. In all services, programs, activities, hiring, and employment made possible by or resulting from this Agreement or any subcontract, there shall be no discrimination by Manager or its subcontractors of any level, or any of those entities' employees, agents, subcontractors, or representatives against any person because of sex, age (except minimum age and retirement provisions), race, color, religion, creed, national origin, marital status, or the presence of any disability, including sensory, mental or physical handicaps, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification in relationship to hiring and employment. This requirement shall apply, but not be limited to the following: employment, advertising, layoff or termination, rates of payor other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship. Manager shall comply with and shall not violate any of the terms of Chapter 49.60 RCW, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans With Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,49 CFR Part 21,21.5 and 26, or any other applicable federal, state, or local law or regulation regarding non-discrimination. 11. GENERAL PROVISIONS. 11.1 Interpretation and Modification. This Agreement, together with any attached Exhibits, contains all of the agreements of the Parties with respect to any matter covered or mentioned in this Agreement and no prior statements or agreements, whether oral or written, shall be effective for any purpose. Should any language in any Exhibits to this Agreement conflict with any language in this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail. The respective captions of the Sections of this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall not be deemed to modify or otherwise affect any of the provisions of this Agreement. Any provision of this Agreement that is declared invalid, inoperative, null and void, or illegal shall in no way affect or invalidate any other provision hereof and such other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. Any act done by either Party prior to the effective date of the Agreement that is consistent with the authority of the Agreement and compliant with the terms of the Agreement, is hereby ratified as having been performed under the Agreement. No provision of this Agreement, including this provision, may be amended, waived, or modified except by written agreement signed by duly authorized representatives of the Parties. 11.2 Assignment and Beneficiaries. Neither the Manager nor the City shall have the right to transfer or assign, in whole or in part, any or all of its obligations and rights hereunder without the prior written consent of the other Party. If the non-assigning party gives its consent to any assignment, the terms of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect and no further assignment shall be made without additional written consent. Subject to the foregoing, the rights and obligations of the Parties shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon their respective successors in interest, heirs and assigns. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the Parties hereto. No other person or entity shall have any right of action or interest in this Agreement based on any provision set forth herein. THEATRE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT - 4 - K:I Agreements\Parks\2009\ Theatre Management 6/81109 ..~ Federal Way CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South. PO Box 9718 Federal Way. WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 wMlwalyoffederaAvay com 11.3 Compliance with Laws. The Manager and the City shall comply with and perform the Services in accordance with all applicable federal, state, local, and city laws including, without limitation, liquor licenses as applicable, all City codes, ordinances, resolutions, regulations, rules, standards and policies, as now existing or hereafter amended, adopted, or made effective. If a violation of the City's Ethics Resolution No. 91-54, as amended, occurs as a result of the formation or performance of this Agreement, this Agreement may be rendered null and void, at the City's option. 11.4 Enforcement. Time is of the essence of this Agreement and each and all of its provisions in which performance is a factor. Adherence to completion dates set forth in the description of the Services is essential to the Manager's performance of this Agreement. Any notices required to be given by the Parties shall be delivered at the addresses set forth at the beginning of this Agreement. Any notices may be delivered personally to the addressee of the notice or may be deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, to the address set forth above. Any notice so posted in the United States mail shall be deemed received three (3) days after the date of mailing. Any remedies provided for under the terms of this Agreement are not intended to be exclusive, but shall be cumulative with all other remedies available to the City at law, in equity or by statute. The failure of the City to insist upon strict performance of any of the covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement, or to exercise any option conferred by this Agreement in one or more instances shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of those covenants, agreements or options, and the same shall be and remain in full force and effect. Failure or delay of the City to declare any breach or default immediately upon occurrence shall not waive such breach or default. Failure of the City to declare one breach or default does not act as a waiver of the City's right to declare another breach or default. This Agreement shall be made in, governed by, and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. If the Parties are unable to settle any dispute, difference or claim arising from this Agreement, the exclusive means of resolving that dispute, difference, or claim, shall be by filing suit under the venue, rules and jurisdiction of the King County Superior Court, King County, Washington, unless the parties agree in writing to an alternative process. Ifthe King County Superior Court does not have jurisdiction over such a suit, then suit may be filed in any other appropriate court in King County, Washington. Each party consents to the personal jurisdiction of the state and federal courts in King County, Washington and waives any objection that such courts are an inconvenient forum. If either Party brings any claim or lawsuit arising from this Agreement, each Party shall pay all its legal costs and attorney's fees and expenses incurred in defending or bringing such claim or lawsuit, including all appeals, in addition to any other recovery or award provided by law; provided, however, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the Parties' rights to indemnification under Section 5 of this Agreement. 11.5 Execution. Each individual executing this Agreement on behalf of the City and Manager represents and warrants that such individual is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and with the same effect as if all Parties hereto had signed the same document. All such counterparts shall be construed together and shall constitute one instrument, but in making proof hereof it shall only be necessary to produce one such counterpart. The signature and acknowledgment pages from such counterparts may be assembled together to form a single instrument comprised of all pages of this Agreement and a complete set of all signature and acknowledgment pages. The date upon which the last of all of the Parties have executed a counterpart of this Agreement shall be the "date of mutual execution" hereof. [Signature page follows] THEATRE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT - 5 - K:/ Agreements\Parks\2009\ Theatre Management 6/8//09 ...~ Federal Way CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South' PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 w\>"w cityoffederalway com IN WIlNESS, the Parties execute this Agreement below, effective the last date written below. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY ATTEST: By: Cary M. Roe, P. E. City Clerk, Carol McNeilly, CMC Assistant City Manager/Chief Operating Officer Emergency Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: DATE: City Attorney, Patricia A Richardson Centerstage, a State of Washington non profit corporation By: Printed Name: Title: DATE: STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) On this day personally appeared before me , to me known to be the of Centerstage that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed, if any, is the corporate seal of said corporation. GIVEN my hand and official seal this day of ,200_. Notary's signature Notary's printed name Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. My commission expires THEATRE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT - 6- K:/ Agreements\Parks\2009\ Theatre Management 6/8//09 A Federal Way CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South' PO Box 9718 Federal Way. WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.dtyoffedera!lvdycom EXHIBIT" A" SERVICES I. THEATRE MANAGEMENT A. Theatre Management The Parties recognize that the use of Dumas Bay Center will likely affect the use of the Theatre. To the extent possible, the City will use its best efforts to avoid a use at Dumas Bay Center that is incompatible with Manager's management of the Theatre. Manager shall manage the day-to-day operations of the Knutzen Family Theatre ("Theatre") for the City, including booking of performances and rental of the facility, and selection and management of the contracted concessionaires. Manager shall provide all of the staff support necessary to meet the needs of City in conducting City's activities at theTheatre. Manager will be responsible for implementing and carrying out all personnel support functions necessary to ensure successful accomplishment of its tasks and activities. The Manager shall communicate and work with the Parks Director's designee on such tasks and activities, which will include, but are not limited to the following: (1) Coordination of use with Dumas Bay Centre including, but not limited to: . Shared use of common areas such as hallways and bathrooms. . Shared use and management of parking area . Coordination of events and rentals with other uses on the premises. . Consideration of the quiet hours established for the comfort of overnight guests from the hours of 11 :00 p.m. - 8:00 a.m. (2) Coordination of City recreation and civic programs; (3) Provision of monthly schedule use to Dumas Bay Centre two (2) weeks in advance of the upcoming month. The Manager shall be resTJonsible for the following: (1) Scheduling rental use of the theatre including local non-profit arts organizations; (2) Scheduling artists, performances, educational endeavors, and presentations; (3) Marketing and promotions of the Theatre. City will provide a link to the City's website for the purpose of advertising events at the Theatre and contact information for use of the THEATRE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT - 7 - K:/ Agreements\Parks\2009\ Theatre Management 6/8//09 A Federal Way CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South. PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 wl1lW.dtyoffederalvlldY com Theatre. It is understood that the link will not otherwise provide advertisement for the Manager; (4) Establishing rental rates and guidelines for the use of the Premises; (5) Providing box office and customer services; (6) Providing technical theatre support, including proper maintenance of theatre equipment; (7) Hiring of or contracting for all necessary personnel; (8) Financial management for the facility operations; (9) Janitorial, housekeeping, general repairs and maintenance, (excluding the City's responsibilities as set forth in Section C(l) below) shared utilities; replacement of consumable items such as light bulbs, lamps, batteries, paint, gaffe tape and other items used in the normal operation of the theatre spaces and cleaning ofthe men's and women's bathrooms nearest to the lobby on the first floor. (10) Facility management. The City's following theater events scheduled in 2009 shall continue: . Summer Youth Theater; July 6 -31; Mon.-Fri. 8:30 - 5:00 . Summer Youth Performance; July 31 - Aug 1;,7,8,14 & 15 5,30 -9:30 pm and Sun Aug. 2,9 & 16 12:00 - 4:00 pm. . Summer Youth Theater; Aug 3 -7; Mon - Fri 12:30 - 5:00 pm . Dance recital rehearsal; Nov. 10,11, 12 & 13 3; 5:00 - 9:00 pm . Dance recital; Nov. 17 &18; 4:00 - 9:30 p.m. The City's recreation and cultural services vrograms have historicallv been scheduled as follows, which is the best estimate at this time, but will be subiect to written confirmation from the Manager annuallv bv September Ft: . Arts Commission annual events; two nights - one in the 15t quarter and one in the 3rd quarter (Friday or Saturday) 5:00 - 10:00 pm; dates to be determined . Arts Commission Writer's Retreat; Apr 23,2010 5:00 - 1O:00pm; Apri.24 8:00 -5:00 pm . Friendship Theater rehearsals; June 14, 2010 1 :00 - 10:00 pm.; June 15, 16, 17, 20105:00 - 10:00pm;* . Friendship Theatre Performance; June 18,20105:00 - 10:00 pm; June 19,2010 12:00 - 10:00 pm.; and June 20, 2010 1 :00 - 6:00pm . Dance Recital Rehearsal; June 1 - 4,2010; 5:00 - 9:00 pm THEATRE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT - 8 - K:/Agreements\Parks\2009\Theatre Management 6/8//09 A Federal Way CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South. PO Box 9718 Federal Way. WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 WWHI.Cityoffederalway com . Dance Recital pictures (rehearsal hall only) June 7, 20104:30 - 8:00 pm. . Dance Recital; June 8 - 9,2010; 4:00 -98300 pm . Dance Recital Rehearsal; Nov. 9,10, 11 & 12,2010; 5:00 -9:00 pm . Dance Recital; Nov. 16 17, 2010; 4:00 - 9:30 pm. *Friendship Theatre is a 9-month program and some rehearsals will be scheduled on occasion throughout the year (1 0 hours). The City retains the right to request additional dates as needed for recreation, civic and cultural events. The City will not pay rental fees for the use of the Theatre and agrees not to exceed twenty-five (25) additional hours per year for City use. For any additional time above said twenty-five (25) hours, the City will pay the established non-profit rental rate. Thereafter, each year Manager shall confer with Parks Director's designee regarding scheduling and coordination of City recreation and civic events. B. Staffing Manager shall provide a list of staff and their responsibilities to the Parks Director's designee for the purpose of assisting coordination. Manager's employee and/or designee shall be in the building during the use of the Theater. C. Property Maintenance 1. City Responsibilities. The City shall remain responsible for the routine maintenance of the following property: A, The Structure of the Building (i.e. roof, heating, walls, windows) and exterior areas including but not limited to the parking areas, landscaping and other exterior areas. B. The rigging system. C. The fire suppression system. D. The lighting and sound systems. The condition has been assessed by Stagecraft Industries. (See attached Appendix I, which is incorporated herein). The assessment will be used to determine the condition and life expectancy of the systems at the commencement of this Agreement. The City will provide the Manager a copy of the initial assessment. An assessment of the systems will be performed annually by the City and a copy will be provided to the Manager. The Manager will have ten (10) days to submit a written statement detailing any dispute regarding the assessment. The Parties will meet and discuss the dispute. E. Planned capital replacements of equipment and the structure. The Staff has conducted an inventory of Theatre, which is reflected in the attached Appendix II, which is incorporated herein. Additionally, a report as to the values and condition of the upright grand piano and the grand piano has been completed, which is attached as Appendix III, which is incorporated herein. THEATRE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT - 9- K:I Agreements\Parks\2009\Theatre Management 6/81109 ~~ Federal Way CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South' PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 wVlWdtyoffederaJway com F. The City will provide access to the building with five (5) front entrance keys and provide an access code for the theatre spaces. Keys for the building will be maintained by the City, and the Manager is not allowed to duplicate. Any lost or stolen keys must be immediately reported to the City. Manager will be responsible for any cost incurred to re-key the entrance area and key replacement costs provided the need for re-keying is caused by the Manager's actions. Any cost of re-keying for the commencement of this Agreement and for the termination of this Agreement shall be the responsibility of the City. G. Commencing September 1,2009, the City shall be responsible for two-third (2/3) of the utilities, which include water, electric, gas, and sewer. The City provided Manager historical data concerning the utilities. Upon receipt of the billing, City shall fax a copy to the Manager within 24 hours. The Manager must remit complete payment its 1/3/ share of the total cost for utilities to the City within fifteen (15) days after receiving the bill each month to ensure that the City is timely with its payment obligation. 2. Manager Responsibilities. A. The Manager agrees during the term of this Agreement to keep the Premises in a condition and state of repair as good as the same shall be on the date of the Manager's possession of the Premises excluding normal wear and tear. Manager will provide the City with a full photographic record of the facility, dated July 1,2009. B. The Manager shall pay the full cost of all repairs and maintenance to the Premises except for the routine maintenance to the property identified in Section C(l) above. Manager is responsible for all consumable routine items to operate equipment such as light bulbs, lamps, batteries, tie lines, gaff tape and other products used to operate equipment. Manager will also be responsible for any damages or replacement of equipment due to mis-use or accident. C. The Manager shall pay for de-icing in the parking lot when the only event is at the Theatre, but shall not pay when there are also events at Dumas Bay Centre. D. The City shall not be required to make any repairs unless and until written notice of the need for said repairs shall have first been given by the Manager to the City in writing at the City's address specified above. Upon receipt of written notice the City will attempt to make repairs in a reasonable time period to not interfere with the use of the Theatre. E. The Manager shall provide its own cleaning and custodial services, including waste disposal, in accordance with RCW 39.12.020 by paying prevailing wage at its expense. In the event the Manager undertakes remodeling and/or construction projects at the Theater, the Manager shall pay prevailing wages at its own expense for any construction work. F. Manager is not allowed to duplicate keys, Any lost or stolen keys must be immediately reported to the City. Manager will be responsible for any cost incurred to re-key the entrance area and key replacement costs. THEATRE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT - 10 - K:/ Agreements\Parks\2009\ Theatre Management 6/8//09 ~ Federal Way CITY HALL 333258th Avenue South' PO Box 9718 Federal Way. WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 wlwwdlyoffederalwtlY com G. Commencing September 1,2009, the Manager shall be responsible for one-third (1/3) of the utilities for the building, which include water, electric, gas, and sewer. When Manager receives copy of billings from the City, Manager will timely remit its complete 1/3/ portion to the City within fifteen (15) days of each month to ensure that the City is timely with its payment obligation. The City will submit payment to the utilities. In the event there is a late charge for a utility payment due to the Manager, the Manager shall be responsible for the extra charges. H. Theater use policies: a. Manager shall submit all requests for signs, cards, or displays beyond the Theatre lobby and Box Office to the Dumas Bay Centre Coordinator. b. Manager agrees to use sandbags and counterweights to support pieces. No nails, screws or fasteners of any kind shall be attached to any part of the stage, rehearsal space, workroom or any other backstage area. c. Manager may paint the stage floor and back theater with approved latex paint under the following conditions: (1) drop cloths are used and appropriate care is taken so as not to get paint on carpet, drapes, or rigging; (2) metal floor pocket covers are not to be painted; (3) stage surface and/or wall are professionally repainted at Manager's expense. d. Manager will not allow any vehicles or heavy equipment (i.e. forklift) on the stage floor. d. Manager will not allow any vehicles or heavy equipment (i.e. forklift) on the stage floor. e. Manager will ensure that all braces, platforms, etc that come into contact with the stage floor are padded with non-abrasive carpet or other material; and that staples or nails used to affix the pads are sufficiently indented so as not to protrude and damage the floor. Manager is not allowed to remove any fixed item from the stage or theatre complex such molding, fixtures, seating, etc. f. Manager will ensure that all heavy materials (i.e. furniture, platforms, etc) are lifted or rolled to avoid damaging the stage floor. g. Manager will ensure that enamel or spray paint is used only in the workroom. h. Manager may permit open flame provided that the use complies with the City of Federal Way Fire Code; the use is permitted via a flame permit; and the Fire Marshall of South King Fire and Rescue inspected the area. i. All Theatre spaces must be maintained for intended use, rehearsal hall as a rehearsal; meeting and banquet space; workroom as a temporary work space for upcoming productions; theatre space as production and meeting space. THEATRE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT - 11 - K:/ Agreements\Parks\2009\ Theatre Management 6/8//09 A Federal Way CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South' PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 w\9wdtyoffederalway com II. PREMISES The floor plan of the Premises is attached as Appendix IV and incorporated by reference herein. A. The Premises under this Agreement shall include the following: 1. First Floor: . Office space - Current Theatre Coordinator Office . Box office . Theatre lobby/theatre . Workroom . Rehearsal hall . Dressing rooms . Restroom . Office space, which will be the Caretaker's apartment or other space as determined by the City in coordination with the Manager. 2. Second Floor: . Tech booth . Storage space for props and costumes as identified in highlight on the map. 3. Art Gallery There are commitments with artists for the City to maintain the lobby through 2009. The Arts Commission will vote in May whether to maintain the gallery. The City will maintain access and maintain the gallery through 2009 and notify the Manager of the Art Commission's decision for 2010. Manager shall maintain the Premises in good condition and shall not alter or change the premises without the prior written approval of City. Manager is not allowed to remove any city equipment, supplies or materials from the building. B. Smoking/Fires Prohibited. Pursuant to RCW 70.160.030 all smoking in the Theater is prohibited on stage or anywhere in the Premises. Smoking will be permitted outside so long as it is done more than twenty-five feet away from entrances, exits, windows that open, and ventilation intakes as required by RCW 70.160.075. Please use appropriate receptacles. C. Future Alterations or Improvements. 1. All alterations or improvements to the Premises undertaken by the Manager shall be constructed at the Manager's expenses, and the Manager agrees to bear full responsibility for insuring that all construction on the Premises is undertaken and conducted in a safe and professional manner, and that all alterations or improvements shall be of high quality construction. The Manager agrees that it will not allow any liens to attach to the Premises as a result of any construction preformed on the Premises. However, should a laborer's or material man's liens be THEATRE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT - 12 - K:/Agreements\Parks\2009\Theatre Management 6/8//09 ~ Federal Way CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South' PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 wwwCltyoffederafwaycom filed per Chapter 60.04 RCW, the City agrees that this will not be considered a breach of this Agreement. The Manager further agrees to hold the City harmless from any and all claims, including costs, attorney's fees, and expenses, arising in any way from any construction on the Premises undertaken by the Manager. Unless specifically agreed otherwise in writing signed by the City prior to construction or addition of any alterations or improvements to the Premises, all alterations and improvements shall become the property of the City upon termination or expiration of this Agreement. 2. The Manager shall not perform, or cause to be performed any alterations or improvements to the Premises without first providing written notice to the City and obtaining the City's review and approval of said alterations or improvements, including signage on the building, which must comply with the Federal Way City Code, and all applicable laws. All hours of work in performing alterations or improvements shall also be subject to the City's prior approval. 3. At the termination of this Agreement, the Manager shall ensure that the condition of the Premises is equal to or better than the condition existing at the commencement of this Agreement, excluding normal wear and tear as mutually determined by the City and the Manager. D. Fire or Other Casualty. In the event the Premises are damaged and/or destroyed by unavoidable casualty or risks covered by standard insurance to such an extent as to render any portion of the Premises untenantable, the City shall have the option to demolish, rebuild or repair the Premises. The City shall have thirty (30) days after the date of written notification by the Manager of the happening of any such contingency in which to notify the Manager of the City's intention to rebuild or repair the Premises or the parts so damaged. If the City elects to rebuild or repair said Premises, the City shall prosecute the work of such rebuilding or repairing without unreasonable delay. If the City fails to give said notice within said period, the Manager shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by written notice to the City at any time prior to commencement of reconstruction or repair of the Premises. E. Parking. Parking is shared with other building users and is provided in designated areas only with the exception of load-in and load-out with advance coordination with Dumas Bay Centre Coordinator. Parking in non-designated areas (unless coordinated in advance) may result in ticketing and/or towing at the owner's expense. THEATRE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT - 13 - K:/ Agreements\Parks\2009\Theatre Management 6/8//09 ~ Federal Way CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South. PO Box 9718 Federal W~, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 Wl4lw.dtyoffederafway com EXHIBIT "B" COMPENSATION A. Management Fee The City shall pay Manager Compensation in monthly equal installments for Manager's management fee annually. The management fee of Seventy Thousand Dollars ($70,000) will be paid for twelve months beginning on July 1, 2009. For the initial payment, the Manager will submit an invoice no later than July 15 in order to provide sufficient time for the City to remit the initial payment on or before August 1,2009. Effective July 1,2010 the management fee will include an eight percent (8%) increase for the amount of Seventy Five Thousand and Six Hundred ($75,600). Payments will be made in monthly equal installments upon receipt of the requisite invoice. Commencing September 1, 2009, the City will deduct from the monthly installments Eight Hundred Eight and 20/100 Dollars ($808.20) the monthly amount of back rent referenced in Section E below. B. Hourly Technician Fees Manager shall provide technical services for the premises at the published rate, which shall be paid by all renters including the City. C. Rental Income and Other Uses Income from rental of the facility shall be Manager income. The meeting/rental use by Dumas Bay Centre will be the established rate in accordance with rates charged to other non profit organizations. The Parties agree that the rental rate and other fees for the Theatre shall remain competitive with the Dumas Bay Centre's fees rental rates and other fees to avoid undercutting the other party. City recreation programs and/or civic events as outlined in Exhibit A shall not pay any rent, D. Future Rents Future rents for the Facility include: . Aria Dance Company; Oct 13, 16, 17,2009 . Rob Lalicker; Nov 14,2009 . 9th Ave School of Dance; Dec 15, 17-20.2009 The City will notify the above renters that the City is terminating the rental agreement due to this Agreement and that the renter in order to hold the above dates is required to confirm in writing with the Manager prior to July 1,2009. E. Back Rent Manager owes the City the sum of Twenty Nine Thousand Ninety Five and 13/100 Dollars ($29,095.13) in back rent. The Parties agree that this amount may be paid over a thirty-six (36) month THEATRE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT - 14- K:/ Agreements\Parks\2009\ Theatre Management 6/8//09 ~ Federal Way CITY HALL 333258th Avenue South. PO Box 9718 Federal W~, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 .w/wdtyoffederafwaycom period. In exchange for the extra time and in the interest of efficiency the Parties agree that for the first year of Agreement (July 1,2009 to June 30, 2010) the sum of Four Hundred Four Dollars ($404.00) shall be deducted from the monthly management fee referenced in Section A above; for the second year of the Agreement (July 1,2010 to June 30, 2011) the sum of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) shall be deducted from the monthly management fee referenced in Section A above; and ifthe contract is extended for a third year (July 1,2011 to June 30, 2012) the sum of One Thousand Twenty-one Dollars ($1,021.00) shall be deducted from the monthly management fee referenced in Section A above. In the event this Agreement is terminated or the Parties do not extend the Agreement, the outstanding balance shall be due in full within sixty (60) days THEATRE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT - 15 - K:/ Agreements\Parks\2009\ Theatre Management 6/8//09 ~ Federal Way CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South' PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 wwwcityoffedera/\'vaycom EXHIBIT "C" INSURANCE 1. The Manager agrees to carry as a minimum, the following insurance, in such forms and with such carriers who have a rating that is satisfactory to the City: a. Commercial general liability insurance covering liability arising from premises, operations, independent contractors, products-completed operations, stop gap liability, personal injury, bodily injury, death, property damage, products liability, advertising injury, and liability assumed under an insured contract with limits no less than $1,000,000 for each occurrence and $2,000,000 general aggregate. b. Workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance in amounts sufficient pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington; c. Automobile liability insurance covering all owned, non-owned, hired and leased vehicles with a minimum combined single limits in the minimum amounts required to drive under Washington State law for bodily injury, including personal injury or death, and property damage. 2. Manager's maintenance of insurance as required by the agreement shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Manager to the coverage provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City's recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. The Manager's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respect the City. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Manager's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 3. The City shall be named as additional insured on all such insurance policies, with the exception of any professional liability insurance and any workers' compensation coverage(s) if Manager participates in a state-run workers' compensation program. Manager shall provide certificates of insurance, concurrent with the execution of this Agreement, evidencing such coverage and, at City's request, furnish the City with copies of all insurance policies and with evidence of payment of premiums or fees of such policies. All insurance policies shall contain a clause of endorsement providing that they may not be terminated or materially amended during the Term of this Agreement, except after thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City. If Manager's insurance policies are "claims made," Manager shall be required to maintain tail coverage for a minimum period of three (3) years from the date this Agreement is actually terminated or upon project completion and acceptance by the City. 4. The City will provide the Manager evidence of insurance coverage from its carrier Washington Cities Insurance Association within thirty (30) days from execution of this Agreement. THEATRE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT - 16 - K:/ Agreements\Parks\2009\ Theatre Management 6/8//09 APPENDIX I STAGECRAFT ASSESSMENT Theater E ui ment Inspections. Service. Training Knutzen Family Theatre Federal Way, Washington Auditorium Stage Equipment ~nspection and Inventory Repo~ 2009 ~ PO Box 4442 Portland, OR 97208-4442 www.stageserve.com 503.542.1495 Knutzen Family Theatre Attn. Julianne Briggs Re: Auditorium stage equipment Federal VVay, VVA Year: 2009 General Comments The stage rigging system at the facility listed above was visually inspected in April, 2009 by Craig Austin with Stage Services Company, a division of Stagecraft Industries, Inc. The sound and lighting equipment and system equipment was visually reviewed by Chris VVoller. This classic, thrust style stage and proscenium theatre, remodeled around year 2000, is used for theatre performances and community functions. The space in general is in very good condition and gets high marks for maintenance and housekeeping, despite limited time being dedicated for it. Mr. Taylor represented the space technically for the inspection and demonstrated a thorough knowledge of the equipment and how to care for it. His leadership in these areas places this performance space at the high end of the scale for being clean and orderly and he should be commended. Items that Require Immediate Attention None. There were no serious issues discovered that would present an imminent threat to users or performers. Items that require attention: The main actions items are detailed in the notes section of the report. In no particular order they include: changing/filling the oil levels in the winches, removing the home- made rigging attached to the mid-stage floor block, address the rips and tears in certain curtains, and adjusting the clew guide wires. There is a lack of signage to limit the liability exposure of the facility and those too are in the notes section. The Operation and Maintenance manuals were not available and should be readily available for technicians to reference and record maintenance and service items on all of the equipment. PO B~:lf41rl~r~lif~~';H~6I3~442 www.stageserve.com 503.542.1495 ( Careful recordkeeping is an invaluable tool in the ongoing pursuit of a safe work environment, and an important way to protect the owner legally in the event of an accident. A log book serves as a permanent record of the historical data, reported problems, repairs and maintenance, load limits and other equipment details. Proof that the operators have been trained properly to operate the rigging machine is required documentation, as well as equipment service records outlined above. Informational Items Stage curtain samples were removed from named curtains during the inspection and subjected to a flame resistance test. The results are listed below and the tested samples are enclosed in this report. Fabric Sam Ie NFP A 705 flame test result FAlL Act Curtain lining- beige denim Act Curtain- teal velour FAIL Midstage traveler panels Masking Border # 1 Masking Leg #1 VVhite Scrim-Leno FAIL PASS FAIL PASS . NFP A 705 is a recommended practice for a field flame test for textiles and films. This test is not a substitute for NFP A 701 tests which involve 10 samples of the same fabric and specific laboratory conditions and equipment. Fabric that does not pass and is in good condition may be a candidate for professionally laundered and re-flame treated. The simplest way to prolong the flame treated properties of any stage curtain is to vacuum them annually to remove the dust buildup that is often the fuel to sustain a flame. ( \. Knutzen Family Theatre in Federal VVay, VV A 2 Knutzen Family Theatre Feder~ VVay, VVA Select inspection photos 3 motorized winches and 1 hand winch on SL ,,-' ',,- Downstage winches, not shown above Inside a winch drum cavity Knutzen Family Theatre in Federal VV ay, VV A 3 w' Inside winch control cabinet Oil shown dripping from hand winch gearbox, residue below View into fly loft area Knutzen Family Theatre in Federal VV ay, VV A 4 2nd electric clew is scraping the bottom of the 10ft beam. needs correction t VVithout cable management idlers on 10ftblocks, cables can get snagged under other hardware such as these 2 cables under a kee erlin assembly '"of"".",.."."..?,. Same comment as above Knutzen Family Theatre in Federal VVay, VV A 5 Corrosion is evident on this cable termination and connection. The red arrow points to a substandard batten used to support cyc lights. The yellow box is a quick link, no longer recommended for overhead lifting. Knutzen Family Theatre in Federal VV ay, VV A .6 Some of the home made rigging- recommend removing from service The clothesline pulleys are connected with plastic zip ties- a rigging "no-no" Bottom of homemade rigging attached to mid-stage floor block Knutzen Family Theatre in Federal VVay, VV A 7 This border batten sustained a shock 1000- evidenced by the cable clips having slipped. The malleable cable clips are also no longer accepted as proper cable termination. Close up view of the above condition. Needs repair. Improper way to provide strain relief on a SO feeder cable Knutzen Family Theatre in Federal VVay, VVA 8 SR Yz of the Act Curtain lining has been For any questions or concerns about this report or any rigging issues, please contact Craig Austin, ETCP certified rigger-theatre at (503) 542-1495 or craig@stageserve.com (Stage Services Company is a division of Stagecraft Industries, Inc.) <End of Stage Rigging Report> Knutzen Family Theatre in Federal VVay, VV A 9 ( . Select Equipment Photos from Sound and Lighting review Starting on next page. Knutzen Family Theatre in Federal VVay, VV A 10 ~~~~ \ \ '-, 11 -,z ----... " Knutzen Family Theatre in Federal Way, WA Knutzen Family Theatre in Federal Way, W A Knutzen Family Theatre in Federal VVay, VV A 13 c m o o N .t: a. c:( ... ~ .9 0 ~ a. Q) e c: c: :J ~ ~ c: I..r 8 e f g ~ III Q) E tE E 8 :2 ... CIl Q) l!! ~~ UI E u Ul ~ 8 -g .Qi en ~~ "E ~ B ... Q) c: z m .8 i c: :> Q) 8 c:~ u ~ E (fJ -2i" li; E otI 0 ~ ~ti C) c: ~ ~ c: Q) Q) Q).s! .t: u C) c: l! c: Q) m c: .!ll ~ l c: Ul .iij Ul := ~~ ~ i Q) ~ lB i E ~ >- "C Q) :J Ul :2 tl Q) CD 0 Ul Cij :J ts 2' c: ... Ul .!!2 c: u l!! Q) ~ CIl...: Ul ::J ... t: III 56 ~~ c: III ~ .E 8 C) ~ .9 ~ Q) 8 ~ E ~.- c:"S c: Ul l!! E ~ ~ lii Q) ~~ j~ ...: ~ :J 'E i Q) ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ III 8~ z (!) a.. (fJ .5E ~ LL "C ::e c: oS :J 1! 0 III (fJ ::J :E ...: .~ $ ~ E ~ c: al ~ "C Q) ~ III III .! ! " ~ " c: 21 ) ~ ~ " II :J ~ ~ E OJ " " g ~ g' ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ " " :E cu Ol Ol ::J Ol Ol (fJ (fJ Ul Ul LL 0 0 Q. ::t "" E E ~ .J!l ... c Ul i 0 Q) >- ~ C) (fJ ... ~ := Ul Qj Ul Q) (fJ c: u ~ :0= c: Q) lB .1ii VI ]j E ... :J ~ ~ CD ~ li; .9 E ~ "5 ... li; a. :E Q .OJ l! :2 "8 ~ l!! Q) E :J a. ~ ~ .~ > c: 0 ~ ~ 0 c: :E ~ Gl .~ 0 ~ (fJ ~ ... 1:: 0 E ;I "E () >- '6 ...: j Gl 0" Gl l CIl 0. ... Q. u J: ~ m 21 Qj > .Qi r:r c: l!! Gl 0 w & ]I & en 8 >- Qj CIl 0 ~ u ~ ~ III .., .0 25 lD lB -g E 1: CD III a: C ... N .3 ~ "C ]j Q) ... 0:: C .~ I III C .9 C c: ~ 0 CIl Gl :J ~ C a: Gl III ~ ~ :J 1: lD :!2> i 0" ~ Q) ~ a. ~ .2 C 0 >- ~ 10 c8 ~ 0 ~ U 0 e 0 en en ...... 0 en 0 is a.. 0 llCl ~ 0 c:( -~ 0 1: LL Q) Gl E 15 10 N 10 a:: ... > ~ I ~ (!) 8 ....c ~ ...... (fJ en 8 0 ~ m.- N 8 g ~ u 8 :J j::: C') N a: E 0 ~"C d, ~ :::i (S ~ a.. ~ N I-C I . :2 -' ~ ~ z z ~ >,::J ~ N _0 ..,. :E 0:: (fJ en :E w Q. 0 0 0 c-. .- Ul E_ ~ CIl 0 LL~ - ai ~ C ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... N N llCl ...... N ...... N ...... ...... - CIl ~ E :s C :J a ~en ~ o 1: Q) > .5 "C c: ::J o en ~~ ~~ ~~ .E~ CIl Q) LLi aiLL tI :J ~ r. 8 o '" 'E a. < II) Gl lfl - 0 :0 z ~ c '5. co ~ .2 i:: i:: ~ e: e: e: e: e: 0 0 > 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ e: ~ ., ., e: E .. .c .c ~ e: :0 '2 g "2 :0 '2 Gl e: c 0 0 c 8 8 8 8 :c e: ..lO: '2 8 '" N e: 8 e 8 .J:J ~ e: 8 ~ ~ ~ c: c:1: c: 1: .... 1: 1: 1: 1: e: Ol Ol ~ C ~ e: e: i l!! .92 .92.J!1 .J!1 .J!1 .92 .92 .J!1 .J!1 .J!1 ~ 1 ~ 0 c ~ e: e: ~ '15'15 ~ ~ ~ ~ '15 '15 '15 ~ "8 ~ "8 ~ "8 ~"8 'E E ..lO: ..lO: ..lO: ..lO: ..lO: 00 ~ ~ 0 ~ e: c e: e: e: ~~ ~ ~ ~ e: u. u. C) :;j ('I) :::> :::> :::> :;) :::> C) w w C> C) :::> C) C) C) c)c) 0: I&. ::E ~ IV C 0 :g ti '2 ,~ E 0 e l- e: e: e: gj ~ ~ III 0 ~ ~ < III >- ~-E .I::. .I::. U 0. j I_i ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 c e: e: ~ 'I:: CO 0 0 0 III Gl Gl Q) CD E ~ ~ [jj ~ ~ olG en en en a.. en en en [j < > > 0 U 0 > en 1-1- c: CD 0 III ..lO: -tl ~ IV 0 co III II ~ III a.. i: '15 ~ u '15 '15 III C e: e: III Gl e: c c Q 1Il ~ ~ tl :I: .<:- fl .I::. ,~ U 0 0 III Gl ~ fl e: ~ Gl '" ...... '" '0 ~ ~ ~ ~ fl fl 0 "' 8 a. 0. E Sl en :E a. :E ~ ~ i1 i1 ~ ~ ~ E E 0 E ~ ~ 8 8 8 .I::. ~ ..lO: '2 III l!! III 13 ~ -g~ ~ ~ 0 0 < lfl Q) 13 ~ 'E 'E 0 c C 1Il l'!! II) lii > ::J X ~ ....J1Il C rn ~ w .~ III .~ III III 0 ~ ~ Sl Sl g III IS IS fl fl lj lj lj '15 fl ~ lj ~ c c CO a.t:: CD "5 ~ e: oS ~ l'!! l'!! . ~8 5 5 5 IV ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :E ~ ~ 0 en 0 0 u.. en w a.. Cl a.. 0:: l- I- ...... 0 ~ ~ ~ E III W .I::. ~ :0 :I: <8 l! ~ 0 '" '2 S .... ~ g 0 (') '" ~ :i '" 0 NLO E 0 ~ 0 5 l8 :8 ..,. ('I) ..... ..... ~<F c 0:: 0:: ~ ('I) 0(') ..... '0 <0 ...... ('I) ~ 8 w en ~ 0 CO 0 en <0 en to :8 ~ ~ w~ ,0 0 ~ > > 0 > w w w en 0 a.. 0 <0 ~ - c ...... .... ... .... ... '" .... .... .... N ... ... ...('1) ('I) ..,. ..,. ..,. '" ..,..... ""('1) .... N '" '" '" ...", <0 ...... .... .... 1\1 ::I a ~ ~ CD > .E '0 e: ::J o en ~~ Q) - .I::. >- 1-1Il ~== Oe - aI e! u.Gl e:~ GlLl. ~ c ~ N Ol o o "I ~~ III _ J::.>. .... m ~~ 'E ~ m III u.~ eU. ~ e ~ 'C 0. <( :I 1) Z e 0 :;::i '2 e 8 :a "0 i "E "E "E c: 0 ~ ~ m 0 ~ Ii "E .5 ~ III III III ..!!! > > > "8 OJ ~ ~ I~ 'E ~ C 1: 0 1: ~ c m m II ..!!! ~ Cl ..!!! ..!!! ..!!! ~ "8 "8 "8 OJ "8 "8 "8 "8 "8 "8 "8 III ~ "8 "8 ~ B B ~ "8 Q) e 01 01 :x: :x: 0 c 0 "0 "0 "0 III 1::: .0 f2 0 ~ 0 ~ )( ~ (5 (5 (5 Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl w Cl Cl ..... u. Ii u; oS u. e :::E m 0 c: 'iij ~ J::. -'" .~ ld Iii '0 l:l .92 c: ~I~ l[j 0 .... Q) III lij.~ 01 III a.Q) 'g; -"'~ I/) ~ 0 :g :i! l<< Ii: .~ :i! J::. E 6 ClCl ~> > e 1Il...J ~ ::J 15 0 & J::.O III c 'SE mJ::. ::J III m 0 ::JJ::. Q) III ~~ ~lll ~ Q) 1310 0::> a. en <( :::i: :::i: "I en u.a. 1O:::i: <(a. a. en 10. I/) 01 III C lD l<< e E 0 0lJ::. Q) t 8lj j .... :0 ~ ~~ 1: Q) l3 I/) C U .....1/) - .!:! Q) ::J III Cil"g ~ ro .... 0 8 .c:t::: e;;- m It 1~ .! "2s III lri I.~ l!! e .... .... I/) iB sen l!? e .g .... c: -'" 0 .g I/) ~~ Q) w 0 U ~ I/) .... 2 Q) 009 tl. "0 Cl I/) Ii C6~ Q) ~~ "0 2 cu e -'" e en c: en I/)S Q) ~ J!l5 'E -"'21 I.! <( ~ .~ III I~ ('00 lD en~ 1/)-'" ~l!? iii Q) lD "2 Ox ~ "0 en el!! ~ ~ 0 III ::J lii~ Ul I ~ e 0 u .- ~~ dlen ~en en :::i: l3 ..... 5 ::5~ gen ~~ g~ a. .... <( C"l & :s S.- Jol.9 'filii ent:: "0 .- Q) ~ J::. en:::i: lDJ::. ~21 e lju lD =3: J::. J::. U "E ajro oU III .- 'E~ "0-'" =0 <7l .~u U U . o'c Q) C III 0 ~~ mJ::. :Etl. ~ ::J 0 Ol :E ~ 0 ~~ :;:~ .- 0 0.0 ~~ :x:&! ....en :;:"1 en :;:a. "I "I ..... :;: ::::EN en:;: en en E ~N "I "I j 0"1 0 lr~ 8~ Cl ~C') Cl8 0 ~~ 0 :;:0: 1OC"l 0 ~~ 'It ~@ co ~ ~ 0::...:. 'It..... ~ a.X oS 'E ::J o (J) 0) o o N r ~<( -~ m _ .r:>. i.~ oE - CO l!! u. Q) c:"i Q)u. ~ c: ~ ~ ~ 8- 05 I!! ! ~ ~ Q) 0 VI "0 Z ~ 'w J: 0 :J U. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u 0 0 0 ..i .1: 'c: 'I: ~ 01: "C ~ "C "C ~ t) tS ~ oc: 'I: :c j ~ ~ t) ~ t) t) tS L() ~ ~ Q) Q) Q) CD Q) CD Q) a; a; a; a; a; "0 "0 "0 "0 a; a; a; Qj a; Qj c: .~ 'c: "C B B B Ui Ui - Ui ~ "0 -g ~ ~ "E "E IV 0> 0> VI c: 0:: J: :c J: J: J: :c ~ ..- ~ ~ N N N N N (') (') c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: :c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L() u. u. u. u. u. u. ~ c: e Ii ~ u. :E Ui "0 c: c: c: c: IV c: c: l!! l!! l!! 0> l!! l!! c: t: t: t: c: t: t: IV U 0 ~ U 0 0 ~ 0 U 0 E u u u u u li:i (5 w li:i 8 8 0> W 8 li:i 8 ;:f li:i li:i li:i li:i li:i u ~ ::J ~ c 0) 0 0 ~ ~ 2> ~ .. :J U ~ ~ ~ 1( ~ ~ ~ e III c: CD ... 0 0 :J VI :J :J 0:: VI :J :J :J :J ~ 1( a; 1( .l!l 1( w .l!l Qj 1( 1( 1( 1( .9 ... E ... .r: ... .r: E ... ... ... ... c: ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ g IV ~ ..,. ..,. ..,. Q) CD VI Q) .!!J. VI III ~ ll. Q) ~ ~ ~ CD > ~ a; .l!l 0 CD a; ~ .l!l a; Co ~ c: ..,. ~ 5 c: .r: c: N ~ ..,. ::. .~ :J ~ m c: .21 m :J . ::J ::J ::J ::J IV 0 ~ 0 e 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 ~I~ (/) ~ (/) ~ "0 ~ ~ (/) t? (/) (/) (/) (/) IV VI ....:.;:; to . :J ~ to b u. e ~ b to to ~ :J . to m . ~I~ 0 0 fo 0 0 <0 (') ~ (/) (') ~ ell ..... N ..- ..... (/) L() N ..... (') 'E :.... ~ IV 0 ~I~ ... 0 ..,. c L() ~ N CD L() N N N N N 0 N ..,. N (') CD CD E III ..... ..... ..... ..... ~E ::J c: ::J a ~(/) .... c: :;::; .s:: 0> :.J 0> o o N e<c 1ii3: <Il _ ~>. ~~ oE ~ .f<ll ci Cl)u. ~ c ::.c:: ~ .9 c- III E E E S OJ OJ OJ CI) 0 'c 'c oc OJ Z G> G> G> l!! OJ OJ OJ J!} CO S S CO 'li) OJ ~ ..lo: U) U) 0 ~ g ~ :a :a :a c .c CO ~ B U) U) B E E E 00. ~ ~ I!! oE ~ ~ ~ lii == '8 ~i J: 0 > III III 0 G> G> G> 0 05 05 Iii <Il ~ ~ E~ u. OJ OJ OJ ~ ~ ~ ~ OJ ~ ~ _u ~ l!! l!! l!! ... S "C,m .e 0 .9 .9 .e 0 ~ ~ ~1lI (jj U) 'li) U) Ul U) 'li) 0 .5 05 ....N .c Ii r-- .... II.. X :E ..., ll) ::!: 0 0 c c c c 0 "E~ co c ~ c l!! l!! c c (5 co "t: co t t co ro .s CI) E 0 0 ~ E ~ l!!:: G> E ~ 8 "5 ~ w eni E :<( <c u w -' C> ::i C'- C <Il 0 "5 ~ II) 0> C 0 8 .. N U ~ .... ~ e = ';J =II: U C c :) J!} l! ~ ~ ~ x ~ m ~ lii 8 .e CI) &;:: "C C Ul 021 U) Oc "C g ..,. ::::- Jg 8- E U) ~ .l!! :c U) (jj (jj ~ U) E l!? a. g (jj c c (jj E t/) .... i5 a. E L- oc C :) .8 ~ g :) 0 ~ U) c .21 )( en .8 ~ jg 0 U) Ql 0 w 05 ~ - t/) jg OJ ~ co u E .0' 0 e U- . . . ~ "C ~ 0 ~ en . 0 0 ~ ~ ~ !jj "'C :) "- co .... .... 0 "5 :<(a.. ~ 1: CO .... C') .... .... N N N N .... N .... .... .... .... III ::I a N OJ 05 E OJ ::J C1l o o N 'E ~ e:- .9 c: ~ E 0> c: '0, 0> a: c: II) $ Ql J!! :2 Iii '" '" 0> Ql ~ "0 ~ II) '0 c: Ql t3 c: ~ II) B ~ Iii II) Ql "0 > 'E ~ &. Ql II) ~ 'iii 19 II) ili C- "0 "0 ,5 '" ra g Z 8 ~ "0 c: II) E ra f! '0 x .e l ~ .l!l Ql € ra () Ql "0 0> ~ > u.. .E c: c: c: Ql a:: B > Ql m :Si! Q) C (/) :J: .5 ~ ~ ... a:: :8 0 Is .9 II) ra ~ .!!l rn '5 Iii ~ ~ '~ c: c: "0 '5 .5 8 .!!I ~ ra "0 l!! E c: ~ g 0 Ql 19 3l ~ :Si! ~ c: '~ w ra .9 c: 0 c: .9 c: ... S! II) 8 c: 8 <0 N ,... .., ci u.. :::E ~ ~ ~ c: ~ ~ S ~ ~ E ! ~ ~ ~ Ql Ql :J: :J: :J: :J: :J: :J: c: E r=- oll e! oll ('0 oll oll oll oll .c .e .l!l .e ~ w :J: 0 :J: ('0 :J: :J: :J: :J: ra (/) rn rn ra .c "0 c: j C1l m 0 II) 0 E c: ~ ~ .e 'iij '5 ~ '5 ra c: c: Ql Ii :e c: .... E "" ~ 0 .e c: III c m - Oiii 8 0 ~ "0 t3 i Iii 25 ~ .0 c: 0> !l! Ql ra ~ ~ E ra '5 Ql II) Ql .. ~ .r; 8 ra '" "0 ra c: u !l! II) c :0 II) Ql 'g VI c: ~ 'i B Ql 9 19 .r; lU ~ 0 is ili :2 I~ c Q ra li ~ jj, ~ Iii ~ a E g I:~ .... fi c: .e c m 00 ~ ,~ ~ ~ 8 l!! "l3 'E c III III e .0 ~ j - 'i 0. e! c m 'i E m 0 fi fi i3 ~ < ~I~ "0 :e 8 :0 8 c: m j "tl CI) 19 m c: c: g ~ ..Il: ~ ~ ~ til :> CI) N 'i "i l Q) :c ili 5 .c "0 liE 'C: :e "tl S :0 .0 ra c .9 "tl -g ,~ -8 a1 CI) Ql ~ '5 j Cl .~ ra '" E Ul . Ul ~ C 0 ~ c 'ai '3 c ;!; c: Ul c: '" ra m E "tl ]j Ql E oi ]j ..Il: lI::rn .r; .r; .c m :J: "0 .r; U c: c ~ 8 8 ~ E Qj 5l II) j ('0 g ~ en en ~ Ql ~ Cl. Cl. III rn ~ '" m N N 0 0 0> :J: .r; W ,... ,... ; ~ . c: li li "0 .l!l ..... ..... ... 0> ra ~ ~ ~ j c: ..... N N N ... ... ... fi ... ... ... Il) ... ... ... ... '5 III '" ~ ra ~ a w ~<I= "i~ =Ql .eo> Ul.l!l Ern ~~ Q) . .r;>. i.~ oE~ tlQl c;f 11 '" c: lI:: '" o o N :5 o .... f~ <( oJ: I~ ~ Cii ~ ff. t 111 QI t= I~ 'E 111 II. c QI .g ~ is i III .5 C CD I~ ~ D' Ul I~ u tt. ~ C III ~ 1.! l5 CIl g ~ 5 :is c g '5_ c 111 B .l: i g .e :g~cn.~ c CIl o "C III e::: en m ~ (f) ~ € ~ c U II) .l: 0 ! E; ~ ~ Q) .... ~ 0 CIl 2 l!! ~ ~ = ~ ~ "E tl ~ c '" ! s B "0 UJ 0 Q) 8 III ~ : i ggJQ)=~ _"EfiOiii C c ~ i3 : ~ ~ ~ 8 III l!! 9 ~ "':5S"'!; CD E C 1;) ~ "5E!fl,2"C~ ill .... g ~ ~ :fl ~ .!! 1ll ~ :8 ~cul:a..Cf}i .!! ~ ~ c> i s ~ ~ 1: ~ c ~ ~~~~~-~ ~!l!';~l!t ::~~igOC ~ ~ ~ ! u ~ ~ E ~ '2 : ! "5Sl!!II1:5o~ .- ~ III ~ ~ t:: j0cn~l,;o.~ '" ~ ~ U II) C g :; ~ ~ ~ ,g :is 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-g,>IS-8~ e'l5.c'i!ig fi~olilj~ 'i~gu!!l ~ ~ B i ~ _~c~~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ Vi C o I Z c ~ 1 ~ III ~ .5 :sz g 01 :~ ~ e::: ~ '" III l!? III .... C rJ !e C !!l .~ i Q 1: ~ ~ :g is.5 CIl CIl C Q ~ ~ ~ :g ;;.. lii ~ "C :;'E lii Ii .8 ~ ~ III !!l S ~ i lii ~ ~ 8 9 ~ :;;; E '; ~ ~ '0 g :5.!:: .m ~ 1ij i lii j ~ ~~=lD~.IIl~~ i ~ :g ~ g ~ ~ .!! ~~~ ~NIIl'O ! '0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g i~~E'E:~,t 9:: ! l5 B "E ! l!? !!! !C'i!:o!/!lIl1: - 2~~~~~ ~~.l:~~!a := OIl I::! U CIl <;;' !a:5s:lE"Cf;l :!~::S811i : _ ~ j I J C~.s'O!!!g 0~1i{!~~~ 2 8 ~ ~ i ~ ~ q:: ,g l5 1l :s! ~ 1ij ~ ; j~~::oE:5 III .8 '0 1D .;c .5 ~_IIl!i~-2 :; ~ 5 CIl ~ .8 >l ~ VI :3 .5 IIllS-c.5uE III II) {! '0 III ~ .l/l ~ B l!? .!! ~ ~ III .... III l!! if ~ ~ ~ ! ~ iJ '" "C U :; J: ~ E .g o~ g .l: "C :ll "C III ~ C o!\! "" C ~ a I '0 ~ ~ '" g .~ .~ ; ~ 1i E 1 '" 1i g .:.< .~ Q 05 U III ! ~ : g it: 0 QI ~ ~ ;; '$ ~ 'tl -5 0 ,5 ~ ~ ~ !l '" ~ III o~ ~,;~rJ ~;l!~ ~ :: :~ '0 !!! 8 0 ~ ;l l!? Ul III 05 III ~ II) j j 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 11 "C II) lii ~ 8 ~ :ll q:: OIl -; ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ .8 ~ III l!? i ~ co ~ B ,~ III ~'" !!l ;;: ~ ~ ~ 'i 09 Gl ~ g ~ ~ ! QI 9:: C ~ ! :! g <I:: 0 ..!! -g ~ III ~ g g ';:: ~ III I!! II) :5 '0 CIl "C oii) 05 ~ ~ g a '" .... ~ ~ "C QI : ~ l5 ~ c .~ '8 c !; ~ ~ :~ ~ '0 .0 '" CIl -! ~ 3l III III .!! !!l I!! l!? 1! .! ~ ~ ~ 'I:: "C OIl :5 .l!3 ~ ~ ~ - ~ o E co w .g ~ i g .~ ~ ~ II) !: :5 ~ g g III ~ g .s S ~ 1 ! II> C B o .n .l: .9 ~ ~ 8 II> '6 C ~ '" 'i C S 1: ~ .~ ~ ~ II) OIl '" .l: ~ j i ~ i ~ ~ l!? i '0 5/ ~ !l ~ ! ~ ~ g '0 ,g .g '" III 1""1' c: 0: "0 en 5.E0~"'!1li e = ~ 0 c g ~ ,gill ~'OC iil II)EoCllGlB U fill)c08lD :s ~ :5 0 ~ ~:5 lil Gl -g ~ ~ al li Gl .oillcEc ~ !~~iii'l~ .!! g 'E I!! E ~ -rl ~ ~ :is III g ~ 5 3l II) ~ Q :g'.,...6-o9-Zj Qlci!!~.g",~llifi o~~~go~~~ I ~ 8 g 5 il -a B II) g II) Ul '" g .5 ~ fil!l=IIl~~~~~ ~~2.28~~~ ~ ~ j ! I i ~ ~ l! ~ .B 1:! III 'E E! ~o9~ll~~,g~ ~ 'i ~ :sz ! ~ g c i-5",8~'i~.!! ~~QI.!!l5'~~~ 'iil1ll"5!!lf!O e::: 1l2,!iiCII)~l5cn ;:~:~!3-51~ - .~ ! ~ J ~ ~ IS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~S~;g.~:gIllC ~~'-~'E.5:S ~ Gl i j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "C 0 "C rl 1 rJ <1 8! ~ ~ ~ ~ < ~ ~ N ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ re N ~ J! l!? ~ 0 CD c: 0 c: 0 \... C ~ ~ " '0 '" 0 . CO '0 S CO ~ N B ~ ~ .c '6 CO II) c: ... 1: ~ ~ ;g :i ... 9 .l3 ~ B c: ~ oc: '6 ~ i; .5 .... 0 ~ c: " is 8 ~ g 0 l!! 1! " '0 CII g .c CD ~ ~ - E ... z ~ ::J ~ 0 .c II) C l!? 1: ! l!? B CII g 0 CII l!? ,. II) ~ e ~ CII CI> l!? CD II) t= > l\l " II) Ql :ll .c: c: ~ ~ CD 'ji ~ 0 :; ~ 'tl E c: "8 .s :c c: CD ::J 02 :. i E J! 0 B c Q; .c :6 CD 0 g CII ~ E 'E ~ i J!l E 06 ! c: 1: CII 0 CD l2 g '6 0 ... I I;::: 2 .l3 .c 0 i!: '0 c: C Wi '5 i CD 02 ~ E c: 2 B 0 c l!? i ~ 0 'a 'E '0 CD III ... III II) c: oJ. .l!.l II) 8 ,~ '0 c c: ~ :ll .c ~ Z g B ~ g CII CD '0 iV ~ c c i " ::J g I::: " C .c CD c .... iii t') l 0 ! :l 02 II) '0 0 ~ l!! < CD 1ii c II) III l!? -g :6 CII " i!: J!l CII ~ !j II) € :l C ~ III c: 17 III ~ ~ J!l 'E .Q CD w ~ E :g g I! II) tl ~ ~ ... c: is l!! ~ CD II) 02 CD -c ~ e ~ j E ~ u 8 E a: ill :. 0 CD ~ 0/1 " ..J Z ..J :I: II) is ...J U (l) 0 M N t') C'i 10 III N t') t') C'? C'? APPENDIX II STAFF INVENTORY KFT Lighting Equipment Inventory ETC S4 Bases 48 units S4 Barrels (lenses) 190 - 6 260 - 16 360 - 24 500 - 5 Colortran Ellipsoidals (150-350 zoom) 10 units ETC Par Cans 8 units (6 wi wide lens in, 2 wi med lens in) 4 additional lenses (2 med, 1 diffusion, 1 clear) 8" Fresnels (Colortran) 14 units 6" Fresnels (Colortran) 2 units 6" Fresnels (Altman) 3 units 3" Fresnels (Pin Spots) 2 units Strip Lights 8 units Scoops 2 units 112 C-clamps 6 Side-arm clamps 6 Floor-mount bases 4 Lighting Trees 5 mercury-vapor work lights 4 metal scoop work lights 10 Music Stand Lights (Manussen) ETC Express 24/48 DMX Lighting control board American DJ Strobe Light (23-001-0577) KFT Lighting Equipment Inventory ETC S4 Bases 48 units S4 Barrels (lenses) 190 - 6 260 - 16 360 - 24 500 - 5 Colortran Ellipsoidals (150-350 zoom) 10 units ETC Par Cans 8 units (6 wi wide lens in, 2 wi med lens in) 4 additional lenses (2 med, 1 diffusion, 1 clear) 8" Fresnels (Colortran) 14 units 6" Fresnels (Colortran) 2 units 6" Fresnels (Altman) 3 units 3" Fresnels (Pin Spots) 2 units Strip Lights 8 units Scoops 2 units 112 C-clamps 6 Side-arm clamps 6 Floor-mount bases 4 Lighting Trees 5 mercury-vapor work lights 4 metal scoop work lights 10 Music Stand Lights (Manussen) ETC Express 24/48 DMX Lighting control board American DJ Strobe Light (23-001-0577) APPENDIX III PIANO ASSESSMENTS 13ettrPJJ :J-t9JJ $<..rybfJtlrdr 13m:r{y fKJiK., ~ PioJJ Ttduuci<<x PO 13D,x 6223 . 7irImJ:Wfy, '}(IS{ 98063 (253) 946-8860 ~-~Im'6-~1lir 28 April 2009 Julianne Briggs Dumas Bay Centre 3200 SW Dash Point Road Federal Way, W A 98023-2399 Dear Julianne, i Here is the information that you requested regarding the two piarlQS owned by the City of Federal Way. These are estimates since the market prices are always fluid. Yamaha C7 Grand. #B2630283 (1978) Ebony High Polish Bench and. Stage Truck Very good condition, case could use touch-up Replace new, $35,790 (MSRP) Replace used, $17-19,000 Kawai CS-40 Upright. #2201703 (1997) Ebony High Polish Bench and Stage Truck Very good condition, case could use touch-up Replace new, $10,350 (MSRP) Replace used, $5-6,000 Best wishes, ~~Jur Beverly Kim~ RPT" APPENDIX IV MAP OF THEATRE SPACE 1::J 1Il OM o::N o -00 ->- "- .5: CJ) ~2~<( -ai..c~ ~ U ~ >.8 ~ ~O ~ 0 ~CD3:_J: _cI)U)rnM orn '-co z-Eg~~ .- ;:] N Q) 1,() OOMLLN Q) :5 0 0:: Q) a. m u ~ UJ 1::J Ol <( c: ~ :2 :; u:: [IJ + t c: d; i: ..c 0 ':; :E Ol ~ :; ,~ Q. 0.. X i6' E UJ u: "0 m ~ '" <( u:: '" c: :c Q) ~ arl~ - ~ ...J L- Q) +oJ C Q) () c: ~~ roo. ll) c: o en:;; ro co E ~ :::1 co oJj >t ~ CO ~ OJ ..'"0 ~QJ s L.I:. ~ ~ L- a a LL -I-J U) L- i.L E.h (/) Q) () ro 0... (f) Q) ..... .... ro Q) .c I- (/) Q) () ro 0... (f) () .0 :::l (L -- "'0 Q) ..... ro .c (f) . lli~~ " n-rl I~ '~--T~ ~ rl t._E~ !~ ~ &+3 o ! \. ~~: "1 e=;J l~'~.~U!.~~I'.,~ t.'~-'.~ ~, IE'~ f~ ~, ~ l,,-~ ~ ~. L===:/'l=::! r' I:: jJ ~1" @]O '8-"-----1 11 to E+--='i ~ CJ1_~ I::r--' , ... '" ';; w ..... Oa.f>-C "'.0 10.0 Q) 0 "'-:::'0 -...J " ';; w Qj ~~ '" N ''-- ~ ~ ~~ '" l!j, o ~ Ql :J cr- C 1Il CD M - Ql :J cr- C 1Il CD N Ql :J cr- C 1Il lD '-~ , ,-" ~r--- ~:I i . 'I ..~ t,.-1) ;...- 'C =i 3 I_~~_~~~=r= r- P'X3 <II :J r::r C '" lD COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 16,2009 ITEM #:J o. C . CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Adoption ofa 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: o Consent [2] City Council Business o Ordinance o Resolution o o Public Hearing Other ~!:\:!'.!'~~2~!_~X:~_i!I_~~'!ll~PP~!~!!J__~:~_:L~':!~!~~~_~~!~~_M~!l~ Attachments: I. April 6, 2009 LUTC Memo 2. April 21, 2009 Council Agenda Bill (Item # 5.b) 3. Resolution No. EPT: Public Works 4. May 4, 2009 LUTC Memo Options Considered: l.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 I. CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: ~ t)'VJ,\M1 191 Committee . I 'council \} DIRECTOR ApPROVAL. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: ..Forward 5tftff FecommenGatioft..fer Qptiea --l -it> 4fte -:It:tfte ~, z.ae9 City Council Business Agenda. flitl ~~~/I~ de.~'lJ '>i-- ~'a'rl1: dtr-et'-f/L} -Iv C.oLL.rlCi7 ~l JLii1-e-' tu,.2DDCJ, . fr.t1ta','19. it, t'1.ct;Jllt.l-Jer:u7f ~ +0 IHlhttft.-Itu: A,m/LlIv-1L/o{- {~c "-'I,ft, Liike.1 UkL-/YlUW-fje-mciLC Ds . tNC/"~ ..;,,,"0</2, 01 · ~ a~/- Linda K chmar, Chair I, Member Dini Duclos, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION; N / A (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: o APPROVED o DENIED o TABLEDfDEFERREDINO ACfION o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED - 02/06/2006 COUNCIL BILL # I ST reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM FROM: 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 OistrictNumber Two. DATE: TO: VIA: SUBJECT: 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 36.61.050. 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 connnunity 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 36.6l RCVV; and WHEREAS, pursuant to a City resolution, a public heating was conducted on June 2nd, 2009, on the formation ofa lake management district after public notice of the hearing was provided to all affected property consistent with Chapter 36.6l RCVV; and RES # , Page 1 WHEREAS, after considering the testimony received at the public hearing, the City of Federal Way City Council declares that submitting the question of formation of a lake management district to a vote by the affected property owners is within the public's interest~ and the proposed financing for a lake management district is considered feasible; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section I. Findings. the City of Federal Way City Council fmds 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 of yc:ars 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 fonnation 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 ballot, based upon criteria in Chapter 36.61.080 RCW, calling for a vote on the formation of the District. The ballots shall be submitted to the affected residents no later than June 5th, 2009, and shall be returned to the City of Federal Way by no later than five o'clock p.m. (5:00 p.rn) on June 26th, 2009. All ballots must be signed by the owner or reputed owner of property according to the assessor's tax rolls. Each property owner shall mark his or her ballot for or against the creation of the proposed lake management district, with the ballot weighted so that the property owner has one vote for each dollar of estimated special assessment or rate and charge proposed to be imposed on his or her property. The valid ballots shall be tabulated and a simple majority of the votes cast shall determine whether the proposed lake management district shall be approved or rejected. If approved by the voters within the proposed district, the implementation of the District will be effective January I, 20 10 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 ,:hould 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 ofthis resolution are authorized to make necessary corrections to this resolution including, but not limited to, the correction of scrivener/clerical errors, references, resolution numbering, section/subsection numbers and any references thereto. Section 5. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. RES # , Page 3 Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective 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, PATRICIAA. RICHARDSON FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO.: RES # , Page 4 EXHIBIT A @ 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 Sims Director of Department of Natural Resources and Parks Pam Bissonnette Division Manager of Water and Land Resources Division Daryl Grigsby Water and Land Resources Division Staff Sally Abella Beth Cullen Drew Kerr Michael Murphy Washington State Department of Ecology Staff Kathy Hamel North Lake Community Steering Committee Mark Braverman Julie Cleary Beth Cullen Chuck Gibson Debra Hansen Wendy Honey Tom Jovanovich Cover Photos: North Lake Improvement Club North Lake fA VMP 1 2/2 l/2004 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The King County Lake Stewardship Program and the Noxious Weed Control Program wish to thank the members of the Steering Committee for the North Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan. Members include Mark Braverman, Julie Cleary, Beth Cullen, Chuck Gibson, Debra Hansen, Wendy Honey, and Tom Jovanovich. King County staffwere instrumental in developing the [A VMP. Key staff included Drew Kerr and Monica Walker of the Noxious Weed Control Program, as well as Sally Abella, Michael Murphy (Murph), and Beth Cullen from the Lake Stewardship Program. Washington Department of Ecology staff provided invaluable technical guidance during development of the IA VMP. Special thanks to Kathy Hamel of the Aquatic Weeds Management Fund for her prompt, thoughtful and thorough response to all questions. Finally, special thanks to the North Lake community. Their enthusiasm and dedication to preserving the aesthetic beauty, recreational opportunities, and ecological integrity of North Lake is inspiring. North Lake lA VMP 12/2 [/2004 iii E XE C UT IV E SUMMARy..................... ..................... ........... .................................. ............... 1 PRO BL EM ST AT E ME NT .......... ................... ................. ....................................................... 2 MAN AGE ME NT GO ALS....................................................................................................... 2 CO MMUNITY 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 waterlil y (Nymphaea odorata).......,....................................... ...... ........... ...... ........... 2 Purple loosestrife (L ythrum salicaria) .............................. .... ...... ....... ............. ....................... 2 Yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus) . .................................. ..... .................. .............................. 2 PLAN ELEMENTS, COSTS, AND FUNDING ..........................................~......................... 2 IMPLEMENT A TI ON AND E VAL V A TIO N ........................................................................ 2 BIB LI OG RAP HY ... ............ ................. ...... .... ................. ........ .... .... .... ............ ...... ... ................ 2 North Lake fA VMP 4/30/2009 iv 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 Triclopyr .......................................................................................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 I: North Lake Watershed and Tributary 0016................................................................ 2 Figure 2: North Lake Land Use..................................................................... ....20 Figure 3: North Lake Aquatic Plant Map......... ... ..... .... .... ......... ........ ... ......... .......22 North Lake lA 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). Ifawarded, grant money will fund initial eradication efforts, as well as several years of follow-up survey and control. Since complete eradication is very difficult to achieve, and re-introduction is very likely, the community is organizing a management structure and the funding mechanisms necessary to implement ongoing monitoring and spot control. Three other noxious weed species with expanding infestations at North Lake also threaten to degrade the ecological and recreational benefits of the system. Fragrant waterlily (Nymphaea odorata), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), and yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus) have expanded beyond a pioneering level of infestation and are well established around the shoreline and in the lake. This Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (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 noxio.us aquatic weeds threatening North Lake. North Lake IA VMP 4/30/2009 .eROBLEM.SIAIEMENJ 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 Killamey, 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, 200 I). The estuarine area is still used by juvenile salmonid species including chinook and coho. North Lake and neighboring Geneva, Killarney, and Fivemile Lakes all have public boat launches and are popular boating, fishing, and swimming destinations. Residents of the North Lake watershed are very proud of their setting, are active recreational users and are committed to social and environmental issues. Due to prolific growth of several species of dense, invasive aquatic noxious weeds, North Lake is in danger of losing its aesthetic beauty, its wildlife habitat, and its recreational attributes. If left untreated, the worst of these weeds, Eurasian water milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), will blanket the littoral zone of the lake in a short time, preventing most recreational uses and eliminating badly needed wildlife habitat. There will be long-term financial and recreational loss and the loss of conservation areas, all affecting watershed residents and other members of the public who use the lake. Increasing development in the area is likely to increase the number of people using the lake in coming years, which can accelerate the magnitude of the loss of beneficial uses to the community. The shallow shoreline area of the lake provides excellent habitat for aquatic plants. In the past few years aggressive, non-native Eurasian water milfoil (milfoil) has invaded the lake and is colonizing the near-shore aquatic habitat. The dense submersed growth of mil foil 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 mil foil if North Lake is not controlled because of the high probability of transport by boat trailers to these nearby systems. Milfoil is the most significant submersed invasive threat but other noxious weeds have also invaded North Lake. These include fragrant waterlily (Nymphaea odorata), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), and yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus). All of these species are considered noxious weeds as listed in WAC 16-750. Waterlilies have been a real threat to the lake, covering up sections of the lake entirely. North Lake is shallow and waterlilies grow in the middle of the lake and close off sections of the lake from recreational activities. This has been a major issue with area residents as it has decreased their recreation because of safety issues. Waterlilies can also affect water quality by decreasing dissolved oxygen, out competing native plants, and adding excessive nutrients to the lake when they die back in the fall. None of the native aquatic plants in the system are a management issue at this time. The native plants provide important benefits to the aquatic system and are not impeding any of the recreational uses of the lake. Removing the noxious invaders will halt the degradation of the system and allow the dynamic natural equilibrium to be maintained. North Lake 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 monocultures lacking in biodiversity . Significantly reduce fish and wildlife habitat, thereby weakening the local ecosystem as well as degrading wildlife and wildlife viewing opportunities . Pose a threat to adjoining ecosystems North Lake IA VMP 4/30/2009 3 MANAGEMENT GOALS The overarching management goal is to control noxious aquatic weeds in North Lake in a manner that allows sustainable native plant and animal communities to thrive, maintains acceptable water quality conditions, and facilitates recreational enjoyment of the lake. There are four main strategies to ensure success in meeting this goal: I. Involve the community in each phase of the management process; 2. Use the best available science to identify and understand likely effects of management actions on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems prior to implementation; 3. Review the effectiveness of management actions; 4. Adjust the management strategy as necessary to achieve the overall goal. Specific details related to the implementation of management objectives are covered in subsequent sections of this plan. North Lake IA VMP 4/30/2009 4 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT North Lake residents have been a very active community from the beginning and regularly demonstrate their commitment to improving their community and protecting the lake as well as the expansive natural areas owned by Weyerhaeuser around their homes. This section provides an overview of past, present, and future of community involvement. Community History From their earliest days, members of the North Lake community have worked together to promote common goals, including the health of the lake. The North Lake Improvement Club (NLIC) was formed in 1942 to work to maintain and improve North Lake and the region around the lake. The club has always been open to anyone living in the area. The NLIC purchased a piece of property and built a clubhouse in the early 1950's. The clubhouse has provided a convenient place for the community to get together for social gatherings and meetings to plan and execute projects to improve the North Lake neighborhood. The club membership has been active in monitoring the development of the properties around North Lake and to ensure that changes are made in a manner that is consistent with the neighborhood desires. There has been significant development in the watershed in the last five years and the community has been active in monitoring the development plans to assure the lake is protected. NLIC as an organization and members as individuals have commented at hearings on developments now underway in the watershed and hearings on developments that may have an impact on the quality of living in the North Lake area. One of the currently vested development with the greatest potential to impact the lake through stormwater runoff has been required to have the storm water 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 200 I. Initially only one community member participated in the program, but with the expansion of the program to include Level I and Level 2 sampling, several members joined in to share the monitoring duties. There are now six families sharing the monitoring duties, giving North Lake the distinction of having a monitoring program with the most active community participation. Lake Stewardship Program volunteers monitor lake level and precipitation daily, Secchi transparency, water temperature, algae and bird observations weekly, and collect water samples every other week from April through October. Water samples are analyzed for total phosphorus, total nitrogen, chlorophyll a and concentrations of phytoplankton species. Volunteer data are published each year in reports produced by the King County Lake Stewardship Program. To address the increasing populations of waterlilies in North Lake, lakefront property owners contracted for control of waterlilies in 1996. The control was done for one year. The contractor completed two applications on the lily pads on the residential side of the lake. This was done only in areas that fronted on property owners who agreed to pay the contractors. Qualitative evaluation of the application indicated that it was successful and reduced the expansion of coverage on the residential North Lake fA VMP 4/30/2009 5 side of the lake for a few years. However, since there was not a lake wide effort to control the lilies in following years, the infestation returned and became worse. The membership of to day'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 We; erhaeuser 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 fro nt property owners. The tax paid by each lakefront property owner would be determined by the size ofthe 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 of2004. 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 I l 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 ajoint 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 [A 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 April 5th, most comments supported acting as quickly as possible to control weeds in the lake. There were questions about the effectiveness of the various treatment options presented. Several comments expressed concern that the community members would need to "foot the bill" for control costs. Steering Committee members addressed concerns when possible and if answers were not readily apparent, offered to do more research and report back. At the June 28th watershed wide meeting, residents were still enthusiastic about the project and the results they were beginning to see from the initial treatment of Rodeo ™ 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 ,,If(:' 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. AU 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 fA 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 lake front 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 lakeslaquatic 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 [rom 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 reinfest at ion. 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 ofFish and Wildlife, which has just begun a pilot program to address these concerns. North Lake IA VMP 4/30/2009 II WAlERS.I::lED AND WATERBODY CHARACTE.RlSJICS North Lake's watershed is located in south-western King County, Washington in an unincorporated area located right outside the Federal Way city limits. State resource agencies frequently use a system of Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA) to refer to the state's major watershed basins. North Lake is located in WRIA 10, which refers to the Puyallup - White River combination watershed and includes the Puyallup and White Rivers and the southern part of King County. The North Lake watershed constitutes approximately 425 acres (2.2%) of the Hylebos Creek Sub- basin of the White - Puyallup River watershed. The Hylebos Creek Sub-basin is 19221 acres and receives a mean annual rainfall of 40 inches. The sub-basin drains approximately 18 mile2 from the cities of Federal Way to Commencement Bay in Pierce County and it encompasses 35 miles of stream and 250 acres of wetlands (FOHC 2004). According to the Soil Survey for King County Area, Washington, the soils around North Lake watershed are primarily made up of the Alderwood series (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1973). The primary soil types are the Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (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. VVater 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 Watershed Boundary o 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 Killarney, a half mile south of Tributary 0016. Tributary 0016 enters Hylebos Creek, which continues southwest and enters Pierce County where it flows directly into Commencement Bay. There is a significant amount of shoreline that remains relatively undeveloped at North Lake, thanks to Weyerhaeuser preserving their land and not allowing for development on the west side of the lake. This undoubtedly limits the nonpoint source nutrients reaching the lake. This entire sub-basin benefits from the moderating effects of its many wetlands and lakes, which act as detention ponds to reduce runoff"pulses." However, as the number of nearshore houses has increased around North Lake, so has the clearing of buffering native vegetation along the shoreline to provide landscaping or to enhance lake access and views. Nonetheless, many of the residential properties have maintained a buffer strip, which helps to filter out nutrients and pollutants before they enter the lake, as well as providing habitat. The public boat launch area is the only point where a road actually reaches the water. 334lh 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 of 770 acre-ft and 8930 ft. (1.69 mi.) of shoreline. There are no major surface inflows to North Lake, with outflow into an unnamed tributary into the outlet channel with a weir. There is public boat access to the lake provided by a boat launch owned by the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) located on the northwest side of the lake. North Lake fA 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 categorize~ 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, meso trophic, 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 clarit) and chlorophyll a values, and low to moderate phosphorous levels. Data from the 16-year record from 1985 to 2000 are summarized in Table I, taken from King County Lake Water Ouality: A Trend Report on King County Small Lakes (November 200 I ) 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 Jlg/L (May-October average) . Chlorophyll a ranged from 2.2 - 4.2 Jlg/L (May-October average), but most years were below 4.0 . TSI Secchi ranged from 40 - 50 . TSI Chlorophyll a ranged from 38 - 45 . TSI TP ranged from 36 - 44 . TSI annual average 38 - 46 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) (J.1g/L) (J.1g/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 imicc'lrdte. Therefore, trend analyses were not completed for North Lake (King County, 2001). Fish and Wildlife Communities North Lake and its surrounding habitats support a variety of fish, birds, and animals by providing nesting, forage, and cover. According to Chad Jackson at the Washington State Department 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. 4/30/2009 15 North Lake IA VMP 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 Merganser Swallow WADERS 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 0 Greater Scaup SWIFTS 0 Black Swift 0 Lesser Scaup 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 ofthe small private docks around the lake associated with the residential parcels. A public boat launch maintained by Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife allows everybody to benefit from this beautiful resource as well. Internal combustion engines are not allowed on the lake (KCC 12.44.330), consequently there are no activities such as water skiing or jet skiing. One consequence of this ban is that the natural character and integrity of the system have been preserved. Also, the system is spared potential pollution from petroleum releases and noise pollution. There is also no hunting allowed on North Lake. / N + Property Owners State of Washington ,--../) L-0 Weyerhaeuser Q Residential Figure 2: North Lake Land Use North Lake IA VMP 4/30/2009 18 Characterization of Aauatic Plants in North Lake The most recent comprehensive aquatic plant survey of North Lake occurred on July 26, 1995 as part of a plant-mapping project on 36 lakes carried out by King County's Lake Stewardship Program (King County, 1996). The surveys were conducted by boat using a two-person crew plus a volunteer (or volunteers) when available. Surveyors used GPS to establish shoreline sections between two fixed points. Each shoreline section was characterized by community type, species present, percent cover of community type, and relative species density within a community type. Community types were defined as emergent, floating, or submergent North Lake IA VMP 4/30/2009 19 North AquCitic Plants Map EY.:l:;] Fl9cJting e=3. Emergent Il'IlllllSubmergent - . No plants or sparse 1E'.2] No pJants-deep '* loosestrife ,...., Shoreline - Section boundary Lake Area: 57.4 acres Mean Depth: 14 feet Maximum Depth: 34 feet i- o 100 200 400 feet I ' I September 1996 Aquatic Plant Mappingfor 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 Gomprised 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. VVaterlilies were documented in covering the majority of the littoral zone and spreading into the middle of the lake. Lythrum salicaria is now common in buffer shoreline vegetation; populations and distribution of L. salicaria have been partially contained by community efforts to stop seed production through manual control efforts. The plant has obviously continued to increase over the years despite these recent control efforts. The Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) performed a search of their Natural f-kritage 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 Q)oo N It) t- N N N It) It) t- oo t- t- It) t- ~ <0 0 0 N ~T"" N N C"> N T"" T"" N N N N N T"" N C"> M T"" N f LL " C ::;, "0 o Q) LL~~ ~ - 5i OT""32 +:l C CJ ::l Q) en t- OO I <0 00 0. o.~ <0 C ~ ::;, T"" E Qi E .0 0 E 0 Q) u Q) o >> C ::l o U rn c ~ "0 Q) t- <0 li= cD N- :g - - Q) ~..-32 c ::l "0......"0 rnQ)cQ) c ~ Q) ~ :oJ Q) rn Q) ro E Q; E Q.oE.o lJ.. ::l W ::l CJ) (j) Q) E"O(/).L:"O CII~(/)(/)Q) Z.L:ro::l~ C CJ) 0, 0:: > OL-~~Q; E 2 ::l ,- ...... g~~c%~ o .... ~ i: = 00. .... = = ~ .~ .... = = I:l" < \C> 0\ 0\ ...-4 ...... c ro a:: o 9L: :oJ Q) ro U).o ::l Q) ~ <(0'" (j .L: 9! u E en (/) o _ ,!,!! ~ C c ~ ~ ~ ~ L- ro m E L- .E Q) 0:: ~ ~ :E = ~ ci (/) ro L- ro .L: o t- t- t- t- <0 <0- t- <0 <0.0.0 <O<OIt)~ _ _t- _ M~~ _~It)~C"><O _M NMM C">~MN - T""NN MN T"" T"" .................."0"0"0 C C C Q) Q) Q) &&&~~~ Q; Q; Q; E E E EEE.o.o.o www~~~ .L: a. E >. Z I Q;~ G> ~~ (/)Q)~ .t:: c: E - ro (/) rn-Q)g ro ~ (/) - ::l 0 'E lJ..a..0L- ::L--l2 Q2~~L- ~ ~ ~> ~ a.. 5i U5 T"" t- -<0 t- <0 t- _ It) <0 _to _t- ~ _~ It) _~ _M M _C"> _M _M _..- T"" _N N N - - _ T"" T"" T"" rn c :oJ ro o u: '"'C"'O.....~............"'O rnQ)Q)CCCC Q) c~(/)Q)Q)Q)Q) ~ ~Q)die>e>e>e>Q) ~BB~~~~B ~~wwww ~ 0\ o o N -- o <'l ~ >. "0 ~ >.= Q) Q) 5-:~~ Q;2"Oc ...... ro c 0 ~S~~ cmro ::roQ)~ Qo,G>5 G> ro e>.o >-L-ro.o lJ..-ln:: :E Q) ::l.L: CT(/) ,~ ::l 0-= ::l ~m L- ro ~ t ro 0 Q) ,- ~ ro J9 Q) .!::: co "'C c%o ~ ii5 (/) Q) ~ ro -l 1=' c ::l o () rn c ~ <0 C"> ~~(/)(/)-ua.a.(/)(/)_._-o.oQ)a..o"OI--(/) rn~m()WW--l-l~ZZZza..a..a..(j)(j) ~ c '0.. 0. ro ~ (/) 'w a.C (/) Q) (/)"0 ,- ro L- c ro ro {3 u o ro Q) Q) - "0 W 0 ill (/) (/) ::l ::l (/) (/) ro a. J9 '0 -0 ,!Q ::l L- L- a. ro ~ >>~ 'w ro o ~ .; (/) (/) ,m 0 a..L: (/) ci ~ '-0- u ~ ,2 E :-x= 0....... "0 E '0...2 ..." ro wm_- '" (/).2 0 ro Q) ro (/)::l~ a.W...J... a.(/)01U "OQ)::l .ro_ (/)E ~ li":(/) ~ (ij ro c 5 ro ::l "0 - .... ....L::g.s......=e-roro (/) ,Ql ::l a. ,!'!!,:t::: 0..L: Q) Q) :oJ ,- Q) .L: 0. :: L- ,Q ro Z ::l a. rn g> c ~ ~ g; (/) "0 S >. Z Z E 0 E 2 .0.. I- E~.3'~ >.Eroo (j) -' Zro......a.. ...... 0 ~a.. g. (/) ro .;:: ~ ::l U ';:: :5 ~ ~ > <: - <I) .:><: t1:l .....l ..s::: t: o ...,.. 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 Band C weeds. Table 2 shows the 19 species found in the 1995 plant survey, including three listed noxious weed species: Purple loosestrife (Ly/hrum salicaria), fragrant waterlily (Nymphaea odora/a), 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 spica/urn 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 if left untreated, dramatically increasing negative impacts to the beneficial uses of North Lake. Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) Purple loosestrife is native to Europe and Asia and was introduced through ship ballast water to the Atlantic Coast in the mid-1800s (Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board, 1997). In Washington, purple loosestrife was first collected from the Seattle area in 1929 from Lake Washington. Purple loosestrife is a perennial that can reach 9 feet tall with long spikes of magenta flowers. The flowers usually have 6 petals, and the stems are squared-off. Purple loosestrife is considered a facultative wetland (+) species (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 mot 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 VVeed Control Board, 200 I b). Fragrant waterlily (Nymphaea odorata) is quickly expanding its distribution on North Lake (W. Honey, pers. comm.). When uncontrolled, this species tends to form dense monospecific stands that can persist until senescence in the fall. Mats of these floating leaves prevent wind mixing and extensive areas of Low oxygen can deveLop under the waterlily beds in the summer. Waterlilies can restrict lakefront access and hinder swimming, boating, and other recreational activity. They may also limit our native waterlily (Nuphar luteum) with which it overlaps in distribution. The fragrant waterlily is still expanding in patches on North Lake, and so its future impacts are not clear. Some patches have connected, limiting recreational activities such as boating, fishing, and swimming. Even canoes can have great difficulty moving across dense floating mats of fragrant waterlily, not to mention entanglement with propellers of boat motors. Yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus) Yellow flag iris is native to mainland Europe, the British Isles, and the Mediterranean region of North Africa (Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board, 200Ia). 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, 200Ia). The yellow flowers are a distinguishing characteristic, but when not flowering it may be confused with cattail (Typha sp.) or broad-fruited bur-reed (Sparganium eurycarpum). Yellow flag iris is considered an obligate wetland species (OBL), with a >99% probability of occurring in wetlands as opposed to upland areas (Reed, 1988). The plants produce large fruit capsules and corky seeds in the late summer. Yellow flag iris spreads by rhizomes and seeds. Up to several hundred flowering plants may be connected rhizomatously. Rhizome fragments can form new plants. Yellow flag iris can spread by rhizome growth to form dense stands that can exclude even the toughest of our native wetland species, such as cattail (Typha latifolia). This noxious weed has already colonized the shoreline of North Lake. In addition to threatening to lower plant diversity, this noxious weed can also alter hydroLogic dynamics through sediment accretion along the shoreline. This species produces prolific seed that could easily be transported downstream to invade this valuable resource area. North Lake 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/programs/wq/plants/managementlindex. 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. Controlleradication methods discussed herein include Aquatic Herbicide, Manual Methods, Bottom Screens, Diver Dredging, Biological Control, Rotovation, Cutting, Harvesting, and Drawdown. Aquatic Herbicides Description of Method http://www.ecy . wa. gov Iprograms/wq/plants/managementlaqua028 .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 [A 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 springlsummer 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 of 2,4-D (Trade names include: AquaKleen@ and Navigate@). The liquid formulation contains the dimethylamine salt (DMA)of 2,4-D (Trade name - DMA *4IVM). 2,4-D is a relatively fast-acting, systemic, selective herbicide used for the control of Eurasian watermilfoil and other broad-leaved species. Both the granular and liquid formulations can be effective for spot treatment of Eurasian watermilfoil. 2,4-D has been shown to be selective to Eurasian watermilfoil when used at the labeled rate, leaving native aquatic species relatively unaffected. However, 2,4-D is not effective against hydrilla. . Endothall- Dipotassium Salt - (Trade name Aquathol@) Endothall is a fast-acting non- selective contact herbicide, which destroys the vegetative part of the plant but generally does not kill the roots. Endothall may be applied in a granular or liquid form. Typically endothall compounds are used primarily for short-term (one season) control of a variety of aquatic plants, North Lake 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@). Oiquat is a fast-acting non-selective contact herbicide that destroys the vegetative part ofthe 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 oftriclopyr 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 l2-hour swimming restriction to minimize eye irritation. Triclopyr received its aquatic registration from EP A in 2003 and was allowed for use in Washing tor, 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 fl0ating- leaved plants like waterlilies. Imazapyr does not work on underwater plants such as Eurasian watermilfoil. Although imazapyr is a broad spectrum, non-selective herbicide, a good applicator can somewhat selectively remove targeted plants by focusing the spray only on the plants to be removed. Imazapyr was allowed for use in Washington in 2004. Advantages . Aquatic herbicide application can be less expensive than other aquatic plant control methods. . Aquatic herbicides are easily applied around docks and underwater obstructions. . 2,4-D OMA, 2,4-0 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 devC'!opm~nt 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 (ODES) 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 DOES. Costs Approximate costs for one-acre herbicide treatment (costs will vary from site to site): . Glyphosate: $250 . Fluridone: $900 to $1,000 . Endothall: $650 4/30/2009 29 North Lake fA VMP . 2,4-0: $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, 2,4-0 has been an effective tool in the past in Washington lakes and will be looked at as an alternative in North Lakes integrated approach. EP A studies yield the parameters LDso (acute lethal dose to 50% of a test population), NOEL (No Observable Effect Level, which is the highest test dosage causing no adverse responses), and RID (EPA Reference Dose determined by applying at least a toO-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 2,4-0 that does not produce adverse effects on aquatic organisms until levels in water reach milligram per liter (i.e., mglL, 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., f.1g/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 toO 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. SiRce 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 l2-hour restriction on swimming to minimize the potential for eye irritation. There is a 120-day restriction on using water treated with triclopyr for irrigation on sensitive plants such as grapes and tomatoes. The alternative to waiting for 120 days is treated water can be used once it is determined that the water has reached a non-detectable level by laboratory analysis. There is no restriction for using treated water on established grasses. North Lake [A VMP 4/30/2009 30 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 EPA's ecotoxicological categories of slightly toxic (LC50 = >10 to 100 ppm) to practically non-toxic (LCso = > 100ppm). There have been no verified cases of toxicity to fish when triclopyr is used at the maximum use rate of 2.5 ppm a.e. In the field where triclopyr TEA was used to control Eurasian watermilfoil, waterhyacinth, or purple loosestrife, no invertebrate mortality or changes in invertebrate population structure was seen that could be attributed to the uses of triclopyr TEA. Triclopyr acid is slightly toxic to birds when orally dosed or consumed in the diet. The triethylamine salt is slightly toxic to practically non-toxic when orally dosed or consumed in the diet. Reproduction of birds may be affected at levels greater than 100 ppm (Washington Department of Ecology, 2004). Triclopyr TEA appears to be safe for use in aquatic ecosystems. When expected environmental concentrations (EEC) of triclopyr are compared with laboratory 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 ae. 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> I 03 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 2,4-0. There is no swimming restriction for 2,4-0 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 mglkg and the dermal LDso is >2000 mg/kg. This chemical has a low acute toxicity (from an LD50 standpoint, is less toxic than caffeine and slightly more toxic than aspirin). The 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, 2001b). 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, 2001b). Pharmacokinetic investigations have demonstrated that 2,4-D is rapidly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract and is quickly excreted. Animal toxicological investigations carried out at high doses showed a reduction in the ability of the kidneys to excrete the chemical, and resulted in some systemic toxicity. However, the high doses tested may not be relevant to the typical low dose human exposures resulting from labeled use. A review of the scientific and medical literature failed to provide any human case reports of systemic 4/30/2009 32 North Lake lA VMP toxicity or poisoning following overexposure to these herbicide products when used according to label instructions (Washington State Department of Ecology, 200lb). The risks to mammalian pets and wildlife should be closely related to these reported human risks, especially since many of the toxicity experiments are carried out on test animals by necessity. The potential hazard to pregnant women and to the reproductive health of both men and women was evaluated. The results of the 2,4-D developmental or teratology (birth defects) and multigenerational reproduction studies indicate that the chemical is not considered to be a reproductive hazard or cause birth defects (teratogen) when administered below maternally toxic doses (Washington State Department of Ecology, 2001b). A review of the histopathological sections of various 2,4-D subchronic and chronic studies provides further support that the chemical does not affect the reproductive organs, except in some higher dose groups beyond the potential level of incidental exposure after an aquatic weed application. Fish health Based on laboratory data reported in the Department of Ecology's Risk Assessment of 2,4-0, 2,4-D DMA has a low acute toxicity to fish (LCso ~ 1 00 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 of 2,4-D DMA. In conclusion, 2,4- D DMA will not effect fish or free-swimming invertebrate biota acutely or chronically when applied at typical use rates of 1.36 to 4.8 mg a.i./L (Washington State Dept. of Ecology, 200 I b). 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 0.01 (RQ = 0.1 pprnJO.3 ppm = 0.33). However, the low solubility of2,4-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 0.01 (RQ = 0.1 pprnJ20 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, 200lb). Although laboratory data indicates that 2,4-D BEE may be toxic to fish, free-swimming invertebrates and benthic invertebrates, data indicates that its toxic potential is not realized under typical concentrations and conditions found in the field. This lack of field toxicity is likely due to the low solubility of 2,4-D BEE and its rapid hydrolysis to the practically non-toxic 2,4-D acid within a few hours to a day following the application. North Lake fA VMP 4/30/2009 33 Glyphosate Examination of mammalian toxicity has shown that the acute oral and dermal toxicity of glyphosate would fall into EPA's toxicity category III. This category characterizes slightly to moderately toxic compounds. Glyphosate is practically nontoxic by ingestion, with a reported acute oral LDso of 5600 mglkg 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 (Felsot, 1998). Since the shikimic acid pathway does not exist in animals, the acute toxicity of glyphosate is very low. Animal studies, which the Environmental Protection Agency has evaluated in support of the registration of glyphosate, can be used to make inferences relative to human health. The U.S. Forest Service's glyphosate fact sheet reports that the EP A 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 tl ie 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 (TSCA TS) 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 mglkg in rabbits. These values are in the same range as glyphosate alone, EPA's toxicity category III, which puts LI-700 in a category oflower 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 of a formulation of triclopyr or 2,4-D should provide excellent initial control of the Eurasian watermilfoil while allowing for the more-appropriate spot treatments in this scattered infestation. We should be able to avoid an expensive, lake-wide treatment with fluridone for control of Eurasian watermilfoil. The loose sediments in North Lake are high in organic content and are flocculent around much ofthe lake's littoral zone. Triclopyr TEA and 2,4-0 OMA would be applied in liquid formulation would be applied in a liquid formulation. The 2,4-0 OMA also carries with it the reduced acute toxicity reported above, which could mitigate any potential harm to fish and their food web. Work in 2003 with 2,4-D DMA in Spring Lake resulted in excellent control of milfoil with no observed regrowth (M. Murphy, pers. comm.). North Lake does not have anadromous salmonids because impassable fish barriers exist along the Hylebos Creek system. Neither herbicide (Triclopyr or 2,4-D DMA) should have any downstream effects since the rapid hydrolysis produces a chemical that is practically non-toxic. Glyphosate should be very effective on the other target species: purple loosestrife, fragrant waterlily, and yellow flag iris. Westerdahl and Getsinger (1988) report excellent control of the fragrant waterlily with glyphosate. Generally glyphosate is the recommended herbicide for waterlily control because it can be applied directly to the floating leaves, unlike fluridone or endothall which must be applied to the water. The application of glyphosate allows specific plants or areas of plants to be targeted for removal. Generally two applications of glyphosate are needed. The second application later in the summer controls the plants that were missed during the first herbicide application. The control effectiveness of fragrant waterlily is easy to measure through visual surveys due to the floating leaves. Glyphosate should provide excellent systemic control of mature purple loosestrife plants and seedlings. This herbicide is very effective on purple loosestrife and we can expect better than 70-80% control on existing plants after Year 1. Seeds of purple loosestrife can remain viable for three years in the laboratory, but may remain viable for a much shorter time in the natural environment (Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board, 1997). Therefore, the existing mature plants and seedbank may be exhausted within the time frame of the project. Finally, Glyphosate should also provide excellent systemic control of yellow flag iris. This species has an abundant leaf surface area to absorb the chemical for translocation to the rhizome. The use of a herbicide will enable the elimination of the mature plants without potentially destructive disturbance ofthe shoreline by excavation. Both triclopyr and 2,4-0 used for milfoil control, may also be an effective alternative for the purple loosestrife and yellow flag iris control efforts. However, this chemical is more expensive, so an evaluation of the effectiveness of glyphosate on these species will determine whether a change in herbicide would be beneficial. One of the main reasons to eradicate milfoil and fragrant waterlily is to maintain the health of the native aquatic plant community for all of the species that utilize them in their life cycles, as well as to maintain the viability of the lake for human recreational uses. The nature of the control methods to be implemented will minimize impacts to native aquatic vegetation. The control of the Eurasian watermilfoil and fragrant waterlily will be conducted by methods designed to preserve (and eventually enhance or conserve) the native plant communities. Herbicide selective to Eurasian watermilfoil will be used for its control and will not require a whole-lake treatment that would expose North Lake IA VMP 4/30/2009 35 all the submersed plants to the herbicide. The herbicide for the fragrant waterlily will be applied to the floating leaves, and therefore should be easily focused to kill only the target vegetation. Follow- up control methods (diver hand pulling and/or diver dredging) will focus specifically on these two target species and should also leave beneficial plants intact. With these constraints in place, conservation areas should not need to be established to serve vital ecosystem functions until native plants re-establish. The application of herbicide to the emergent species (purple loosestrife and yellow flag iris) will also be conducted by manual spot applications. An experienced herbicide applicator can selectively target individual weed species and limit collateral damage to other species to a minimum. This is especially true when infestations are small so that large areas with a diverse plant distribution don't have to be treated. Emergent noxious weed infestations at North Lake are wide spread in the lake but careful application of herbicide to the waterlilies should avoid collateral damage and preserve the native plant community. We do not anticipate any need to revegetate after controlling the milfoil and fragrant waterlily since less than 25% of the lake is currently colonized with aquatic plants. In the terrestrial environment in the Pacific Northwest, bare ground will often be colonized rapidly by invasive species, but this is not usually a problem in lacustrine areas. A drawback of using herbicides is the "uplifting" of mats of decomposing waterlily roots that can form large floating islands in the waterbody after the herbicides have killed the plants. The waterlilies are in large monospecific stands around the lake. These areas could potentially generate floating sediment mats because of their size. Volunteers from the community will remove any sediment mats created in these areas, for which we will need to get Hydraulic Project Approval from WDFW. For smaller mats, we may tow them to shore and remove the sediment with hand tools. If larger mats occur, we will have to investigate machinery mounted on a barge to dig or dredge out the sediment mat. Past community efforts at North Lake have used aquatic herbicides, so we do not anticipate disagreement with this recommendation from the community. Initial support has been documented in the form of signatures on a Letter of Support distributed after the second watershed-wide n;eeting Oil June 28th, 2004. Prior to any activities on the lake, outreach materials will be sent to all watershed residents informing them of the actions and appropriate contact information will be provided for any questions or comments. The watershed residents will be notified prior to any treatments with the anticipated treatment dates Some residences on North Lake have water rights. To ensure that all residents who might draw water from the lake are aware of water use restrictions, there will be announcements sent to all lakeside residents prior to each herbicide treatment. One announcement will be sent at the beginning of the summer with approximate dates of planned treatments, and subsequent announcements will be sent 7- 10 days prior to each treatment, with exact dates of treatment and use restrictions. The announcement must let water right holders know who to contact should this interfere with their rights. The lake group may have to provide alternate water sources to these people should they object to the treatment Manual Methods Hand-Pulling Hand-pulling aquatic plants is similar to pulling weeds out of a garden. It involves removing entire plants (leaves, stems, and roots) from the area of concern and disposing of them in an area away from the shoreline. In water less than three feet deep no specialized equipment is required, although a North Lake IA VMP 4/30/2009 36 spade, trowel, or long knife may be needed if the sediment is packed or heavy. In deeper water, hand pulling is best accomplished by divers with SCUBA equipment and mesh bags for the collection of plant fragments. Some sites may not be suitable for hand pulling such as areas where deep flocculent sediments may cause a person hand pulling to sink deeply into the sediment. Cutting Cutting differs from hand pulling in that plants are cut and the roots are not removed. Cutting is performed by standing on a dock or on shore and throwing a cutting tool out into the water. A non- mechanical aquatic weed cutter is commercially available. Two single-sided, razor sharp stainless steel blades forming a "V" shape are connected to a handle, which is tied to a long rope. The cutter can be thrown about 20 ~ 30 feet into the water. As the cutter is pulled through the water, it cuts a 48- inch wide swath. Cut plants rise to the surface where they can be removed. Washington State requires that cut plants be removed from the water. The stainless steel blades that form the V are extremely sharp and great care must be taken with this implement. It should be stored in a secure area where children do not have access. Raking A sturdy rake makes a useful tool for removing aquatic plants. Attaching a rope to the rake allows removal of a greater area of weeds. Raking literally tears plants from the sediment, breaking some plants off and removing some roots as well. Specially designed aquatic plant rakes are available. Rakes can be equipped with floats to allow easier plant and fragment collection. The operator should pull towards the shore because a substantial amount of plant material can be collected in a short distance. Cleanup All of the manual control methods create plant fragments. It's important to remove all fragmenu 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-I-98) available from the Washington Department ofFish & Wildlife North Lake IA VMP 4/30/2009 37 Disadvantages · As plants re-grow or fragments re-colonize the cleared area, the treatment may need to be repeated several times each summer. · Because these methods are labor intensive, they may not be practical for large areas or for thick weed beds. · Even with the best containment efforts, it is difficult to collect all plant fragments, leading to re- colonization. · Some plants, like waterlilies, which have massive rhizomes, are difficult to remove by hand pulling. · Pulling weeds and raking stirs up the sediment and makes it difficult to see remaining plants. Sediment re-suspension can also increase nutrient levels in lake water. · Hand pulling and raking impacts bottom-dwelling animals. · The V -shaped cutting tool is extremely sharp and can be dangerous to use. Permits Permits are required for many types of manual projects in lakes and streams. The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife requires a Hydraulic Project Approval permit for all acti vi tics taking place in the water including hand pulling, raking, and cutting of aquatic plants. Costs · Hand-pulling costs up to $130 for the average waterfront lot for a hired commercial puller. · A commercial grade weed cutter costs about $130 with accessories. A commercial rake costs about $95 to $125. A homemade weed rake costs about $85 (asphalt rake is about $75 and the rope costs 35-75 cents per foot). Other Considerations The community may need to invest money into buying the equipment and operation. Manual methods must include regular scheduled surveys to determine the extent of the remaining weeds and/or the appearance of new plants after eradication has been attained. This is a large time investment by lakeside residents. Suitability for North Lake Manual methods will be important in assisting in milfoil eradication, after the chemical control methods have been evaluated for their effectiveness. At this point, diver hand-pulling should be sufficient to remove all of the remaining Eurasian watermilfoil plants. Manual methods will also be vital in combating new infestations of Eurasian watermilfoil in subsequent years, especially around the boat launch. Based on the ways in which milfoil propagates, most manual methods are not North Lake IA VMP 4/30/2009 38 appropriate for milfoil eradication. Several of the methods create plant fragments, which can spread the milfoil throughout the lake. Manual methods have the potential for missing Eurasian watermilfoil plants, especially after stirring up sediments. Cutting can be used to control small areas of fragrant waterlily, especially those close to the shoreline. Using this method out in the open water would require a stable boat (not canoe) and great care not to injure oneself or another passenger. Since repeated cutting over several seasons may be required to starve the roots, this would fit best as a supplement to other control methods. Many landowners have already been manually removing their loosestrife for several seasons. This does not kill the mature perennial plants, but does halt seed production and can contain the infestation at current levels. If done repeatedly over several seasons it should starve the roots and kill the plants. Manual removal of seedlings (pulling) of purple loosestrife is much easier than the removal of well- rooted, mature plants. This technique can be used to exhaust the seed bank and supplement other eradication efforts. Manual efforts are much more difficult on yellow flag iris since the plants don't emerge from simple stems that can be cut, and they arise from massive rhizomes inhibiting pulling or digging. There is a large amount of root mass associated with the iris in this area that would take a significant effort to remove by excavation. Diver Dredaina Diver dredging (suction dredging) is a method whereby SCUBA divers use hoses attached to scnal! dredges (often dredges used by miners for mining gold from streams) to suck plant material [rom 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 surtace 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 ofteam, 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 require.:: 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 lna)' require a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Costs Depending on the density of the plants, specific equipment used, number of divers and disposal requirements, costs can range from a minimum of$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. North Lake IA VMP 4/30/2009 40 Bottom Screens A bottom screen or benthic barrier covers the sediment like a blanket, compressing aquatic plants while reducing or blocking light. Materials such as burlap, plastics, perforated black Mylar, and woven synthetics can all be used as bottom screens. Some people report success using pond liner materials. There is also a commercial bottom screen fabric called Texel, a heavy, felt-like polyester material, which is specifically designed for aquatic plant control. An ideal bottom screen should be durable, heavier than water, reduce or block light, prevent plants from growing into and under the fabric, be easy to install and maintain, and should readily allow gases produced by rotting weeds to escape without "ballooning" the fabric upwards. Even the most porous materials, such as window screen, will billow due to gas buildup. Therefore, it is very important to anchor the bottom barrier securely to the bottom. Unsecured screens can create navigation hazards and are dangerous to swimmers. Anchors must be effective in keeping the material down and must be regularly checked. Natural materials such as rocks or sandbags are preferred as anchors. The duration of weed control depends on the rate that weeds can grow through or on top of the bottom screen, the rate that new sediment is deposited on the barrier, and the durability and longevity of the material. For example, burlap may rot within two years, plants can grow through window screening material, and can grow on top of felt-like Texel fabric. Regular maintenance is essential and can extend the life of most bottom barriers. Bottom screens will control most aquatic plants, however freely-floating species such as the bladderworts or coontail will not be controlled by bottom screens. Plants like Eurasian watennilfoil 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 mil foil 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 lakeshore residences have only small infestations and the bottom barrier would just reduce habitat by covering the sediment. Barriers could be effective at the boat ramp to prevent re-infestation after initial control, or in areas that have dense milfoil and have shown resistance to the herbicide. Installing a bottom barrier at the boat launch can provide these benefits. Since there is not a swimming beach at North Lake, the boat launch seems the only appropriate place to install a bottom barrier to enhance the recreational potential of the lake. 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 monocultures that exclude native aquatic plants and degrade fish and wildlife habitat. Yet, often these same species are not aggressive or invasive in their native range. This may be in part because their populations are kept under control by insects, diseases, or other factors not found in areas new to them. The biological control of aquatic plants focuses on the selection and introduction of other organisms that have an impact on the growth or reproduction of a target plant, usually from their native range,>. Theoretically, by stocking an infested waterbody or wetland with these organisms, the target pl,,;nt 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 ofthe 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 insectslpathogens that appear to be generalists (feeding or impacting other aquatic plant species) are rejected as biological control agents. Insects that impact the target species (or very closely related species) exclusively are considered for release. North Lake IA VMP 4/30/2009 43 Once collected, these insects are reared and tested for host specificity and other parameters. Only extensively researched, host-specific organisms are cleared by the United States for release. It generally takes a number of years of study and specific testing before a biological control agent is approved. Even with an approved host-specific bio-control agent, control can be difficult to achieve. Some biological control organisms are very successful in controlling exotic species and others are of little value. A number of factors come into play. It is sometimes difficult to establish reproducing populations of a bio-control agent. The ease of collection of the biocontrol and placement on the target species can also have a role in the effectiveness. Climate or other factors may prevent its establishment, with some species not proving capable of over-wintering in their new setting. Sometimes the bio-control insects become prey for native predator species, and sometimes the impact of the insect on the target plant just isn't enough to control the growth and reproduction of the speCies. People who work in this field say that the more biological control species that you can put to work on a problem plant, the better success you will have in controlling the targeted species. There are some good examples where numerous biological control agents have had little effect on a targeted species, and other examples where one bio-control agent was responsible for the complete control of a problem species. However, even when biological control works, a classic biological control agent generally does not totally eliminate all target plants. A predator-prey cycle establishes where increasing predator populations will reduce the targeted species. In response to decreased food supply (the target plant is the sole food source for the predator), the predator species will decline. The target plant species rebounds due to the decline of the predator species. The cycle continues with the predator populations building in response to an increased food supply. Although a successful biological control agent rarely eradicates a problem species, it can reduce populations substantially, allowing native species to return. Used in an integrated approach with other control techniques, biological agents can stress target plants making them more susceptible to other control methods. A number of exotic aquatic species have approved classic biological control agents available for release in the US. These species include Hydrilla, water hyacinth, alligator weed, and purple loosestrife. In 1992 three beetles were released in Washington for purple loosestrife control. Their damaging impact on purple loosestrife populations was evident in the Winchester Wasteway area of Grant County in 1996. In 1998, 1999, and 2000, the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board organized insect collection for state, local, and federal staff. Thousands of insects were collected and distributed to purple loosestrife sites throughout the state and even the United States. The King County Noxious Weed Control Program has placed Galerucella sp. from the VVinchester 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 VVashington (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 {Jniversity 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 tound 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/programs/wq/plants/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 of Fish and Wildlife determines the appropriate stocking rate for each waterbody when they issue the grass carp-stocking permit. Stocking rates for Washington lakes generally range from 9 to 25 eight- to eleven-inch fish per vegetated acre. This number will depend on the amount and type of plants in the lake as well as spring and summer water temperatures. To prevent stocked grass carp from migrating out of the lake and into streams and rivers, all inlets and outlets to the pond or lake must be screened. For this reason, residents on waterbodies that support a salmon or steelhead run are rarely allowed to stock grass carp into these systems. Once grass carp are stocked in a lake, it may take from two to five years for them to control nuisance plants. Survival rates of the fish will vary depending on factors like presence of otters, birds of prey, or fish disease. A lake will probably need restocking about every ten years. Success with grass carp in Washington has been varied. Sometimes the same stocking rate results in no control, control, or even complete elimination of all underwater plants. Bonar et. 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 waterlilies even when the waterbody is heavily stocked or over stocked. A heavy stocking rate of triploid grass carp in Chambers Lake, Thurston County resulted in the loss of most submersed species, whereas the fragrant waterlilies, bog bean, and spatterdock remained at pre-stocking levels. A stocking of 83,000 triploid grass carp into Silver Lake Washington resulted in the total eradication of all submersed species, including Eurasian watermilfoil, Brazilian elodea, and swollen bladderwort. However, the extensive wetlands surrounding Silver Lake have generally remained intact. In southern states, grass carp have been shown to consume some emergent vegetation (Washington State Department of Ecology, 2002). North Lake 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 VVashington 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 VV ashington 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. North Lake lA VMP 4/30/2009 47 Disadvantages . Depending on plant densities and types, it may take several years to achieve plant control using grass carp and in many cases control may not occur. . If the waterbody is overstocked, all submersed aquatic plants may be eliminated. Removing excess fish is difficult and expensive. . The type of plants grass carp prefer may also be those most important for habitat and for waterfowl food. . If not enough fish are stocked, less-favored plants, such as Eurasian mil foil, may take over the lake. . Stocking grass carp may lead to algae blooms. . All inlets and outlets to the lake or pond must be screened to prevent grass carp from escaping into streams, rivers, or other lakes. Permits Stocking grass carp requires a fish-stocking permit from the Washington Department 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 milfoil has not reached a level where a bio-control such as grass carp would be necessary and the carp could remove all the beneficial plants that support a healthy fish population. Without cover and the invertebrates associated with beneficial native aquatic vegetation, the system would be degraded and some species (invertebrates, fish, etc.) may be extirpated. Watermilfoil Weevil The following information and citations on the watermilfoil weevil are taken from the Washington State Department of Ecology's website on Aquatic Plant Management. http://www.ecy. wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/management/weeviLhtml The milfoil weevil, Euhrychiopsis lecontei, has been associated with declines of Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) in the United States (e.g. Illinois, Minnesota, Vermont, and Wisconsin). Researchers in Vermont found that the milfoil weevil can negatively impact Eurasian watermilfoil by suppressing the plants growth and reducing its buoyancy (Creed and Sheldon 1995). In 1989, state biologists reported that Eurasian watermilfoil in Brownington Pond, Vermont had declined from approximately 10 hectares (in 1986) to less than 0.5 hectares. Researchers from Middlebury College, Vermont hypothesized that the milfoil weevil, which was present in Brownington Pond, played a role in reducing Eurasian watermilfoil (Creed and Sheldon 1995). During 1990 through 1992, researchers monitored the populations of Eurasian watermilfoil and the milfoil weevil in Brownington Pond. They found that by 1991 Eurasian watermilfoil cover had increased to approximately 2.5 hectares (approximately 55-65 g/m2) and then decreased to about 1 hectare (<15 g/m2) in 1992. Weevil abundance began increasing in 1990 and peaked in June of 1992, where 3 - 4 weevils (adults and larvae) per stem were detected (Creed and Sheldon 1995). These results supported the hypothesis that the milfoil weevil played a role in reducing Eurasian watermilfoil in Brownington Pond. Another documented example where a crash of Eurasian watermilfoil has been attributed to the milfoil weevil is in Cenaiko Lake, Minnesota. Researchers from the University of Minnesota reported a decline in the density of Eurasian watermilfoil from 123 g/m2 in July of 1996 to 14 g/m2 in September of 1996. Eurasian watermilfoil remained below 5 g/m2 in 1997, then increased to 44 g/m2 in June and July of 1998 and declined again to 12 g/m2 in September of 1998 (Newman and Biesboer, in press). In contrast, researchers found that weevil abundance in Cenaiko Lake was 1.6 weevils (adults and larvae) per stem in July of 1996. Weevil abundance, however, decreased with declining densities of Eurasian watermilfoil in 1996 and by September 1997 weevils were undetectable. In September of 1998 weevil abundance had increased to >2 weevils per stem (Newman and Biesboer, in press). Based on observations made by researchers in Vermont, Ohio and Wisconsin it seems that having 2 weevils (or more) per stem is adequate to control Eurasian watermilfoil. However, as indicated by the study conducted in Cenaiko Lake, Minnesota, an abundance of 1.5 weevils per stem may be sufficient in some cases (Newman and Biesboer, in press). In Washington State, the milfoil weevil is present primarily in eastern Washington and occurs on both Eurasian and northern watermilfoil (M sibiricum), the latter plant being native to the state (Tamayo et. 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 III 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 VVashington 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 lA VMP 4/30/2009 50 Permits The milfoil weevil is native to Washington and is present in a number of lakes and rivers. It is found associated with both native northern milfoil and Eurasian watermilfoil. A company is selling milfoil weevils commercially. However, to import these out-of-state weevils into Washington requires a permit from the Washington Department of Agriculture. As of October 1,2002 no permits have been issued for Washington. Costs The costs for researchers to locate, culture, and test bio-control agents is high. Once approved for use, insects can sell for $1.00 or more per insect. Sometimes it is possible to establish nurseries where weed specialists can collect insects for reestablishment elsewhere. Suitability for North Lake Since the milfoil weevil is a new bio-control agent, it has not been released yet intentionally in western Washington to control Eurasian watermilfoil. It is uncertain how effective the weevil will be and whether populations per stem can be maintained at levels high enough to eradicate Eurasian watermilfoil. Also, as with the grass carp, the infestation of milfoil in North Lake is not heavy enough to warrant bio-control introduction when other methods are still available. Rotovation. 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. Orawdown 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 milfoil fragments for other nearby lakes with public access and boat launch facilities, as well as a potential source of seed spread by purple loosestrife. Even if some of the residents chose to control the aquatic weeds near their properties, pockets of milfoil would remain. The surviving plants would fragment each autumn, spreading to other areas of the lake, including those that were treated by residents. The no action alternative is not preferred by members of the North Lake community, Weyerhaeuser, or the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. North Lake 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 ofthem, and we can be successful within the time frame of the project. Eurasian watermilfoil (MvrioJ)hvllum sJ)icafuml, 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 watermilfuil is the end goal. A follow-up application in Year 1, about three weeks after the first, may be applied to pick up missed plants or late emergents. Only 2.5 mg/L of the herbicide is allowed to be applied during the growing season in the treatment area. We will plan for a maximum of25% of the original area of 10 acres to need the second treatment. Diver hand-pulling (or diver dredging) will clean up any remaining milfoil found after both herbicide applications have had time to take effect (i.e. two to three weeks after the second herbicide treatment). A bottom barrier will be installed at the boat launch in the winter of Year 1 to ensure eradication in the vicinity, and to aid in preventing new introductions. Community education efforts will be continued, including training in milfoil identification and survey methods. There will also be an increase in the signage at the boat launch. The NPDES permit coverage from WSDA requires notification and posting of the waterbody, and these specific protocols will be followed. The NPDES permit also requires monitoring of the herbicide levels in the lake after treatment. Independent samples will be collected at the time ofthe 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 I (and subsequent years). Problems may arise if the same firm that conducted the herbicide application also surveys for the success of the effort. We plan to hire a separate, independent firm to conduct these surveys to overcome this potential problem. Volunteers from the North Lake community will be directly involved with overseeing the implementation of control work to keep the contractors accountable. Year 2 Year 2 will begin with diver surveys of the lake to check the status of the infestation. Spot herbicide treatment with triclopyr (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 ~,3 securing the barrier to the bottom to ensure safety and effectiveness. Continued community education will complete our Eurasian watermilfoil efforts for Year 2. Year 3 Year 3 will again begin with diver surveys of the lake to assess the milfoil distribution. If herbicide is needed we will stay with the original active ingredient for the herbicide treatment in Year 3. We project that no more than an acre total of Eurasian watermilfoil will need this treatment. We will then use diver hand-pulling/ diver dredging as necessary if individual plants are discovered in our mid- summer survey. Annual maintenance of the bottom barrier at the boat launch and continued community education will complete our Eurasian watermilfoil efforts for Year 3. In Years 4-7 (and beyond), diver and surface surveys will occur at least twice during the growing season. Because permits for herbicide applications must be acquired far in advance, we plan to rely on diver hand-pulling as the control method. If at any point we find that we are losing ground on eradication efforts, we will apply for the appropriate permits and perform spot applications with herbicide. We will need to continue the bottom barrier maintenance annually. There should be no need to revegetate the areas of Eurasian watermilfoil after treatment. Most of the native submersed species are monocots (Potamogeton sp.) that should be relatively unaffected by either the Triclopyr or 2,4-D application. Removing the noxious invaders will halt the degradation of the system and allow the dynamic natural equilibrium to be maintained. North Lake IA VMP 55 4/30/2009 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 (Nvmohaea odorata) 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 I, 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 milflJil 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 I 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 (Iris J)seudacorusJ Control efforts on the yellow flag iris will focus on the entire shoreline. We plan to use a treatment with glyphosate (Rodeo@ or Aquamaster@), which should be done at the same time as the purple loosestrife and fragrant waterlily control. We plan to make one herbicide application in each of the first 3 years. Control efforts around the remainder of the lake will be accomplished through educational outreach. We will begin by asking residents to continue taking seed heads off the plants in late summer before they expand the infestation. We will also encourage landowners to start digging out the individual plants on their shoreline. Caution must be taken when working the yellow flag iris as the plant sap is poisonous and can cause severe blistering and irritation, if ingested it can cause vomiting and diarrhea. Gloves and care must be used when working with this plant. Permission from all of the individual landowners will be necessary before any herbicide work can proceed on their land. These efforts will be ongoing. Suggestions will be provided to residential landowners as to native plants or non-aggressive exotics that would serve well to perform the desired functions of buffer vegetation along their shorelines. North Lake IA VMP 4/30/2009 57 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 Year 2 Year 6 $ 2,000.00 $ 13,900.00 $ 2,925.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 7,900.00 $ 1.280,00 $ 640.00 $ 23,040.00 215.00 $ 215.00 $ 215.00 $ 2,540.00 750.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 5,000.00 250.00 $ 1,750.00 1,000.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 8,500.00 Year 4 YearS Year 6 Year 7 $ $ $ $ $ 7,680.00 Boat launch bottom barrier $ Education and Outreach $ Printing Costs $ Project Management $ Totals $25,930.00 $21,330.00 $5.395.00 $5.095.00 $4.095.00 $2.855.00 $2.855,00 wI tax 10% contingency ~55~.9-'1 $5,923.63 Grand Total $6,731.40 $80,210.03 North Lake IA VMP 4/30/2009 58 Table 5: Project budget with use of 2,4-D Printing Costs Task Year 1 Year 2 Lily Treatment $1.OQO~00 Herbicide (2.4 D) Emergent Weed Treatment $1,500.00 Diver Survey $1.000.00 $250.00 $2s0.oo 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 Diver Dredge! handpull $1.~,00 $10,240.00 Boat launch bottom barrier $215.00 $215.00 Education and Outreach $1,000.00 $750.00 Project Management Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 YearS Year 6 Totals $25,689.00 $21,330.00 $S,39S.OO $S.09S~OO $4.095.00 $2.85S:Q0 Year 7 . -,.-. .....-.......-, ._\,..'.;.....;.:'.:..'........_..._.,........,...:...,c $2,855.00 . wI tax 10% contingency $67,314.00 $5,791.63 Grand Total $6,531.40 $79.687.03 North Lake IA VMP 4130/2009 59 Sources of Fundina There are several likely sources of funding available for project implementation: Grants The Washington State Department of Ecology has an Aquatic Weeds Management Fund (A WMF). This IA VMP was developed to be consistent with all A WMF guidelines and requirements. Given the relatively low-level infestation, outstanding ecological value of North Lake and its watershed, and the potential for infestation of neighboring lakes, it is hoped that Ecology and other grant programs will offer funding. Other possible funding sources include King County's WaterWorks and the Natural Resources Stewardship Network. Dedicated non-grant funds from King County The King County Noxious Weed Program has limited funds available to contribute to weed control projects. While this can not be considered an ongoing source of funding, $1000 is promised to the project in the first year of implementation. Community-Based Funding There is a proposal before the North Lake Improvement Club to begin collecting annual contributions estimated at $50, with the additional revenue to be dedicated to projects and programs designed to improve lake and watershed conditions. This could generate several thousand dollars over the first five years of the project. Noxious aquatic weed management currently tops the list of threats to the lake. If funds raised by requesting contributions prove insufficient, community members have discussed forming a Lake Management District (LMD). If implemented, a LMD would collect an annual fee from all watershed property owners. Fees would be weighted based on property size and proximity to the lake. Money collected through a LMD must be dedicated to addressing specific problems facing the lake and watershed. This IA VMP will provide some guidance should watershed residents choose to pursue a LMD. Matching Funds Table 6 shows the matching requirements outlined by Ecology's A WMF and the estimated in-kind match and cash match provided by King County and the North Lake Community. Table 6: Total Matching Funds (triclopyr) Total Proiect cost = $80,210.03 Budgeted Match % of Total 75% of total project $60,157.52 Required match $20,052.51 Budgeted in-kind match $13,825.00 17.2% Budgeted cash match $ 6,450.40 8.0% Ecology $ after match $59,934.63 74.7% North Lake IA VMP 4/30/2009 60 Table 7: Total Matching Funds (2,4-D) Total Proiect cost = $ 79,687.03 Budgeted % of Total 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 Unitsl 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 in dude boat surwys, 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 De-.elopment and time spent de-.eloping Presentation materials and presenting materials to youth I 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 Unitsl yea r Years Notes Total Community self-tax $ 500.00 per year 1 5 Based on $ 2,500.00 implementation otone or more community-based funding strategies ouUined 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 NoJCious Weed Control Proaram 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 $ 950AO Weed Specialist burden rates as ot2003. Total est. cash match $ 6,450.40 North Lake IA VMP 4/30/2009 61 Table 10: KC Staff Salary and Burden Rates Position Emnronmental 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 IA VMP 62 4/3012009 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 delcnnme 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 BJBLl.QGRAPI:IY Aiken, S. G., P.R. Newroth, and L 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, R.E. 1977. A trophic state index for lakes. Limnol. Oceanogr. 22:361- 368. Cleary, Julie. July 2004. E-mail correspondence. Resident of North Lake. King County, W A. Creed, R.P., Jr., and S.P. Sheldon. 1995. Weevils and watermilfoil: Did a North American herbivore cause the decline of an exotic weed? Ecological Applications 5(4): 1113-1121. Diamond, Gary L. and Patrick R. Durkin. 1997. Effects of Surf act ants on the Toxicity ofGlyphosate, with Specific Reference to RODEO. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), SERA TR 97-206-lb. 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 Recommendedfor 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, WA. Information Ventures, Inc. 1995. Pesticide Fact Sheet: Glyphosate. Prepared for U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Available online at: htto:/ /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. 64 North Lake IA VMP 4/30/2009 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. MaJik, 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, 2001a. Amphibian Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat Use in: Wetlands and Urbanization: Implicationfor the Future. Azous, A.L. and R.R. Horner (eds), Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton. 338 pp. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1973. Soil Survey King County Area Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D. C. Walker, Monica. August 2004. E-mail correspondence. Noxious Weed Specialist, King County Noxious Weed Group. Seattle, W A. Washington State Department of Ecology, 2001 a. An Aquatic Plant Identification Manual for Washington's Freshwater Plants. 195pp. , Washington State Department of Ecology, 200 I b. Herbicide Risk Assessment for the Aquatic Plant Management Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Appendix C - Volume 3: 2.4-0). 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 Triclopyr. 115pp. Available online at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0410018.html Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board. 1995. Eurasian watermilfoil. In: Written Findings. Available online at: http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/weed info/milfoil.html ' Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board. 2001. Iris pseudacorus. In: Written Findings. Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board. 1997. Lythrum salicaria. In: Written Findings. Available online at: http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/weed info/ploosestrife.html Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board. 2001b. Nymphaea odorata. In: Written Findings. Westerdahl, H.E. and K.D. Getsinger (eds), 1988. Aquatic Plant Identification and Herbicide Use Guide; Volume I: Aquatic Herbicides and Application Equipment. Technical Report A-88-9, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, T AS. 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 Management Plan. Throughout this process, the Steering Committee made decisions based on input from and interactions with the wider community. Documents contained herein relate to planning and implementation of outreach and education activities including steering committee meeting agendas, meeting notes, flyers, and handouts. Documents appear in their original form, and have not been edited after the fact to reflect subsequent decisions or changes in the proposed project. As such, there are spelling and grammar errors, and varied document formats. North Lake IA VMP - Appendix A A-I 3-17-04 North Lake Steering Committee meeting Attendees: Julie Cleary, Tom Jovanovich, Wendy Honey, Debra Hansen, Mark Bravennan 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 pennit for treating the Lilly pads for 2004 and plans to do treatment end of May . Look at Spring Lake model at http://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 concerns . What do we need to do in preparation for this meeting? o Distribute flyers o Coffeeltea o Set up club house o What else? · Sign in sheet with Namel AddresslPhone/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 CuIlen as a speaker? o Wendy Honey, Steering Committee Chairperson . Introduce Steering Committee members . Explain that we are starting a 7-lOyear community maintenance to control our communities noxious and invasive weed/plant problem . Introduce Beth CuIlen to speak on educating community on noxious and invasive weed/plant . SmaIl Change Grant Writing o Handouts provided by King County o Who is going to do what by when? . Questions were assigned to Steering Committee members to draft and complete by 4/07/04 (Wednesday) North Lake IA VMP - Appendix A A-3 PLEASE JOIN US!! North Lakeside residents, we need your help in returning North Lake to a Clean, recreational lake to live and play on. Milfoil, Lilly pads and Purple Loosestrife are threatening the health of our lake. We need to take action. Please join us for a discussion and direction setting Date: Where: Time: Speaker: April 5 North Lake Improvement Club 7: 15 pm 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 of2004 and the possibility of a grant from King County. Your participation in direction setting is critical to a successful clean up. North Lake Steering Committee Julie Cleary (253)874-9138 Debra Hansen (253)927-7789 Wendy Honey (253)952-5283 Tom Jovanovich (253)874-8239 North Lake IA VMP - Appendix A A-4 4/05/04 Speakers Notes (Wendy Honey) (attended by 31 residents including steering committee members 90 minute meeting) Thank neighbors for attending and support (include those not able to attend) Introduce Steering Committee: Julie Cleary, Debra Hansen, Tom Jovanovich, Wendy Honey Brief overview: . Began last year with conversations of the lily pads. Many neighbors have noticed and commented on increased lake weeds over the years. . Invited Beth Cullen and Katie Sauter Messick to talk with the North Lake Improvement Club Board members about weed control and funding options through grants . Our goal is to begin eradication of the non-native lily pads. Begin this process this spring. Count grant application for this process may be available. Cost is approximately $1500.00 in conjunction with Weyerhaeuser. Cost saving to begin now is $1050.00 ($250.00 per acre savings on treatment and shared permit) . Long term goal is to request a grant through the State Department of Ecology and develop an Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan for our lake. 7-10 year process. This will result in controlling other noxious weeds such as the Milfoil, Purple Loosestrife, and Yellow Flag Iris. . Approximately 50 lakeside neighbors contacted over the weekend. 30 (100%) that we were able to speak with gave their support o Support may come in the form of: Financial assistance Volunteer time . Introduce Beth Cullen, Water Quality Planner I Lake Stewardship Program, King County Water and Land Resources (206)263-62421 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 of the management plan will focus on herbicide treatments but begin to add diver surveys and resident monitoring to the plan Next Steps: Start aggressive eradication. Consider $20,000 a year for first couple of years for herbicide treatments. 3-4 years for control of non-native water lilies/Purple Loosestrife/Milfoil Educational grant may be available. Could we utilize the Boy Scouts for volunteers? 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, Killarney, and 5 mile have same problems with non-native and noxious weeds/plants Initial control of non-native water lilies will probably need 2 treatments of RODEO to be effective Need to develop letter of support and receive signatures for grant application Task Delegation: . Link for 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 lilly 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 6117 spray of fragrant Water Lilies: Belinda Bowman Introduce IA VMP, Ihtegrated 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 lA 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 ofthe fragrant water lilies are beginning to die. As this continues to happen, they may sink to the bottom and it is possible that some masses of them may rise and float. If they float onto your shoreline and it is more thank you can handle for cleaning up to recycle or compost, please contact a member 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 \'ie would need to ask residents to assist in funding. We can still use the Weyerhaeuser permit for future treatments, even if they are not in conjunction. It is important to mention that the Native Lilies were not sprayed as part of the eradication. The contractor was very careful not to spray these lilies and they will remain as part of the native habitat. North Lake PowerPoint presentation: Wendy Honey, photos of the lake during the water lily eradication cff.J:ts June 16th, June 17th, and June 24th. Whitworth Pest Solutions: update on 6/17 spray of Fragrant Water Lilies: Belinda Bowman Our next step: Introduce IA VMP, Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan: The grant application the Steering Committee is currently drafting. This grant is from the State Department of Ecology. The due date for the grant application is October 2004 for funding eradication project to begin in 2005. (Include request for matching funds both in kind and monetary) We are considering the first 3 years to be the most costly and are hoping to receive $100.00 per household in order to meet our match funds. We do need ongoing financial support from the homeowners as at some point, when funding has run out, we will be self funding to keep our lake free of the weeds that today infest the shoreline and water surface. We also receive credit for in kind A- North Lake IA VMP - Appendix A II matches of time such as monitoring progress. To date the Steering committee has dedicated in excess of toO 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 1 Collect Letter of Support from each household attending A- North Lake IAVMP - Appendix A 12 7/26/04 Steering Committee Meeting Agenda Attendees: Tom Jovanovich, Julie Cleary, Debra Hansen, Chuck Gibson, Wendy Honey, Beth Cullen . Informational discussion on herbicides to consider: o Approximately 3-5 acres of mil foil o 24D-higher toxicity-not for use in Salmon bearing streams Approx. Cost $600.00 per acre o Triclopere-Iess 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. [fwe 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. Apprex. Gcnst $750.00 plus tax . Other items as needed: o Continue drafting fA 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 noteslcomments on the draft IA VMP . Review and discuss the application document (Wendy is still working on this) o Draft answers and discuss fonnat 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. of Fisheries (Larry T. is to be mailing this to Wendy) regarding Rotenone restoration of North Lake in 1950's-1970's o Community feedback (ANY?) Non reported Next step is to forward completed draft to Beth Cullen at King County with completed application, attachments, and disc of pictures of North Lake, history, and 2004 lily eradication progress. This will be sent by 9/04/2004. Next meeting to be determined North Lake 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 of the North Lake community, agree .:. that Eurasian watermilfoil and other listed noxious aquatic weeds present a serious threat to the natural beauty, ecological integrity, and safe recreational activities on Spring Lake. .:. that controlling the noxious weeds is an immediate priority and that ongoing monitoring and control should be a continuing priority into the future .:. that community-based funding will be necessary to maintain a milfoil-free lake after initial eradication efforts .:. that the proposed treatment strategy outlined below is reasonable but may be altered by experts at the Department of Ecology to achieve the greatest likelihood of success Recommended Treatment Strate!!)' Initial Treatment (Year 1) Treat infested areas with 2, 4 D or triclopyr Diver hand-pulling Install bottom barrier at boat ramp Community education - milfoillD 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 fA VMP - Appendix B B-2 ~ o p.. p.. ::s (/) t+-< o ;... v t: v ~ C .- ~ ::s ~ o U Q) ~ ro ~ ,..s:::: 1:: o Z 1l ~ ~ ~ C\ r-l' ~ -~ f\ ~ ~~ ~ ; * ~VI~I e t ~ \}- I \)1' ~ [; ~ ~II~ 'p VL' ~ '~V) IY\ :~ ~~0~~ '-:!.'.. ~ (J ~ f\\ ~ ~~~nt\J~ ~ \i ~ -~ ~ ~ ~\JI ~ O,gl ~ VJ y.- -i: ~ ~~ ~ 'rJ\, t1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~\ ,U] ~~ ift !j- rh f.') /'() tv) 00 ~ r~A ~~~ ~'---.J ~ N "<i o ...- ..- ...- (") to <ri r-- <X) 0) N (V') ...- ..- o ..- '+-- o ..- <J) (J) (tJ Q.. ~ o o N CO N <J) C ::J -, " '" J- "" ~ ~ ~ "'<f ~ -2 ~ ..f ,~ ~ & J~ ~d '\:; '* ~ ~ -1 ~ --... ~ ~ if" .J ~ I -+- if) ~ Q I "f I ~ ~ I ~ 1'0 0 ~ Y) t un 'Y', 0 '- A & t'i ~ A --.S) ~ ~ if1 cO ~ 1'("\ ~ ~ tJ\ I{) 0 M V t:: ~ V 1 ~ 0 ~ .- u ~ VI <t.:. ~ l/ -3 ') ~ ~ ~ 0 () P _\1\ Q) ~ ~ ~ () "'" ro '-.j 0 ~ f 0 N ~ co ~ N 0 <D <Xi <0 0) c Z <D ...... (J) 0 ..-- C\l C") ..,j an ...... <Xi 0 ::l . ..-- ..- ..- ..- N N N C\l N N N N N N C") -, o ..-- '+- o N <D 0> <Il 0... o ..- "- o ('t) (J) 0> ro a.. r\) V<: J D V$ if' ")~ ,~ . V) I < i ~ ~:i ~ '" ~ tOo ~ ~ N\ V " \'() r/\ ~ I '^' ~ I ~ '" C'-^ K I N) f'V" ~ ~ "- ~f) ~ cf'- lJ) 0 A ~ ~~ A t6 ::3 ~ rf\ ~ ()o -I ::::r ~ .J r/J. l'rJ <) N r-^ <;...; \'D r'\ 0 lYJ M ~ (1) ~ (1) ~ -6 0 ':::> .,.... 0 ~ 1~ ~ . U- 0 J 'j u (1) ~ ~ "<T Cd I~ 0 ~ 0 0- N ,J:::: -7 r-- co ~ N (J) I 0 . .,j c Z ...- C\I ('t) "<T 10 <0 t-- ro ..- N ('t) 10 :J ('t) (\') (\') ('t) (\') (\') ('t) (\') "<T "'<t -q- "<T "<T -, --j- () ------- '^ ~ o .- ..... o '<:t CD 0> ro a.. \. "- ~ "- ~ '-' \ ...,. ~ '- c,:) - ~ '-1 oJ ... ~ CY) . ~ .~ ~ <0 l) ~ ~ l'/) ~\ ~"~ ~ ~ ~ \)\ \. ~ ...... ~ ~ <Y] ~ 0 ((( A \.S) Q\ ~ A t ---- N ~ ;:s -.J '- r:n N \.. \'l ~ ~ -' 0 / N\ \0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ......:l .~ c ':1 .- ,::: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "S:" (i) ~ ........ 0 t.ij ~ 1: u. ~ ~ 0 \J ~ ~ '<:t .0 \ { 0 ......:l .~ -; 0 N 'E oo N 0 CD ~ c Z CD I'- oo 0> 0 ..- N (W) ID <D r- oo O'l 0 ~ oq- '<:t '<:t oq- ID 10 10 ID 10 ID 10 10 10 10 <D ...., 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 2,4-0 BEE product (Navigate), and one liquid 2,4-0 OMA 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 broadleaf and woody vegetation on banks and shores within or adjacent to these and other aquatic sites. Active Ingredient: triclopyr: 3,5,6-trichloro- 2-pyridinyloxyacelic acid, triethylamine salt......... ...... ...:.... ...... .......... .... ....44.4% Inert Ingredients....... ................... ...m.... ... ..... .... ... ...... ..... ...55.6% TotaL....... .................... ................. .... ..... ........... ................100.0% Acid equivalent tridopyr - 31.8% - 3 Iblga/ 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. Hannful if swallowed or absorbed through skin. Prolonged or frequenUy repeated skin contact may cause allergic reaction in some individuals 00 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 drend1ed or heavily contaminated with this product's concentrate. Do not reuse them. Follow manufacturer's insbuctions for deaning! maintaining PPE. If no such insbuctions for washables, use detergent and hot water. Keep and wash PPE separately from other laundry. In the eyes . Hold eye open and rinse slowly and gently with water for 15 - 20 minutes. Remove contact lenses, jf present, after the first 5 minutes, then continue rinsing eye. . Call 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 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 iJ unconsdous 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 herbidde 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 Reconvnendations 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 tenns are unacceptable, return at once unopened. In case of emergency endangering health or the environment involving this product, can INFOTRAC at 1-800-535-5053. If you wish to obtain additional product information, visit our web site at www.sepro.com. Agricultural Chemical: Do not ship or store with food, feeds, drugs or dothing. EPAReg. No. 62719-37-67690 FPL 012203 EPA Est. No. 464-MI-1 SPC - 381116 "Trademark of Oow AgroSciences llC manufactured for: SePRO CoIporation Cannel, IN 46032, U.SA CD -C -(3 -- -e CD I M 4- CD ... = o 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 170.24O(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 IhoroughIy 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, treabnent of aquatic weeds can result in oxygen depletion or loss due to deoomposition 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-half 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 detennine 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 pestidde regulation AGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS Use this product only in accoRlance with its labeling and with the Worker Protection Standard, 40 CFR part 170. This Standard contains mquirements for the protection of agricuIlural wakers on fanns. forests, nurseries, and greenhouses, and handlers of agria.dtumI pesticides. It contains requirements for training, decontamination, notification, and emergency assistance. It also contains specific inslructions and exceptions pertaining to the statements on this label about personal protective equipment (PPE), and restlicte<Hmtry 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 WOlker 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 Wor1<:er Protection Standard and that involves contact with anything that has been treated, such as plants, soil, or water, is: . CoveraUs . Shoes plus socks . Protective eyewear . Cherrical--resistant 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 >Mthin 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: For applications to non- cropland areas, do not aDow 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 RefiUable Containers: Seal aU openings which have been opened during use. Retum the emply container to a coUection site designated by SePRO Colporation. If the container has been damaged and camot be returned according to the recommended procedures, contact SePRO Corporation at 1-800-419-n79 to obtain proper handling insbuctions. Container Disposal (Metal): Do not reuse container. Triple rinse (or equivalent). Then offer for recycling or reconditioning. or puncture and dispose of in a sanitary landfiU. or by other procedures approved by state and local authorities. Container Disposal (Plastic): Do not reuse container. Triple rinse (or equivalent). Then offer for recyding or reconditioning, or puncture and dispose of in a sanitary IandfiU, or by indr,er dlior" 01, if allowed by state and local authorities. by burning. If bu, ned. slay out of smoke. General: Consult federal, state, or local disposal authorities fo. approved alternative procedures. __ _____---.-i General Information .' . .'1" "::.~Y:, '" For Aquatic and Wetland Sites Renovatet 3 herbidde is recommended for control of emersccl. submersed and floating aquatic plants in aquatic sites sudl as ponds, lakes, reselVOirs, non-irrigalion 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 commerrial production, specificaDy forests grown for commerdal 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 tridopyr level in the intake water is detennined to be non-detectable by laboratory analysis ~mmunoassay). There is no restriction on use of water from the treatment area to irrigate estabfished 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 little 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 ooIumn 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 Microfoil' or Thru-Valve boom', or use a drift control additive labeled for aquatic use. Other drift reducing systems or thickened sprays prepared by using high viscosily inverting systems may be used jf 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 this label to a particular piece of equipment produced by or available from other parties is provided without ronsideration for use by the reader at its discretion and subject to the reader's independent circumstances, evaluation. and expertise. Such reference by SePRO Cofporation is not intended as an endorsement of such equipment, shall not constitute a warranty (express or imptied) of such equipment. and is not intended to imply that other equipment is not available and equally suitable. Any diSa.tSsion of methods of use of such equipment does not imply that the reader should use the equipment other than is advised in directions available from the equipment's manufacturer. ll1e reader is responsible fO( exercising its own judgment and expertise, or consulting with sources other than 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 off-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 Reducli:)! j Advisory. [This information is advisory in nature and does not supersede mandatory label requirements. I Aerial Drift Reduction Advisory Infonnation on Droplet Size: The most effective Nay n ',y 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 dnft potential, but will not prevent drift if applications are made improperly, or under unfavorable environmental conditions (see Wmd, Temperature and Humidity, and Temper2ture 1r..:er'3iGi':') 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 manufacturers 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. With most nozzle types, narrower spray angles produce larger droplets. Consider using Iow-drift nozzles. Solid stream nozzles oriented straight back produce the largest droplets and the lowest drift 3 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 redudng 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 aircrnft safely. Making applications at the lowest height that is safe reduces exposure of droplets to evaporation and wind. Swath Adjustment When applk:ations are made with a cross- wind, the swath win 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 inaease. with increasing drift potential (higher wind, smaner 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. EvElf)' applicator should be fammar 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, whicl1 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 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 pestidde 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 avaUable 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 forming 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 clover (bearmat) beech birch blackberry b1ackgum Brazilian pepper cascara ceanothus cherry Chinese Tallow chinquapin choke cherry cottonwood crataegus (hawthorn) locust Maleleuca (seedlings) Annual and Perennial BroadleafWeeds burdock tigodium Canada thistle plantain curly dock smartweed elephant ear tansy ragwort Aquatic Weeds alligatorweed American lotus American frogbit Aquatic sodaapple Eurasian watennilfoil milfoil spedes nuphar (spatterdock) panotfeather* pickerelweed pennywort maples mulberry oaks poison ivy poison oak poplar salt-bush (Baccharis spp.) sweetgum waxmyr1le wiIlpw tropical sodaapple vetch wild lettuce purple loosestrife watemyacinth watcrlif/ waterpnma-<;e ~ *Relrealment may be needed to achieve desired level of OOlltrol. "lfl' Application Methods ! ~ ~ ,~"." '. Floating and Emerged Weeds For control of water11yacinth, alligatorweed (see specific directions below), and other susceptible emerged and floating herbaceous weeds and woody plants, apply 1 1/2 to 6 Ib ae tridopyr (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 diffict.Jlt 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 tricIopyr (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 vehicle. Thorough wetting of foliage is essential for maximum effectiveness. Use 20 to 200 gallons per acre of spray mixture. Special precautions sucl1 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 (E;chhom;a crass;pes) Apply Renovate 3 at 1 1/2 to 6 Ib ae tridpyr (2 to 8 quarts of Renovate 3) per acre to control water11yacinth. 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 Of plants missed in the previous treatment Alligatorweed (Altemanthera philoxeroides) Apply Renovate 3 at 2 to 6 Ib ae lridopyr (3 to 8 quarts of Renovate 3) per acre to control alligatOlWeed. 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, alligatOlWeed growing in water will only be partially controlled. Top growth above the water will be controlled, but the plant will h1<ely 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. .,.;e Renovate 3 Application Rate (quart/acre) Setback Distance. (ft) . 2 qt1acre 4 qt1acre 6 qtfaere 8 qt1acre <4 0 200 400 500 >4-8 0 200 700 900 > 8 - 16 0 200 700 1000 > 16 0 200 900 1300 Note; Existing potable water intakes which are no longer in use, such as those replaced by potable water wells or ronnections loa municipal water system, are not considered 10 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 olf until the lriclopyr level in the intake water is determined 10 be 0.4 parts per million (ppm} Of 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 fOf recreational purposes, including 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, Jakes. reservoirs. and in non-irrigalion 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 tridopyr 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 eal1y summer when Eurasian watermilfoi 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 Spi ay vOl. ume of 5 gallons per acre. Do not apply when weather conditions fallor drift to sensitive areas. ... Concentration ofTriclopyr Acid in Water (ppm~a~) .~+. ,;; GallPns QfR~ 3 pef'suiface acre at spec:ifiecf~' Water Depth 0.75 Ppm 1.0 ppcn 1.5 ppm 2.0 PP'" 2')ppm (feet) , 1 0.7 0.9 1.4 1.8 2.3 2 1.4 1.8 3.3 3.6 4.6 3 2.1 2.9 4.1 5.4 6.8 4 2.7 3.6 5.4 7.2 9.1 5 3.4 4.5 6.8 9.0 11.3 6 4.1 5.4 8.1 10.9 13.6 7 4.8 6.3 9.5 12.7 15.8 8 5.5 7.2 10.9 14.5 18.1 9 6.1 8.1 12.2 16.3 20.4 10 6.8 9.0 13.6 18.1 226 15 10.2 13.6 20.4 27.2 33.9 20 13.6 18.1 27.2 36.2 45.3 5 Precautioos 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 determine the minimum setback distances of the application from the functioning potable water intakes. Concentration of Triclopyr Acid in Water (ppm ae) Required setback distance (ftl from potable water intake Area Treated O:75ppm 1.0 ppm 1,5 ppm 2.0 ppm 2.5 ppm (acresl <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 (ftl calculate a = (llOO* In = (800* In = (800* In = (800*10 = (BOO* In setback using (aaesl- (acres) - (acres) - (acres) - (acres) - 1he formula for 160}/3.33 160)/2.SO 160)/1.67 tOO} 11 25 160) 1he appropriate rate Example Calculation 1: to apply 2-5 ppm Renovate 3 to 50 acres: Setback in feet = (BOO x In (SO acres) - 160 = (BOO x 3.912)-160 = 2970 feet Example Calculation 2: to apply 0.75 ppm Renovate 3 to 50 acres: Setback in feet = (800 x In (SO acres) -160 3.33 = (BOO 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 wefts or connections to a municipal waler system. are not COllSidered to be functioning polabIe water intakes. These setback restrictions do not apply to terrestrial applications made adjacent to potable waler intakes. To apply Renovate 3 around and wilhin the a\Stances noted above from a functioning polabIe waler intake. 1he intake must be turned off unM the lridopyr level in the intake waler is determined to be 0.4 parts per million (ppm) or less by laboratory analysis or invnunoassay. . 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 wate( 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 Precautioos 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 pubtic water control authorities before appJing this product in and around public water. Permits may be required to !reat 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 tridopyr (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 aD directions and use precautions on the label of the surfactant Thorough wetting of the foliage and stems is necessary to achieve satisfactory control. A minimwn 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 fl 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. diffie, lit to traverse, isolated, or otherwise unsuited to ground aplication, or in circumstances where invasive exotic weeds dominat'J f13tive plant populations over extensive areas and efforts to restore na;"" plant diversity are being conducted. By air, apply in a minimum spray volume of 30 gallons per acre using Thru-Valve or Microfoll boom only. . Recreational Use of Water in Treabnent Area: There are no restrictions on use of water in the treatment area fo. re.:;! e3~;om.1 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 lb ae tridopyr (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 tricIopyr (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 fisted on the surfactant manufacturer's label. Use the higher recommend- ed concentrations of surfactant in the spray mixture when applying lower spmy volumes per acre. The recommended order of addition to the spmy 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 emulsiliable concentrate herbicides, moderate continuous adequate agitation is required. Before using any recommended tank mixtures, read the directions and al 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 cheny, maples, or oaks are prevalent and during applications made in late summer when the plants are mature and during drought conditions, use the higher mtes of Renovate 3. When using Renovate 3 in combination with a 2,4-0 herbicide approved for aquatic use, such as DMA 4 NM, genemlly the higher mtes should be used for satisfactory brush control. Use the higher dosage mtes 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 mtes 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 spmy solution, or Renovate 3 at 3/4 to 3 Ib ae triclopyr (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 spmy 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 mte of 6 Ib ae of tridopyr (2 gallons of Renovate 3) per acre per growing season. Low Volume Foliage Treatment To control susceptible woody plants, apply up to 15 Ib ae tridopyr (5 gallons of Renovate 3) in 10 to 100 gallons of linished spray. 1he spray concentration of Renovate 3 and total spray volume per acre may be adjusted accooflng to the size and density of target woody plants and kind of spmy equipment used. With low volume sprays, use sufficient spray volume to obtain uniform roverage 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 spmy mixtures. Match equipment and deliveJY rate of spray nozzles to height and density of woody plants. When treating tall, dense brush, a truck mounted spmy gun with spmy 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 spmy per minute may be appropriate for short, low to modemte density brush. Cut Surface Treatments (Woody Plants) To control unwanted trees and other listed woody plants, apply Renovate 3, either undiluted or diluted in a 1 to 1 moo 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 centelS 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 inteMlls of 3 to 4 inches between centers at a convenient height around the tree trunk. Spray 1/2 m~liliter 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 cut 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 are3 next ~o the bark is the most vital area to wet. 7 Terms and Conditions of Use If terms 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 lUll refund of purchase price paid. Otherwise, use by the buyer or any other user constitutes acceptance of the terms under Warranty Disclaimer, Inherent Risks of Use and limitations of Reme<fleS. Warranty Disclaimer SePRO Corporation warrants that the product conforms to the chemical description on the label and is reasonably lit 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 FORA 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 (including conditions noted on the label such as unfavorable temperatures, soil conditions, etc.), abnonnal conditions (such as excessive rainfall, drought, tornadoes, 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 (including claims based on contract, negligence, sbict liability, or other legal theories) shall be limited to, at SePRO Corporation's 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. 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 terms 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 terms of the Warranty Disclaimer or Limitations of Remedies in any manner. Form No. A-OO-RG-{)1(03) "Copyright 2003 Sef'R0 Capooation fRenovate isaregisten!d tadematkofOawAgoScienceslLC maout.adisedfor SePRO Cotpa:atoo ~ecimen Label ."Dow AgroSciences -- bMJ( 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, dimethylamine salt t............................................. 46.3% Inert Ingredients ......................................................................... 53.7% Total Ingredients ........................................................................ 100.0% 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid tt - 38.4% - 3.81b1gal 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 fa etiqueta, busque a alguien para que se fa explique a usled 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 trreversible Eye Damage' Hannfullf Swallowed, tnhaled or Absorbed Through The Skin. 00 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. 00 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. Mer 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 transfening the contents of this container. If the contents of a non-relillable 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 meet:', the requirements listed in the Worker Protections Standa,d (VIIPS) fer agricultural pesticides [40 CFR 170.240 (d) (4-6)], the handler PPE requirements may be reduced or modified as specified in (he WFS. User Safety Recommendations I Users should: I . 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, Nash 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, atter the first 5 minutes, then continue rinsing eye. Can 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 swallow. 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 conlrot 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 mixinglJoading 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. 00 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. notifrcation, 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 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 evewear Non-Agricultural Use Requirements The requirements in this box apply to uses of this product that are NOT within the scope ot 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 appfJed 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 treabnent 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 dosed 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 recyding 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 smokG. General: Consult federal. state, or local disposal authorities for approved altemative 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 win often give poor results. Use lo~' 3P: ay 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-Iarget 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 apply where drift may be a problem due to proximity to susceptible crops or other desirable broadleaf plants. Do not apply OMA 4 IVM directly to, or otherwise permit contact with cotton, flowers. fruit trees, grapes, Ornamentals, vegetables, or other desirable plants which are susceptible to 2,4-0 herbicides. Do not permit 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 dormant 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. WU1d-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 soits 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 OMA 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 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 heaIlh 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 fammar with and take into account the information covered in the following Aerial Drift Reduction Advisory Information 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 /lows 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 win 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-<!rift 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-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. sma!i;)r drops, etc.). Wind: Drift potential is lowest between wind speeds of 2-10 mph However. many factors, including droplet size and eqUIpment type determine drift potential at any given speed. Application ShO"ld Ix avoided below 2 mph due to variable wind direction and IIt'l: ;I'ver<n' potential. Note: Local terrain can influence wind pattems. L:"efY 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 compensa'e for evaporation. Droplet evaporation is most severe when condiliv;os "re 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 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 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 OMA 4 IVM only with water, unless othefWise directed on this label. Add about half the water to the mixing tank. then add the OMA 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 labellirnitations 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 2,4-0. Tank Mix Compatibility Testing: A jar test is recommended prior to tank mixing to ensure compatibility of this product and other pesticides. Use a ctear 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. 'f the mixture balls. up, forms ftakes. sludges, jets, 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 ftush application equipment thoroughly after use at least three times with water. Dispose of aO 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 sulfaces are contacted (15-20 minI. let the solution stand for several hours, preferably overnight. 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 othefWise 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 dos<lges will be needed. Appty OMA 4 IVM during wall1l 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 It as in<flC3ted 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 unifoll1lly 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 OMA 4 NM (tl oz or ml) corresponding to the desired broadcast rate in 1 to 3 gallons of spray. To cafcul"te u,,~ amount of DMA 4 JVM required for larger areas, multiply the table value (tl oz or ml) by the thousands of sq It to be treated. An area of 1000 sq ft is approximately 10.5 X 10.5 yards (strides) in size. - --] d 3 f10z (88 _'!!!L 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 bitteIWeed broomweed, common t burdock, common buttercup, smallflowered t carpetweed cinquefoil, common cinquefoil, rough cocklebur, common coffeeweed copperleaf, Virginia croton, Texas croton, w00liy f1ixweed galinsoga geranium, Carolina hemp, wild horseweed (marestail) jewelweed jimsonweed knotweed t kochia tambsquarters, common lettuce, prickly t lettuce, wild lupines mallow, titUe t mallow, Venice t marshelder momingglory, amual momingg/ory, 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 (annual species) t sneezeweed, bitter sowthislle, annual sowthislle, spiny spanishneedles sunflower sweetclover tansymustard thistle, bull thistle, musk t thistle, Russian (tumbleweed) t velvelleaf 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 bullnetue t carrot, wild t catnip chicory clover, red t coffeeweed cress, hoary t dandelion t docks t dogbanes t goldenrod eveningprimrose, cutleaf garlic, wild t hawkweed, orange t healal ironweed, western ivy, ground t Jerusalem-artichoke loco, bigbend netues (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 cootroUed 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 Tr;~-'n'iecii-;:;~" Use): For use in forests, follow PPE and Reentry insttc; ~",' ' "Agricultural Use Requirements. section under the .Direcli("IS 1m U'" heading of this label. Agricultural Use Requirements for Forestry (Trel: lnje;.t.on !Jnly) and Non-cropland Areas: When this product is applied to non-cropland areas, non-crop turf, and by tree injection in forest sites, follow reentry requirements given in the "Non-Agricultural Use Requirements" section under the "Directions for Use" headi 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 41VM 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 ql. broadleaf weeds and Gar1on. 3A herbicide per acre. susceptible woody For conifer release, make application in ear1y spring before budbreak of conifers when weeds are small plants and actively QrowinQ. Spot Treatment to See Note: To control broad/eaf weeds in small areas with a hand sprayer, use an application rate equivalent control broadleat Instructions to the recommended broadcast rate and spray to thoroughly wet all foliage. See rate conversion lable 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 qtJacre 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 induding foliage and injurious amounts of spray. Apply in oil, oil-water, or water carrier in a spray volume of 10 pine to 100 gallons Del' 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 atso be collar at the ground line. Welting stems with the mixture may also aid in control. used in or noncropland) Surface of Cut Stumps 2.6 fl ozlgal Apply as soon as possible after culling trees. Thoroughly soak the entire stump with the 2,4-0 mixtnB (May also be used in of water including cut surface, bark and exposed roots. -J non cropland) ------.-. Frill and Girdle Cut frills (overlapping V-shaped notches cut downward through the bark in a continuous rid'] ;;" ''iwl'',p (May also be used in base of the tree) using an axe or other suitable tool. Treat freshly cut frills with as much of UK "-.+U noncropland) mixture as they 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 mI of und~uted DMA 4 IVM per inch of trunk diameter at (May also be used breast height (OSH) as measured approximately 4 1/2 ft above the ground. Make injections as close 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 OMA 4 lVM per injection site or double the number of 1 ml injections. Note: No Worker Protection Standard worker entry restrictions or worker notification requirements apply when this product Is directly injected into agricultural plants. Precautions and Restrictions: . 00 nol allow sprays to contact conifer shoot growth (current year's new growth) or injury may occur. . 00 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 OMA 4 IVM (4.0 lb 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 lication Annual broadleaf weeds DMA 4 IVM tlacre 2t04 Biennial and perennial broadleaf weeds and susceptible woody plants 4t08 Spot Treatment to control broadleaf weeds See Instructions tor 'Spot Treatment" Tree Injection Application Southern wild rose Broadcast application upt04 Spot treatment 1 gal/1oo 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 broadleat weeds and woody species, tank mix up to 1 gallon DMA 4 lVM plus 1 to 4 qt. Garlon" 3A herl>icide per acre. For ground application: (High volume) apply a total of 100 to 400 gal per acre; (low volume) apply a total ot 10 to 100 gal per acre. For helico ter: A I a total of 5 10 30 al acre s a volume. Note: To control broadleat weeds in small areas with a hand sprayer. use an application rate equivalent to the broadcast rate recommended tor this treabnent site and spray to thoroughly wet all foliage. See rate conversion table and instructions for'S t Treatment" and use of hand-held s a 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 ot an agricultural sutfactant per 100 gallons of water. Two or more treatments may be required. Precautions and Restrictions: " Do not apply to newly seeded areas until grass is well established. " Bentgrass, St Augustine, clover, legumes and dichondra may be severely injured or killed by this treatment. . Do not apply more than 8.42 pUacre of DMA 4 IVM (4.0 Ib of acid equivalent) per use season. . Do not reapply to a treated area within 30 days of a previous application. " If grazing of meat or dairy animals or hay harvest is desired in non-crop areas, do not apply more than 4.21 pI/acre of DMA 41VM (2.0 ib of add 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 DMA 41VM acre 3/4 to 1 Well-established grasses 2t04 Biennial and perennial broadleaf weeds 4 S cific Use Directions Apply when weeds are small and actively growing. For best results, apply when SOli 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 unt~ well established (five-leaf stage or later) and then use a maximum of 1 pI/acre. 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 southern 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 applied 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 DMA 41VM TarGet ptants (at/acre' Soecific Use Directions Annual Weeds 2t04 Apply using low pressure spray (10 to 40 psi) in a spray volume of 20 to 100 gallons per aere using power operated spray equipment. Apply when wind speed is low,S mph or Biennial and perennial broadleaf 4 less. Apply working upstream to avoid accidental concentration of spray into water. weeds and susceptible wood Cross-stream spraying to opposite banks is not permitted and avoid boom spraying plants 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 IIower stalks appear. For hard-t<HXlntrol weeds, af"epeat application after 30 days at the same rate may be needed. For woody species and patches of perennial weeds, mix 1 gallon of OMA 4 IVM per 64 to 150 gallons of total spray. Wet foliage by applying about 3 to 4 gaUons of spray per 1000 sa ft (10.5 X 10.5 stens\. 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 cfs) where water will be used for drinking purposes. . Do not apply more than 8.42 ptJacre (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 'l!i,y,me;Jt or issuance of special permits for such use. Emergent and Floating Aquatic Weeds: Including Water hyacinth (Eichomia crass;pe) Application Rate: 2 to 4 qtJaere. Specific Use Directions . Application Timing: Spray weed mass only. Apply when watel' hyacinth plants are actively growing. Repeat application as necessary to kill regrowth and plants missed in previous operation. Use 4 qUaere 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 ga"oos 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. FoUow 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 Microfoi" drift control spray systems, apply DMA 4 IVM in a total spray volume of 12 to 15 gaUons per acre. 8 Specimen label Revised 02-26-01 Submerged Aquatic Weeds: Including Eurasian Water Milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum} Maximum Application Treatment Site Rate' Specific 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 infesled 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 oMA 4 IVM undiluted directly to lhe water through a boal are Quiescent or Slow mounled distribution system. Shoreline areas should be treated by subsutface 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 Microfoif drift control spray systems. apply oMA 41VM in a tolal spray volume of 12 to 15 gallons per acre. Applv to attain a concentration of 2 to 4 ppm (see table below). t OMA 4 IVM contains 3.8 Ib of acid equivalent per gallon of product. Amount to A Surface Area 1 2 3 4 5 to Attain a Concentration of 2 to 4 m 2,4-0 Acid Equivalent to Ib/acre 5.4 to 10.8 10.8 to 21.6 16.2 to 32.4 21.6 to 43.2 27.0 to 54.0 1 acre Precautions and Restrictions for Aquatic Use: . Do not treat areas that are not infested with aquatic weeds. 00 not exceed 10.8 Ib of acid equivalent (2.84 gallons) per acre foot of treated water. Do not apply within 1500 ft 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. 00 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 contro, pre;,. ", '.'. Dissolved Oxygen Ratio: Fish require oxygen dissolved in water for life 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 thef"e 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 Dew 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. Dew 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, hunicanes). presence of other materials. the manner of application. or other factors. all of which are beyond the control of Dow AgroSciences or the seller. An 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 teons of the Warranty Disclaimer above and this Umitation 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 Umitation of Remedies in any manner. 'Trademark of Dow AgroSciences llC Dow AgroSciences llC' Indianapolis, IN 46268 U.S.A EPA-accepted 10/1312000 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: Buloxyethyl esler, 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, . .... ..... ...... ......27.60/. INERT INGREDIENTS: .... ....... ...... ........... .... ..... ...... ... .... ............... ....72.4% TOTAl.. 100.0% 'Isomer specific by AOAC Method, Equivalent to 2,4-0ichlorophenoxyacetic Acid 19% EPA Reg. No. 228-378-8959 EPA Est. No. 228-IL-1 KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN CAUTION For Chemical Emergency, SpiJI, Leak, Fire, Exposure or Accident call Chemtrec Day or Night 1-800-424-9300 PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS HAZARDS TO HUMANS AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS CAUTION Hannfut 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 handling. When mixing, loading, or applying this product or repairing or cleaning equipment used with this product, wear eye protection (face shield or safety glasses), chemical resistant gloves, long- sleeved shirt, long pants, socks and shoes. II is recommended that safety glasses include front, brow and temple protection. Wash hands, face and anns with soap and water as soon as possible after 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: tF INHAlED: IF IN EYES: STATEMENT OF PRACTICAl TREATMENT IF SWAlLOWED: Call a physician or Poison Control Center. ~rink 1 or 2 glasses 01 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 affeclfish and non.target plants. Do not apply to water except as specified on fhi;; 'obel. Do flot contaminate water when disposing of equipment washwaters. Unless an approved assay indicates the 2,4-0 concentration is 100 ppb()' c' ",~", '~"0 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 101 .mga~ng p..'iill:> 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 le~, 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 spilts. Placement of the mixing/loading equipment on an impervious pad to contain spills will help prevent ground water contamination. .'-'~_-~_lI1ir_"---r~~.. ~iff STORAGE Always use original container to store pesticides in a secure warehouse or building. Do not store near seeds, fertiflZers, insecticides or fungicides. Do not slack more than two pallets high. Do not contaminate water, food or feed by storage or disposal. It is recommended that a SARA Title HI 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, clean 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 IandfiU or by incineration, or, if allowed by State and local authorities, by burning. If bag is bumed, stay out of smoke. MANUFACTURED FOR: QO applied biochemists Milwaukee, WI 53022 1-800-558-5106 SEE ADDITIONAL PRECAUTIONS AND DIRECTIONS ON BACK NA VlGA TE is a trademark of Applied Biochemists NET WT. 50 LBS. (22.68 KG) www.appliedbiochemists.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 00 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 ratio 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 beas wide as the buffer strips. (See illustration below) WATER. pH Best results are generally obtained if the water to be treated has a pH tess 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 pennits are required, they may be obtained wom the Chief. Fish Division, State Department of Conservation or the State Department of Public Health. GENERAL INFORMATION NAVIGATE" is formulated on special heat treated altaday 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 start 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 fonn a dense mat or reach the surface, two treatments may be necessary. Make the second treatment when weeds show signs of recovery. Treatments made after September may be less effective depending upon water temperatures and weed growth. Occasionally, a second application will be necessary 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 uniionnly 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 detennine the proper combination of (1) boat speed (2) rate of delivery from the spreader, and (3) width of slnth CJv"r c'd by the granules. FOR SMALL AREAS: (Around Docks or Isolated Patches of Weeds): Use a portable spreader such as the Cydone seeder or other <lQuipi"enl capaole of uniformly applying this product Estimate or measure out the area you want to treat Weight out the amount of material W'8 unifonnly over the area. More uniform coverage is obtained by dividing the required amount in two and covering the area twice. applying the second na,i at right angles to the first. Use the foUowing formula to calibrate your spreader's delivery in pounds of NAVIGATE PER MINUTE: Miles per hour X soreader width X oounds per acre = pounds per minute 495 Example: To apply 100 pounds of NAVIGATE per acre using a spreader that covers a 20 foot swath wom 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.lA = 16 lbslMin. 495 AMOUNTS TO USE Rates of application vary 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 now through the treated area. Use !he higher rate for dense weeds, when water is more than 8 feet deep and where there is a large volume turnover. . NAVIGATE NAVIGATE POUNDS POUNDS PER PER ACRE 2000 SQ. FT. SUSCEPTIBLE WEEDS Water Milfo!l (Myriophyllum spp.) 100 TO 200 5 Water staryrass (Heteranlhera dub<al SLIGHTLY TO MOOERATEL Y RESISTANT WEEDS Bladderwort (Utricularia spp.) While waler Lily (Nymphaea spp.) Yeftow water I~y . (Nuphar spp.l 15010200 7-1121010 Or spatterdock' Water shield (Braserna spp.) Waler chestnut (Trapa natans) Coontair (Ceralophyllum Demersum) *Repealtreatments may be needed UMITEO WARRANTY AND DISCLAIMER The manufacturer warrants that ttIis material conforms to its chemical description and is reasonably flf for the purposes stated on the label when used in accordance with cf.-edions under normal conditions of use and Buyer assumes all risk of any use contrary to such directions.. SELLER MAKES NO OTHER WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPUED AS TO FITNESS OR MERCHANTABIUTY, AND NO AGENT OF SEllER IS AUTHORIZED TO 00 SO EXCEPT IN WRITING WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THIS WARRANTY. In no event shan the Seller's liability for any breach of warranty exceed the purchase price of the malerial as to which a claim is made. NAVIGATE 01102 Specimen Label eTMDow AgroSciences --- Rodeo@ Herbicide For aquatic weed and brush control. For control of an~ual 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. A void 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): glyphosale': N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine, isopropylamine salt ................................................... 53.8% Inert Ingredients ........................................................................ 46.2% T olallngredients....................................................................._. 100.0% 'Contains 5.4 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 usled no entiende la etiqueta, busque a alguien para que se Ia explique a usled en detalle. (If you do nol understand the label, find someone to explain il to you in detai!.) 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 deaning/maintaining PPE (Personal Protective Equipment). If no such instructions for washables, use detergent and hot water. Keep and wash PPE separately Irom other laundry. Engineering Controls When handlers use closed systems. encfosed cabs, or aircraft in a manner that .meets the requirements listed in Worker Protection Standard (WPS) for agricultural pesticides (40 CFA 170.240 (d) (4-6)1, 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. First Aid If inhaled: Remove individual to fresh air. If not brealhing. give artificial respiration, preferably mouth-to-mouth. Get medical attention. Environmental Hazards Do not contaminate water when disposing 01 equipment washwa:,'('c. Treatment of aquatic weeds can result in oxygen depletion or lo~~ due to decomposition of dead plants. This oxygen loss can cause fish suffocation. In case of leak or spil" soak up and remove to a landfill. Physical or Chemical Hazards Spray solutions 01 this product should be mixed, stored and applied using only stainless steel, aluminum, fiberglass, plastic or plastic-lined steel containers. 00 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 fonn 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 "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 infonnatioo. 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. Dow AgroSciences does not Intend and has not registered it for refonnulatlon. 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 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 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 enlly intelVal (REI) of 4 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 . 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 100F (-120C) to keep product from crystallizing. Crystals will settle to the bottom. If allowed to crystallize, place in a wann room 680F (20oC) for several days to redissolve and roll or shake container or recirculate in mini-bulk containers 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 Disposaf: Emptied container retains vapor and product residue. Observe all labeled safeguards untit container is cleaned, 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 burning. If burned, stav 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 doudy weather following Ireatment 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 wiD 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 result,;. delay treatment of such areas until resprouting and foliar growth has restored the target vegetation to the recommended stage of growth fOI optimum herbicidal exposure and control. Rainfall or irrigation occurring within 6 hours after application may reduce effectiveness. Heavy rainfall or irrigation within 2 hours ",be ",}plica!;o" may wash the product off the foliage and a repeat ;((:&: be required. Rodeo does not provide residual weed control. For subsequent residual weed control. follow a label-approved herbicide program. Read and carefully obselVe 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 dosed 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 tabel. Mixing this product with herbicides or other materials not recommended in this label may result in reduced perfonnance. 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, will aUow spray drift to occur. When spraying, avoid combinations of pressure and nozzle type that will result in splatter or line 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 rinsate according to labeled use or disposal Instructions. Apply these spray solutions In properly malntained and calibrated equipment capable of delivering desired volumes. Hamt-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 tilling 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 Garton. 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 lilling), 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 line mist. For best results with conventional ground application equipment, use fiat 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. CarefuUy 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 performance, especiaUy at lower rales or dilutions. Use colorants or dyes according to the manufacturer's label recommendations. Application Equipment and Techniques ATTENTION: 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, avoid combinations of pressure and nozzle type that will resuh in splatter or fine partiCles (mist) which are likely to drift. AVOID APPL YING AT EXCESSIVE SPEED OR PRESSURE. Note: Use of this product in a manner not consistent with this label may resuh in injury to persons, animals, or crops, or other unintended consequences. When not in use, keep container closed I') pn,vent spills and contamination. Spray Drift Management Avoicfmg spray drift at the application site is the responsibili"J of the applicator. The interaction of many equipment-and-wea'hehe;ated factors detennine the potential for spray drift. The apphl-a,,)' ,~rj ';", 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 lield crops. These requirements do not apply to forestry applications, public health uses or to applications using dry fonnutations. 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 and never be pointed downwards more than 45 degrees. Where states have more stringent regulations, they should be observed. The applicator should be famitiar with and take into account the information covered in the following Aerial Drift Reduction Advisory In'onnation: 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 unifOfTtl 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. With most nozzle types, narrower spray angles produce larger droplets. Consider using low-{jrift nozzles. Sofid 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 '% of the wingspan or rotor length may further reduce drift without reducing swath width. Appfication-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 determine 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 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 unprediclable 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 fimited cloud cover and light to no wind. They begin to foun 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 atso be identified by the movement of smoke from a ground source or an aircraft smoke generator. Smoke that layers and moves lalerally in a connected cloud (under low wind conditions) inOlCates an inversion, while smoke thai 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 entiUed "For Aerial Application In California Only". In California, aerial application may be made in aquatic sites and noncrop areas, including aquatic sites present in noncrop areas that are part 0( the intended treatment For controf of weed or brush species "sted In this label using aerial application equipment: For aerial broadcast application, unless otherwise specified, apply the rates of Rodeo and sunactant 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 dd~. Orilt may cause damage to any vegetation contacted to which treabnent Is not Intended. To prevent injury to adjacent desirable vegetatJol1, 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 aU 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 surlaces 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 Usted In this label using knapsack sprayers or high-volume spraying equipment utilizing handguns or other suitable nozzle arrangements: High volume sprays: 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 instructions for control of various annual and perenniai 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. 00 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-zag motion. Ensure that at least 50 percent of the leaves are contacted by the spray solution. For flat fan and cone nozzles and with hand~rected mist blowers, mist the application over !he foliage of the targeted vegetation. Small, open- branched trees need only be treated from one side. If the foliage is thick or !here 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% 11/4"10 1112"10 2% 5"10 8% 1 gal 1 1 1/3 12/3 2 22/3 61/2 101/4 floz floz floz II oz II oz II oz floz 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 1 1/4 1 1/2 2 gal 5 gal 8 gal <lal gal 2 tablespoons = 1 ftuid ounce For use in knapsack sprayers, it is suggested that the recommended amount of this product be mixed with water in a targer container. Fillthe 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, growtt. stalje cmd other instructions for achieving optimum results Aquatic and Other Noncrop Sit~__ Apply Rodeo as directed and under conditions describeu ,,~ '."flUeA ..if partially control weeds and woody plants listed in the "Weeds Controiled" 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, nonflowing 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 ftowing 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 rrnle 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 million 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 permit 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 overspmy of water in terrestrial use sites. . For Ireatments 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 dmwdown to ensure application to actively growing weeds. . Aoating mats of vegetation may require re/reatmenl Avoid wash-ort of spmyed foliage by spray boat or recreational boat backwash or by rainfall within 6 hours of application. Do not re-treat within 24 hours foHowing the initial treatment. . Applications made to moving bodies of water must be made while tmve~ng 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 noncropsltes andlor in aquatic sites within these areas: Habitat Restoration & Management Areas Highways & Roadsides Industrial Plant Sites Petroleum Tank Farms 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 soa 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 appflcation, this product wiU control. partialty control or suppress most woody brush and tree species, some of which are ~sted below: Common Name Alder Coyote brush t Dogwood t Eucalyptus Hickory t Madrone Mapie t Oak Poplar t Reed, giant Salt cedar Sweet gum t Sycamore t Tan oak Wdlow Scientific Name A/nus spp. Baccharis consanguinea Comus spp. Eucalyptus spp. Carya spp. Arbutus menziesii Acer spp. Quercus spp. Populus spp. Arundo donax Tamarix spp. Uquidambar styraciffua Platanus oocidentalis Uthocarpus densifforus Salix spp. t Rodeo is not approved for this use on these species in the state of California. . 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 applidd a<; 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 attmct waterfowl, and for similar broad-spectrum vegetation control requirements in habitat IT'anaremf'ot areas. Spot treatments may be made to selectively ren,uv(J l.dW lnlt:':; 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 treabnent 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 tiUing 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 trill around the tree or as cuts evenly spaced around the tree below all branches. As tree diameter increases in size. better results are ~chieved by applying dilute material to a continuous trill or more closely spaced cuttings. Avoid application techniques that allow runoff to occur from frill or cut areas in species that exude sap freely after triUs or cutting. In species such as these, make trill or cut at an obtique 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. 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. Liquidambar styraciflua Platanus occidentalis This treatment will suppress the following woody species: Common Name Black gum f Dogwood H'lckory Maple, red Scientific Name Nyssa syfvatica Camus spp. Carya spp. Acer rubrum f 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 donnant 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 genninated. For best results on tall fescue, treat when fescue is in or beyond the 4 to 6-Ieaf 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 f Note: C = Controlled; S = Suppressed Rate of Rodeo (Auld Ounces Per Acre' Weed Soecies 6 9 12 18 24 48 Barley, little S C C C C C Hordeum DUsillum Bedstraw, catchweed S C C C C C Galium aDarine Bluegrass, annual S C C C C C Poa annua Chervil S C C C C C Chaeroohvllum tainturieri Chickweed, common S C C C C Stelfaria media Ctover, 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 arvensis Fescue, tall . . . . S S Festuca arundinacea Geranium, Carolina . . S S C C Geranium carolinianum Henblt . S C C C C Lamium amDlexicau/e Ryegrass, Italian . . S C r' C LoIium multif/orum tc i --... _... Vetch, common . . S C _ __c_:! _~j Vicia sativa r These rates apply only to sites where an established competitive !~rl 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 bennudagrass 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 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 fonnation. 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. rt Suppression at the higher rate only. 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 inju'Y may result Bahiagrass Seedhead and Vegetative Suppression When applied as directed in the "NOflCfop 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 fun 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 nonionic 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 application. Annual Grass Growth Suppression For growth suppression of some annual grasses, such as annual 'Yegrass, 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 seedheads are in the boot stage of development. Treatments made after seedhead emergence may cause inju'Y to the desired grasses. Weeds Controlled 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: "GeneraJlnformalion" 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-Vo'ume Application Rates: Use a 314 percent solution of this prodUct in water plus 2 or more quarts of a nonionic 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, Iivehook Bluegrass, annual Bluegrass. bulbous Brome Buttercup Cheat Chickweed, mouseear Cocklebur Com, volunteer Crabgrass Dwarfdandelion Falseflax, smallseed Fiddleneck Aaxleaftleabane Aeabane Foxtail Foxtail, Carolina Groundsel, common HorseweedlMarestail Kochia lambsquarters, common lettuce,prickly Momingglo'Y Mustard, blue Mustard, tansy Mustald, tumble Mustald, wild Oats, wild Panicum Pennycress. field Pigweed, redroot Pigweed. smooth Ragweed, common Ragweed, giant Rocket, london Aye Ayegrass, .taNan tt Sandbur, field Shattercane Shepheld's-purse Signalgrass, broadleaf Smartweed, Pennsylvania SowthisUe, annual 8 Scientific Name Momordica charanlia Hordeum vulgare Echinoch/oa crus-galli Bassia hyssopifolia Poa annua Poa bulbosa Bromus spp. Ranunculus spp. Bromus secalinus Ceraslium vulgatum Xanthium strumarium Zea mays Digitaria spp. Krigia cespitosa Camelina microcarpa Amsinckia spp. Conyza bonariensis Erigeron spp. Setaria spp. Alopecurus carolinianu::. Senecio vulgaris Conyza canadensis Kochia scoparia ChenopocflUm afbum Lactuca serriola Ipomoea spp. Chorispora tene/la Descurainia pinnata Sisymbrium altissimum Sinapis arvensis Avena fatua Panicum spp. Thlaspi arvense Amaranthus retroflexus Amaranthus hybridus Ambrosia artemisiifofia Ambrosia trifida Sisymbrium irio Secale cereale LoIium multiflorum Cenchrus spp. Sorghum bicolor Capsella bursa-pastoris Brachiaria platyphylla Polygonum pensylvanicum Sonchus oleraceus Specimen Label Revised 05-29-02 Spanishneedles " 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 genninate 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 sudactant will control the tollowing perennial weeds: (Numbers in parentheses ~(-r 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) Alligatorweed t (1) AniseIFennel (31) Artichoke, Jerusalem (31) Bahiagrass (31) Bennudagrass (2) Bindweed, field (3) Bluegrass, Kentucky (12) Blueweed, Texas (3) Brackenfern (4) Bromegrass, smooth (12) Canarygrass, reed (12) Cattail (5) ScIentific Name Medicago sativa Altemanthera philoxeroides Foeniculum vulgare Helianthus tuberosus Paspalum notalum Cynodon dactyl on Convolvulus arvensis Poa pratensis Helianthus ciliaris Pteridium spp. Bromus inermis Phalaris arunrJinacea 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) Horsenettfe (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, wirestern (21) Mullein, common (31) Napiergrass (31) Nightshade, silverleaf (3) Nutsedge, purple (18) Nutsedge, yellow (18) Orchardgrass (12) Pampasgrass (19) Paragrass (16) Phragmites" (20) Quackgrass (21 ) Reed, giant (22) Ayegrass, perennial (12) Smartweed, swamp (31) Spatterdock (23) Starthistle, yellow (31) Sweet potato, wild' (24) Thisde, artichoke (25) Thistle, Canada (25) Timothy (12) T orpedograss '(26) Tules, common (27) Vaseygrass (31) Velvetgrass (31) Waterhyacinth (28) Waterlettuce (29) Waterprimrose (30) Wheatgrass, western (12) Trifolium pratense Trifolium repens Imperata c/y/indrica Spartina spp. Zizaniopsis miliacea Paspalum dilatatum Taraxacum officinaJe Rumex crispus Apocynum cannabinum Festuca spp. Festuca arunrJinacea Panicum maximum Conium maculatum Solanum carolinense Armoracia rusticana Mesembryanthemum crystallinum Sorghum halepense Pennisetum c/andestinum Centaurea repens Lantana camara Lespedeza striata Lespedeza cuneata Lythrum salicaria Netumbo lutea Panicum hematomon Asclepias spp. Muhlenbergia frondosa Verbascum thapsus Pennisetum pUlpUreum Solanum elaeagnifolium Cyperus rotundus Cyperos esculent! ''; Dactyfis g10merata Cortaderia jubata Brachiaria mutica Phragmites spp. Agropyron reper Arundo donax LoIium perenne Polygonum coccineum Nuphar luteum Centaurea solstitialis Ipomoea pandurala Cynara cardunculus Cirsium arvense Phleum pratense Panicum repens Scirpus acu/us Paspalum urvillei Holcus spp. Eichomia crassipes Pistia stratiotes Ludwigia spp. Agropyron smithii 'Partial control. "Partial control in southeastern states. See "Specific Weed Control Recommendations" below. 9 Specimen Label Revised 05-29-02 Specific Perennial Weed Control Recommendations: 1. AlIlgatorweed: 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 a1ligatorweed. 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 1 112 percent solution with hand-held equipment Apply when target plants are actively growing and when seedheads appear. 3. Bindweed, fiekf J Silverleaf Nightshade J Texas Blueweed: Apply 6 to 7 1/2 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 fuU bloom. For silverleaf nightshade, best results can be obtained when application is made after berries are formed. Do not treat when weeds are under drought stress. New leaf development indicates active growth. For best results apply in late sunvner or faU. 4. Brackenfem: Apply 4 1/2 to 6 pints of this product per acre as a . broadcast spray or as a 3/4 to 1 percenl solulion 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-Io-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 faU. 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 maintain control. 7. Cordgrass: Apply 4 1/2 to 7 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 1 to 2 percent solution with hand.held equipment. ScheduJe applications in order to allow 6 hours before treated plants are covered by tidewater. The presence of debris and sih on the cordgrass plants will reduce performance. It may be necessary to wash targeted plants prior to application to improve uptake of this product into tlle 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 10 maintain such control, especially where vegetation is partially submerged in water. Allow for substantial regrowth to the 7 to lo-Jeaf stage prior to retreabnent. 9. Dogbane. hemp J Knapweed J Horseradish: Apply 6 pints 01 this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 1 1/2pelCent solution with hand-held equipment Apply when target plants are actively growing and most have reached Ule Ia.te bud-to-Dower stage of growth. For best results, apply in late summer or fall. 10. 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-to-head stage of growth. When applied prior to the boot stage, less desirable control may be obtained. 11. Gulneagrass: Apply 41/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment AppJy when target plants are actively growing and when most have reached at least the 7 -leaf stage of growth. . 12. Johnsongrass J Bluegrass, Kentucky J Bromegrass, smooth J Canarygrass. reed J Orchardgrass J Ryegrass, perennial J Timothy f Wheatgrass, western: 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. 13. Lantana: Apply Ihis product as a 3/4 10 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: AppJy 4 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 1 to 1 112 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. FaU 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 314 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 trealments must be applied before a killing frost. Repeal treatment may be necessary to control regrowth from underground parts and seeds. 16. Maidencane J paragrass: Apply 6 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 314 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 10-leaf stage prior to retreatment 17. Milkweed, common: Apply 4 1/2 pints of this product per acf'; as a broadcast spray or as a 1 1/2 percent solution with h2nd-he1rj equipment. Apply when target plants are actively growing a'ld mosi have reached the late bud-to-lIower stage of grow.ll. 18. Nutsedge: purple, yellow: Apply 41/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray, or as a 3/4 percent solutior with hand-,lf:id equipment to control existing nutsedge plants "nC ;n: attached 10 treated plants. Apply when target plants are in Hewer or when new nutlets can be found at rtJizome tips. Nutlets which have not germinated will not be controlled and may germinate lollowing treatment. Repeat treatments win be required for 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. Phragmites: 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 of the U.S., apply 4 to 6 pints per acre as a broadcast spray or apply a 314 percent solution with hand-held equipment for partial control. For best results, treat during late summer of faU 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, repeal treatmenls may be necessary' to maintain control. Visual control symptoms will be slow to develop_ 21. Quackgrass J Kikuyugrass J Muhly, wirestern: Apply 3 to 4 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 pelCent 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 before tillage. 22. Reed, giant J 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 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 314 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. ThisUe, Canada / 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 314 to 1 1/2 percent solution with hand-held equipment to provide partial control of torpedograss. Use the lower rates under terf"estrial conditions, and the higher rates under partially submerged or a Doating 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. Watemyaclnth: Apply 5 to 6 pints of this product per aCTe as a broadcast spray or apply a 3f4 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. Atter 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 314 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 cut, 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 w~1 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 conlent and are Dowering. 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 performance may result if faD treatments are made following a frost. See the "Directions fOf" Use" and "Mixing and Application Instructions. sections in this label for labeled use and specific application instructions. When applied as directed, Rodeo plus nonionic surfactant will control the following woody brush plants and trees: (Numbers in parentheses "( -r 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 '(20) Aspen, quaking (2) Beardover, Bearmat (20) Birch (3) Blackberry (1) Broom, French (4) Broom. Scotch (4) Buckwheat, California' (5) Cascara' (20) Catsclaw '(6) Ceanothus (20) Chamise (17) CherTy, bitter (7) Cherry, black (7) Cherry, pin (7) Coyote brush (8) Creeper, Virginia '(20) Dewberry (1) Dogwood (9) Elderberry (3) Elm' (20) Eucalyptus, bluegum (10) Hasardia '(5) Hawthorn (2) Hazel (3) Hickory (9) Holly, Rorida (11) (Brazilian peppertree) Honeysuckle (1) Hornbeam. American (20) Kudzu (12) Locust, black' (20) Manzanita (20) 11 Scientific Name Alnus spp. Fraxinus spp. Populus tremu/oides Chamaebatia foliolcsa Betula spp. Rubus spp. Cytisus monsp%, Cytisus scoparius Eriogonum fasciculatum Rhamnus purshiana Acacia greggi Ceanothus spp. Adenostoma fascicu/atum Prunus ematginala Prunus serotina Prunus pensytvanica Baccharis consanguinea Parthenocissus quinquefofia Rubus trivialis Comus spp. Sambucus spp. Ulmus spp. Eucalyptus globulus HapIopappus squamosus Crataegus spp. Cory/us spp. Catya spp. SeIlinus terebintllifoJius Lonicera spp. Carpinus caroHniana Pueraria lobata Robinia pseudoacacia Arctostaphylos spp. Specimen label Revised 05-29-02 Maple, red '(13) Maple, sugar (141 Maple, vine' (20) Monkey flower' (5) Oak, black ' (20) Oak, northem 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' (20) PRJnus (7) Raspberry (1) Redbud, eastem (20) Rose, multiflora (16) Russian-olive (20) Sage: black (17), white SagebRJsh, Califomia (17) Salmonberry (3) Salt cedar t (9) Saltbush, sea myrtle (18) Sassafras (20) Sourwood' (20) Sumac, poison' (20) Sumac, smooth '(20) Sumac, winged t (20) Sweetgum (7) Swordfem t (20) Tallowtree, Chinese (11) Thimbleberry (3) Tobacco, tree '(5) TRJmpetcreeper (2) Waxmyrtle, southem ' (11) Willow (19) Acer rubrum Acer saccharum Acer circinatum Mimulus guttatus Quercus velutina Quercus palustris Quercus stellata Quercus rubra Quercus talcata Quercus alba Diospyros spp. Rhus radicans Rhus toxicodendron Lirlodendron tulipitera Prunus spp. Rubus spp. Gereis canadensis Rosa multiflora E1aeagnus angustitolia Salvia spp. Artemisia calitomica Rubus spectabilis Tamarix spp. Baccharis halimitolia Sassafras ajbidum Oxydendrum arboreum Rhus vemix Rhus glabra Rhus copallina Liquidambar styraciflua PoIystichum munitum Sapium sebiterum Rubus parviflorus Nicotiana glauca Campsis radicans Myrica cerltera Safix spp. 'Partial control (See below for control or partial control instructions.) SpecifIC Brush or Tree Control Recommendations: 1. Alder I Blackberry I Dewberry I Honeysuckle I Oak, Post / 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 J Hawthorn t 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 I Hazell Salmonberry / Thlmbleberry: 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 I Broom, Scotch: For control, apply a 1 1/4 to 11/2 percent solution with hand-held equipment. 5. Buckwheat, California J Hasardia I Monkey flower / Tobacco, tree: For partial control of these species, apply a 3/4 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 1 Cherry, pin / Oak, southern red I Sweetgum / 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 10 1 1/2 percent solution with hand-held equipment when at least 50 percent ot 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, bluegum: For control at 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, Florida 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 1 112 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Repeat applications will be required to maintain control. 13. Maple, red: For control, apply as a 314 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. 14. Maple, sugar I Oak: northern pin 1 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..fvy / 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 applications may be required to maintain control. Fall treatments must be applied betow leaves lose green color. 16. Rose, multiflora: For control, apply 3 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 314 percent solution w:1h hanJhe:d equipment. Treatments should be made prior to leaf deterioration by leat-feeding insects. 17. Sage, black I Sagebrush, California 1 Chamic. :'!' Chinese: For control of these species, apply a 314 percent solution ot this product as a foliar spray with hand-held equipment. lliorough coverage of foliage is necessary for best resuhs. 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 partial 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 Specimen 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 aU 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 rainfan, drought, tornadoes, hurricanes), presence of other materials, the manner of application, or other factors. aU 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 fiable 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 written 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 limitation of Remedies in any manner. "Trademark of Dow AgroSciences LLC Dow AgroSciences llC . Indianapolis, IN 46268 U.5..A. label Code: 002-148-002 Replaces label: 002-148-001 EPA-accepted 0511512002 Revisions: 1. Update of specific uses allowed in the state of earlfomia. 13 Spedmen label Revised 05-29-02 This sample label is current as of 10127/99. The product descriptions and recommendations provided in this sample label are for background information only. Always refer to the label on the product before using Monsanto or any other agrichemical product. 21195Yl-1/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 00 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 01: SPILL or LEAK. soak up and remove to a landfill. ~UAMASTERfM Herbicide 0/ J[onsanro " 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 UKEL Y TO RESULT. Spray solutions 01 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 01 this product react with such containers and tanks to prodUce hydrogen gas which may form a highly combustible gas mixture. This gas mixture could Ifash or explode. causino serious personal injury. il ignited by open Ilarrs, spar1<. welder's torch, lighted cigarette or other ignition SO" 'ce. AquaMaster is a trademark 01 Monsanto Company. 2000-1 Read the entire label belore 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 lor use in California. Check the registration status of each product in California before using. Read the .UMIT 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 01 Federal law to use this product in any manner inconsistent with its labeling. For 1f,; rc",~irements specifiC to your State or Tribe. consult the J;; " j , ble for pesticide regulations. 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 of the active ingredient, glyphosate, in the form of its isopropylamine salt. Equivalent to 480 grams per litre or 4 pounds per U.S. gallon of the acid, glyphosate. 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 settle to the bottom. If allowed to crystallize, place in a warm room 680f (20"C) for several days to redissolve and roll or shake container or recirculate in mini-bulk containers to mix well before using. DISPOSAl: Wastes resulting from the 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 proce- dures. Emptied container retains vapor and product residue. Observe all labeled safeguards until container is cleaned, reconditioned. or destroyed. FOR REfILLABLE PORTABLE CONTAINERS: Do not reuse this container except for refill in accordance with a valid Monsanto Repackaging or Toll Repackaging Agreement. 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 burning. If burned, 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 landfdl, 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 focal authorities. 2.0 IMPORTANT PHONE . NUMBERS 1. FOR PROfltlCT;fI'JfOOMATlo~OR ASSISTANCE IN USING THIS PRODUCT, CAll TOll-FREE, t;'OOOl332ii3111 2. IN CASE OF AN ~GI;f1!*~ IWDlVlNG THIS PRODUCT OR FOR Mgor~ASSI~_CAll COllECT, DAY OR NIGHT, ($111-}7tijl4~ 1 fOR PLASTIC I-WAY CONTAINERS AND BOTTLES: 00 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. Retum 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 lor the control or destruction of many hertlaceous and woody plants. This product moves through the plant from the poinl 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 Ihis 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 01 underground plant parts. Unless otherwise directed on this label, delay application unlil vegetation has emerged and reached Ihe stages described for control of such vegetation under the "WEEDS CONTROlLEO' section of this label. Unemerged plants arising Irom unattached undergroUlld rhizomes or root stocks of perennials or brush will nol be affected by Ihe 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. 00 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. Rainfatl 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 Ireatment may be required. When this product comes in contact with soil (on the soil surface or as suspended soil or sediment in water) it is bound to soil particles. Under recommended use situations, once this product is bound 10 soil particles. il is nol 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 prevenls this producI 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 microRora.. This product does no! provide residual weed control. For subsequent residual weed control. follow a label-approved herbicide program. Read and carefully observe Ihe cautionary statements and all other inlormation appearing on the labels of all herbicides used. Buyer and all users are responsible lor 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 hertlicides or other materials not recommended in this label may resuft 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 OIltO desirable vegetation since minute quantities of this product can cause severe damage or destructiOll 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 resuft 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 WAfER CON- TAINING SOIL IS USED, SUCH AS VISIBLY MUDDY WAfER OR WATER FROM PONDS AND DITCHES THAT IS NOT CLEAR 6.1 Mixing with Water and Surfactant This product mixes readily with water. 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 weN. 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 lank and. if needed, use an approved anti-foam or defoaming agent Maintain good agitation at all times until the contents af Un tank are sprayed. If the spray mixture is allowed to setHll. thorough agitation may be required to resuspend tile 1.11)(1p,' before spraying is resumed. Keep by-pass line on or near the bottom of the lJr.k to {Wi,: mize foaming. Screen size in nozzle or line strainers should be no finer than 50 mesh. When using this product. mix 2 or more qu~r' .. surfactant per 100 gallons of spray solution. Use iJ nOflflllllC surfactant labeled lor use with hertlicides. The surfactant must contain 50 percent or more active ingredient These surfactants should not be used in excess of t quart per acre when making broadcast applications. Always read and follow the manufacturer's surfactant label recommendations for best results. CarefUlly (}bserv~ all cautionary statements and other information appearing in the surfactant label. 6.2 Mixing for Hand-Held Sprayers Prepare the desired volume of spray solution by mixing the amount of this product in water as shown in the following table: AT"" 8% 1 Gal 1 oz. 11/3 oz. 12/30z. 2 oz. 60z. 10'I.oz. 25 Gal 1'12 pI. 1 ql 11/. qt. 11hqt 5 ql. 2 gal. 100 Gal 3 qt t gal. 1'/.gal. 11hgal. 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 SOlutiOll 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 01 this product may reduce performance. especially at 2 lower rates or dilution. Use colorants or dyes according to the manufacture(s retommendations. 7.0 APPUCATlON EQUIPMENT AND TECHNIQUES 00 not apply this product through any type 01 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 10 the crop. plants or other areas on which treatment was not intended. Avoiding spray drift at the application site is the responsibility 01 the applicator. The interaction 01 many equipment-and- weather-related factors determine the potential lor spray drift. The applicator and the grower are responsible for consider- ing 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 appti- cations to agricultural field crops. These requirements do not apply 10 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 pointed downwards more than 45 degrees. Where states have more stringent regulations. they should be observed. Imporlance of Droplel 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- trot Applying larger droplets reduces drift potential. but will not prevent drift if applications are made improperly, or under unfavorable environmental conditions (see the "WINO", "TEMPERATURE AND HUMfDlTY". and "TEMPERATURE INVERSION" sections of this label). Controlling Droplel Size . Volume: Use high flow rate nozzles 10 apply Ihe highest practical spray volume. Nozzles will1 lI1e higher rated flows 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 lI1e minimum number of nozzles that provide uniform coverage. . Nozzle orienlation: Orienting nozzles so Ihat the spray is released backwards, parallel to the airstream, will produce larger droplets than other orientations. Significant dellec- tion from the horizontal will reduce droplet size and increase drift potential. . Nozzle type: Use a nozzle type that is designed lor the intended application. With most nozzle types, narrower spray angles produce larger droplets. Consider using low- drill nozzles. Solid stream nozzles oriented straight back produce larger droplets lI1an other nozzle types. . Boom lenglh: for some use patterns, reducing the effective boom length to less than 314 of the wingspan or rotor length may lurther reduce drill 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 aircrall safety. Making applications at the lowest height that is safe reduces the exposure of the droplets to evaporation and wind. Swath Adjustment When apptications are made will1 a crosswind, the swath will be displaced downward. Therefore. on lI1e up and downwind edges 01 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 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 terf3in can influence wind patterns. EvefY applicator should be famifiar with local wind pattems and how they affect drift T emperalure 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 boll1 hot and dry. T emperatare 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 form as the sun sets and ollen con- tinue into the morning. Their presence can be indicated by ground fog; however. il 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 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 poten tiaI lor drift to adjacent sensitive areas (e.g.. residential areas. nedi", 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 DO NOT APPLY THIS PRODUCT USING AERIAL. SPRAY EQUIPMENT EXCEPT UNDER CONDITIONS AS SPECIfIED WITHIN THIS LABEL FOR AERiAl APPLICATION IN CALIFORNIA, REFER TO THE fEDERAL SUPPlEMENTAL LABEl FOR AEfl!.l\l APPlICA- TIONS IN THAT STATE FOR SPECifIC INSTRUCTIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND REOUIREMENTS. AVOID DRIFT-DO Nor APPLY DURING LOW-LEVEL INVERSION CONDITIONS. WHEN WINOS 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 OESIRABLE VEGETATION. APPROPRIATE BUffER ZONES MUST BE MAtNTAINED. Use the recommended rates 01 this product and surfactant in 3to 20 gallons of water per acre as a broadcast spray, unless otherwise speCified. Coarse sprays are less likely to drift; theretore. do not use nozzles or nozzle configurations which dispense spray as fine spray droplets. 00 not angle nozzles forward into lI1e 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 marldng devices. PROLONGED EXPOSURE OF THIS PRODUCT TO UNCOATED STEEL SURFACES MAY RESULT IN CORROSION AND POSSIBLE FAILURE OF THE PART. The maintenance 01 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 arrangemenls- Prepare a 3/4 to 2 percent solution of this product in water, add a nonionic surfactant and appty 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 labet. Applications should be made on a spray-to-wet basis. Spray coverage should be uniform and complete. 00 not spray to point of runon. This product may be used as a 5 to 8 percent 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 Oat 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. 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 WITll DESIRABLE VEGET A- rlON AS SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATllIS LlKEL 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 of leftover solutions. Clean wiper parts immediately after using this product by thoroughly Oushing with water. 8.0 SITE AND USE RECOMMENDATIONS OetaDed 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 aq uatic 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, nouflow- 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 tbeir fotiage under water. There is no restriction on the use of treated water lor irriga- tion. recreation or domestic purposes. Consulllocaf state fish and game agency and water control authorities before applying this product to public water. Permits may be required to treat such water. NOTE: 00 not apply this product directly to water within 1/2 mile up-stream of an active potable water intake in Oowing water (i.e., river. stream, etc_1 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 inlakes. 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 pel million as determined by laboratory analysis. These aquatic applications may be made ONLY in those cases where there are altemative water sources or holding ponds which would perinitthe turning off of an active potable water intake lor a minimum period of 48 hours after the applica- tions. This restriction does NOT apply to intermitter.t in- advertent overspray of water in terrestrial use sites For treatments after drawdown of water or 'n 1r' '1itc'''o;. allow 7 or more days after treatment before reintroduction of water to achieve maximum weed control. Aop!y this product within 1 day after drawdown to ensure appuca,;'.:n to activclV growing weeds. Floating mats of vegetation may require retrcJtment. Avoid wash-{)ff of sprayed foliage by spray boat or recreational boat backwash or by rainfall wilhin 6 hours of application. 00 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 ban~H::, appi;caUolls, do not overlap more than 1 fool into open water. 00 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-Type Sites-This product may be used to control the listed weeds in terrestrial noncrap sites and/or in aquatic sites within these areas: Airports Golf Courses Habitat Restoration & Management Areas Highways Industrial Plant Sites LumberyardS Natural Areas Parking Areas Parks Petroleum Tank Farms Pipeline. POWel. Telephone & Umily Rights-of-Way Pumping Installations Railroads Roadsides Schools Storage Areas Similar Industrial and NOIH:rop 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. Gut trees or resprouts close to the soil sur- lace. Apply a 50 10 100 percenl solution of this product 10 the freshly-cut surface immediately after cutting. Delays in application may result in reduced performance. For besl results. appUcations should be made during periods of active growth and full teaf expansion. When used according to directions for cut stump application. this product will CONTROL. PARTIAllY GONffiOl or SUP- PRESS most woody brush and tree species. some of which are listed below: Afder Alnus spp. Coyote brush. &ccharis consanguinea Dogwood. Comus spp. Eucalyptus Eucalyptus spp. Hictory. Carya spp. Madrone Arbutus menziesii Maple" Acer spp. Oak Quercus spp. Poplar. Populus spp. Reed, gianl Arundo donax Salt cedar Tamarix spp. Sweet gum. Liquidambar styraciftua Sycamore . Platanus occidentalis Tan oak Lithocarpus densiHorus Willow SaJix spp. .This product is not approved for this use on these species in the State of California. 00 NOT MAKE GUT STUMP APPUGATlONS 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 wildtife management areas. Habitat Restoration and Management This product may be used 10 control exotic. alien and other undesirable vegetation in habitat management and natural areas, including riparian and estuarine areas. and Wildlife refuges. Applications 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 Plots This producl may be used as a site preparation treatmenl 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 Iillage is needed to prepare a seedbed, wait 7 days after appli- cation before tillage to allow translocation inlo underground plant parts. 8.4 Injection and Frill Applications Woody vegetation may be controlled by injection or 'rill appli. cation of this product. Apply this product using suitable equipment which must penetrate into living tissue. Apply the equivalent of 1 mJ .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 frm or more closely spaced cuttings. Avoid applica. tion techniques that allow runoff to occur from frill or cut areas in species that exude sap freely after fnlls or cutting. In species such as these. make frill or cut at an oblique angle so as to produce a cupping effecl and use undnuted material. for besl 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. Uquidambar styraciffua Poplar Sycamore Populus spp. Platanus occidentalis This treatment Will SUPPRESS the follOWing woody species: Black !lum. . Hickory Nyssa sylva/ica Carya spp. Dogwood Maple, red Comus spp. Acer rubrum 00 NOT MAKE INJECTION OR FRIll APPLICATIONS WHEN THE ROOTS OF DESIRABLE WOODY BRUSH OR ffiEES MAY BE GRAFTED TO THE ROOTS OF THE TREATED TREES. INJURY RESULTING fROM ROOf GRAFTING IS LIKELY TO OCCUR IN ADJACENT WOODY BRUSH OR TREES. 'This product is not approved for this use on this species in the State of Califomia. 8.5 Roadsides 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 bennudagrass or bahiagrass, Make applications 10 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 beyood the 4- to 6.leal stage. WEEDS CONTROllED Rate recommendations for control or suppression af winter annuals and tall fescue are listed below. Apply the recommended rates of this product ;" 1') \1 "i gallons of water per acre plus 2 quarts noniolllc suriactant per 100 gallons of total spray volume. WEEDS CONTROLLED OR SUPPRESSFO NOTE: C = Control S = Suppression AQUAMASTER flUiD Ol/AGRE 6 9 12 18 24 48 S C C C C C S C C C C C 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 WEED SPECIES Barley, lime Hordeum pusitlum Bedstraw, catchweed Galium aparine Bluegrass. annual Poa ilnnua Chervil Chaerophyllum tainturieri Chickweed, common Ste/lariil media Clover, crimson Trifolium incamatum Clover. large hop T ritolium campestre Speedwell. corn S C C C C C Veronica arvensis Fescue, tall S S festuca ilrundinacea Geranium, Carolina S S C C Geranium carolinianumvHenbit SCCCC Lamium ampfexicaule Ryegrass, Italian S C C C Lolium mu1tinorum Vetch, common S Gee Vieiil sativa 'These rates apply only to sites where an established com. petitive turf is present. 5 RElEASE Of ACTIVElY GROWING BERMUOAGRASS NOTE: USE ONLY ON SITES WHERE 8AHlAGRASS OR BERMUDAGRASS ARE DESIRED FOR GROUND COVER ANa 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 vinesl. Use the higher rate as size ot plants increases or as they approach ftower or seedhead formation. Use the higher rate tor partial control or longer-term sup- pression of the following perennial species. Use lower rates for shorter -term suppression of growth. Bahiagrass Johnsongrass' . Dallisgrass T rumpetcreeper' Fescue (tall) Vaseygrass 'Suppression at the higher rate only. .. Johnsongrass is controlled at the higher rate. Use only on well-established bermudagrass. 8ermudagrass 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. BAHtAGRASS SEEDHEAD AND VEGETATIVE SUPPRESSION When applied 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 bahia- grass 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 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 seed head emergence. Apply no more than 2 sequential applications per year. As a first sequential application. apply 3 ftuid ounces of this prod- uct per acre plus nonionic 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 surfaclant per 100 gallons 01 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. g.o WEEDS CONTROLLED 9.1 Annual Weeds Apply to actively grOWing annual grasses and broadJeal weeds. Allow al least 3 days after application before disturbing treated vegetation. After Ihis period the weeds may be mowed, tined 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 of spray solution if weeds are less than 6 inches tall. If weeds are greater lhan 6 inches tall. use 2 1/2 pinls of this product per acre plus 2 or more quarts of an approved non- ionic surfactant per 100 gallons of spray solution. Hand-Held. Higb-Volume Application-Use a 314 to 1 1/2 percent solution of this product in water plus 2 or more quarts of a non ionic surfactant per 100 gallons of 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- TROLthe following ANNUAL WEEDS: Balsamapple" Mustard. tansy Momordica charantia Descurainia pinnata Barley Mustard. tumble Hordeum vulgare Sisymbrium attissimum Barnyardgrass Mustard, wild Echinochloa crus-galli Sinapis aIVensis Bassia. rIVehook Oals, wild Bassia hyssopifolia Avena tatua Bluegrass. annual Panicum Poa annua Panicum spp. Bluegrass. bulbous Pennycress, field Poa bulbosa Thlaspi aIVense Brome Pigweed. redrool Bromus spp. Amaranthus retroHexus Buttercup Pigweed. smooth Ranunculus spp. Amaranfhus hybridus Cheat Puncturevine Bromus secafinus Tribulus ferrestris Cheeseweed Ragweed, common Malva palViflora Ambrosia artemisiitolia Chickweed, mouseear Ragweed, giar.! Cerastium vulgatum Ambrosia tTifida Cocklebur Rocket. lontion Xanfhium strumarium Sisymbriul,: irio Corn. volunteer Rye lea mays Secale cereaf,' Crabgrass Ryegrass. It. Ii ;, Digitaria spp. Lotium fliU!i Owarfdandelion Sandbur, field KIigia cespitosa Cenchrus spp. FalseRax, smallseed Shatten:ane Camelina microcarpa Sorghum bieolor fiddlene" Shepherd's-purse Amsinckia spp. Capsel/a bursa-pastor is Aaxleaf fteabane Signalgrass. broadleal Conyza bonariensis Brachiaria p/atyphylla Aeabane Smartweed. Pennsylvania Erigeron spp. PO/ygonum Foxtail pensyfvanicum Setaria spp. Sowthistle, annual Foxtail. Carolina Sonchus oleraceus A10pecurus carolinianus Spanishneedles' Groundsel. common Bidens bipinnata Senecio vulgaris Stinkgrass HorseweedlMarestail Eragrosfis ci/ianensis Conyza canadensis Sunflower Kochia Hefianthus annuus Kochia scoparia Thistle, Russian lambsquarlelS. common Salso/akati Chenopodium album Spurry. umbrella lettuce. prickly Holosteum umbel/atum Lactuca serriola Velvetleal Morningglory Abutilon theophrasti Ipomoea spp. Wheat Mustard, blue Triticum aestivum Chorispora tenella Witchgrass Panicum capi/lare . 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 1 1/2 percent solution of this product to con- trol or destroy most vigorously growing perennial weeds. Add 2 or more quarts of a non ionic 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 APPLICATION" sections in this label for specific uses and application instructions. Ensure thorough coverage when using spray-to-wet treat- ments using hand-held equipment. When using hand-held equipment for low volume directed spot treatments. apply a 5to 8 percent solution of this product. Unless otherwise directed, allow at least 7 days affer applica- tion before disturbing vegetation. If weeds have been mowed or tilled. do nottreal until regrowth has reached the recom- mended stages. fall treatments must be applied before a kiUing frost Repeallreatments 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: Alfalfa Medicago sativa Alligatorweed" Alternanthera philoxeroides Aniseft'ennet Foeniculum vulgare Artichoke, Jerusalem Helianthus tuberosus Bahiagrass PaspaJum notatum Beac:hgrass, European Ammophila arenaria Bermudagrass Cynodon dactylon Bindweed, field Convolvulus arvensis Bluegrass, Kenluclly Poa pratensis B1ueweed, Texas Hefianthus ciliaris Brackenfern Pteridium spp. IInJmegrass, smoolh Bromus inermis Caaaryvrass, reed PhaJaris arundinacea Cattail Typha spp. Clover, red Trifolium pratense Clover, wIlile TrifoRum repens Cogongrass Imperata cyIindrica Cordgrass Spartina spp. CUlgrass, giant" Zizaniopsis miliacea Dallisgrass PaspaJum dilatatum Dandelion Taraxacum officinale Dock, curty Rumex crispus Dogbane, hemp Apocynum cannabinum Fescue Festuca spp. Fescue, tall Festuca arundinacea Guineagrass Panicum maximum Hemlock, pOison Conium maculatum HorsenelUe Solanum carolinense Horseradish Armoracia rusticana Ice Plant Carprobrotus edulis Ivy, Gennan, cape Senecio mikanoides Delairea odorata Johnsongrass Sorghum halepense Kikuyugrass Pennisetum c1andestinum Knapweed, Russian Centaurea repens lantana Lantana camara lespedeza: common, serices Lespedeza striata Lespedeza cuneata Loosestrile, purple Lythrum salicaria lotus, American Ne/umbo lutea Maidencane Panicum hematomon Milkweed Asclepias spp. Mubl" wireslem Muhlenbergia frondosa Mullein, common Verbascum thapsus Napie'1lrass Pennisetum purpureum Nightshade, silverleaf Solanum elaeagnifolium Nutsedge: purple Cyperus rotundus yellow Cyperus esculentus Orchardgrass Dacty/is glomerata Pampasgrass Cortaderia jubata Paragrass Brachiaria mutica Pepperweed, perennial Lepidium latitolium Phragmitesu Phragmites spp. Quacllgrass Agropyron repens Reed, giant Arando donax Ryegrass, perennial Lolium perenne Smartweed, swamp Po/ygonum coccineum Spatterdock Huphar luteum StartllisUe, yellow Centaurea solstitiafis Sweet potato, wild" Ipomoea pandurata ThisUe, artichoke Cynara cardunculus ThisOe, Canada Cirsium arvense TImothy Phleum pratense T orpedograss" Panicum repens Tules, common Scirpus acutus Vaseygrass Paspalum urvillei Velvetgrass HoJcus spp. Walerhyaclnth Eichornia crassipes Walerleltuce Pistia straootes Walerprimrose ludwigia spp. Wheatgrass, western Agropyron smithii "Partial control. .. Partial control in southeastern states. See specific recom- mendations below. AIligatorweed-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 a1ligatorweed. Apply when most of the target plants are in bloom. Repeat applica- tions will be required to maintain such control. Bermuda grass-Apply 7 1/2 pints ot 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. Iield/Silverleaf Nightshade I Texas BlueWE<1G. Apply 6 to 7 112. pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray west of the Mississippi River and 4 112 to 6 pir.1S of tlli" product per acre east of the Mississippi River. With hand- held equipment, use a 1 1/2 percent solution. Apply wilen target plants are actively growing and are at or beyond lull bloom. for silverleaf nightshade. best results can be abtairer. when application is made after berries are ;0 .~i.' [', . n, treat when weeds are under drought stress. l~eweal development indicates active growth. for best resJIls apply in late summer or latl. Brackenlem-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 lronds which are at least 18 inches long. Calfall-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 earfy-to-fuU bloom stage of growth. Best results are achieved when application is made during the summer or fall months. Cogongrass-Apply 4 1/2 to 7 tJ2 pints 01 this product per acre as a broadcast spray. Apply when cogongrass is at least 18 inches taU 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 maintain control. Cordgrass-Apply 4 1/2 to 7 1/2 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 order to allow 6 hours before treated plants are covered by tidewater. The presence of debris and silt on the cordgrass plants will reduce performance. It may be necessary to wash targeted plants prior to application to improve uptake of this product into the plant. Cutgrass, gianl-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-teaf stage prior to retrealinent. 7 Dogbane, hemp 1 Knapweed 1 Horseradish-Apply 6 pinls of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a I 1/2 percent solution with hand-held equipment Apply when target plants are actively growing and most have reached the late bud-la-flower stage of growth. For best results. apply in late summer or lall. Fescue. tall-Apply 4 1/2 pints ot 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 booHo-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 1 Bluegrass. Kentucky 1 Bromegrass, smooth I CanalJgrass, reed 1 Orchardgrass I Ryegrass, perennial 1 Timothy / Wheatgrass, westero---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-ta-head stage of growth. WIlen app~ed 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 t percent solution with hand-held equipment. Apply to actively growing lanlana at or beyond the bloom stage of growth. Use the higher appli- cation rate lor plants that have reached the woody stage 01 growth. Loosestrite. purple--Apply 4 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 1 to 1 1f2 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 du ring 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 / 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 1O-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 1/2 pen:ent solution with hand-held equipment Apply when target plants are actively growing and most have reached the late bud-to-flower stage of growth. Nutsedge: purpte. yeflow--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 nutlets attached to treated plants. Apply when target plants are in flower or wilen 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. Phragmiles-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 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 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. Quackgrass I Kikuyugrass / 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-Ieaf stage of growth) and actively growing. Allow 3 or more days after application before Iillage. Reed, giant/lee Planl-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 applicatlans are made in late summer to fall. Spanerdock-Apply 6 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 percent solution with hand-held eq uipment Apply when most plants are in fufl bloom. For best results. apply during the summer or fall months. Sweet potato. witd-Apply this product as a 1 1/2 pen:ent solution using hand-held equipment Apply to actively grow- ing weeds that are at or beyond the bloom stage 01 growth. Repeat applications will be required. Allow the plant to reach the recommended stage of growth before retreatmenL Thistle: Canada. 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 thislle. 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 Of beyond 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 wiD 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. Alter appli- cation. visual symptoms will be slow to appear and may not occur for 3 or more weeks. Waterhyacinlll--Apply 5 to 6 pints of this product ner acre as a broadcast spray or apply a 3/4 to 1 pen:ent soluiion with hand-held equipment Apply when target plants aie actively growing and at or beyond the early bloom stage of growth. Alter application. visual symptoms may require 3 or more weeks to appear with complete necrosis and decomposition usually occurring within 60 to 90 days. Use t~e hicl1er raies when more rapid visual effects are desired. Waterlenuce-for control, apply a 3/4 to 1 perceDi su':Jiiop 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 appli- cations. Spring applications may require retreatment Waterprimrose-Apply this product as a 3/4 percent solu- tion using hand-held equipment Apply 10 plants that are actively growing at or beyond the bloom stage of growth, but before fail color changes occur. Thorough coverage is neces- sary for best control. Other perennials listed on this label-Apply 4 1/2 to 7 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray Of 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 pen:ent 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 gaHons 01 spray solution to the rales of this product given in this list. See the "GENERAL INFORMATION", "DIRECTIONS FOR USE" and "MIXING AND APPLICATION" sections in this label for specific uses and app~cation instructions. Ensure thorough coverage when using spray-to-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 A/nus spp. As/J" Fraxinus spp. Aspen, quaking Populus tremu/oides Bean:lover. Beannat Chamaebafia toli%sa Bin:h Betula spp. Blackbeny Rubus spp. Broom: french Cytisus monspessulanus SCGtch Cytisus scoparius Buckwheat, California" Eriogonum fasciculatum Cascara" Rhamnus purshiana Castor bean Ricinus communis Catsdaw" Acacia greggi Ceanofhus Ceanothus spp. Cllamise Adenostoma tascicu/atum &berry: Bitter Pronus emarginata Black Pronus serofina Pin Pronus pensy/vanica Cottonwood. easlern Populus deltoides Coyole brush Baccharis consanguinea Creeper. Virginia" Pat1henocissus quinquefolia Cypress. swamp. bald Taxodium distichum DeelWeed Lotus scoparius Dewbetry Rubus trivia/is Dagwood Comus spp. Bdemeny Sambucus spp. Bm" Ulmus spp. Eucalyptus. bluegum Eucalyptus globu/us Gallbeny /lex glabta HaclllJerry. western Celtis occidenta/is Hasanlia * Haplopappus squamosus Hawlborn Ctataegus spp. Hazel Cory/us spp. Hickory Caiya spp. Honeysucllle Lonicera spp. Hornbeam, American Carpinus caroliniana !lucklebeny Vaccinium spp. Kudzu Pueraria lobata locust. black" Robinia pseudoacacia Magnolia. sweelbay Magno/ia virginiana Manzanila Arctostaphylos spp. Maple: Red" Acer rubrom Sugar Acer saccharom Irme" Acer circinatum Monkey Rower" Mimulus guttatus Oak: Black" Quercus ve/utina Northern pine Quen:us palustris Post Quen:us stel/ata Red Quercus rubra Southern red Quen:us fa/cata While" Quercus alba Orange. Osage Mac/ura pomifera Peppertree, Braziliall- (Rorida Holly) Schinus terebinthitolius Persimmon" Diospyros spp. Poison Ivy Rhus radicans Poison Oak Rhus toxicodendron Poplar. yellow" Uriodendron tulipitera Prunus Pronus spp. Raspbeny Rubus spp. Redbud. eastern Cercis canadensis Redcedar, eastern Juniperos virginiana Rose. multinora Rosa multiffora Russian-olive E/aeagnus angustitolia Sage: black. white Salvia spp. Sagebrush. California Artemisia caJitomica Salrnonbeny Rubus spectabi/is Sallcedar,lamarisk" Tamarix spp. Saltbush. Sea mylfle Baccharis halimiro/fa Sassafras Sassatras aibidum Tallowlree, Chinese Sapium sebiterum Thirnbleberry Rubus parviflorus Tobacco, free" Nicotiana glauca Toyon" Herteromeles arbutitolia Trurnpetcreeper Campsis radicans Waxmylfle. southern' Myrica cerifera Willow Salix spp. Yemasenla, California Eriodic/y/on ca/ifornicum Sourwood' Oxydendrum arboreum Sumac: laurel' Rhus toxicodendron Poison' Rhus vernix Smooth ' Rhus glabra Sugarbush" Rhus ovata Winged" Rhus copallina Sweet gum Uquidambar s/yraciflua Swordtern" Polystichum munitum "Partial control .. See below for control or partial control instruction. NOTE: If brush has been mowed or t~led or trees have been cul do not treat until regrowth has reached the recom- ~ndeds~geofgrowth. Apply the recommended rate of this product plus 2 or more quarts of a nonionic surfactant per 100 gallons of spray solu- tion when plants are actively growing and, unless otherwise directed, alter lull-leaf expansion. Use the higher rate for larger plants and/or dense areas 01 growth. On vines, use the higher rate lor plants that have reached the woody slage of growth. Best results are obtained when application is made in late summer or fall alter lruitlormation. 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 nowering. Ensure thorough coverage when using hand-lield equipment Symptoms may not appear prior to frost or senescence with fall t"!;,;i;;~nts. Allow 7 or more days after application before tillage. r;.Qwing or removal. Repeattreahnents may be neces~arY'i ""''11[1 plants regenerating from underground parts !lr seeo. Some autumn colors on undesirable deciduous specie~ are accept- able provided no major leal drop has occurred. Reduced per- formance may result if lalltreahnents are made lollow:..g a frost See the "DIRECTIONS fOR USE" and "MIXING AND ApPLI- CATION INSmUCTlONS" 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 win control or partially control aU species listed in this section olll1is label. Use the higher rate of application for dense stands and larger woody brush and trees. Apply the product as lollows to control or partially control the following woody brush and trees. Alder I Blackbeny I Dewberry I Honeysuckle I Oak, Post I Raspbeny--For control. apply 4112 to 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 314 to 1 114 percent solution with hand-held equipment. Birch I Eldel1leny I Hazel I Salmonbeny Ilbimblebeny--For control. apply 3 pints per acre oflhis product as a broadcast spray or as a 3/4 percent solution with hand-lield equipment Broom: French, Scolch-for control, apply a 1 114 to 1 112 percent solution with hand-held equip~nt Buckwheat, California I Hasardia I Monkey ffower / Tobacco, Tree-for partial control of these species. apply a 3/4 to 1 112 percent solution 01 this product as a foliar spray with hand-lield equipment Thorough coverage 01 fOliage is necessary for best results. Castomean-for control. apply a 1 112 percent solution of this product with hand-lield equipment. Catsdaw-for partial control, apply a 1 1/4 to 1 112 percent solution with hand-held equipment when at least 50 percent of the new leaves are fully developed. 9 Cherry: Bitter. Black. Pin' Oak, Southern Red' Sweet Gum , Prunus-For control. apply 3 to 7 1/2 pints of this product per acre as a broadcast spray or as a 1 to I 1/2 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, Sail cedar-for partial control. apply a 1 10 2 percent solution of this product with hand-held equip- ment or 6 to 7 1/2 pints per acre as a broadcast spray. eUt:3typtus. bluegum-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-feettall. Ensure com- plete coverage. Apply when plants are actively growing. Avoid application to drought -stressed plants. 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 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' Dale Northern Pin. Red-for control, apply as a 3/4 to 1 1/4 percent solution with hand-held equipment when at least 50 percent of the new leaves are fully devel- oped. Pepperlree. Brazilian (Holly, AoridaJ I Waxmyrtfe. south- ern-for partial control, apply this product as a 1 1/2 percent solution 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 before leaves lose green color. Rose, mulliAora-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' Sagebrush. California' Chamise I Tallowtree, Chinese--4'or 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 necessalY for best results. Saltbusb. 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 brusb and trees listed in this label-for par- lial control, apply 3 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. 10.0 UMIT OF WARRANTY AND UABIUTY Monsanto Company warrants that this product confonns 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 WARRANTY OR IMPLIED WARRANTY OF fITNESS FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR MERCHANTABIL- fTY IS MADE. This warranty is also subject to the conditions and limitations stated herein. Buyer and all users shall promptly notily 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 nonnal 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 torth in the Directions in or on the soil. crop or treated vegetation. This Company does not warrant any product reformulated or repackaged trom this product except in accordance with this Company's stewardship requirements and with express writ- ten' pennisslon of this Company. THE EXClUSIVE REMEDY OF THE USeR OR BUYER, AND THE LIMIT Of THE LIABILITY OF THIS COMPANY OR ANY OruER SELLER FOR ANY AND ALL LOSSES, INJURIES OR DAMAGES RESUlTING FROM THE USE OR HANDLING OF . THIS PRODUCT (INClUDING CLAIMS BASEO IN CONTRACT. NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, OTHER TORT OR OTHER- WISE) SHALL BE ruE PURCHASE PRIGe PAlO BY THE USER OR BUYER FOR THE QUANTITY OF THIS PRODUCT INVOLVED, OR, AT rue ELECTION OF THIS COMPANY OR ANY OruER saLER. ruE REPLACEMENT OF SUCH QUAN- TITY, OR, IF NOT ACQUIRED BY PURCHASE. REPLACEMENT OF SUCH QUANTITY. IN NO EVENT SHALL THIS COMPANY OR ANY OrnER 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 terms of this liMIT OF WAR- RANTY AND LIABILITY which may not be varied by any ver- bal or written agreement. If tenns are not acceptable, return at once unopened. EPA Reg. No. 524-343 In case 01 an emergency involving tUs P',;;.J:'. or for medical assistance, Call Collect, day or night, (314) 694-4000. @2000 MONSANTO COMPANY ST. LOUIS. MISSOURI, 63167 U.S.A. 10 APPENDIX 0 Appendix D contains some historical documents regarding work done on North Lake over the years. The Rotenone records were requested from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, documenting application since 1950. Records of King County Noxious Weed Control Galerucella beetle release forms for purple loosestrife control. This appendix concludes with the herbicide application notices from the Whitworth Pest Solutions distributed to the lakeside residents in the summer of 2004 for fragrant waterlily control work. North Lake IA VMP - Appendix 0 0-1 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard. Mill Creek. Washington 98012' (42S) 775-1311 FAX (425) 338-1066 15 September 2004 Wendy Honey 3800 S. 328dt Street Auburn W A 9800 I 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 foul1~. Referenced on pre-rehabilitation record for September, 1972, rotenone appticaticn (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, WA, 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 of2 Please contact me at 425-77 5-1311, 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). S1~:~~'. ~ L;;~~oda Area Fish Biologist Region 4 - King, Island, and south Snohomish Counties Enclosures SEP 15 '04 08:08nM WDFW PUBlIC AFFAIRS STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIfE Mailing Address: 600 Capitol Way North OffICe location: f III Washington Street S.E. Olympia. Washington 9850 I-I 091 Telephone (360)902-2253 · FAX (360)902-2171 P.2/2 nn 3S?' Request No. 't. \/J (Dep:mment Use.Only) REQUEST FOR PUBLIC RECORD NOTE; The Department of Fish and Wildlife may impose a charge for providing copies of public reconis (RCW 42_17_300) I.~NAMe /Jk4 r /-J,~)/ FIRM: .11 /rfj ~1,- _ -r;." f:>I?f~n'7~/J I L.Ita.l [~ MAlUNGADORESS: e j; .3 faJ -=.5. ~2 p-f. S~x TELEPHONE: f;::<.se) '-2 c;:2. ?:.2 8:<' FAX: --.J C!t/,j; (NL/~) .4/~/Lrn M qft::lCJ/ Crty/State Zip Code - - -:l: -TYPE OF RecoRo(S)' ORSPEClFlC RECORD REQUEsTED: LbPL0 of/-Ik:, M,fj La-k-. r~!JfiL>;~' ~~7ft17? 1?>~pd~ '(br~~~/l/ir:. d4-d /9S / O-"c~ /CJ~~ ?~ 7!-d-:J A/LIt' ____ 3. PROVIDE INFO~'1JON. BY: . Dlnspecrion ~OtOCOPY OUst oMagnetic tape DDlskettll - Size: Oubels DComputer PrintOUt OOther AGREEMENT TO PROTECJ Usrs.OF-JNDIVIDUALS - FROM USE FOR A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE As defined in RON 42.17.260(7).1 hereby agree that the list of inctlViduals-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 orpnization I represent and I will protect the information fl"Om access by anyone who mar use it for purposes of contacting the individuals named therein or otherwise personally affecting tllem in the furtherance of any profit-seeking activity. .ucy under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true.and correct. fA .~~ '?as:yd . NL/.z:-<:.. ~~s,-j)4. Date FOR DEPARTMENT USEONLY; Request No. . <lq3~ Date Received q - 15 -04- Date Completed Approved v Denied Reason for denial Account # Invoice # Amount $ -- ..\ '1 ;...;crL: L2..i-:":' !I..llg ve. T{Y F..', LAKE'" Y." NCR TH COUNTY King, See. 15, '1'wp. 21.n. , ,// DATE 'POISONED 'jUlY''2e~ 1950' '~''-~'''''''' c, -~ ~-~. Rge. ,,'4.'B~" Fill.in the fcllowing information accurately; :~r:d:0~.-=:_'; 1. Surface acreage 56 - - :. -.... ;".. . :'.,B.c..r,:n. ~.' ';.....' ~,;.;!:;.;.- - - . -~:~ ~.~{.:i\ ..;...d..", .:.~~:~ Lj~':--" . L- 2. Maximum depth feel. 34 feet'; averago depth ", 13" . .-"':',;...;.:.:."- 3. Vol'-llli6 of "later in the lake 35 ~~522, 000 .....,...-.. -",.~". ..< cu. feet;;c<- !"; '.-j.;'"l p~.6~' '_: ~.~~. 4.' ~ieight ;11 ...'n . :.i-,''" It . .. 2 . 220 # 12~ iOOo. .':'~; '. 4 ..~' .. u fl'": JI ~~"! ':::. 5. RotenOnE', prcduct required to poJ._~q~. ~l:1e ,lake 2700 pounds pa~(:c!. on 1 p~~tsrf>.t-e~ne to 1,000, QqQ". 6. ~ '.~.,..,'; h. ,.....~._ ;;;.~ ...L,_. ::'_';;_'::~: pa~ts of "'i't~r::b.}~ wcight~'.' '!{ .... .- - , ,. . ~-;- . . r'~ :' r"':,-~, '-~Ir'.{j~r""',' ~;._ ~_;::-- C6~t Qf .poiscn @ ~~-' .-~29, ~' 'per pound:.$ . . ~~.~:.. -_. " 'il'.' ~." . f\~::,,:~ ....... ~ti~I : ':;.f:?t-: [.: ,"'_ <l .:?:~.: ._-:vw.::~ ~ rilt.~ J(Ht ~~..~(: .-~,! :" '.. ~i~"'~~~K"; 783: 16" .64 .' ~i:-!: 7. !.fan hours effort e:q>ended in 3urvey .' 8. . - - _(! r -~t:. L" _. __.' !.fa."1 hours effert 6?'Pended.:~poiso~p,; ; :" ''-- j~>: :. 9. '(:onditicns 'iri~h~ ~ak~'~~~~#~ ~rpcii~i~~~'~,:,,:;,"h ':) Dissolved ,- -:-::'. Qxygel!Corite~,!:-,:~; .~ .. "fIl:' "_.- ':.J- ta.. --.~ :::l;'-f ':~ ~- .-' " Depth in Feet 0 :s -10 15 20 "25 30 35 40 .:. :;r~mperatt~' pH .75 7.9 7.8. '- ~ .....1..: i.: .. _-_c~r ~.o-:h~! [L!. '10' "':-. ' ~ 8.8 60 ( " 6.5 -.- 5.6 3.:'6 .i~: .~_ .:: ~ 'ft ~. 54 ~~ ;i~2. . r:....; --:'- '50' - . ~ -'5-' ';' . .. . T. ,; '::"3~: :~:~:l.;:tI..l~~ ~,- ..... ..i:-~ 45 50 10. Numbers end species of fish eradicated: L.M. Bass 75,000 1"-17" Rainbow Trout 25 8"...12" Perch 100,000 l/f-'1l" - Cat1'lsh.l,ooO 4/f-3l1bs. Sunfish 25,.<?OO 1"-5" Crappie 5,000 1 "-13/f li. Possibility of a compl~te ki!lGood--bad swamp at the North end or the '"'--" -. -{" _. ," .....'.x lake, bu.t.thisj-$.8'hea~y poweri sprayed with pobon. ~ ~:~~ ~_2-.._ _~. ~_ :.___._.:.____.;..~ 12. Rotencne'pr('duct used:~ Cube root 5% rotenone content. (o~l") ...._.,;;~._~--....;.~---"----~.~-----~...............--- -'-'---~ .-.. . , ~.",'!:>;".'.lt" ~;--- ..- '7 ~ / .' / (' r- ..~.'\... ..... ...............:.......... :: .-' r ., ~_: . J.j,,"\ ~..., LAi{E' 0 ; 6" .' Harth COUNTY Kl_ DATE :ptlSONED"." """:~~hoi-~1, 1~ '. <'<:"'t: Fill in the fcll0win~ information accurately. ~ " . . " 1. 5urfacu acr~aee f6 )1& a'eres . '.. ....... 2. Maximum d.epth .\.....,.;..."..,' ~eeti' avet'a~odepth 11&.8 feet. 3. VolUlUe of WE.ter. in tho lake 3S.~t2~~, 2,220,1I$,'0G0 . cu. feet. 4.'. ;icight II '11 - -'..;- If' :'U ;-, 11 .' pounds. - 5. RotEmCnE' prcduct required to poison the lake 2.;!OO'lb$. plua)OO lb.. _.lSpl'&,y enc1 duet. .-,.1.. .. pounds bas.x! on 1:',":: GR. parts rotenone to 1,000,000 parts of HC't(!r-by weight. .6. Cost of .poiS<'u @$ j't 6.ro.,.ound $ 17S~OQ 7. Man hours effort expended in survey 16 B. ManhQurs effort expended in poisoning ~ 9. Conditicns in the lake on date of po~sonihi:p Depth in Feet 0 5 10 15 20 25-~ 30 35 Dissolved Oxygen Coutent 'fempcirature pH 660 66.. 66 61 ~ 11.14 1l.O 53 n 8.' 0.8 40 45 50 10, Numbers and spncies of fish eradicated: 20,000 P$I'otl J.. . a inoll aver... te 12 tows . 10,000 ..t.tieh 6... 11nob ....l!lraa:. 1h 11l.01ll\l.UhtUII Man 200 riblbOw 'trout; 10 - l' 1nob.. 11. Possibility of a complete kill BOOd 12. '&t~~~:~:';;~~6ii~~~;d'::.~~6.:' (I)~l') ._--.--CIIIIf"~ ~ FOitM 65 LiKE NORTH COUNTY - KING _. r _. <. -'__ _-_...:... v DATE POISONED 10'-11-63'" ~, -.... t _. FUl in the f:':::'M.'I: inf;)m~tion accurately. - - 1. ~~~'~'.va &':':'6age -- '56'-' ...~.__._---._- M&..-::'::um d~t~___' :'. :3.4...-_~~e'i; :::'oc.:. . acres. avera:~~ dep'.,: _ '-'!4.B_ 2. :3 Vol''.:c.fl of 1'-~i:er :':1 th.; ::"~<~:~5.52iI.006_._~_,_. _.__, "._'Ju.:o:':' 4 . WeiE;ht If . . . :..L'~ -. -. If 2 :220.12S.000 .~ .....:.._ ~:~___.~w;;,;.::;. If 'I II . -.. . . 5. Rotenone product r~~.:;oo to p~::'8on the 1.l'.kelBOQ.-!n..C?l~.~m:P..::.~~ilJ.st poUi=.:1s based on -- -- . .. ... __'larts !'(:tenone t-o_l..QQQ.P.ilil..-_. _,_. 1 par-i;l;: of lfP.ter L;r welg~.l'.. 6. Cosi. ot JX;~..Jon@ $ .16tt, 295.00' ;Je~ po-.r-.o. t 1. Man hours ('-elort expen6ed:in f-;!1"'1"';.. ~~~ _~. 8. Man hours ",:for'...3XpCn<ied in poisoning 12 t. ....". 9. eone.itlons in tb lake on d'lte of F:'3onir_;~1 Depth in Feet D:tt".;, 0:." .;d Oxygen Contene. Teiupe~ature pH 608 7.00 o 49 . -: J 5 10 3ecchi Disk R~~8e------ --1t2_ _..!W-_ 6.90 15 ,~v ~- 6a.~_.____ J...:L. ~~5 -:0 hQ' 7.0? ",j ;~~ ;;:0 In ,. N..lll!la::-s &1.':' .~pec.:.o:) of. ~i'3h <,"'~di.ci:">':'.: 8~"!-i?.=11)~ _.. __~,OOQ,__ __ 3~~~@.-1;L "')._______..22.0._ -- ...---..------.--........ -~.- ...----,......-----...---. ---_..------- l' Pos" _1::":.1-;; cr c ~dlp:;; .'. :dl:.,...J!?o.<;l~~..12..I18,..t2.z:i~~n..in CQIlSmJ.C4ti9n. :-1~ tr:.~~d.. ~~.h'2s...2_~~letto r~(;lOd..E.l]illq~~L--.-_. ...._--- ___ .1.2. Rot,::!\:>~e product. ~ed _~.-2.~1Jf ..s~~..P.2.L--_ .---- ..- (?Ter) Form #6S .""., Form #6S PRE-REHABILITATION fORM I. Name of Water North County J:1D11t Section l' Tp. 21 If Range 41: Neares t Town Auburn 2. Surface Acres 56 Maximum depth ".. \KIII1. {Wt.) 2.220,125.000 1be.. 3. Date of last previous rehabilitationSept. 18, 1968 Toxicant used Rotenon. _ Pro-ncx (early) 4. Anticipated treatment date Sept., 19'12 Estimated replanting date October, 19'12 S. Proposed toxicant RoteDOlle Concentrati on 111,000.000 Amount 2.200 1he. Method of application Boat Target species Perob. Cattiah 6. Objectives: Complete kill lee Partial kill (Percent) 7. .~Procedures.for salvage and disposal of dead fish BoDe 8. Type of outlet: Permanent Intermittent x Dry Stream flow Hi les of stream 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 May beed to II811dbag Ol1t1et due to VeyerlJawser pond below us. (i f none, spec i fy why) a&tlet dr,r at t1ae of a~catiOD II. Will detoxicant be used 110 Type 12. Expected duration of beneficial effects 13. Public access Yea Oeve I oped Long te1"lll Yes Public Major land ownership: Private X Other 14. Establi shed resorts: Hone eUll operaUDs IS. Public attitude: local res"idents '1'bo8e contacted Sports Club J'a"OralUe Favorable Public Hearing No 16. Is water used locally for domestic. industrial or irrigation purposes No If so~ clearance required 17. Five-Year Planting Record: 8ee other 814. Number S 1.-. e Sped es 18. Catch information: 1968 Fi shJrmen No. Fi sh Species Avera~:2 Catch 'J ?ttl WS ~ .1.9 &J l(D 4.( -n'iO ~;I .1.. ;)4v JQ'j 6..2 ~ ii ~ KI':I 2.&/ -tm DB :5.1 19. Remarks: Toxicant used is based on 5 % active ingredient. ., Fisherie6-~!~!ogl Reg.lI_ Date F~6SA F~6SA POST R EHAD IlITATION fORH I. lake or Stream JIortb County King ,Section 15 Township 21. Range 41: 2: O..te Treated 9-29-72 3. Surface Acreage 56 4. Hiles of Stream federal Project No. Date submi tted Hiles of tributary or outlet treated Hiles of tributaries $. Maxi lIlU1l depth )It ( ft. ) ,~. Volume of water in lake'5.522,OOOcu.ft. Average depth 15' Weight of water in lake 2,220,125.000 7. Toxicant used to rehabi lHate lake Iotenou Amount used 1,650 (Ibs.~ 8. Pounds based on 1 parts of Rot.~ t01,OOO,OOO pts. of water by wt. 9. Cost of material at $ per Ib or gal. Total cost of material$ 10. Man hours effort expended in treatement al II. Conditions in the lake on date of treatmentl Dep~h in ft; Temperature ~ Dissolved Oxygen Total Dissolved Solids 0' 620 8.4 12. Numbers and species of fish eradicated: Yellow PeNh Lers--th .... 3-9" 8-16" 8-12" 8,000 100 100 Brown .1111-.4 ~' Jlaiahow ~t ~ 8-14" l50 13. '4. Possibility of a complete kill: Good Oetoxi fi cati on If so, report on effects recorded on downstream fishery. IS. Period of toxicity: Hon-~o by lfovem'ber al. 19'12 ,~. Fish Stocking: Date Species Size Pounds Number ? fish~~logist Region N_____Date STATE OF WASHINGTON North Lake Kbg Co. ~u_ ,,;l}) .~ <s,~~',=:":~:~k i. ";.. , <:.:)/,(~ ,. '7;. ~.l#.:) ~}\.l.. -"":-~</.l>: . _.- ...,.'~.- _#.... .,~..-~--~~... 1"- .- . # c THE DEPARTMENT OF GAME DON W. CLARKE. 01___ 509 FAIRVIIEW AVIENUI: NORTH SEATT~ 8 '. / ,~ March 12 t 1951 -, .;-' liorth Lake Improvement C1ub, Route 3, Box 1387 Aubarn, W,ashington Deer Sirs: Receipt is acknowle3ged of your lett€r requesting Inf'ormation on the control of water-li1ies. The ?enite-G mentioned in our Game Bulletin is used mainly for the control of submerge~ aquatic plantz ani woulj not be too effective in the control of water- lilies. ResearchErs in vr..rious ~)arbS of' the cO~;r-have not been successful in finding a sure method :of control for these p~ants. however the following have had some form of success. 1. Z. 24D containing an 011 carrier or detergent. 2. 2'; 24D (2 Lbs 24D, 1 'it Triethanolamine, and 25 gellons water) 3 . 24ST \'iaterl1lies have waxy coverings requ:i:r:i.D8 --!. -...t~1~ strong so1utions c:)nteining oil carriers 0';- aeterEen",6 r~~ ~-~~-~.nenetr~tion 2nd coverage. ,Theref~~e your ~ tr~als witn pOY/Geren w-=O' uc.....c ~~-vvoc.r~~neff'ec"t.~ve. One 0:1 the most effective formul~tlon3 of L 2~' used to date on waterlilies and other waxy-coated pla.nts is a,commercial solution consisting of 35.0;; 24Is and 17 .5~ phewJ.acet.ic acid. .J.f you could get this mat.erial in making up your solutions, you might have bet t.er success. I '0 not be discouraged if you do not ac~~e control after the first application. Continued applications shou1d be made ani it might take two to three seasons to get complete control. none of the above materia.ls should be harmful. to fish. If the Department can be of :f'urt.her assistance please jo not hesl tate to vtri te . we appre<:iate your efforts to protect the fish in the lake in trying to solve yourbroblem. Kindly keep us inf'ormejon the success of your proje'ct. Very truly yours, :2;;~ W F. :l. Det t.mer, Aquatic Chemist C<<J)I?Y , ~ STATE OF WASmNGTON DEPARTMENT OF GAME Memo for March 6, 1951 Herb Dettmer Aquatic Chemist Dear Herb: Enclosed is a letter from the liorth Lake Improvement Club regarding lreed control. Would you answer this and send me a copy of your reply. Ver:T .;;::ours, Clarence F. Pautzke, Chief Fishery Management Division CFP:c // '.;:,/&A-ft..-( --..::T~ . //}} ~ d~~ A)) MEETINGS Sr.::.I...VI"..., . OF EACH MONTH AT 8:af'"r~~ :;. '-1. ~ "T?- ~ /~ NORTH LAK~U!E~.~~ii~MEN~~~~~~-:.) AUBURN, W ASHINGTON ~r ~._~ .::.:9} (;> rc., .~ <.....// ., :;. '-- ~ 04-- '" // . g~~. Jl~~ ~../90-/~~ ~~~a ' ~ '. ~ ~-~U~:4aSd<r2s)' ~. . ~-f~;;(~ . .7'aZ.L ~~.-:LL~~. ~4 ~ La~~~', . ~~~ Y~~~j~7r~~~&-4'. ~ ~~ dA.L. :. .'6'-<'" ~~~~~ '.' ~~, ~/~~~~ ' "~r~-~7L8 ~d~, f/ ' v:/ .,L . ~.c.....e.... U-'74~ 1-rz:~, ) ~71? ~ .'~ ..I t. J' , r. ~)1 ~ & 'Fc'P 'fI'"') State of Washington r;a~e COr._~ILlQnCri I Harold A. PebbleJ. Chairman, Olympia Arlhllr S. CoBin, Yakima; JameJ H. RailI, WiiJOn Creek; Albert T. Pri<:ha,.J. KaUma; CLude BekinJ, Suttle; i:.JJon Vow, W nud&hee Director ,1/ Gam" I !7hl A. BiggJ DEP.A.RT~ENT OF G.A.:M:E .' ~-'~' : ~~. . - ..,.~,'( ~. . . ;:~;:i;:-':~':~.;~i~j..~:1 t: ~ .~ 509 FtUnW NDtth / Sazok, Wash. 91JOJ July 6. 1966 Mrs. Vivian Beaudoin Horth Lake Weed Control Committee 33453 33rd Place South Auburn, Wasnington 98002 Dear Mrs. Beaudoin: It would be extremely di1'i'icult for the Game Department to justi!'y the expenditure 01' monies 1'or the purpose you have suggested. This is true even though the amount involved is not large. We are of course. charged with producing and main- ta~g populations or fish in North Lake and the removal of Water Ll11ies woul.d in no way enhance this program" In ract the complete removal of vegetative life mi~~ h~vo just the opposite er1'ect. This does not mean that we are not sympathetic ir' (' your problem and we hope that the li11y control opera t L;."c is successf'ul. We know Mr. Carsner and respect his ability and accomplishments. EAC:vJ Supervisor. # 7 I' cc - Millenbach v Knott Ayerst CCQ)fi>>V ~3 ~-' C'j SAMPLE BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENT RELEASE FORM TargetWeed 7Jwo~ loa <),.( ~~ ~na;J:) Agent G~lQJ[ u.~ lb~ ~~5 (Scienlific name) County ~. T ~I ~ TownshipN S Dale 7/z5/03 Number released 2 (l'.MJo 1 ~ R J. See I~ 1/4JJU) ~ Section lat. latitude Long. Longitude BLM _ USFS _ PRIVATE _ USFWS _ STATE ~ OTHER ........ GPS Derived? Yes~ No land Owner: land Manager: (8 . & Ranger At, I National Forest & r'. I Refuge Oept of Transportation I City I County I Rancher, etc.) Site Name: NtN-tp..JakL ~9~ b V\-~ (Use geographical reference: mountain, nver. valley, road, campground, powerfine. etc.) Nearest town Road , Weather: Clear _ Partly cloudly CIouc;fy.' Temp Slope: None -%I Slight ~ M'rate ---:----~~~p ~. .. SOli: Sandy._Loam~Sil~-,--Gravel,/':~faY~ ..... . .... ,Ete' R"~~:!0;S~.l~~~'.' .Oji~~~.!lw. Plant Cover: (eStimate %) Target weed':~' . ....,\"''1zOrbs(notirlCluding target)' .,.,c, ....... Grasses Shrubs ;' Trees . . Utter Baregroufid Dominant Plant Species: .... .,. .... '.' .. .... .' ..... . .'. ...." LandUse:Hange _, Timber _,\lVjldlift;! . ..'Right otWay ___ Pcl~ture ..~'(j;;~\:' {~~. Vacant_ Wetland -'--- Aecreatioll<','Mining ------' Other .......... .....<:,. '"',.',,, Dlsturbclnce Factors:~razing ~ LogginRJ'".;g:/!'R<ja(:j' .. .'"t1re. .'. :.dth~).(:i';j" . . .;;, ';'" Cultivation ----: Constrttctiond';> <1>ther. ' '. u'> '. ;~;_~~{~~<~~~~~~~fi~;~~~~:i'<~l~J~~~t;;\ E)', '. .' . ~ SAMPLE BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENT RELEASE FORM TargetWeed ~ 11':>o~~~, Date 7... A-u..-c... u 2 (. ) 0 ;2.:1 s- 30<':) Agent66.J.sL.YU-.~ Uc... MmOvv\ a.n~mber releaSed. h ""'~~~'. J<S ?<>'f' (~~) -~ County_t'J.~ T 2110 Rm{;: See ~- 1/4 /,JE Township N S Range E W Section Lat. Long. GPS Derived? Yes No Latitude Longitude Land Owner: BlM _ USFS _ PRIVATE ~SFWS _ STATE X OTHER Land Manager: ~tL~~ I~ (r'pHu @~ """....... ":;;;;:1l~....... _......,_,_'" T.............''''''''''''"''''_ "'" the~ SiteName:J lOx*' l (l to -- Qi tfC~ -/57 /{~ll}( (Use geographical reference: mountain, rivef", valley, road. ~ound. power\ine. etc.) . . SITE DATA Check all items that apply and fill in blanks. (Draw map on back of form.) _town~~ ~ Road~"\->Olll~~PosIT- /'-# _ Weather: Clear _ Partly c10udly Cloudy _ Temp lD S- 0 Wind yU;) ~d- . Slope: None ~ Slight _ Moderate _ Steep _ Aspect: S_ E---,- VV~ N_ SoIl: Sandy_Loam_Silt_Gravel_Clay_ Elevation ___ __ ..''':: Terrain: Valley _ F-oothill_ Mountain _ Plain _ River _ ~ond 2t( .; Vegetation: Grassland _ Shrub land _ Crop land _ Riparian _':' QOnifer;forest__ ..00000uous forest ~ Mixed forest _ Other . . Plant Cover: (estijn~e %) Target weed' fotJ c7J D Fo (not including target) Grasses 'l~ Shrubs.;26 . Trees IlUtJer _ Bare ground Dominant Plant Species: tvlK er. ~~ ,rr( landUse: Range_Timber. Wildlife _ightof Way _ asture --'-- Crop ~~ " '. VaCant _ Wetland ..x=Recreation _Mining _ Other '. '.. ..:-- C-'}':L..Dlsturbance Factors: Grazing _ Logging_ Road~ Rre_ Rood _ . .. ...:':;;.....; C~Iti.vation_ Construction~ Other '.~.,. '.' X;JFc:t~+YP'" Isolated -.,-- Jtlctrf ~ unear~ ~ ~ . ':<,c"J,:">Slzeof.lnfeSlation:(Acres):s1 .. '2-10_ 11-50----'.51-99._ ~100;--- ;/-';;;:'>z.c~.:~.T8rg~t ~Helgf1t: (Feet) .:s1_ 1-2 ~ 3-6~ ~7~ . eea;' . 'cc":~,ji!~~.d':l:'j ~:1~~:tl~i~i~~:~:(V'~'6~1(r . ,.... """"-" .J IMPORTANT NOl1FICATlON Tentatively, Whitworth Pest Solutions is scheduled to begin treatment of North Lake's Jillypad eradication on June 17" and June 18", 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 launch area. .Jt is important that these signs remain in place for 48 hours after treatment. Also, anyone who U8eSwater fur watering etc. should refiain from using Jake 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 also important to mention that Whitworth Pest Solutions has received permission from the county to use a gas powered motor on their boat fur applying treatment to the lilly pads. Th'.';~ were on the lake on June ']'h assessing the amount of Lilly pads for treatment and did receive? visit from the Sheriff Please, if you see them On the l']'h and 18" of June. do not contact the Sheriff department. Jiyou have any questions or concerns, please feel to contact members of the Steering Committee or Whitworth Pest Solutions directly. Thank you all for your support of this project. North Lake Steering Committee Wendy Honey 952-5283 Tom Jovanovich Debra Hansen 927-7789 Chuck Gibson Julie Cleary- 874-9138 874-8238 661-0490 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 launch 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. 324 /' fQUI r s Dlv 2 - - -;- -;- - r - I I /~T=--_-_- -=-~-;:~ ".~t - t I J -."-1- .:.~::: -.1.1. . L_ " '{ . ,'.' - 1Il .. -_~\' ,-C',:>.,_ I \ ',: I _ -7'1 ~~,1:/L - T - - - (]) 'I . , to I , 'L_r--'T rr-,...... : t I s ,28 ~( \ / i I ...J I r -~ - ---l I , I . , , , j_ J_ J I I C _. 17'~--------- - L~_~ I '-!.: - - - -I I _..~ V) ,- -- --- -j , .----i > 1_ _ _ _ _ _ -.q - -! ~ ; ---_+LJ (f) ...~ .: I i -->. <Ii , Q).- ~ to N "" , .----4 I . - -., I -, I I (- - 1 I 'i. -- -1 I .1 ';<'~)!(;I) . .L~ij~ ON SOUTH SHEET J CONTINUED ..'{ i-'J" r < f' (' 'fl. t.', '. _;' '~~/~-/ \:~ 11'~{ tf(f' \pO~~'l ~r \ " f ( ",,1fIijIJ __ L ~ )( J'~T,.,itJ1 tt);t of [( rU() ~ be iY (ttt ~ Q. 'b:;\ 500' , 1000' t---4 1 ~7n-.fha<a O)Ntl.'{ Q 1500' t {, /.J C' , I f ,j ,'\. (. (J I' ,1 / r l (net"" got J" 1. ,11 t ~.j _~; s, ~ tJ.-C-'1.0- .':_"l I,'(;(('--,--"l~ . "/Ir. ~ .L1<. I,i: ',,- t"l .' ~4 If.-f ?-.J " o if 'lN~ { ""It ll(/'/' /f t' '/ \ fu') .\ "' '. ~ 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 INTR 0 DUCT ION ............................... ...... ..................... .............................................................................. 1 2. 0 SAC KG ROUND .................................. ....... ............. .......... ........... ............................... ................................. 2 li LAKE COMMUNITY HISTORy.................. ............ ....... .... ....... ........ ..................... ........................................... 2 2.2 1995 NORTH LAKE SURVEY ......................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 1996 WATER LIL Y TREATMENT ...................................................................................................................3 2.3 NORTH LAKE 2002.. .............. .... ............... ...... .......... ... ............ ........ ............................................................. 3 2.4 NORTH LAKE 2003.. ...... ............... ....... .................... ........... ................ .... ................................:..................... 3 2.5 NORTH LAKE 2004....... ..... ..................... ........ .............. ............ ........... ............. ............................................ 4 3.0 DOE G RANT A G RE E ME NT ............ ..................... ........... ....... .................................................................. 5 4.0 NPDES AQUATIC NOXIOUS WEED PERMIT ......................................................................................6 5.0 2005 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ......................................................................... 7 ti CONTRACT FOR AOUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ............................................................................... 7 5.2 INITIAL SYSTEMATIC SURVEy...... ................ ............................................. ....... ................... ............... .......... 7 5.2.1 Eurasian Watermilfoil... ....... ..... ....... ....................................... ...... ........ .......... ..... ....... ................... 7 5.2.2 Fragrant Water Lilv........ ............ ........... ......................................... ............. ................... ...... .......... 8 5.2.3 Yellow Flag Iris ..... .......... .... ............... ....................... .... .......... ..... ....... ....... .................. ... ...... .......... 8 5.2.4 Purple Loosestrife ...... ........ ..... ............ ....... ......... ........... ... ..... ........... ... ......... ........... ......... .............. 8 5.3 HERBICIDE TREATMENTS ............. ...... ..... ............... ........ .... ... ............ ............................. .............................. 9 5.3.1 Eurasian Watermilfoil Treatment ................................................................................. ........ . I G 5.3.2 Fragrant Water Lilv Treatment.................................................................................................. 10 5.3.3 Yellow Flag Iris Treatment........................................................................................................ I I 5.3.4 Purple Loosestrife Treatment ........................ .................___.............................................. ..... .... ... I I 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 ALLA TION................ ........................................... .......................... ......................... 16 5.8 WEED RAKEs ................................................................ ............................................................. ................ 16 6.0 WATER QUALITY MONITO RING ...................................................................................................... 16 il 2005 WATER QUALITY MONITORING ............................ ...... ....................................................................... 16 7.0 EDUCA TIONIPUSLIC INVOLVEMENT .............................................................................................. 19 lJ. 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 W orkshop....................................................................................................................... 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 Development......... ............ ............... ...... ....... ......... ..... .... ................ ....... ............. ........ 23 7.2.5 Annual Report. ......... .... ....... ................ ............. ... .... ........ .......... .................... .......... .............. .... ..... 23 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT 8.0 2005 B UDG ET RE VE IW ................................... .................................... ................ .................................... 23 U TASKS 1 &2 BUDGET. PROJECT ADMrNISTRATlON' VEGETATION MANAGEMENT............._........................ 24 8.2 TASK 3 BUDGET. PUBLIC EDUCATION ......................................................................................._................ 24 9.0 ANNUAL EV ALUA nON AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2006.................................................. 25 9.1 2005 EVALUATION ............. .......... ........... .................... ............................................... ................................ 25 9. J. J Aquatic Vegetation Management ................................................................................................ 25 9. J.2 Contract Management ... ........ .... ..._.... ...... ... ........... ........... ..._.... ........... ........... ...... ............. ........... 25 9. J. 3 Public Education .... .............. ... ......._... ... ............... ............. ...._...... ....... ............. ................ ............. 25 9. J. 4 Algae...... ................ ....... ............. ...... ._. ..... ......... ......... ..... ......... .................. ....... ._... ..... .......-......... .... 26 9. J. 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 2,4-0 Water Sampling............................17 Table 2. 2005 North lake Glyphosate Water Sampling...................18 Table 3. 2005 North lake Budget Overview..................................23 Table 4. 2005 North lake Budget, Tasks 1 & 2..............................24 Table 5. 2005 North lake Budget, Task 3......................................24 THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE ON SWM WEB PAGE (http://www.citvoffederalwav.com/Paae.aspx?paae=1 061) North lake Grant Agreement 2005 WSoA Extension of Coverage 2005 DOE Aquatic Noxious Weed Control NPoES 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 Di,:isirl1); ~'dd 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 of lakefront properties (Ecology, 2005). The Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board classifies noxious weeds based on the stage of invasion of each species. This classification system is designed to: prevent small infestations from becoming large infestations; to contain already established infestations to regions of the state where they occur, and to prevent their movement to un-infested areas of Washington. The following three major classes (A, Band C) are listed according to the seriousness of the 1hreat they pose to the state, or a region of the state: Class A Weeds: Non-native species with a limited distribution in Washington. Preventing new infestations and eradicating existing infestations is the highest priority. Eradication is required by law. Class B Weeds: Non-native species presently limited to portions of the state. Species are designated for control in regions where they are not yet wide-spread. Preventing new infestations in these areas is a high priority. In regions where a Class B species is already abundant, control is decided at the local level, with containment as the primary goal. Class C Weeds: Non-native weeds found in Washington. Many of these species are widespread in the state. Long-term programs of suppression and control are a County option, depending upon local threats and the feasibility of control in local areas. NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT 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 L ythrum sa/icaria 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 Kmg 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 (WOFW) 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 typ;: 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 county-wide lake survey effort that inspected only for milfoil. The survey for North Lake did not document the presence of Eurasian water milfoil. Also in 2002, personnel from King County Noxious Weed Control Program released approximately 200-300 beetles (Galerucella calmariensis) at the boat launch in August in all effort to build a population of bugs that might control the spread of purple loosestrife (PL). Several years were planned for this control measure before any desired results would become evident. 2.4 North Lake 2003 The King County Noxious Weed Control Board requires property owners to control and prevent the spread of PL (Class B species) on private and public lands throughout the county. In 2003, King County assisted North Lake residents with the containment of PL infestations through the program that helps homeowners to implement actions to stop seed production using manual control efforts. Each noxious weed species are designated for control in regions where they are not yet wide spread. Preventing new infestations in these areas is a high priority for King County. Where Class B species are already abundant, control is decided at the local level, with containment being the primary goal. 3 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT l 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 ammal 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 I - 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 2005 North Lake Work Plan. Task 4 (Reporting) involves the preparation of a final report summarizing the actions taken during the entire period of the Grant Agreement. 4.0 NPDES AQUATIC NOXIOUS WEED PERMIT Coverage under a general NPDES Aquatic Noxious Weed Permit is required for all noxious weed control activities that discharge herbicides directly into surface waters of the state of Washington. The permitting agency is the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE). Discharges from aquatic weed control and eradication activities may contain pollutants in excessive amounts that have a reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to, violations of state water quality standards. Violations may be due to the presence of toxic materials (herbicides) or may result from the effects. of dying vegetation (low oxygen levels). DOE has determined through a risk assessment that, when properly applied and handled in accordance with the terms and conditions of the general permit, aquatic weed control and eradication activities will: comply with state water quality standards; will maintain and protect the existing characteristic beneficial uses of the surface waters of the state; and will protect human health (Ecology, 2005). The 2005 permit process required that the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) obtain coverage under the NPDES Noxious Weed Permit from DOE. Under contract with WSDA, the city agreed to comply with all terms, conditions, and requirements described in the DOE Aquatic Noxious Weed Permit (http://www.cityoffederalway.com/Page.aspx?page=1061). 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 ArcView GIS software. The following is a discussion regarding the noxious weeds found during the initial survey. More detailed information and maps may be found in the 2005 AquaTechnex North Lake 2005 Year End Report (http://www.cityoffederalway.comlPage.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 mil foil 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 of the public access boat launch. More common were scattered lily colonies emerging in areas where there had been dense lily growth the previous year. The contractor recommended targeting this species as necessary based on discussions with the City, and the requirements outlined in the DOE Grant Agreement that specified complete eradication using glyphosate. The creation of water lily "mud islands" was also discussed. These structures generally occur where large areas of lilies have been treated and the sediments are organic or peat in nature. As the plants die, the decomposition of the roots and rhizomes can cause these areas to lift to the surface and float for some time. These islands can also move around the lake. Due to the extensive 2004 treatment of lilies, a number of these islands were located in the south end of the lake. The features of these islands were mapped, but the contractor noted that same 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 1 Integrated Treatment Plan benchmarks were followed where practical. The NPDES General Permit covers all noxious and quarantine-list weed control activities that discharge herbicides directly into surface waters of the state of Washington. Persons conducting herbicide applications must be covered by the General Permit for control activities into water bodies that are contiguous with rivers, creeks, and lakes; or into navigable waters. The applicator must also comply with all herbicide label instructions and public notice procedures. Glvphosate 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 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 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 (10) acres of lake area were infested with Eurasian Watermilfoil. The areas of the lake targeted for milfoil herbicide treatment using 2,4-D are illustrated in the AquaTechnex North Lake 2005 Year End Report. Application of 2,4-D was completed on August 2. 2,4-D (DMA4*IVM) was injected into the water column (at the rate specified) directly over the submerged milfoil plant populations. The herbicide was applied from a motorboat equipped with a 50 gallon spray tank connected to an array of weighted drop hoses. The treatment areas were applied with 2,4-D at a rate of 7 -gallons per acre, for a concentration of 2.0 ppm. A total of 70 gallons of herbicide was used for this treatment 5.3.2 Fragrant Water Lily Treatment All fragrant water lily colonies on the lake were targeted for eradication pursuant to the requirements outlined in the DOE Grant Agreement Complete eradication would allow for the gradual replacement of native vegetation in treated areas over time. This is an important step toward fish habitat preservation that will improve boater access and provide safer recreation opportunities. Because the treatment areas were smaller than in 2004, the potential for ;;xtcns;' e floating mud island formation was expected to be less likely. In addition, defined treatment of water lily colonies would achieve the following: · The gradual replacement of native vegetation over time to preserve and improve fish habitat. · A reduction in the likelihood that excessive amounts of dying vegetation would contribute to increased nutrient loading (resulting in algae blooms). · A reduction in the likelihood that excessive amounts of dying vegetation would place a demand on dissolved oxygen, thereby stressing aquatic life. The areas designated for white water lily treatment are illustrated in the AquaTechnex North Lake 2005 Year End Report. Glyphosate (Rodeo), a liquid, was applied directly on the lily pads by a two-person crew using boat- mounted low-pressure spray equipment. The aquatic herbicide and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank to achieve a 1.75 percent solution, and applied (by licensed applicators) uniformly over the lily pads within the designated treatment areas. This process was repeated a second time to 10 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT touch up any areas that did not uptake a sufficient amount of enough herbicide. The individual treatment areas totaled approximately one-and-one-half (1.5) acre. The first glyphosate application of fragrant water lily was conducted on August 2. The weather was sunny, but the application was suspended later in the afternoon due to windy conditions. A second application was attempted the morning of August 10. Due to precipitation, wind and wave action, this application effort was ended in mid-morning. By August 15, areas of treatment were evidenced by the appearance of yellow and brown lily pads on the surface of the lake. AquaTechnex visited the lake a third time on August 26 to complete glyphosate touch-up treatment of the surviving water lily colonies. (To effectively eradicate white water lily populations, it is characteristic to perform a second treatment during the growing season). 5.3.3 Yellow Flag Iris Treatment Yellow flag iris (YFI) colonies were treated by a licensed applicator using glyphosate. The noxious weeds were either sprayed from the lake-side from a motorboat, or from the land-side by a worker on foot using a backpack mounted unit. AquaTechnex was careful not to impact adjacent ornamental plants or grasses. The aquatic herbicide and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank to achieve a 1.75 percent solution, and applied in the same fashion as fragrant water lily. The individual YFI-treated areas, identified on the 2005 North Lake YFI Right of Entry Parcel Map (http://www.cityoffederalway.com/Page.aspx?page=1061). totaled less than 0.25 acres. In order to apply herbicide on private property, SWM staff obtained Temporary Rights of Entry from all participating property owners granting the city and its agents CAquaTechnex) access to complete the YFI work from the land-side of the lake. The AquaTechnex North Lak.; 2005 Year End Report shows the locations of all yellow flag iris (YFI) infestations identified in th~ 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 motQrboat. 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 deteooined 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 methoJs that homeowner could undertake to cut off, bag up, and dispose of PL seed heads. Fourteen residents contributed 44 volunteer hours removing PL seed heads and disposing of the plant waste. 5.4 Post Control Visual Assessment On September I, 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 IS 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 of88 sites in the southern portion of the lake. This plant should be carefully monitored from this point forward to insure it does not become a weed problem in this system. Although Cabomba has developed into a major weed problem in a number of lakes in the southeastern United States, it has caused limited problems in this region (see Note below). The fourth most dominant species in the lake was Potamogeton filiformis, occurring at 2 of 88 sampling locations. This plant occurred sporadically elsewhere in the littoral area of the lake, as did Potamogeton Amplifoious. Elodea was the fifth most dominate species in the lake, occurring at 2 of 88 sampling locations. This plant also occurred sporadically elsewhere in the littoral area of the lake. Chara is a macro algae and is generally considered very beneficial. This plant is low growing and will occupy space on the lake bottom without in most cases posing a weed problem to lake users. Chara was found at 2 of 88 sampling points and is not considered dominant at this point. NOTE: Native milfoil was also observed in North Lake by SWM staff and residents, but was not included in the AquaTechnex plant survey. Because of the possible existence of another noxious weed species (Cabomba caroliniana), and due to possible plant identification confusion with native milfoil, a brief survey was performed late in the season. On January 6, 2006, SWM staff and King County Noxious Weed Specialist Roy Brunskill performed a cursory lake survey in an attempt to locate native milfoil and/or Cabomba caroliniana. A few surviving native milfoil were located at both the north end and south end of the lake. This aquatic plant was tentatively identified from an emailed image as Myriophyllum hippuroides by Jennifer Parsons, DOE. This native species (Western milfoil) provides habitat and food to aquatic animal species. Due to these findings, SWM and King County wilt 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 pond weed species and elodea. In their professional opinion, these species are not interfering with the beneficial uses 14 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2005 FINAL REPORT of the lake at this point; but some areas could benefit from native plant control efforts in future years should they continue to expand. 5.6 Water Lily Island Control Following water lily treatment in 2004, North Lake witnessed the emergence of floating masses of roots and muck, primarily along the south shore. The Steering Committee discussed water lily island removal options during the preparation of the 2005 Work Plan. Because of unknowns, a budget figure necessary to fund such action was not established. Although mud island removal is action approved and funded by the DOE Grant for North Lake, no firm methods were adopted by the Steering Committee concerning this type of work. In addition, there is no known reliable methodology in the aquatic weed management industry for mud island removal. During a number of visits throughout the summer, AquaTechnex surveyed the extent and nature of the mud islands. On August 26, a crew pushed some of the larger masses at the south end with an airboat in an attempt to determine their potential for mobility. On September I, 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, WOFW approval would have to be obtained due to work being conducted outside of the timing window established by the WOFW 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 WOFW to conduct mud island removal outside of the timing window specified within the WOFW Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet. After several rounds of communication, WOFW 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 HPA application, WOFW 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 HPA submittal, SWM staff has decided to delay island removal until July of 2006, when the habitat window re-opens. Water lily island removal will be included as a scope of work item for 2006 and may be planned to be completed as a volunteer effort. If warranted, the contractor may be requested to perform the work using mechanical equipment where necessary. 5.7 Bottom Barrier Installation The DOE Grant Agreement included the requirement for bottom barrier installation in the winter of 2005 at the public boat launch area to deter the invasion of milfoil into the lake. A bottom barrier covers the sediment like a blanket, compressing aquatic plants while reducing or blocking light. In addition to controlling nuisance weeds, bottom screening has become an important tool to help eradicate and contain early infestations of noxious weeds such as milfoil. Bottom barrier installation, although a 2005 Work Plan item, was not completed this year. Efforts to immediately perform aquatic plant surveys and to begin herbicide treatment were given top priority to control the current noxious weed infestations. To meet the Grant Agreement timetable, this control measure is planned to be completed before the onset of the 2006 growing season. 5.8 Weed Rakes Two styles of weed rakes were purchased in 2005. One is used for floating plants and algae; and one is designed for submerged weeds. They were not offered for resident use because lake surveys were initiated late in the season; and also due to the presence of noxious weed species. The Committee could not begin the weed rake loan program until the lake community had adequate information to determine whether noxious weeds were present in the area they were planning on raking. Because herbicide treatments did not take place until late July, and post visual inspections of the treatment efficiency did not occur until September I, 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 #C 1226) using USEP A Chromatography Method 8151 GCIMS Modified. Glyphosate samples were submitted to STL, and subcontracted to Coffey Labs in Portland through Edge Analytical in Burlington. Coffey Labs (DOE accredited laboratory #C 1264) used USEPA Chromatography Method 547. Tables I 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 ._.._.._.,,--.--~.- ---- j 7/21/05 Pre Inside In littoral zone, approximately 300' south of Non ;-)ete,,~ 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 T bl 2 2005 N rth L k GI h w s r a e . 0 a e Iypl osate ater ampllll~ 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 l-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 ppo (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 2,4-0 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 EDUCA TION/PUBLlC 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 r----------- 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 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 10 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.comlPage.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, S WM 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 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 task. A detailed description of Task I 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 10 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 inform:1tion. 117 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, blue-green algae, purple loosestrife, ducks & geese, yellow flag iris, good plantslbad 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 ofthe 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: T bl 3 2005 N h L k B d 0 a e . art a e U Jaet vervlew TASK Estimates Actual Expel,ses ! 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 I and 2. Table 4. 2005 North Lake Budaet, TASK 1 & 2, Proiect AdministrationNeaetation Mgmt. GOAL 2005 Work Plan Actual Expenses Estimated Expenses Two diver surveys (SprinQ & Summer) $4,225.00 $4,596.80 Milfoil herbicide treatment $1,500.00 $2,992.00 FraQrant water lily herbicide treatment $1,500.00 $448.30 Yellow f1aQ iris; purple loosestrife treatment $4,100.00 $2,244.00 Bottom barrier installation $250.00 0 Water lily island removal 0 0 Water Quality monitorinQ $1,600.00 $1,400.00 NPOES notifications $625.00 $680.00 Postcontrolsurvev $850.00 $924.80 Contractor letter report $700.00 $380.80 Contractor final report $500.00 $544.00 Yellow f1aQ 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 Quarterlv meetinas SWM staff waQes 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 mitiai development of the 2005 Work Plan 8.2 Task 3 Budget, Public Education Table 5 below illustrates the budgeted elements for Task 3. T bl h L k B d a e5. 2005 Nort a e u laet, TASK 3 Public Education GOAL 2005 Work Plan Actual Expenses Estimated Expenses Quarterlv newsletter $400.00 $163.52 Annual evaluation report. $200.00 0 Community MeetinQ $50.00 $15.69 Plant 10 workshop/cookout $200.00 0 Public education printinQ $300.00 $102.13 Boater outreach prOQram $100.00 0 New sians 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 fulI-color copies of this report to aII 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 of the treatments. . Post Control Visual Surveys indicated that herbicide treatment was effective this year for milfoil, fragrant water lily, yellow flag iris and purple loosestrife. All colonies of targeted plants showed expected stress. · Due to contractor scheduling of treatments and follow-ups, the evaluation process for water lily island removal was delayed. In addition, there were additional delays with the receipt of approvals from WOFW 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 ofthe 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 AQUA TIC WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ......................................................................... 3 4.1 CONTRACT FOR AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ............................................................................... 3 4.2 INITlAL SYSTEMATIC SURVEy............................. ...................... ..... .................................. ........................ .... 4 4.2.1 Fragrant Water Lily.. ......... .... .......... ...... ............................ ........ ... ...... ...... ... .............. ....... ........ ...... ..... ... 4 4.2.2 Yellow Flag Iris...... .... ............. ..... ........ ....... ..... ....... ... ............ .............. ................ ......... ...... ..... ... ........ .... 5 4.2.3 Purple Loosestrife. ............ .... .... .......... ........ ... .... .............. .... n.... ........ ....... ........... ...... .... .......... .......... ..... 5 4.3 HERBICIDE TREATMENTS............ ............... ............................................... ............ ............................... ........ 5 4.3.1 Fragrant Water Lily Treatment.............................................................................................................. 6 4.3.2 Yellow Flag Iris & Purple Loosestrife Treatment.................................................................................. 7 4.4 YFI AND PL MANuAL CONTROL......... ................................................................................................. ........ 8 4.5 WATER LILY ISLAND CONTROL.................................................................................................................... 8 4.6 BOTTOM BARRIER INSTALLATION................ .................... ............................ ....... ................... ........... .... ....... 9 4.7 WEED RAKES ................................................................ ........ ...... ................................... ...... ..... ........... ........ 9 4.8 SECOND SYSTEMATIC SURVEy...... ........................ ............................................ ........ ............. ..................... 9 4.9 DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY SURVEy................. ..................... ............................................. ........ ............ ... II 4.10 POST CONTROL VISUAL ASSESSMENT .............................................................................................. ....... 12 4.11 ALGAE..... .................................. ........ .......................................... ......... ...................................................... 13 5.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING ...................................................................................................... 13 5.1 2006 WATER QUALITY MONITORING............................................................. .................................' ... ..... 13 6.0 EDUCA TION/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .............................................................................................. 15 6.1 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT .................................... ............. ......................... ............. ............................... IS 6.1.1 North Lake Steering Committee (NLSC).............................................................................................. 15 6.1.2 Development of 2005 Work Plan ..................................... .................................................................... 17 6.1.3 Annual Spring Meeting .................................................................................................................... .... 17 6.1. 4 Plant ID Workshop .... ............... ..... ..... ............ ..... ........... ....... ........ ...... .... ...... .................... .... .............. 17 6.1.5 Boater Education ........ ......... ....... ...................... ... ......... ....... ................ ...... ....... ........... ....... ...... .... ....... 18 6.2 PUBLIC EDUCATION. ......... ............ ....... .............................. .............. ...................... ...... .................. ......... ... 18 6.2.1 Quarterly Newsletter......... .... ........ .... ...... ........ .... .... ....... ....... ............ ......................... ............. ......... .... 18 6.2.2 Public Notices ............ ............... .............. ... ...... .......... ............... ......... ............ ....... ............ ........... ........ 18 6.2.3 Educational Flyers and Signs .............................................................................................................. 18 6.2. 4 Web Page Development .... ............. ... ......... ....... ............. ..... ....... ............... ................... ........ .... ... ... ...... J 9 6.2.5 Annual Report.. ......... .......... ........... ........ ........ ... .......... ...... ... ... ..... ........ ......... ................ ................. ....... J 9 7.0 2006 B UDG ET REVIEW ....................................................... .................................................................... 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 EDUCA nON RECOMMENDA nONS ......................................................................................... 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 NPoES 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 grouF 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, 1 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 3 I, 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 m.d ail:!nal 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: (l) 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, Band C) are listed according to the seriousness of the threat they pose to the state, or a region of the state: Class A Weeds: Non-native species with a limited distribution in Washington. Preventing new infestations and eradicating existing infestations is the highest priority. Eradication is required by law. Class B Weeds: Non-native species presently limited to portions of the state. Species are designated for control in regions where they are not yet wide-spread. Preventing new infestations in these areas is a high priority. In regions where a Class B species is already abundant, control is decided at the local level, with containment as the primary goal. 2 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2006 FINAL REPORT 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 salicaria 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 tel 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-yedf pcrmit expires on April I, 20 II. 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 MANAGENlENT ACTIVITIES 4.1 Contract for Aquatic Vegetation Management In 2006, AquaTechnex, Inc. operated under the last year of a two-year Professional Services Agreement (contract) with the City of Federal Way that is managed by SWM staff. The scope of the agreement includes: systematic aquatic plant surveys, implementation of control methods to target aquatic plants (diver hand pulling, hand cutting/raking, diver installation of bottom barriers, diver dredging, removal of floating water lily islands, treatment with Ecology-approved aquatic herbicides), post control surveys, reports as required, and attending meetings as required. 3 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2006 FINAL REPORT 4.2 Initial Systematic Survey On June 2, 2006, AquaTechnex performed an initial systematic aquatic plant survey of North Lake. The survey team mapped all submerged, floating and emergent noxious weeds from a vessel (equipped with Global Positioning System [GPS] equipment), and recorded the location and extent of the plant communities discovered in and around the lake from the surface. A diver also performed a more detailed underwater inspection of the littoral zone. In addition to making a visual inspection, the survey team collected a number of rake samples at various GPS points. These points were collected to define each treatment area through diver communication to the mapping vessel team. The GPS information obtained in the field was later processed for map creation and analysis using ArcView GIS software. Plant location maps may be found in the AquaTechnex 2006 North Lake Year End Report, (located on SWM web page). Native plant information may be found in Section 4.8. Although colonies of Eurasian watermilfoil (milfoil) were distributed throughout the littoral area in the northern and central part of North Lake in 2005, no milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) was detected during the 2006 initial systematic survey. Herbicide treatment with 2,4-D in 2005 appeared to be successful in completely eradicating this State of Washington Class B Weed from North Lake. It is important to note that Fanwort (Cabomba caroliniana), a state of Washington Class B Weed, also was not found in 2006, contrary to the 2005 initial systematic survey results. Additionally, a survey performed by Ecology in 2006 also confirmed that Fanwort 'Na~ 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, AquaTecbnex 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 (USEPA) for aquatic applications. The active ingredient in glyphosate moves through the plant from the point of foliage contact into the root system. Visible effects on most annual weeds occur within two to four days, seven days on more on most perennial weeds, and thirty days or more on most woody plants. It is known that extremely cool or cloudy weather following treatment may slow the activity of this product and delay visual effects of control. Visible effects include gradual wilting and yellowing of the plant, which will advance to complete browning of above-ground growth and deterioration of underground plant parts. The advantages of glyphosate include: · The product is a fast-acting systemic herbicide effective in removing targeted plants with no impact to plants not treated. · Application can be conducted in a spot-treatment or isolated area fashion. · There are no water use restrictions. 4.3.1 Fragrant Water Lily Treatment All FWL colonies on the lake were targeted for eradication pursuant to the requirements outlined in the Ecology Grant Agreement. Eradication will improve boater access and provide safer recreation opportunities. Because the treatment areas were smaller than in 2005, the potential for extensive floating mud island formation was expected to be less likely. In addition, defined treatment of water lily colonies would achieve the following: · The gradual replacement of native vegetation over time to preserve and improve fish habitat. · A reduced possibility that excessive amounts of dying vegetation would contribute to increased nutrient loading (resulting in algae blooms). · A reduction in the likelihood that excessive amounts of dying vegetation would place a demand on dissolved oxygen, thereby stressing aquatic life. The AquaTechnex 2006 North Lake Year End Report (found on the SWM website) contains maps with locations of FWL colonies. Glyphosate (Rodeo), a liquid, was applied directly on the lily pads by a two-person crew using boat-mounted low-pressure spray equipment. The aquatic herbicide (1.5 percent solution) and LI 700 surfactant were mixed in the spray tank and applied 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 II. 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 II 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 AquaTecbnex accessed the south end of the lake via airboat. The YFI and PL-treated areas in 2006 totaled less than one acre. During treatment, AquaTecbnex 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. AquaTecbnex 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 aU lake residents regarding proper hand pulling and digging techniques for YFL For PL, hand removal methods (digging up the roots or cutting back the stalks) were offered as effective options, including proper disposal of all organic debris (roots, seed heads and stems). Three residents contributed 21 volunteer hours removing PL seed heads and stalks on private parcels around the lake. On September 19, Washington Department of Wildlife personnel (contracted by King County Noxious Weed Control Program) performed manual removal and treatment of PL at the public boat launch property. All seed heads were removed and properly disposed of, and the remaining stalks were treated with glyphosate. This work was not included in the scope of work covered by the Ecology 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 fram 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 open water into several lake residents' dock areas. were completed for this effort. The work helped to deepen and expand A total of thirty-three volunteer hours 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 WOfW 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 bh1de 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 (WOFW) 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 Emerl!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. Floatinl! 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 WOFW 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 fmd 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 marsh locks 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 wi i! be targeted for herbicide treatment in 2007, provided that affected property owners grant permission for entry. 4.10 Post Control Visual Assessment During the Second Systematic Survey on September 29, AquaTechnex personnel performed a visual assessment to determine the effectiveness of the glyphosate herbicide treatments and control methods conducted in 2006 on the three targeted species (FWL, PL and YFI). AquaTechnex reported that weather prevented maximum control of FWL, reducing their densities but not fully eradicating the noxious weed. In addition, visual observations provided by lake residents (Debra Hansen and Chuck Gibson) concerning FWL survivability at both ends of the lake indicated that the treatments were not fully effective (lack of browning vegetation). The contractor recommends follow up control, and projects that 99% or greater of the original FWL population will be eradicated by the end of 2007. The AquaTechnex Final report also states that the 2006 PL and YFI control efforts provided good results in all areas treated. However, many surviving and emerging PL and YFI plants were observed by lake residents along shoreline areas presumed to be treated. During an October 12 return visit, AquaTechnex staff commented that an unusual number of PL plants were thriving along the west side of the lake and throughout the floating mats at the south end. As a result, a manual control effort was implemented to remove PL before additional seed heads dropped from the surviving plants (See Section 4.4). 12 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2006 FINAL REPORT 4.11 Algae Many common fresh water blue-green algae species are known to produce toxins at varying concentrations depending on the lake conditions. Because of possible toxic algal blooms with the potential of producing toxins at levels dangerous to small children and animals, SWM staff issued an algae alert flyer to all North Lake residents during the summer. The caution warned of the possible presence of algal blooms during warmer months, and recommended safe actions designed to prevent exposure. AquaTechnex identified both filamentous green algae (Cladophora spp.) and filamentous blue- green algae (Anabaena spp.) to be present during the systematic aquatic plant surveys, although the distribution or density of the algae species were not recorded in the survey report. In 2006, no complaints were received by SWM staff concerning the presence of blue-green algal blooms or other problematic algae concentrations in North Lake. In 2005, the Washington State Legislature established funding for an algae control program and asked Ecology to develop the program. The program focuses on providing local governments with the tools they need to manage algae problems. A total of $250,000 will be earmarked each year to target blue-green algae due to the health risks posed to humans, pets, and livestock. Ecology will begin funding small grants to local governments in fall 2007. In the interim, the Washington Department of Health (DOH) will develop statewide guidelines for toxic algae blooms under a grant provided by Ecology. These guidelines will help local governments make decisions about when to post health advisories and when to close waters to recreation. In addition, DOH will provide and post educational signs and outreach materials concerning algal blooms for all troubled waterbodies. 5.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING 5.1 2006 Water Quality Monitoring Per the Ecology Grant Agreement, SWM Water Quality personnel collected samples from North Lake to determine glyphosate concentrations before and after treatment. North Lake was not treated with 2.4-D in 2006. The sampling procedure was undertaken to determine lake concentrations of herbicides, and to provide an analytical measurement of the contractor's performance. Background samples (before treatment) and post treatment samples were collected at time intervals prescribed in the Grant Agreement. Samples were taken in the middle of the lake (outside the treatment areas), and inside an individual FWL treatment site and analyzed for glyphosate. All samples were collected using a Wildco Alpha 2.2 liter Van Dorn style water bottle. The samples were retrieved from various depths, and combined into individual composite samples. 13 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2006 FINAL REPORT Each sample was immediately chilled, refrigerated, and shipped within holding time to Columbia Analytical Services, Inc. in Kelso, Washington (Ecology accredited laboratory #C 1203) and analyzed by USEP A Chromatography Method 547. Table 1 below outlines the results of the sampling. Table 1. 2006 North lake Glyphosate Water Sampling Date Pre/Post Inside/Outside Location Concentration (ppb) Treatment Zone Background in littoral zone, 6/30/06 Pre Inside approximately 700' south of Non Detect public boat launch, inside water lily populated area Background outside littoral zone, approximately 700' 6/30/06 Pre Outside south of public boat launch, Non Detect outside water lily populated area Outside littoral zone, 8/11/06 Post Outside approximately 700' south of Non Detect 1-hour public boat launch, outside water lily populated area -i -- Inside littoral zone, 8/11/06 Post Inside approximately 700' south of 26 1 1-hou r public boat launch, inside water lily treated area Outside littoral zone, 8/11/06 Post Outside approximately 700' south of Non Detect 4.5-hours public boat launch, outside water lily populated area Inside littoral zone, 8/11/05 Post Inside approximately 700' south of Non Detect 4.5-hours public boat launch, inside water lily treated area No water use restrictions are indicated for glyphosate, however Ecology recommends a 24-hour swimming advisory for areas treated with this herbicide. In addition, the product's label restrictions and requirements in the NPDES permit do not allow application directly to water within 0.5 mile of a potable water intake. (Note, North Lake is not known to be a source of drinking water). The USEPA Safe Drinking Water Act determines safe levels of chemicals in drinking water which do or may cause health problems. These non-enforceable levels, based solely on possible 14 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2006 FINAL REPORT L 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 USEP A MCLG levels (700 ppb) immediately after treatment (one hour), and appear to have completely dissipated before the end of the 24-hour swimming advisory. In addition, there were no reports of damage to lawns or gardens from the application of irrigated water. 6.0 EDUCATION/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 20<X> 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 I 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 10 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 recordkeepinglreporting 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 10 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 ot the fiLm: 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 ulge vervlew -, TASK Estimates Actual Expense:> 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 I and 2. T bl 3 2006 N rth L k B d t TASK 1 & 2 P . tAd . . t f N t f M t a e 0 a e u Ige, , rOJec miDIS ra Ion ege a Ion 'gm. GOAL 2006 Work Plan Actual Expenses Estimated Expenses (includes taxes) 2006 Permit Public Notice requirement 150.00 163.00 Two diver surveys (Spring & Summer) 4,597.00 4,597.00 Milfoil herbicide treatment 1,500.00 0 FraQrant water lily 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 posting Water Quality monitorinQ 1,400.00 990.00 Water sample shipping 0 43.00 Post control survey 925.00 0 Contractor letter report 381.00 0 Contractor final report 544.00 544.00 Bottom barrier installation 250.00 0 Water lily island control 3,000.00 0 Miscellaneous water Quality issues (i.e. alQae) 300.00 7.00 Refreshments and supplies for NLSC 60.00 12.00 quarterly meetings Grant-eliQible SWM staff waQes and benefits 4,500.00 5,070.00 Grant-eliQible 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 ($333.00) 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 h L k B d TASK 3 P br Ed f a e . ort a e u Iget, u IC ucalon GOAL 2006 Work Plan Actual Expenses Estimated Expenses (includes taxes) Quarterlv newsletter 350.00 309.00 Annual evaluation report 100.00 96.00 Annual Sprina Community Meetina 50.00 0 Plant 10 workshop/cookout 300.00 88.00 Public education orintina 150.00 51.00 Boater outreach program 100.00 102.00 City LMD web oaae 0 0 Grant-eliQible SWM staff waaes and benefits 3,500.00 4,753.00 Grant-eligible lake volunteer time 900.00 435.00 TOTALS 5,450.00 5,834.00 20 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2006 FINAL REPORT 7.3 Ecology Grant Budget Review Table 5 below summarizes the running balance of the Ecology Aquatic Weed Management Fund grant for North Lake, set to expire December 31, 2009: T R abieS. North Lake Grant unnina 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 contrc:tc'd, Il~~ following outlines the major 2006 developments worth noting: . The on-going success ofthe 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 12kes in 2006, Ecology plans to return to North Lake to monitor the situation concerning native weed populations. 8.2 2007 Aquatic Vegetation Management Recommendations The majority of the problems encountered in 2006 revolved around contractor performance - primarily communication and staffing-related issues. Many of these issues will be addressed in new 2007 contract language requiring specific calendar dates for control actions and timetables for notification. The following outlines recommendations for 2007: . Following the evaluation of proposals, and the selection of an aquatic plant management firm for 2007, contract language should be developed that requires: (1) earlier growing season treatments to allow for adequate follow-up applications, (2) all herbicide treatment completion by date-certain timetables, (3) strict 48-hour prior notification from contractor for all lake-related work so that SWM staff can provide oversight, and (4) a means to visually mark shorelines by the contractor that properly identifies emergent plant colonies targeted for herbicide treatment. . Narrow leaf cattail will be added to the Work Plan scope of action. . Continue to stress open, frequent, and accurate communication with the selected contractor. 22 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2006 FINAL REPORT . Continue to solicit contractor oversight assistance and follow-up observations from lake residents so that issues concerning poor treatment effectiveness can be addressed in a timely manner. . Due to demand, the NLSC agreed to purchase one more 36-inch wide weed rake (with tines), and to have one of the lake residents handle the storage and loaning of the rakes to facilitate use on weekends and holidays. 8.3 2006 Public Education Summary The wide variety of Public Education products offered and distributed in 2006 appeared to be effective. The following outlines the major 2006 developments: . The annual Plant ID Workshop functioned as a great public education tool. SWM staff received positive feedback from attendees regarding the event and the material presented. 8.4 2007 Public Education Recommendations . Continue aggressive public education effort targeting all lake properties identified as being infested with noxious weeds in order to prevent their spread. . Implement more efficient volunteer timesheet recordkeeping and submittal procedure. . Because there were problems with lake residents submitting volunteer hours in !l timel,; 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 EXEC UT lYE SUMMARy................................. .................. .......... ......... ..... ..................................... .......... I 2.0 B A C KG R 0 U ND . ......... ........... ................................. ...... ......... ............ .......................................................... I 2.1 IA VMP DEVELOPMENT .......... ...... .... ............ ................................................................................. .............. I 2.2 THE AQUATIC WEED PROBLEM ................................................................................................................... 2 3.0 NPDES AQUA TIC PLANT & ALGAE PERMIT ..................................................................................... 3 4.0 2007 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES .........................................................................4 4.1 CONTRACT FOR AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ...............................................................................4 4.2 INITIAL S YSTEMA TIC SURVEy........ ........ ..... ................... ............ .................................................................. 4 4.2.1 Fragrant Water Lily........... ....... ... ...... ... ...... .......... ........ ................... ......... .......... ...................... ......... ..... 5 4.2.2 Yellow Flag Iris...... ...... .............. ...... ... .... ............ ...... .......... ........ .......... ...... ..... ................ ....................... 5 4.2.3 Purple Loosestrife........................................................................................... .... .................................... 5 4.2.4 Narrow leaf cattail... ...... ..... ..... ......... ........... ..................... .... .............. ..... ........ ........... ......... ............ ....... 6 4.3 HERBICIDE TREATMENTS..................................... ................. .................. ............... ......... ............................. 6 4.3.1 Fragrant Water Lily Treatment.............................................................................................................. 7 4.3.2 Yellow Flag Iris and Purple Loosestrife Treatmenl............................................................................... 7 4.3.3 Narrow Leaf Cattail Treatment.......... ..... ..... ............... .............. .... ....... ..... ....... ............ ............. ...... .... ... 8 4.4 YFI AND PL MANUAL CONTROL................................................................................................................... 8 4.5 WATER LIL Y 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 TIONIPUBLIC INVOL YEMENT ........................................................................................ ...... 13 6.1 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ............................... ......................... ................ .............................................. 13 6.1.1 North Lake Steering Committee (NLSC).............................................................................................. 13 6.1.2 Development of 2007 Work Plan ......................................................................................................... 14 6.1.3 Annual Spring Meeting.................. ........ .......................... ......... ......... ....... ............ ........ .... ....... ............ 14 6.1.4 Plant ID Workshop .............................................................................................................................. 15 6.1.5 Boater Education ....... ........... .......... ....... ...... .... ............ .... .... .... ..... ...... .......... ......... ..... ..... ............ ........ 15 6.2 PUBLIC EDUCATION .......... ............ ....... ......................... ..... ........................................................................ 15 6.2.1 Quarterly Newsletter.... ....... ..... .... ........ ..... .......... .......... .......... ......... ........... ..... ....... ..... .............. .......... 15 6.2.2 Public Notices ........ ........... ....... ..... .... ............ .......................... .... .............................. .................... ....... J 5 6.2.3 Educational Flyers and Signs .............................................................................................................. J 6 6.2.4 Web Page Development .......... .... ... .............. .................. .... .............. ...................... .......... ..... ..... ...... .... 16 6.2.5 Annual Report.... ............... ........ ........ ..... ........ .... ............. ...... ..... ...... ..... .... ............ .... ....... ...... ............ ... J 6 7.0 2007 BUDGET RE VIE W ........................................................................................................................... 17 7.1 TASKS I & 2 BUDGET, PROJECT ADMINISTRATION' VEGET AnON MANAGEMENT...................................... 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 VEGETA nON MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ............................................................................. 19 8.2 2008 AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDA nONS ............................................................ 19 8.3 2007 PUBLIC EDUCATION SUMMARy................................. ...................... .................................................. 20 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2007 FINAL REPORT 8.4 2008 PUBLIC EDUCATION RECOMMENDA nONS ............. ................. .................... ...................... ..... ............ 20 8.5 2007 ECOLOGY GRANT BUDGET SUMMARY ..............................................................................................20 8.6 2007 ALGAE SUMMARY. ..... ... ................. ........ ........ ................ ............. ......... ............... ........... ........... ........ 20 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2007 FINAL REPORT TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1. 2007 North lake Budget Overview..................................17 Table 2. 2007 North lake Budget, Tasks 1 & 2..............................17 Table 3. 2007 North lake Budget, Task 3......................................18 Table 4 North lake Grant Running Balance..................................18 THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE ON SWM WEB PAGE (http://www.citvoffederalwav.com/Paae.aspx?paae=1219) North lake Grant Agreement 2006 DOE Aquatic Plant & Algae NPoES 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 Llp- 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, 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 3 I, 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 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. 11~'..',\/ ar...~ generally of limited distribution, tend to be invasive, and pose a serious threat to our Stale'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: (l) 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, Band 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 AQUA TIC 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 (#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 po stings/notifications, annual reporting, and records retention. The five- year permit expires on April I, 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 MANAG8VlENT 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 F ederal Way that is managed by S WM 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 a,quatic 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 (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 and 2006, glyphosate was utiliz:'d f~Jr YPI 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 comer 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 (AquaTecbnex) 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 WOFW 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 WOFW 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 (WOFW) 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 Emereent 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. 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 watf'c:fnv 1 ;11l0 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. Utricu/aria sp or Bladderwort was also present. Bladderworts are unique in the aquatic environment in that they are carnivorous, with a number of small bladders along the stems and leaves. The is plant similar to milfoil, but the bladders distinguish it from that species. The AquaTechnex 2007 North Lake Year End Report states that the submerged aquatic plant growth present at the time of the survey did not appear to be interfering with the water uses designated for this lake community. The plants were observed to be well below the lake surface, with good bottom coverage. The plants were also noted to be generally low growing and not forming surface mats. 4.8 Post Control Visual Assessment During the Second Systematic Survey on September 12, AquaTechnex personnel performed a visual assessment to determine the effectiveness of the glyphosate herbicide treatments and control methods conducted in 2007 on the three targeted species (FWL, PL and YFI). A review of the aquatic plant communities on North Lake shorelines focused on the results of the control effort. The majority of treatment areas showed good signs of herbicide injury and the treatments were considered a success. Some additional Purple Loosestrife plants had flowered and were now visible and this was a concern. Most of them were small seedlings that had grown since the last visit to the lake. There were also a few larger plants now visible in the dense wetland growth on the undeveloped west shoreline that had not been visible in prior. inspections. These were mapped and targeted for control. One solitary colony of the invasive thin leaf cattail was still present on the northwest corner of the lake and was scheduled for treatment. Milfoil plants were not observed at any location in the lake during the detailed boat survey. The native plant communities had not changed from the time of the first treatment. In addition, no areas in the littoral area of the lake populated by native aquatic weeds plant were impacting the recreational use of the lake. 11 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2007 FINAL REPORT 4.9 Algae Cyanobacteria are common in freshwater lakes, frequently forming dense populations or water blooms in eutrophic (nutrient rich) waters. The main factors that may determine the development of algae blooms are light, temperature, pH, and nutrient concentrations. Because of the potential that the blooms may occur, SWM staff issues annual algae information, and algae alerts when present, to all North Lake residents. The alerts caution residents and users of the presence of toxic-producing algae and recommends safe action to prevent exposure. In addition, the information concerning the Department of Ecology Algae Control Program is provided - a program that focuses on providing local governments with the tools they need to manage algae problems. A total of $250,000 will be earmarked each year to target blue-green algae due to the health risks posed to humans, pets, and livestock. In mid-April, SWM received a complaint concerning an unusual murkiness of North Lake. At the request of SWM staff, Department of Ecology DOE conducted an algal bloom test on North Lake in response to residents concerns over the persistent murky water condition in North Lake. A sample was collected by Department of Ecology staff on April 26, 2007. The testing indicated that more than a dozen different species of freshwater micro-organisms (including algae and diatoms) were detected and identified by the King County Environmental Lab, but none were at concentrations of concern for Ecology or the Department of Health. The murky nature of North Lake appears to have been due to a natural spring bloom of diatoms. 5.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING During the first two years of the Ecology Grant Agreement (2005 and 2006), SWM Water Quality personnel collected herbicide samples from North Lake in the water column before and after treatment (2,4-D and glyphosate in 2005, and glyphosate only in 2006). The sampling effort was required by the Grant Agreement, and was undertaken to determine lake concentrations of herbicides, and to provide an analytical measurement of the contractor's performance. Background samples (before treatment) and post treatment samples were collected at time intervals prescribed in the Grant Agreement. Samples were taken in the middle of the lake (outside the treatment areas), and inside an individual treatment site and analyzed for the targeted herbicides. The sampling results obtained during the first two years of monitoring detected very low concentrations. Additionally, there was limited persistence of the herbicides in the water column after initial application. For these reasons, sampling in 2007 per the Grant Agreement was waived by Ecology. 12 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2007 FINAL REPORT 6.0 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 cornponents 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 2()(Jl 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 Vee:etation 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 I 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 ill 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 10 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 Vi~lf to all North Lake residents via US Postal Service; and to lake residents and interested parties via an email subscribe list. The newsletter, created jointly with the Steel Lake Advisory Committee, includes updates to lake residents concerning recent vegetation management activities, and education information regarding lake stewardship and noxious weed management. 6.2.2 Public Notices Notices were routinely provided to North Lake residents via mail and email prior to contractor activities, including surveys and treatments. Lake residents were also sent notices prior to all public meetings. During the course of 2007, SWM staff mailed out formal public notices and emailed supplemental notices to lake residents. All public notices were posted on the North Lake web page. In addition, periodic supplemental updates advising lake residents of work plan activities were e-mailed to E-Subscribe participants approximately 24 hours prior to the activity on the lake. 15 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2007 FINAL REPORT 6.2.3 Educational Flyers and Signs SWM staff developed and distributed the following lake-related informational flyers: . Milfoil . Good Plants/Bad Plants . Purple Loosestrife Seed Head Removal . Blue Green Algae . Four Reasons Not to Feed the Ducks or Geese . Aquatic Weed Rake Program 6.2.4 Web Page Development In 2007, SWM staff continued providing a web page devoted to North Lake aquatic plant management activities. The content of the information was kept fresh and up-to-date through the year. Web site information includes: . Current 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 plants/bad plants); public notices; and NLSC Meeting notes. 6.2.5 Annual Report SWM staff develops a final year-end report to all lake residents and parties of interest that describes the activities and a budget review of the prior year. 16 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2007 FINAL REPORT 7.0 2007 BUDGET REVIEW The 2007 Work Plan budget was calculated based upon the scope of aquatic weed management expected to be accomplished during the year. Table I below provides an overview of the final North Lake aquatic plant management budget costs for 2007: T bl 2 N hLk B a e 1. 007 ort a e udaet 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 I and 2. T bl h L k B a e2. 2007 Nort a e udaet, TASK 1 & 2, Proiect AdministrationNeaetation Mgmt=- GOAL 2007 Work Plan Actual Expenses l Estimated Expenses (includes tax".s) Annual Permit Fee (tor 2008 coveraae) $338.00 $357.00 New contract RFP Advertisement $0 $43.82 Two diver surveys (Spring & Summer) $2,024.00 $1.012.16 Weed rake $0 $97.91 Milfoil herbicide treatment $762.00 $0 Fraarant water lilv herbicide treatment $480.00 $2,111,33 Yellow flag iris, purple loosestrife and narrow $480.00 $2,111.33 leaf cattail treatment Diver 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 insoection $751.00 $750.72 Contractor final report $0 $0 Contractor attendance at meetinas $915.00 $0 Grant-eliaible SWM staff waaes and benefits $2,250.00 $1,692.00 Grant-eliaible 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 TASK 3 P br Ed a e 0 a e u laet, u Ie ucatlon GOAL 2007 Work Plan Actual Expenses Estimated Expenses (includes taxes) Refreshments & supplies for quarterly $60.00 $10.63 meetinas Quarterlv newsletter (Lake View) $350.00 $309.08 SWM Annual Lake Report $120.00 $0 Annual Spring Community Meeting $0 $0 Plant 10 workshop/cookout $200.00 $0 Public education orintinas $150.00 $80.47 Boater outreach oroaram $0 $9.41 City LMO web page $0 $0 Grant-eliaible SWM staff waaes and benefits $2,750.00 $3,022.00 Grant-eliaible 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 a e4. North Lake rant Running Balance Year Grant Funds Used Running Balance Start N/A $60,158 2005 $18,882 $41,276 2006 $14,849 $26,427 2007 $11,246 $15,181 G 18 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2007 FINAL REPORT 8.0 2007 ANNUAL EV ALUA TION 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 scnmv';v consider moving forward with LMD formation. Grant funds should only be encllgh in 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 seaSOIl, Throughout 2007, the NLSC continued discussions concerning possible Lake Management District (LMD) formation after grant expiration. The committee benefited by participatifl8 ;n 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 AQUA TIC 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 ...................................................................................................... .... ....... () 4.8 POST CONTROL VISUAL ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................... .... ..... , I 4.11 ALGAE...................... ................ ............................... ............ .............. ..... .............. ................ ............ ... ......_ II 5.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING ...................................................................................................... # '1 6.0 ED U CA TI ON/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ..................................................................................... ....... "". l:Z 6.1 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ..................................................... ........... ....... ................................. .............. 12 6.1.1 North Lake Steering Committee (NLSC).............................................................................................. 12 6.1.2 Development of 2008 Work Plan ................................................................................................... ...... 14 6.1.3 Spring Meeting...... .......... ...... ........ ........ ................. ........ ... ... ...... ..... ................ ...... ....... ........................ 14 6.1.4 Plant ID Workshop .......__..................................................................................................................... 15 6.1.5 Boater Education ....... ......... ....... .... ..... .... ...... ....... ..... ... .... ..... ............. ........ ..... ............. ..... ................... 15 6.2 PUBLIC EDUCATION........... ................................. ........................................... .... .... .................................... 15 6.2.1 Quarterly Newsletter.......... ........ ...... ...... ............ ..... ......... ....... .... ........ ...................................... ....... .... 15 6.2.2 Public Notices.. ................ ........... ..... ................................. ..... ............ ....... ...... ... ........... ...... ........ ......... 15 6.2.3 Educational Flyers and Signs .............................................................................................................. 15 6.2.4 Press Releases.... .... ....... ......... ..................... .... ....... ....... ...... .... ..... ............... .... ....... ............... ........ ....... 16 6.2.5 Web Page Development...... ... .... ............. ........ ........ .............. ..... ...... .... .... .............. ............ ............. ..... 16 6.2.6 Annual Report..... ........... .......... ... ........ ........ ......... ._................... .......... ....... ...... ..... ............ .... ... ..... .... .... 16 7.0 2008 BUDGET RE VIEW........................................................ ............. ......................... ............................. 17 7. I 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 RECOMMENDA nONS ............................................................ 21 9.3 2008 PUBLIC EDUCATION SUMMARY. ................. ............ ..... ................... .......... ......... ....................... .... ..... 22 9.4 2009 PUBLIC EDUCATION RECOMMENDA nONS ............. ......................... ........................................ ..... ...... 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. lMo 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 NPoES 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 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, 1 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 I - 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 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 k~vc 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: (I) 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, Band 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 (#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 I, 20 II. Ecology's new permit is issued under the authority of RCW 90.48. Such issuance complies with state law and maintains the state's ability to regulate the use of herbicides in aquatic settings. Ecology decided to issue a permit that is based solely on state authority to regulate the discharge of waste materials into waters of the state. 3 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 FINAL REPORT 4.0 2006 AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 4.1 Contract for Aquatic Vegetation Management In 2008, AquaTechnex, Inc. operated under the last year of a two-year Professional Services Agreement (contract) with the City of Federal Way that is managed by SWM staff. The scope of the agreement includes: systematic aquatic plant surveys, implementation of control methods to target aquatic plants (diver hand pulling, hand cutting/raking, diver installation of bottom barriers, diver dredging, removal of floating water lily islands, treatment with Ecology-approved aquatic herbicides), post control surveys, reports as required, and attending meetings as required. 4.2 Initial Systematic Survey Due to a late start to the growing season, AquaTechnex did not complete the initial systematic aquatic plant survey of North Lake until July 11,2008. The survey team mapped all submerged, floating and emergent noxious weeds from a vessel (equipped with Global Positioning System [GPS] equipment), and recorded the location and extent of the plant communities discovered in and around the lake from the surface. A diver also performed a more detailed underwater inspection of the littoral zone. In addition to making a visual inspection, the survey team collected a number of rake samples at various GPS points. These points were collected to define each treatment area through diver communication to the mapping vessel team. The GPS information obtained in the field was later processed for map creation and analysis using 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 arca 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 angustifoliaj 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 II 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, AquaTecbnex 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 (W A 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 centrol, 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 comer 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. Glvphosate 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 dquaiic 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 {In:;;s. Ths 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 I. 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 I, 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 I 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 enu 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 WOFW 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 (WOFW) 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 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. 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. Floatin2 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 - h~less but unsightly. No further testing was conducted. 11 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 FINAL REPORT 5.0 WA TERQUALlTY 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 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 Gram Agreement incorporates the information in the IA VMP, forming two primary components for Education and Public Involvement The two components focus on prevention and ddcluon Uf 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 20<B 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 10 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 controi 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 of2009. · 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: (I) 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 of the 2008 Work Plan: Task 1: Aquatic Vee:etation 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 I may be found in Section 4.0. Task 2: Public Education describes all public education elements to help inform lake fc:;idc:nl'i and users about the impacts of invasive aquatic weeds. Items included in Task 2 include: community meetings (spring) and Plant 10 Workshops (summer); quarterly newsletter (The! ake 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 ofthe 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 10 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 10 Workshop would not be held until 2009. In the interim, educational materials typically distributed during the workshop (Good PlantfBad Plant) were made available on North Lake's web site year round and were discussed in the July 2008 issue of the newsletter. 6.1.5 Boater Education On April 26 (Opening Day of Fishing Season), five lake resident volunteers handed out approximately 30 Milfoil Education Brochures to boaters at the North Lake Boat Ramp. The brochure outlines the detrimental effect milfoil has on fresh water lakes, the propagation of the noxious plant, and reminds boaters to properly clean their vessels prior to entering or leaving the boating area. 6.2 Public Education The North Lake Public Education program for 2008 involved the following: 6.2.1 Quarterly Newsletter SWM staff continued issuing the quarterly public education newsletter, The Lake View to all North Lake residents via US Postal Service; and to lake residents and interested parties via an email subscribe list. The newsletter, created jointly with the Steel Lake Advisory Cmnmittee, includes updates to lake residents concerning recent vegetation management acti"vit;."s :lrd 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 PlantslBad 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, algae, purple loosestrife, ducks & geese, yellow flag iris, good plants/bad plants); public notices; and NLSC Meeting notes. 6.2.6 Annual Report SWM staff develops and distributes a final year-end report for all lake residents and parties of interest that describes the activities and a budget review of the prior year. 16 NORTH LAKE AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2008 FINAL REPORT 7.0 2008 BUDGET REVIEW The 2008 Work Plan budget was calculated based upon the scope of aquatic weed management expected to be accomplished during the year. Table I below provides an overview of the final North Lake aquatic plant management budget costs for 2008: Table 1. 2008 North lake Budaet Overview 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 Administrationl Vegetation Management Table 2 below illustrates the grant-eligible budgeted elements for Task I and 2. Table 2. 2008 North lake Budaet, TASK 1 & 2, Proiect AdministrationNeaetation Mamt. GOAL 2008 Work Plan Actual Expenses Estimated Expenses (includes taxes) Annual Permit Fee (for 2009 coveraael 338 397 Two diver survevs (Sprina & 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 Diver removal of milfoil 590 0 Advance resident notifications & shoreline 705 353 Dostina Native weed manual removal 1,350 0 Water IiIv island control 0 0 Post control visual inspection 751 752 Contractor attendance at meetings 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. Table 3. 2008 North lake Budget, TASK 3 Public Education GOAL 2008 Work Plan Actual Expenses Estimated Expenses (includes taxes) Meetina refreshments 50 16 Quarterlv newsletter 500 255 Annual evaluation report 150 0 Annual Spnna Community Meetinq 0 0 Plant to workshop/cookout 600 0 Public education printinq 150 165 Boater outreach proaram 0 0 City LMD web paae 0 0 Grant-eliqible SWM staff waqes 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 4 N rth L k G t RBI a e . 0 a e ran 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 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 of2008 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 tees. In addition, SWM staff time would also be built into the annual expenses. Boundarv It was agreed that the boundary only include lake front 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 -----I I 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 I .----1 City of Federal Way Zoning Designations: Office Zone CP-l Corporate Park-I Single Family Residential RS9.6 (l 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, 2,4-0 (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 10 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 plantfbad 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 aauatic 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 '>dition to alC Fcder-;.I \LI) City Council to Crcalt- a I.akt~ Managcment Uislr-id fOt Non.. Lak(~ \Vc. the UfldtT;I~ncd Norlh 1..I"e PCOflclty O\~';nCfS. Icquc;llklllhe Feder.11 \Vay Cay CouflClI approve the neatlOll ofa Like j\'1anagemenl DlstrtCI (l ivll>, lor Nolth Lake pursuant to RC\V 3661 The LMO luwls WIlt lin<:ulce eft()(1s to protcd and cllham;c Noeth Lake in tenus of \"'<Iter quallly, rccreatH/na' and al:sthdlC value I. Purposc of lite Lake Management Dislnct · FOrtll a Lake I\tfanagernent Districlthal creaks a tltrldlllg source alld an operaltonal program It.)r <III #lllurc dcsIguated aquahc plant management and waler qualit y management. mallltcnance and rnonitonng actlVltlcs · Perfonu annual dl\'cr surveys 10 monilor changes III (he aquatic plant communily. · Control. removc. and conlalfl aquatic plants. llIc1udUlg non-native populations at as Iowa denSity as IS environmentally and econoltllcally k<:Lsiblc, and at levels Ihal will not impact publtc safely Of Ihe benefiCIal us.es oflhe lake. · Reduce aff olher Idenhfied species of nOXIous wecds per the requirements of \VAC 16 -750. and fwthcl (0 levels (hat do not IHlf/acl pubhc safel y. bendiclal uses. or ecology of (lac lal\:<: Use ;Til,,;pn;lh." ;t<fll;HIC plau( cOlllrol alld Irc;tllIlclIl IlIdllOJS as Ileeded fix ..Ill othcr prohlCflldtlC aquatIC weeds. lISlng the best <:lv;lIlahk \CICIICe to Idenft fy and ulldersfaud (hell ctfech 01l11l1l1l;1ll. aquatic and tene:;lrl<:t1 ccosy:>lelfls pllor (0 implcfllCn(a(IOII · Control, HllprovC. and monitor water levels and water quahty_ · Contlnlle puMic cdllcallOIl 10 prevent tlae IlItroduclloll of noxious weeds, nuisaiJl;c plants afl(IUOIlIl:i(l\'C <:Illimal speClCS to (hc bkc, ;lIld to ;ll<J lrt the early ddectlOlI Of aqualIC ....ced rc III kstaltolls · Conduct;1 11I1Il(cd \ Olullk,~r -dn vcn water tfu:!ll( \' 11Iollltorillg program thaI W L lake laealth hascd 011 llac eollecllOll of data, Includlllg hu( f10tluuIted to: waler kv<~:. temperature. Seeelll depth. phosphorous and ru(rogclI · Conduct puhllc edueallon to reduce the amoulIls 01 Ihlllpoillt source pollutant') entering the lake, whICla can rcsult in all HlCrease III aqualtc algae_ · Continue to /In'ol\"(; (lac North Lake Commulllty III the aquatic plant management process. The attached 2004 North Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (fA VMP) and subsequent Annual Reports (2005 -2()()8) Illc/udc the basis for the annual LMD work plan .Ind LMD management goals The LMD Will reimburse the City for costs incurred by staff in prOViding aquatic vegetallon progTam management tasks. All management dislnct lake improvement and maintenance activities described in RCW 36_6'_020 may be considered III the LMD scope, U1duding (I) controlling or removing aquatic plants and vegetation; (2) improving wakr quahty; (J) controlling water le\:cls; (4) treating and di\'erting stomnvater; (5) controlling agncultural waste; (6) Studyillg lake water quality problems and solutions; (7) cleaning and maintairting ditches and streams entering the lake; (8) monitoring air quality; and (9) lite rdated administrative, North Lake LMD f'dllt\l11 Page 1 of 4 ellglfleenng. Ieg;t!. aud oper atlOnal costs. including the co:-;h of crealrng the lake rllan;u'emcllt .It ~(nd " ') Boundar\' The proposed boundary of the LMD would include alllhe property with lakefroflt on North I.ake, and hV(l IItdlVldual adjacent properties that havc lake access deeds. See attached fIlap of proposed IHopertles within the dlstnct ) Duration The proposed duration of the LMD IS 10 years 4 Charges to propert y Annual rales and charges will be used to raise funds to support LMO activities_ The iollowlIIg is IIlc {()rlllula of rates and charges proposed lor' establishment of the assessment role lor the LMD I - - - - -- Assessment Category .". Jl... r I "lly Resldenttal (RS9 6), Lakp.f""Jfl. p...operty l -- [)~~~lo~'~du~~P~~;( 53 uwl s) ~-_._.- --------,--~------..- --- -~.- Vacant property (168 It) Single Famity Residential (RS9.6). Non -Iakefront p...operty with deeded lake access -- Rat;---]R~venue i$) -j .--- X-$l 00 oO;-;-ur~;---- -- -I -~- -- -~~) I X $0 ~~er_!ake~ont fool _ _ '5 t 18 I -- - ----------.-----j i I Developed property (I urlll) X $75_00 per unll --- ----I' $73 - -- --------~~-- ------ $15 Vacant property (I urll!) X $1500 per Unit WeyertJaeuser (RS9,6) ------------.--,--- - -i 1 Vacant property (82 It) ~ $0 70 per lakefronl foot_____I~ Weyerhaeuser (CP-l) $ 57 -- -~----~--------~-~---~ ---------------------- .. X $080 per Iakefronl foot J'= -~-----~----_._-~--- - Single annual assessment ----~~~----~-._-- - $2.911 $4,000 $12,536 Commercial property (J.7 t4 ft) WOFW Public Boat Launch TOTAL ANNUAL ASSESSMENT The estimated maximum amount that IS proposed for the LMO in 2010 is $12,536,20, An automatic incrca.<;e hased on the Seattle Consumer Price Index (CPf) will be included in each annual billing after 20 I 0 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 LMO rate revenue for lhe ten year lMD based on an annual five percent increase for inflalion is $157,678.98 (ssuance of revenue boods is not proposed North Lake LMD PehflOfl Page l of 4 fhc r.M I) hlldget and rales wltI he approved through a public hC:lnug and a public vole a licl {hc ell y counCIl adop(s a resolultof1 (0 loon the LMD Once approved hy the publiC and cHy counCIl. the annual rates and charges may oOJ be altered wI(hou( allothe.' puhlIC \-Oh: ,lIId elt y counei I approval with the exccp(lon of the CPIIllcrease described above j Nonll Lake M.magement District Steenng Committee Hie volunteer North Lak:e Management District Steering Committee IS proposed to represeu( the interests of LMD property owners in the various neighborhoods acound the lake City staff will work with the Steering Committee to develop the annual work: plan. The annual I _MD work pian and budget will be forwarded by the Steering Committee lor impklllclIta(IOn b)' the City's surface water utility_ The Steering Committee will track aud review actiVities and expenditures by the City as well as outside contractors. CIty staff will prO\'ide Steering Committee support including quarterly financial repor1s. NQrth Lake LMD PCllllon Page j of4 Signature of property owner -r-------___~____.__~_,_--.--,-.--__. ._________._______ ...__ ___ Full address Parcel number (if known, - --~--~-._~_._--~------_._- '-..-- ---------- ------- .t - ~ -'------------_.~_.._------_._._-_._--_.._---------_.- (I 3GlO S .j3~ _1-7"--- --~---/)----------~----------- ;---~-- ~~- ~f;:~~i /-?'IF'~3flcf;p;-~,~u -I ~A~t;;;r~~~;~ .~~,,\~~~k. &14 3 ~ 0 00 ;)0 . :1~;2 1-::J,(~:]~~'1s, .....U'i.3wons.._ ~y, ~n__ ~~~~e.;:~~~~!l_ 1S210<-L"l1L<: --. I :~ . f~IJ~~:.i1 J~:3t{~j:~~~ ~7t~~~~~~~==j J I j)~?I,- ~~~!; 3.__ _ _ _ __ . _. .. I ~ci;~~~~ i?i;--6~~35L-U tFIFo j c~\ ~. 9~<10l G\.v <Q () <J'1_2..C) 3Sf1'f'l )]rI~ - - _Ee&__a ( \-v''-'1-,-LII _ '1~o~-L.____1i1 ~ 360 0 -3 5S- , " ---- .---------- -,----..--- -- ---- /-; 7------- .. .-- ...... ~/~L~ c:;;;z~ ?)l;;~7Ty~- )~1~1 /I -~- ~---_._--- ) ------ --------------- - --,"- ----- -_._-------_._----_._--~_., ---- -~---- ~~-- ---._._--'------~-~------------~~ ---._-----------~---- -~~~---_.~----_._~----------_.- -_._-----------------------~_._._- -- ---- --~----~--~------------ ------ --~---,,_._----- - ~------._- --~--~~---~- --~-'- ---------- ----------------~ ~----- ------- - ~--- ---~. ----~--- -------.-.--- ----~~.- '-------- North Lake LMD Pelltion Page 4 of .t North Lake LMD Petition Signing Summary, February 24, 2009 --~~ - ---~_._----_.,--~-~._-- ----~-_._-- ---------..----------- ------ -- - --._- -----_. --- ---'----------~ ----- ----- - - -._---- Parcel Number Lot Name ot Property Owner Address Lot (Sa F f) (acreage) --- ----.._-- --~----~ ~~~-_.~--.- t-~-- I flmolhy Cook 33041 38'h Ave (' 6143600150 2:1.280 053441568 oJ -- r---- - --.------ ----~ 2 Bruce Flndl 32851 38'" Ave S 6143600015 20.160 o 46219296 '---- 3 Roger Hazzard 3610S J34"'SI 6143600230 62.126 I 43993806 4 Don Vandenheuvel 3118 S 334'" SI 6143600190 95.832 2 19991939 -. 5 Ross Bentson 33009 38"' Ave S 6143600100 21.520 049401312 - 6 Lori Sechrisl 328 11 38fh Ave S 6143600020 19.600 04499316 7 r errance Thomas 33461 33ft1 PI S 614360 0315 9.551 021925276 8 Wendy Honey 3800 S 328'" SI 152104 9123 62.291 I 4299522 9 Larry Flesher 33223 38'" Ave S 6143600180 84.070 192991092 to Julie Cleary 3312 S 334'" SI 6143600255 46.173 105994739 11 Julie Cleary 3312 S 334'" SI 6143600266 11.700 02685852 - 12 Chris Johnson 33403 33'<1 PI S 6143600280 25.2OC 05784912 IJ Debra Hansen 32805 38'h Ave S 6143600005 26.350 06048906 14 Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9117 4420600010 10.557 024234649 -f---. Jerry Heinz (for Weyelhaeuser) PO Box 9111 726120 0035 17.610 040425516 - --- .-- Jerry Heinz (for Weyemaeuser) PO Box 911 " 15210491 m 1.591.24G 36 5286432 - '-'--- --------~_. Jerry HeInz (for Weyerhaeuser) POBox 9177 1621049013 2.353.541 54 0280249 .~_._-- ---- Jefry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 97/1 162104 9036 20.165 046290774 -. -- -- Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeusef) PO Box 9177 4420600025 15.557 o 3511 7640j -~ Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeusef) PO Box 977 7 4420600030 29.900 o 68G384" I Jerry Heinz (fof Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 4420600040 17.000 o 390252; Jefry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 917l 4420600045 19.500 _Q4';/642/ - -----'--- Jerry Heinz (for Weyemaeuser) PO 80x 977! 4420600050 1J.l 00 t. 1 ~'-497, ; --- --_..~_._-_.-.-. .---- f--~ -- I--~ Jerry Heinz (for Weyemaeuser) PO Box 9111 4420600055 10.200 02341512j Jerry Heinz (for Weyemaeuser) PO Box 9777 442060 0060 9.300 02134908 Jerry Heinz (fOf Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 977 7 442060 0065 7.600 o 17~465E -- Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9771 4420600070 5,900 o 1 3~:,..40'11 Jerry HeiClz (tor Weyemaeuser) PO Box 9711 442060 0075 9.300 0.21J49D1i Jerry HeinZ (tor Weyemaeuser) PO Box 9771 7978200420 825.036 18.9395264 Jerry Heinz (for Weyemaeuser) PO Box 9771 797820 0470 23.844 054736286 Jerry Heinz (for Weyemaeuser) PO Box 9777 7978200480 25.370 058239372 Jerry Heinz (tor Weyemaeuser) PO Box 9771 7978200515 38.591 0885895 Jerry Heinz (tor Weyemaeuser) PO Box 9177 7978200520 34.782 079845559 Jerry Heinz (for Weyemaeuser) PO Box 9777 7978200565 78.375 1.7991765 15 Char1es Gibson 33461 )3'<1 PI S 6143600380 22,64<; 051983862 16 Ncxman Kutscha 33021 38th Ave. S 614360 0120 22.64C 0_51972384 17 Barry James 3344933'<1 PI. S 6143600355 16.680 038290608 Total acreage signing: Total aaeage in LMO: 131.5 161.8 Percent acreage signing petition: 81 "!o COUNCIL MEF~T[NG DATE: April 21, 2009 ..____.. ~~F:~_~=_~'_~.____.. 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 torm 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 CATEGORY: I3J Consent D City Council Business D Ordinance D Resolution D D Public Hearing Other ~~~FF__~EPORT B -.!'.:..~il~~ple!<?_ll~f'E-.:.'_S_u~!~~~_~~~~.~an~ger Attachments: I. North Lake LMD Petition 2. Resolution No. DEPT: Public Works Options Considered: I. Adopt a resolution of intention to form the North Lake Management District Number 2, and ~;ct :1 pEblic 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.' ~, _&>_ ".- ommJttee .tcll -----' . CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: /1 L::"rn( Committee f!/IAtl., COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward staff recommendation for Option I to the April 21, 2009 City Council Consent Agenda. r --- _~/.....:::::._..r"-', " .4 , ~ ~ 7"-.-t:t--L-.L. Linda Kochmar, Chair il4J~ Dini Duclos, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "[ mov 'Pproval 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 " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: ~ APPROVED o DENIED o T ABLEDIDEFERREDINO ACTION o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED -- 02l06f2006 COliNCIL BILL # 1ST ruding Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # t)q- ty!;J. CITY OF FEDERAL \\'A Y MEMORANf)UM ----~----------~---~----_._--_._-------~.__.._~-----~---------~.__._._-_._---_._---~- DATE: TO: VIA: April 6, 2009 FROM: Land Use and Transportation Committee Cary M. Roe, P.E., Assistant City Manager, Chief Operations Officer, Emergency Manager (Y11t"l Will Appleton, f'.E_, Surface Water Managcr~/ Dan Smith, Water Quality Program Coordinator Resolution oflntent to FornI Lake Management District Number Two (North Lake) SUBJECT: BACKGROUND Sifice 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 water lily, pllrple 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 propertics. Tj.iV,,<~lt this period, SWM has been charged with administering a Washington State Department of Ecology Aq":'d': Weeds Management Fund Grant procured for North Lake. The grant has allowed funding fix the program, which has included contractor management, annual aquatic plant surveys, herbicide treatments, fli<lIlU:d control and public educatim. The five-year grant is set to expire December 3 I, 2009. I n order to continue a long-term aquatic weed management program beyond December 2009, North Lake res!( len Is submitted a signed letter on August 25, 2008 to the City Manager requesting assistance in f(mnin . ..lL Management District (LMD). In subsequent North Lake Steering Committeemeetings.agreclIJ;~;t,\ concerning the LMD scope, annual cost (see attached resolution~ boundary, duration, and asse:;:;lilC:Jt rate structure for lakefront properties On February 24,2008, a public meeting for the residents of North Lake was held to discuss LMD develop'll"'" 111e 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 landO\vners 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:\LUTC\2009\04-6-09 North lake Resolution of Intenllo lonn lMDdoc "etition to the Feder-a' \\'ay City Council to Cn~atl- ~I I .ake Maflag{~ment l>istr-ict for- NOl.th Lake \.ve. the uuderslgned North Like pmperty owners. request lhat lhc Federal Way City COllllcd approve the creation of a Lake Managelllcnt Distncl (LiVID) till North Lake plllstlant lo RCW 36.61. The LMD funds will tinallee efforts to protect and enhance North f .ake in knns of \\i;ller quality, recrealional and aesdldlC value I. Purpose of the Lake Management DIstrict · Form a Lake Management Dishict that creates a tlHlding SOurce and an operahonal program for all tuture designakd aquahc plalllmanagement and water quality management, maintenance and monitonng activities · Perfonn annual diver surveys to monitor changes in the aquatic plant COUlllllUlity. · Control, remove, and contaUl aquatic plants, including non-native populations at as Iowa denSIty as is environmentally and economically kasible, 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 \V AC 16-750, and further to levels that do not IJllpacl publtc safety, beneficial uses, or ecology of lhe lake ~ Use ;IFprDpria(c aquatic plaul conlrol and lre:ltlllenlllldhods as needed for all other prohkmallc aquatIC weeds, using the best available science to ideotl fy and understand their efkcts on human, aquatic and tCfTl:stnal ecosystems prior to implementallon · Control, improve. and monitor water levels and water quality. · Continue public educatIOn lo prevent the Itltroductton of noxious weeds, IlUlsaiJt:c plants and WJIHI<ttIVC animal speCies to Ihe Jake; and 10 aid III the early deleclioll of aquallc weed re-lIIkstaltous · Conduct a linlltcd \oluntcn-driven water qualily lIIonitoring program that \Vi, lake health hased on the collectIOn of data, including but not limited to: water kvr:, temperature. Secchi depth. phosphorous and nitrogen · Conduct puhlic educatton to reduce the amounts of lion-point source pollutants entering the lake, which can result in an mcrease in aquatic algae. · Continue to involvc the North Lake ConllllUfllly in the aquatic plant managemcnt process. The attached 2004 North Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IA VMP) and subsequent Annual Reports (2005-2008) tnclude the basis for the annual LMD work plan and LMD management goals. The LMD wtll.-eimburse the City fo.- 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 LMO scopc, including: (I) controlling 0.- removing aquatic plants and vegetation; (2) improving water qualit y; (3) controUing water levels. (4) treating and divcrtlllg stomnvater; (5) controlling agricultural waste; (6) studying lake water quality problems and solutions; (7) cleaning and maintairting ditches and streams entering the lake; (8) monitoring air quality; and (9) the related administrative, North Lake LMO f'Cl,llon f';jgtO I of 4 cngmcenng. legal. and operational costs, includIng the costs of creating the lake managemellt district ") Boundary The proposed boundary of the LMD would include all the property with lakefront on North Lake, and two individual adjacent properties that have lake access deeds. See attached map of proposed properties within the dlsll~icL 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 tonnula of rates and charges proposed lor establishment of the assessment role lor the LMD: ~:-:~'OC :S~:::::~::,:~:e!.o~~ n _-___ - ~ R~'; -- _-=:I Revenue ($)_~_ I ~akefPjn( property L=:r~~;~i~1;'~~~-:__=: ~ik~~;;~-~,;~~:--t_- _ _ $:~: I Single Family Residential (RS9~6), Non-Iakefront property with deeded lake access Developed property (1 IIrllt) X $75.00 per unit $7~1 _.~--~- i $15 Vacant property (1 ufllt) X $1500 per unit Weyertlaeuser (RS9.6) " -- -- .-.-.----------------~--~-~--. - -i ~-~------_._---_.- -.-------- ---.- Vacant property (82 tt) X $0.70 per lakefront foot ]-~ $ 57 Weyerhaeuser (CP-1) Commercial property (3.714 ft) X $080 per lakefront fool WOFW Public Boat launch Single annual assessment $2,971 $4,000 $12,536 TOTAL ANNUAL ASSESSMENT The estimated maximum amount that is pwposed for the LMD in 2010 is $12,536~20~ An automatic increase based on the Seattle Consumer Price Index (CPI) will be included in each annual billing after 20 I 0 per approval by the NOl1h Lake Advisory Committee. At no time is the increase to be more than five (5) percent per year. Total maximum LMD rale revenue for the ten year LMD based on an arumal five percent increase for intlation is $IS7,678~9K Issuance of revenue bonds is not proposed. North lake l.MD Petition Page Z of 4 rhe LM D budget and rates will be approved through a pub/lc heanng and a public vote aller the CIty council adopts a reso/ullon to 'DOIl the LMf). Once approved by the pub/H.: and cuy council. the afUllIal rates and charges may !!().! be altered without another publIC \'ok alld ell y council approval with the exceptIOn of the CPI wcrcase described above 5. North Lake Management District Steering Committee The volunteer North Lake Management District Steering Committee is proposed to represent the interests of LMD property owners in the various neighborhoods around the lake. City staff will work with the Steering Committee to develop the annual work plan. The annual LMD work plan and budget will be forwarded by the Steering Committee for implementation b}' the City's surface water utility. The Steering Committee will track and review activities and expenditures by the City as well as outside contractors. City staff will provide Steering Committee support including quarterly financial reports. North Lake LMD Pel II Ion Page j of 4 .- ------~------------.- -~-_..-------------~._..--------._--- ---------____.___n Signature of property owner Full address Parcel number (if known) S010 S .:;3~ . ,.zjL~7- ~'?L)':.433I<L 5;_ )-1- /' -r 7 ~, 9 I _ e-':'-J' /J ./ P . "). // / ...> > c 0 - s <: r"1 'J-V 6;Jjiif;!;;Z:;t 3-~~} .~ 4VT & '':~E:. 1:::/~! }!;:/1S.--- ... 3t,003orS- -- il~-__ 33Z2.~~A:e,~~-- 1"02/0,/ <jLZ-~__ . - ~ ---- -.~-~---.--..-.-------~----- -------------:------i LiJ_ Ii _ ~__?Jl~~. _ -2_~.!_~_.~_~ 31_.~_t_ ..idLJ3vOfj ;}$j -_...J i'~ " i_ ..2VS 331';'5/ _ (PFI3t.dJOOlL.b .. j l ;-; ~!!!~/]-1::;~~.?f:.~~~~17.-.k;/13P.O(Y'c, 1 -~--- - --- --. Cl\-lL 3 r- i ~ U9au; ~D }--------------- --- : ---...- - -~,,*o..'L ~~(~~ - . _u_u - .--1 - -- ;;T-- -----:=-._____u________________ ;~---i ..:~7 4':4 02." _ .i:7%fd:qf. ~P/ 6/<<j'Co l1 ]~~ 1 /\ 7J7 --r- ~ 1. 0 <. \;., """"'2 ~~, f? \" /( 3/. c"""'\ CJ 1_ 2.. 0 . </~/ ~ 7~ C:~e.-.\~ 9e.,Oc.1l '-0 V '-Q 1941J.1;;f==___. ~r:~,.~]:;, l<A nO. I 20 -~~--~-~----"-- ------------------.- ------~-~----------- ._~-~--~~-~-~~ -j 1/ / 4 3 ~ 0 0 0 ;),,0 15 I (I {, {L-j 36 0 03 5S- -~- ----------- --- ---- -- -~ - -- 21 -------~~-------------------------._-.._-~-~ 22 ---~~~~-- -------------_.~---~ -------.~--_._--~~~----~~-~ ~J. - --. -~---- _..,,--.._~--_.._----~---------- --..--. ---- - ---------~~-------_._._------ ~4 --.-- - --.._-._----~-_._----._--------------- ---------- -------~------------- ---~------._--~- ~-- North Lakc LMD PClilion Page 4 of .t North Lake LMD Petition Signing Summary, February 24, 2009 -- ,---.' Name of Property Owner P arce' Number Lot (SQ FT) Lot Address (acreage) -- I TImothy Cook 33041 38'h Ave S 6143600150 2:I.28G o 53441568 2 Bruce Flndl 3285738'" Ave S 6143600075 20.160 o 46279296 3 Roger Hazzard 3610 S 334'" SI 6143600230 62.726 I 43993806 4 Don Vandenheuvel 3718 S 334'" SI. 6143600190 95.832 2 19991939 5 Ross Bentson 33009 38th Ave S 6143600100 21.520 049401312 6 Lori Sechrisl 32817 38'" Ave S 614360 0020 19.600 04499376 7 Terrance Thomas 33467 3J'd PI S 6143600375 9.551 0.21925276 8 Wendy Hooey 3800 S 3281h St 1521049123 62.291 14299522 9 LaffY Flesher 33223 38'" Ave 5 6143600180 84.07C 1.92991092 10 Julie Cleary 3312 5 334'" SI 6143600255 46.173 105994739 11 Julie Cleary 3312 5 334'" 51 614360 0266 11.70(] 02685852 12 Chris Johnson 33403 33'd PI. 5 6143600280 25.200 05784912 13 Debra Hansen 32805 38th Ave S 6143600005 26.350 06048906 14 Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 442060 00 10 10.557 024234649 Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 726120 0035 17.610 040425516 L Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9771 152 104 9178 1.591.246 36 5286432 Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9711 1621049013 2.353.547 54 0280249 "--- Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 162 104 9036 20.165 046290774 "-.- Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 4420600025 15.557 o 3511261ql JeffY Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 4420600030 29.900 068638441 Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 4420600040 17.000 03902'-,,' I Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9771 4420600045 19.500 04411;1" - Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO !:lox 9777 4420600050 13.700 l. ,. I ~;-~~) ~- Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 442060 0055 10.200 023415121 Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 4420600060 9.300 02134908 Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9771 442060 0065 7.600 o 174465€ Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 4420600070 5.900 O. 1 3~,44J4; -- 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 797820 0470 23.844 054736286 Jerry Heinz (for Weyerhaeuser) PO Box 9777 7978200480 25.370 058239372 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 7978200565 78.375 t 7991765 15 Charles Gibson 33461 33'd PI 5. 6143600380 22,64<; 051983862 16 Norman Kutscha 33021 381h Ave. S 6143600120 22.64C 051972384 17 Barry James 33449 33'd PI. S 614360 0355 16.68C 038290608 Total acreage signing: 131.5 Total aCf"eage in LMO: 161.8 Percent acreage signing petition: 81% RESOLUTION NO. O{/L5H~ A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Federal "Va}', Washington, to form Nor-th Lake Management District number- 2, declaring its intention to so, and setting a public hearing on the formation of the p.-oposed 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 WH2R.I,.-\S, North Lake contains significant natural resources including wetlands, and supports many beneficial public purposes including recreation, water quality, stonnwater protccticl1, aesthetics, and property value support~ and WHEREAS, pursuant to chapter 35.21 RCW and chapter 36.61 RCWa lake TlIanai:,t-llwil. district may be formed to provide funding to support the maintenance and improvement o flakes; 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 NO\-V THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, RESOL YES AS FOLLOWS: Sectionl. [ntention to fonn 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 (fA VMP). The estimated maximum amount of special assessments that is proposed for the LMD in 20 10 is S 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 15 7,6 78.9S, which includes an automatic inflation increase based upon an annual increase tor inflation not to exceed five percent in any given year. The proposed duration of the District is ten years from the date such District is actually fi.)f1Tl;j by ordinance. The proposed boundaries of the District encompass all properties adjacent to I\iVdl. 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 will be charged $.80 per lake front foot per year. The Department of Fish 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--5101- , 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 J. Establishment of Advisory Committee. If North Lake Management District Number 2 is formed, the City of Federal Way City Counci I will establish a non-paid Advisory Board of lakcfront 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 tor Lake Management District cxpenditures to the City of Federal Way, e(;uCaie its neighbors on Lake Management District issues, and submit annual reports of Lake Management Distrid activities to the City of Federal Way. Section 4. Public Notice. The City of Federal Way C1crk is hereby directed to publish ',Wl mail notices as required by RCW 36.61. Section 5. 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 oflhis resolution. Section 6. Corrections. The City Clerk and thc codifiers ofthis rcsolution 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 # C1~/5tf6A , Page J 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. RESOLVED 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 MCNEILLY, CMC APPROVED AS TO FOR1v1: CITY A TlURNEY, PA TRlCIA A. RICHARDSON FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO.: RES # 01-5tf~ , Page 4 COUNCIL MEETING June 16, 2009 ITEM #: to\. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase IV Project Condemnation POLICY QUESTION: Should City Council approve an ordinance that authorizes the City Attorney to commence legal proceedings to acquire the necessary properties for the Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase IV project by condemnation if the negotiation process fails? COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee MEETING DATE: June 15,2009 CATEGORY: D Consent o City Council Business rgj Ordinance o Resolution D o Public Hearing Other ~!~~~~""'2.~!~X:'._~!!~'::l:~9!?~t:t~,_R:~~~~~!~~~~Y~~~!l1.~I.:'!9.j~~!.~'::l:g~'::l:~~! Attachment: Ordinance DEPT: Public Works ......................mm..................................mm..................... Options Considered: 1. Approve to send the condemnation ordinance for the Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase IV project to the City Council meeting on June 16, 2009 for the first reading. 2. Do not approve to send the condemnation ordinance for the Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase IV project m~()!.h~91:yG9.~'::l:~~~!l1.~~~'::l:g9.'::l:I~'::l:~}~1?9.Q?f.()!!.h~fir.~!.E~':l4!'::l:g~<:f.pr.9.y.~~~_4!E~~~~()'::l:!.()~_!l;lf.t__m_mmm STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option 1. I CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: J),W\I~\DI)~JcJ1 /J,l.J.jM tJp. ~RECTORAPPROVAL: Committee Council Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward condemnation ordinance for the Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase IV project to the City Council meeting on June 16, 2009 for the first reading. Linda Kochmar, Chair Jim Ferrell, Member Dini Duclos, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move to send the condemnation ordinance for the Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase IV project to the City Council meeting on June 16, 2009 for the first reading. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: D APPROVED D DENIED D TABLED/DEFERREDINO ACTION D MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED - 02/06/2006 COUNCIL BILL # 1 ST reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: June 15,2009 Land Use and Transportation Committee Brian Wilson, Interim City Manager Brian Roberts, P.E., Street Systems Project Engineer Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase IV Project Condemnation Ordinance - First Reading BACKGROUND: Previously, the City Council authorized staff to acquire right-of-way for the Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase IV project for fair market value. Staff is currently in the process of contacting the property owners to negotiate the purchases. In anticipation that some of the property owners will refuse to reach a settlement with the City, staff is requesting that the Council adopt the attached condemnation ordinance. The ordinance authorizes the City Attorney to commence legal proceedings to acquire the necessary properties by condemnation if the negotiation process fails after a reasonable amount of time, in order to allow the project to proceed. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Federal Way, Washington, providing for the acquisition of certain property for the purpose of constructing right-of-way improvements in the vicinity of Pacific Highway South from South 312th to Dash Point Road, known as the Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase IV project; describing the public use and necessity of such property; directing staff to exhaust reasonable negotiation efforts to purchase such property; providing for the condemnation of the property; and directing the city attorney to initiate all necessary actions and proceedings in the manner provided by law for said condemnation if attempts to purchase are not successful. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Notice. Notice of the consideration of this ordinance was properly issued by mail on May 11 th and May 15t\ 2009 to all potentially affected property owners and by proper legal ~ewspaper publication on May 16th and May 20th, 2009. Section 2. Public Necessity. The public health, safety, necessity and convenience demand that right-of-way improvements be constructed and maintained within the City of Federal Way within the vicinity of State Route 99 (SR 99, known as Pacific Highway South) between Dash Point Road and South 31ih Street, and that certain real property, encumbrances, and/or easements upon property be acquired, condemned, appropriated, taken and/or damaged for the construction of said improvements as provided by this ordinance. Failure to construct such right-of-way improvements will cause traffic counts to continue to exceed capacity within the corridor of SR 99 between Dash Point Road and South 3lih Street, create the potential for additional traffic accidents, and inhibit economic development within the City and the Community Business Zone. Section 3. Public Use. The improvements demanded by public health, safety, convenience , PAGE I Rev 3/09 ORD# and necessity consist of those improvements shown on the Right of Way Plans dated September 5, 2008, by KPG and on file with the City of Federal Way, to wit: the construction on each side ofSR 99 to achieve two general purpose vehicle lanes, a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane, a center left hand turn lane, a center median, curb, gutter, planter strip, sidewalk, street lights and a utility strip for relocated utility poles and/or underground utilities, together with all appurtenances and related work necessary to make a complete improvement in accordance with Figure III - 3( a), Cross Section A ofthe City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan and as amended by Council authorization on May 1, 2007, and other applicable City standards. Said improvements will be a part of right-of-way owned by the City of F ederal Way and open for use by the general public, and therefore the use of property, encumbrances, and/or easements condemned herein for the construction of said improvements constitutes a public use. Section 4. Property Acquisition Authorized. The City Manager is authorized and directed to negotiate and prepare such agreements as are customary and necessary for the acquisition of the real property interests described in Exhibit "A". The City Manager is further authorized to settle any condemnation litigation or enter administrative settlements (a settlement in lieu of initiating condemnation litigation) for the acquisition of the real property interests described in Exhibit "A". Such settlements shall be made only upon the recommendation oflegal counsel, for amounts deemed to be a reasonable estimation of fair market value. Section 5. Condemned Property. The City Council of the City of Federal Way, after reviewing the planned improvements, hereby declares that the property, encumbrances, and/or easements located within the City of Federal Way, legally described and depicted in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference ("Property"), shall be and hereby are 0RD# , PAGE 2 Rev 3/09 condemned, appropriated, taken and/or damaged for the public use and purpose in installing right-of-way improvements described in Section 2 above. The condemnation, appropriation, taking and/or damaging ofthe Property includes the right to make aU necessary slopes for cuts and fills upon adjacent lands in the reasonable original grading and maintenance of the right-of- way facilities, as well as temporary easements to enable construction of said improvements. Further, the condemnation, appropriation, taking and/or damaging of the Property shall be subject to paying just compensation to the owners thereof in the manner provided by law. Section 6. Condemnation Legal Action. City staff is directed to exhaust reasonable negotiation efforts to purchase such property. In the event that these negotiations are unsuccessful, the City Attorney or other attorney selected by the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to file all necessary actions and proceedings provided by law to condemn, take, damage, and appropriate the Property in order to carry out the provisions of this ordinance, and is further authorized in conducting said condemnation proceedings and for the purpose of minimizing damages, to stipulate as to the use of the Property and as to the reservation of any right of use to the Property owner(s), provided that such reservation does not interfere with the use of the Property by the City as provided in this ordinance. The City Attorney is further authorized to adjust the location and/or width of any ofthe Property and/or easements condemned or taken therein, or take other such actions, in order to minimize damages, provided that said adjustments do not interfere with the use of the Property by the City as provided in this ordinance. Section 7. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion of this ordinance or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall not affect the validity of ORD # , PAGE 3 Rev 3/09 the remainder of the ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 8. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 8. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval, and publication, as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this day of ,200_. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MA YOR, JACK DOVEY ATTEST: CITY CLERK, CAROL MCNEILLY, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY, PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO.: , PAGE 4 Rev 3/09 ORD# .... N .... cD o el < < ~ !!! :I: X W ii) :5 N .... M CI) .8 a: ~ /J) 1'0 o ~ w CI) < :I: 0- CI) W Z < ...J > o :I: en en 0:: CI) Gl E cu Z ... Gl s:: ~ o ti; .a E j Z Qi <.l ... 1'0 0- ... Gl .a E j Z N Cl 0 s:: :i <.l CU ~ Cl ~ .n; ::i!: '0 Gl to:: 1:: Gl U III III ~ '0 '0 < Gl :!: CI) Q) !!' ii5 ~ o .... <') CI) <0 N <0 Gl E cu Z III III Gl s:: 'ijj j ED Q; 5': ::J :E /J) -> -'" u :J CO o u !!' 1'0 3 1:1 '" I I~ oC:l :J Q) e .D el ~ ..J 3 Q) Z <0 N N o a <0 <') Lt) co .... o N N o a <0 <') Lt) co .... U ..J ..J ~ Cii lL Lt) N o a <0 <') Lt) co .... en Q)~ ... .... 1'0.... 0- Lt) o CI) >. 3 I u ;;:: '0 '" 0- o Lt) co o <') Q) m 3 " m I oC:l Q; .D E :J ..J 3 Ql Z v o <') o en ~ ;n o UJ >. 3 I u ;;:: '0 '" 0- o N co o <') Q) OJ c: '" .s= u x W Q) e- '" u Q) e- '" u Q) 0:: aLt) <0<') ~~ 0 co, v ....0 N '<0 0 LO ("') 6 N Lt) <0 N co <') 01'- Lt) o - co ~g "- Lt)N coO I'- I'- o <D co o 0 Lt) o en en e e ;:0 LO o 0 CI) CI) ~ ~ I I u u ~ ~ "0 '0 ~ ~c;:; c: 00", o Lt) U co <0 '" g g 2: e Q; Ql 0) 2 ~ .~ c....... :!2 Q) 0 '5 u-;;; CO fii U ~ -0 ~ rn roO 0: elU :g~'E " c: '" o Q) U ~ .~ co 0::0> c Q) E Ql OJ '" c: '" ~ >. to Q) Q. o It c: Q) " o el CI) CI) CI) ~ 33 I II u U u ;,;:: >;::;,;:: '0 '0'0 '" '" '" 0- 0- 0- o N V V 00 <0 <0 Lt) o 00 <') <') <') Q; c Q) U - '" '" Q) g rn "(j) -0 '" 0 Q) Q) '" e ~.g: 0- ..J oC:l >. Q) ~ '" oS ~ S ~ '" m '" (/) Q; ~c: -g ~ ~ lL > N -, to Q) .D o 0:: o U c: ro N Q; > -, to Q) .D o 0:: 1:1 '" '" OJ Ql " U 0 Q) c::i !~ Qj ~ uUJ ....... C c..J ~ ~ ~I~ fii Q; ~~ ~2~ ~-g 0","0 ='" roV;5'2U~ cW.~mwc Q)"Et:~O::~ O~~~5~ N o en ..;. o 00 NN 0;0; ~...;. 00 .... N en o .... N en ..;. o NN 0) en 00 N en o en<C Den o o ~~ .... VO N.... ....0 enD ...;.r-:.. 0.... .... co NLt) en Lt) ON <') v UJ UJ ~ 3 I I U ;;:: o ~c;:;o c: c: N '" '" ouu v '" '" g>> u ;;:: o '" 0- N v o <') c: o Q) "u; OJ '" ~E :> ~ Ql '" t,j f=. ..J N Qi 0 Ql I ii5 <( (j) g~ - oil m en 2 iil Ii: ~ t: ~ coQ)'2:.!!1 Q) '" ID c6 (J) ~ -g a5.8~ .....J ..0 fI)~ :g <i: ~ E g, -5 n: .~ W IO-O I'- o en ..;. o .... N en o <0 I'- N 0Lt).... ....00 en en en ~~...;. 000 NN N envv 000 <0 .... I'-eno ........N U);:O LO 00 0 oC:l (J)Q)0">a>(J)0>0> eegeeee NI'- It)l();::~;:OU)LO oO'r"l.{)ooo ;n en en en e e e ~ '" Q; > ?' Q; -~ (/) 1 "0 '" Z (/) (/) (/) ~ ~3 ~ ~ I IIii5 u OL>~ ~ :E~CO o 000 ~ ~~<') co enen(/) N OT"""("") en oenLt) 0> or- 0 ....q N (""')("")...... Ql m U >. '" o to '" ii5 to co E (/) '" 9 ,,<C fJ) "i:: Q) -c: g .N 0>::: ~Q)> Q) e ~ ,QI'OI'O <CU..J Q; N o I u it E ~ U ..J ..J '" OJ c: TI o I c: Q) ::J I'- <0 o a v v I'- <0 <') <> c: oil vic2 -C~ ~ gig W tern Q) ::J Q) ~~o:: 3c(/) QlI'OO/l ZI..J .... .... o 0) ..;. o N v o N<')O <OlD v 000 eneno .,J..Jo 000 ........ <') N NO CO CO Lt) DON N N Lt) CO .... NN<,) .... N en ~ en en en eee ;n o LOU1u) 000 U ..J ..J "i Q) I~ o Qi > Q) o Exhibit A (/) (/) (/) ~ ~13 I II u u u ;,;:: ;,;::;,;:: (3 '0'0 1'0 1'0 1'0 0. 0.0.<:, ('t') 1.0 ("") CO N 0("") 0 ...,. <Q- C0 CO g gg> '" o o ~ (0 oil to o Q. UJ o "5 <C Gl rn c: o 'ih oil 1'0 0. o c: 'ih <0'" I'- u c: Q; .2 E c: ~ :;).2 I Ql U j m U uj<C jl.ial - to E g:1~ E ~ 0 '" .s=~.s= f-o.o (/)c:~ ~ '" .8;-0 (/) '" Ql Q) N Q) > 1'0 CO E~(/) '" ;;; o '" o ;;; :::; ., u c: .. c: :e o c: o ~ c: E ., u c: o U C .2 ;; c: E ., u c: o U ~ o a: 2: c: Q) (/) ::J ro U v Lt) N en ..;. o .... N en o N <') N en ..;. o .... N 0) o <001'- <')VLt) OON en en en ~~..J- 000 N N N envv 000 <0 <') Lt) <') ~ .. .r. 0.. '" '" a: (f) en f- U W (3 a: 0.. en f- w w a: f- "l ,;.: I'- CO 0 <')<')v en ~ ;n o en en en eee ;:0;:0;-0 000 EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 785360-0215 RIGHT OF WA Y THA T PORTION OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "A", DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING A T THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL "A': ALSO BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST MARGIN OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) AND THE NORTH MARGIN OF SOUTH 310TH STREET; THENCE NORTHERL Y ALONG SAID EAST MARGIN ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WHOSE CENTER BEARS SOUTH 88017' 02" EAST, 5680.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 100.01 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL "A':' THENCE SOUTH 880 25' 54" EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL "A~ 12.00 FEET TO A LINE THA TIS 12.00 FEET EAST OF AND PARALLEL WITH SAID EAST MARGIN; THENCE SOUTHERL Y ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT WHOSE CENTER BEARS SOUTH 87" 16' 22" EAST, 5668.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 75.93 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT WHOSE CENTER BEARS SOUTH 880 02' 29" EAST, 18.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 30.31 FEET,' THENCE SOUTH 01034' 06" WEST, 6.06 FEET TO THE NORTH MARGIN OF SOUTH 310TH STREET; THENCE NORTH 880 25' 54" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH MARGIN, 32.02 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 1,390 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A" (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645351, DATED FEB. 20, 2007) LOT 43, SOLANO HEIGHTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 30 OF PLA TS. PAGE 8, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WA Y PUBLIC WORKS. 7853600215 row- NO.2 Page 1 of 1 :K:PG T:\C01V\,\. SEATTLE , I I I N.T.S. l j I I ~l ii]i 4J ~r J ~I 1-- <::JI' G, o fW'\ "I Ii) I II Q:j j j J ! Sept. 15. 2008 KPG- *,,;.~. ~~ ~~~... ~ ....--, \!r'" ~ o ~ (J -<;( Q ,sOJ NW 1/4 SEC. 9. T. 2i iV., R. .., [., 'Ir'.M. .-..,., C) (l) 3:;) 21 ~J ~r t.....) ~I I ~- ...... V) ,-. li' )...: ~ "":~ ......... 12.00' ?fJOF'~'1?TY Lf."!.E. ~ . _ ROW AF/fA = 1,J90 s'F3: ROW------'- S. .J1OTH .s T. S 8B"25'54~ E --..!!!?:tl erN itRUNE No.2 .oAf?CrL NO. 785JBO-0220 @ PARCEl. NO. JS:5350~0216 Q~ ""l.O Q: --.,--.,~ I _J ACAD No. 785360-0275 tow EXHlB! T PARCEL NO. 785360-~0215 RIGHT OF WA Y -4- PARCEL: 785360-0215 EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 785360-0215 UTILITY EASEMENT THE EAST 10.00 FEET OF THE WEST 22.00 FEET OF THE NORTH 10.00 FEET OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "An. CONTAINING 100 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A" (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645351, DA TED FEB. 20, 2007) LOT 43, SOLANO HEIGHTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 30 OF PLATS, PAGE 8, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WA Y PUBLIC WORKS. 7853600215 u esmt - NO.2 Page 1 of 1 :lCPG T/\COM.\' SE:\TTLE N.T-S. KPG I J I 3/ ~ ~I (j .~I 8 o IV) 1;>1- ft Q: Oct. J, 2008 ,,"bI~. ~l!H~ Ard\5letlturlt Cl.u I>>po.,q Or.... !lulIu ---.". 0) 0) ~ crj >-= S: .J: D G: o ""( 0_ 50' ROW I NW 1/4 SEC. 9, T. 21 N., R. 4 E., W.M. f , I I 1 / t--- / R=5668.00' 5/ L=10.00' ~I ~I Bf I I J I I 12' / -I' ROW TAKE l I I I I I I I I No.2 PARCEL NO. 785360-0220 UTILITY EASEMENT - 100 S.F.:!: 10' (1) PARCEL NO. 785..360-0215 ACAD No. 785360-0215 85m! EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 785360-0215 UTILITY EASEMENT -6- PARCEL: 785360-0215 EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 785360-0220 RIGHT OF WAY THE WEST 12.00 FEET OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "A". CONTAINING 1,201 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A" (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645352, DA TED FEB. 27, 2007) LOT 44, SOLANO HEIGHTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 30 OF PLATS, PAGE 8, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC WORKS. 7853600220 row - NO.3 Page 1 of 1 K:PG TACOMA. SEATTLE ~ I H. T.S. . I o o ~I' n Q: ,/ (j 6/ Q: Sept. 15. 2008 K.FCi- ~~. ~.p. ~KWn cnu_...... llrk1l l>otlp '--" 0) 0) B5 ~ (Jj )..: s ::c () li:: (3 "'<( Q 50' ROW N'II 1/4 SEC. 9. T. 21 N.. R. 4 E.. \'I.M. f I ~I ~I BJ PARCEL NO. 785360-0226 _P_ROPERTY U':!E.. ---- ROW AREA "" 1.201 S.F.::/: 12.00' I 1 No. .3 12' o PARCEL NO. 785360-0220 [>f!OPERTY LlN..E_ PARCEL NO. 785360-0215 ACAD No. 785360-0220 row EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 785360- 0220 RIGHT or WA Y -7- PARCELS: 785360-0220, 785360-0226 EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 785360-0226 RIGHT OF WA Y THE WEST 12.00 FEET OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "Au. CONTAINING 961 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A" (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645352, DA TED FEB. 27, 2007) LOT 45, SOLANO HEIGHTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLA T THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 30 OF PLA TS, PAGE 8, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON: EXCEPT THE NORTH 20 FEET THEREFROM. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WA Y PUBLIC WORKS. 7853600226 row - NO.4 Page 1 of 1 :K:.PG T:\Co,\t\. SE~\ITLE N. rs KRX f I I .1. a; (j ~ ~I J ~ 1;;; { ~ 0:: I Sept. 15, 2008 Archi\oolur. ~..~ A"hn~l:o.re Ch1l ~ u"""" DuIp 0;- 0) ~ '-.:.- Vi .>-: ~ ::r: () G: G '<:( Q 50' ROW NW 1/4 SEe. 9, T. 21 N., R. 4, E, W.M. I I I ~L-- ~1 r.:: !:! ~I PARCEL NO. 785360-0230 PR9p..ERTY LlNf:. _ _ PARCEL NO. 785360-0225 PROPEJ?!Y LiNE ~-- ROW AREA _ = 961 S.f.::i: <0 . o <0 iJ~ ~ ~~~ 0:: lJ 0:: 12.01' I , I No.4 o PARCEL NO. 785360-0226 PROPERTY UNE ------ PARCEL NO. 785360-0220 ACAD No. 785360-0226 row EXHIBJ T PARCEL NO. 785360-0226 RIGHT OF WA Y -8- PARCELS: 785360-0220, 785360-0226 EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 785360-0225 RIGHT OF WA Y THE WEST 12.00 FEET OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "An. CONTAINING 240 SQUARE FEET. MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A" (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645353, DA TED FEB. 21, 2007) THE NORTH 20 FEET OF LOT 45, SOLANO HEIGHTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLA T THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 30 OF PLATS, PAGE 8, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WA Y PUBLIC WORKS. 7853600225 row - No. 5 Page 1 of 1 :K:PG TACO'v\i\' SEATTLE I I I ! I ( I f I (Jj >-' :s:: ---... m m n:: (,1 '-- N.T.S. I !'<JI ~1 t!1 #~I ~I o ~1 -,..~ -'- () G: G -q: Q f j ~I RI l()i u eel j , r-----~~~ ~ ! I f $(1pt 15. 2008 K.PlG ~ ~ .&nblkDl=-- et.J1 LPu....... 11rl>..,_ I I I ! , I NW 1/4 SEe 9, T. 21 N.. R. 4 E., If.M. I j I I I ~I ~I s.; ~I ~ LJ I i I PARCEL NO, 785300-0230 , I / --{ / ! I I No.5 o PA.'?CH NO. 785.360-,0225 _ _ _~PFJqf>fR1Y UNE PARCF:I. NO. 785.360-0226 .'leAD No.. 785JUO-022.:; row EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 785360-0225 RIGHT OF WAY -6- PARCELS: 785360-(0225, 0230 & 0235) EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 785360-0230 RIGHT OF WA Y THE WEST 12.00 FEET OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "An. CONTAINING 1,203 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A" (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645353, DA TED FER 21, 2007) LOT 46, SOLANO HEIGHTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 30 OF PLA TS, PAGE 8, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WA Y PUBLIC WORKS. 7853600230 row - No. 6 Page 1 of 1 K.PG- TACOlv\!\' SFAfTLE ! i N.JS I !!.,!' ;5: _J Jl; t;;'1 CJ' u ~f Q::: / S/ <;:; ~ or) I , ij I Sept_ 15, 2008 K:Pl:i- .u...,"'....... ---.... a.1I~ l&_.~ I J 1 J I i f ! .-" Cl) 0) 1,2.03, ct ~ Vj ~: :s:: 'l-- "-. C) ~ U '<;( Q NW 1/4 SEC. 9. I. 21 N.. It 4 E.. 'to.1. PARCEL NO. 785360-0235 PfWPtRTY U'\'E ~- " .. -.----- .. - -- ROW ARE Il = 1,20J S.F..r ~) PARCEL NO. 7853150-0230 --12' _ .PROPERty f:.1f'!.E PARCH NO. 78f5..J60-0225 ACAD No_ 785J60-02.30 roW EXHIBi T PARCEL NO, 785360-0230 f?fGHT OF WA Y -7- PARCELS: 785360-(0225,0230 & 0235) EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 785360-0235 RIGHT OF WA Y THE WEST 12.00 FEET OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "A". CONTAINING 1,204 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A" (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645353, DA TED FEB. 21, 2007) LOT 47, SOLANO HEIGHTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLA T THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 30 OF PLATS, PAGE 8, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WA Y PUBLIC WORKS. 7853600235 row - No. 7 Page 1 of 1 :lCPG T\COJV\,c\- SL\TTLE J I I j I I l I f j I N,TS ~1." ~ ,~ rJ ~ () ll: I bl <::) cj ii ~ Q:'f j Si'?pt. 15, 2008 KPG- ~.... """"'""po....-. Ql!G ............ ..._ lloOlp l NW 1/4 SEC, 9, T. 21 N., R. -4 E., W:M. ~" 0) Ol Q~ V) '- f'At?CfL NO. 78.'5380-0240 Vi >: ~ :r: (.) .~ ~- G ;'(- o PARCEl. NO. 785J60-02J5 I P AI?Car-..O. 785JaD-02JO No.7 ACAD No. 785360-0235 row [XHIBI T PA.RCEL NO. 785360-0235 ,RiGHT OF WA Y -8- PARCELS: 785360-(0225, 0230 & 0235) EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 785360-0225 UTILITY EASEMENT THE EAST 10.00 FEET OF THE WEST 22.00 FEET OF THE NORTH 10.00 FEET OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "An. CONTAINING 100 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A" (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645353, DA TED FEB. 21, 2007) THE NORTH 20 FEET OF LOT 45, SOLANO HEIGHTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLA T THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 30 OF PLA TS, PAGE 8, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC WORKS. 7853600225 u esmt - No. 5 Page 10f1 :lCPG T:\COM:\' SFJ\TTLE NW 1/4 SJ;C 9, t. 21 N.. R. .. f.. 1'\1.41. !?i. ~ ~ <: ~ ~ &1 I I >tl ~l ~I Cl PARCEl.. NO. 7tJ5.360-02JO J o cj w I -- 0)' 0) fL -- ~- - ,.~ "'f PRO"""'! !'fIE I R=5668 00' UTlVTy fASEMfNI . 100 e r::t R=5658.00 S:> ~_ / '~'002' ~ 100:' ,,'..2' ROW-'---~I , ROW tAKE ------J---i9~__ J I L..~.---L_._ f I I I f / I I N 1.8. 0) PARCEL NO.. 785.360-0225 PfWP(R !Y LlNf ._ _ _ Q: v) '--' Vi )..: ~ :t (.) 4: (J '<C Q PARCEL NO. 785J60-0226 Ocl. J. 2008 No.5 ACAD Ne. .785360-0225 esmt KPG ....It.f(<t.,.,. lA-.,....,. .1f~.llChi"" tlvn ~"","I~. llikh hit_ [XHIBI r PARCEL NO. 785.360-0225 UTILITY EASEMENT -5- PARCEL: 785360-0225 EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 785360-0240 RIGHT OF WA Y THA T PORTION OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "A ", DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL "A", ALSO BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST MARGIN OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) AND THE SOUTH MARGIN OF SOUTH 308TH STREET; THENCE SOUTH 880 33' 27" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH MARGIN, 26.70 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 13037' 20" WEST, 6.59 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 690 25' 11" WEST, 4.11 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERL Y ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT WHOSE TANGENT CENTER BEARS SOUTH 20034' 49" EAST, 27.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 10.17 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 47" 50' 39" WEST, 2.21 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 16014' 39" WEST, 6.49 FEET TO A LINE THAT IS 12.00 FEET EAST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE EAST MARGIN OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99); THENCE SOUTHERL Y ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT WHOSE NON- TANGENT CENTER BEARS SOUTH 820 25' 09" EAST, 5668.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 79.43 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL "A "; THENCE NORTH 880 25' 54" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 12.05 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL "A", ALSO BEING ON THE EAST MARGIN OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99); THENCE NORTHERL Y ALONG SAID EAST MARGIN ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WHOSE CENTER BEARS SOUTH 83013' 59" EAST, 5680.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 100.78 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 1,357 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL itA" (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645354, DA TED FEB. 16, 2007) THE WEST 100 FEET OF TRACT 25 AND ALL OF TRACT 48, SOLANO HEIGHTS ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE PLA T THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 30 OF PLA TS, PAGE 8, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WA Y PUBLIC WORKS. 7853600240 row - No. 8 Page 1 of 1 :K:PG Ti\COMi\' SEATTLE NW 1/4 SEe. 9. T. 21 N.. R. 4 E.. w.",. S 8$'33'3.1" E.~ ROW CE:NTERUNE I S. 30BTH ST. I ~I ~ ~1 u 7 I I Q;' 0} 8i '--.::. ~ Uj >.... 3t =t o ~ U l} . ~ @ PARCEL NO. 7B5360-0240 &, r;:; "'1 "I ,'Y a f ~( ) /11.1.5. ----EfJaPE~t't LINE: (j' ~I ~. ",.1 ~~ WI PARCU NO. 785J60-0235 I I Sept. 15. 2008 No.8 ACAD /110. 7B!:D6G-024<J row KPG EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 785360-0240 RiGHT OF WA Y -.... ~_.- Clo!J ........... -'"- -4- PARCEL: 785360-0240 EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 785360-0240 UTILITY EASEMENT THE EAST 10.00 FEET OF THE WEST 22.00 FEET OF THE SOUTH 10.00 FEET OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "A". CONTAINING 100 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A" (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645354, DATED FEB. 16,2007) THE WEST 100 FEET OF TRACT 25 AND ALL OF TRACT 48, SOLANO HEIGHTS ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 30 OF PLATS, PAGE 8, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC WORKS. 7853600240 u esmt - No. 8 Page 1 of 1 :lCPG Ti\COM.\' S[,\TTLE J I , f J! g~~_~ SO' I I r:5 ~I f 1:<1 ROW .------.---j . 12' J WI . 1--ROWrA/(~---!()' -I I II +- UlI;"iJAm"' / : ! ~~~~~~f'j I Vi ;0.04' -- fflOPW UI>li:' ~>>- I ~ J, ~ I ~ I fZ: (j I "'( j Q I , J ) I ~I .,,1 rEI i...l.JJ ~-I ;;>, lJ o ~I Q. 'l:: I I I J ! Oct. J. 2008 E:I'-G- ..._ton ~- - -.me thha Dfttab 1 I J J I r I / , ! I NW' f/4 SEC. 9, T. 21 N.. R 4 f:.. WM. ! r j i , / I J ) ,../ &/ ~1 ~I til 81 I J I l I ) (P) j I I I ! I I PARCEL NO. 785360-0240 N.T.S. P ARea. NO. 785360-0235 No.8 ACAO No. 785360-0240 e:ol'mt EXHIBIT _ PARCH NO. 785360--0240 UTILITY EASEMENT -5- PARCEL: 785360-0240 EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 092104-9120 RIGHT OF WA Y THA T PORTION OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "A", DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING A T THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL "A", ALSO BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST MARGIN OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) AND THE NORTH MARGIN OF SOUTH 308TH STREET; THENCE NORTHERL Y ALONG SAID EAST MARGIN ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WHOSE CENTER BEARS SOUTH 810 36' 26" EAST, 5680.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 149.65 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL "A':' THENCE SOUTH 880 33' 27" EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL "A': 12.13 FEET TO A LINE THAT IS 12.00 FEET EAST OF AND PARALLEL WITH SAID EAST MARGIN; THENCE SOUTHERL Y ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT WHOSE CENTER BEARS SOUTH 800 04' 47" EAST, 5668.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 114.53 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERL Y ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT WHOSE CENTER BEARS SOUTH 81" 14' 14" EAST, 17.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 28.88 FEET TO A LINE THAT IS 15.70 FEET NORTH OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH MARGIN OF SOUTH 308TH STREET,' THENCE SOUTH 880 33' 27" EAST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, 20.97 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 010 26' 33" WEST, 15.70 FEET TO SAID NORTH MARGIN; THENCE NORTH 880 33' 27" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH MARGIN, 54.29 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 2,526 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A II (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645355, DA TED FEB. 28, 2007) THA T PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WM., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT SOUTH 890 50' 17" EAST 90.94 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 89050' 17" EAST ALONG THE SOUTHERL Y LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION 326.1 FEET,' THENCE NORTH 000 03' 43" WEST 178.30 FEET; THENCE NORTH 890 50' 17" WEST TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERL Y MARGIN OF STA TE HIGHWA Y NO. 99; THENCE SOUTHERL Y ALONG SAID EASTERL Y MARGIN TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THE SOUTHERL Y 30 FEET FOR ROAD. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC WORKS.O 0921049120 row- NO.9 Page 1 of 1 :K.PG T/\CO,',1/,. SEATTLE . I C> I;) R.'r' ~ te. I I / I J ; / I I " I I I ! f:i ,- Vi x ~ ...... "- () f;: o [{ ~ /1OW WIlt",,,,, Sept. 8. 2008 K:I?G ~tu.n. __ lr~. -- Utb>tlb.~ NIII i/4 SEC. 9, T. 11 N., R. 4 E., w'M. ~I 4:1 C>' ~I ~J ~) 112.13, PARCEl. '"'0. 092;04-9121 . _ PfWPERTY LINE .............-.._""---"'-_. Q;' 0) o PARCEL NO, 002104-9120 j-----___5o. wi R(3W--- s' i};J /:!! ~I tf , I -~. ROW AREA = 2.526 S.F.:t R=17.00' L=28.88' ~'O'97' ~k POB.~~_ 54.29. EXISTING RO)Y-- s. 308TH sr. S -!8'3J'2~ NO.9 ,..t T. S. . 3::: go i:t: ACAD No. O!l2t04-fJ120 row EXh'IBI T PARCEL NO. 092104-9120 RIGHT OF WA Y .4- PARCEL: 092104-9]20 EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 092104-9120 UTILITY EASEMENT THE NORTH 17.00 FEET OF THE SOUTH 32.70 FEET OF THE EAST 16.00 FEET OF THE WEST 50.00 FEET OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "A". CONTAINING 274 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A" (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645355, DA TED FEB. 28, 2007) THA T PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHW~ST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WM., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT SOUTH 890 50' 17" EAST 90.94 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 890 50' 17" EAST ALONG THE SOUTHERL Y LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION 326.1 FEET; THENCE NORTH 000 03' 43" WEST 178.30 FEET; THENCE NORTH 890 50' 17" WEST TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERL Y MARGIN OF STATE HIGHWA Y NO. 99; THENCE SOUTHERL Y ALONG SAID EASTERL Y MARGIN TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THE SOUTHERL Y 30 FEET FOR ROAD. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC WORKS. 0921049120 u esmt- No.9 Page 1 of1 :l'CPG T,\COM.\. SFATTI.E I !! ~/--____- SO' ../ I ~I 7 I (-- ~' I g ~~~ $f I Row TAkE ~ It 0: tr oj /. I I ~ I u) I . t I \ R=5646.00' i / "~'~13' / J j I L ~ ~ -----rXlSTtNG ROW - - ~ - ~ NW 1/4 SE:c. 9. 1: :U N.. R. .. E:.. w.A,f. I o PARCEL NO. 092104-9120 N. T. S. unUT'! EASfMfHl = 274 S.F.:t R=56JO.OO' . (=17.1'" " k ti S. 308m ST. , .11:; go ct: ROW Cf:N lERLlNE S 88'j3'27" E Oct. J, 2008 No. 11 ACAD NQ. 092104-9120 csmt ~ ~ .........,.t.. ~~ -~ EXH1BI T PARCEL NO. 092104-9120 UTlUTY EASEMENT KPQ. -6- PARCEL: 092104-9120 EXHIBIT RIGHT OF WA Y ALL THAT PORTION OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL oAR. CONTAINING 5 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A" (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 678996, DA TED AUG. 13, 2008) THE NORTH 0.4 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: THA T PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WM., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT SOUTH 89.50'17" EAST 90.94 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 89" 50' 17" EAST ALONG THE SOUTHERL Y LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION 326.1 FEET,. THENCE NORTH 00. 03' 43R WEST 178.70 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89" SO' 17" WEST TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERL Y MARGIN OF STA TE HIGHWA Y NO. 99; THENCE SOUTHERL Y ALONG SAID EASTERL Y MARGIN TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THE SOUTHERL Y 30 FEET FOR ROAD. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WA Y PUBLIC WORKS. .1 1- '~-~l) 9A row. doc - No. 9A Page 10f1 KPG TACOMA. SEATTLE NW 1/4 SEe. 9, T. :11 N., R. 4 [.. WM. I I I I 0; I 0) &i xl ~ Vi PARCEL NO. I 0 092104-9121 ).: il ~ ::t ~I CJ !(J i;:: 0 (j I l{ , & I ~ N.T.S. R=5680.00' 12.13' PROPERTY LINE L=O.40' .. I / / / / / I \: 1213 I PROPERTY LINE SO' I ROW AREA R=5668.00' ROW = 5 S.F.:t L=OAO' J I I I I PARCEL NO. 092104-9120 I I I Aug. 28, 2008 No.9A ACAD No. 9A row KPG- ArchlteelurtI IAnd.cape ArcblleCtlure Ci"U Ena1neerlhl Urb.n Doslan EXHIBIT RIGHT OF WA Y EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 092104-9121 RIGHT OF WA Y THE WEST 12.00 FEET OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "A". CONTAINING 1,474 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A" (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645356, DA TED FEB. 28, 2007) THA T PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, w.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTH 890 50'17" EAST 417.04 FEET; THENCE NORTH 000 03' 43" WEST 178.7 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 00003' 43" WEST 121.3 FEET; THENCE NORTH 890 50' 17" WEST 281.9 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERL Y BOUNDARY OF STATE ROAD NO.1; THENCE SOUTHERL Y ALONG EASTERL Y LINE 124 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT WHICH BEARS NORTH 890 50' 17" WEST FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 89050'17" EAST 301.5 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC WORKS. 0921049121 row- No. 10 Page 1 of 1 :lCPG T:\COM,\" SL\TILE I / NW 1/4 SEC. 9, T. 21 N., R. 4- E:..W.M. I I I I J I ) I 0;' 0) fJj '.:. ~I ~. fi! ~.J I Vi >.: ~ :r: ~ ~ U ~ I , / ~I ~ / I r--~ / ~I ~l ~I ~ 12.1,3' Sept. 15, 200B No. 10 PARCE:L NO. 092104-9102 PRPE'ERTY UNE @ PARCEL NO. 092104-9121 N.T.S. ?FJOPERTY UN..E:_ PARCR NO. 082104-9120 ACAD No. 092104-9121 row - -... -- a.tI ~ - Poolp EXHIBI T A-l PARCEL NO. 092104-9121 RlGHT OF VIA Y KRi- -4- PARCEL: 092104-(9121) (9102) EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 092104-9102 RIGHT OF WA Y THE WEST 12.00 FEET OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "A". CONTAINING 1,219 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A" (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645356, DA TED FEB. 28, 2007) THA T PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, w.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING A T THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTH 890 50' 17" EAST 417.04 FEET; THENCE NORTH 000 03' 43" WEST 300 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 000 03' 43" WEST 200 FEET; THENCE NORTH 890 50' 17" WEST 242.8 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERL Y ALONG THE EAST MARGIN OF STATE ROAD NO.1, 203 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89050' 17" EAST 281.9 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THE NORTH 100 FEET THEREOF. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC WORKS. 0921049102 row- No. 11 Page 1 of 1 ~PG TACOM!\' SFATTLE I f I ) fill II! sl 'l I Vi )..: ~ ~ CJ J:i: o ~ . J &' (i{i' ~ ~ I I Sept. 15. 2008 KJ:IG ......~ --- a.tl ~ VrlIoa I>ooIIta NW 1/4 SEC. 9. T. 21 N.. R. 4 E.. W.M. -:--,. 81 8i .'-..:. I I I I I PARCEL NO. 092104-9149 PRgP.ERTY LlNF @ PARCEL NO. 0921()4.-9102 N.rs t:l' _ p<'ROPERTY utl€ ~I lj ~ 0/ I PARCEL NO. 09.2104-9121 No. 11 ACAD No. 092104-9102 row EXHIBIT A-1 PARCEL NO. 092104-9102 RIGHT OF WA Y -6- PARCEL: 092104-(9121) (9102) EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 092104-9102 UTILITY EASEMENT THE EAST 10.00 FEET OF THE WEST 22.00 FEET OF THE NORTH 10.00 FEET OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "A". CONTAINING 102 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A" (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645356, DA TED FEB. 28, 2007) THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WM., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTH 890 50' 17" EAST 417.04 FEET; THENCE NORTH 000 03' 43" WEST 300 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 000 03' 43" WEST 200 FEET; THENCE NORTH 890 50' 17" WEST 242.8 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERL Y ALONG THE EAST MARGIN OF STA TE ROAD NO.1, 203 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 890 50' 17" EAST 281.9 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THE NORTH 100 FEET THEREOF. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC WORKS. 0921049102 u esmt-No. 11 Page 1 of 1 K.PG- T\COMi\' SFJ\TTLE I I I I / / f 4.,/ ~I .is! / 1<0' f..; ~i '-J I ~ 0, Q:I I . I g. ~ I J / 0; 0) Bi '-.:. Vi )..: ~ .:t- V i;: Cj ;J Oct. 3. 2008 ~ ............... -- """ ............. -- , t' .. i I I .. I ! I l t i ( .I I I I I I . i f I I t I f I l NI'i ~/4 SEC. 9. ;: 21 N., .C<. 4. E., \o\:M. t' / ~/ Q:/ III t:::.i V)/ ",. "4/ I . l . ! I , i I I / I , ! f I 1 R=566B.00' :"==10.18' I l i I I I I I } l l I No. 11 PARCEl NO. 092J04-g149 f' ! ( L~ PROPERTY UNE - I I b I 10.18' l I ; i j I UllUTY EAff!'l...ENT I = 102 .J.r._ I l , I I .. .. i ! @ ? ARCE"L NO. 092104-9102 N. T.S. ACAD No. 092104-9J02 esmt EXHiBfT B-1. PARCEL NO. 092104-9102 UTILITY EASEMENT -6- PARCEL: 092104-(9121), (9102) EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 092104-9124 RIGHT OF WA Y THE WEST 7.00 FEET OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "An. CONTAINING 1,754 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A" (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645358, DA TED MARCH 2, 2007) THE NORTH 245 FEET OF THE SOUTH 745 FEET OF THA T PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WM., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING EASTERL Y OF PRIMARY STA TE HIGHWA Y NUMBER 1, AS CONVEYED BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 1778229 AND WESTERL Y OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE SLOUGH AT THE WESTERL Y BOUNDARY OF STEEL LAKE; EXCEPT THE SOUTH 15 FEET OF THE EAST 300 FEET THEREOF; AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 30 FEET OF THE WEST 300 FEET OF THE EAST 600 FEET THEREOF. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC WORKS. 0921049124 row- No. 13 Page 1 of 1 :lCPG T:\COI\1/\' SEATTLE ! I I I / I i I I / I f I r I Sept. I . l is :ifl "I W I I 15. 2008 KR:;- -- ~p.~ ""'J~ \Jr.... llo"'" I / , i , -':--' 0) v) 8i '-..:. o ~ ::t c..> ,.... ~ Cj ({ / I I I I I I I , t I I {'-II ~, ~ f{}! ~f u 'Sf iE/ I I NW 1/4 SEe. 9. , , , , I I I 21 N.. R. 4- E.. W.M. PAF(~C[L i,\IQ. 25581 7- om Q I tJ" - - FROPffl.'! ~ - - N I /_______50. ROiY---- .'-41 ~. .... f;?/ 1 I I R=5680.00' I I R""S67J.OO' L=40.96' N L=39.45' 1:1-. ,. 7.1S. ~I fEi , -'I II VI' .s?! 4J/ No. 13 @ PARCEL NO. 092104-9124 _ ?ROPERTY lJi'l..E PA.9CEL NO. 092104-9149 1 * I N.T.S. ACAD No. 092104-9124 rol~ EXHIBI T A-1 PARCEL NO. 092104-9124 RIG,I.{T OF WA Y -4- PARCEL: 092 104-9] 24 EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 092104-9124 UTILITY EASEMENT THE EAST 15.00 FEET OF THE WEST 22.00 FEET OF THE SOUTH 10.00 FEET OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "AU CONTAINING 153 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A II (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645358, DATED MARCH 2,2007) THE NORTH 245 FEET OF THE SOUTH 745 FEET OF THA T PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WM., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING EASTERL Y OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER 1, AS CONVEYED BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 1778229 AND WESTERL Y OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE SLOUGH AT THE WESTERL Y BOUNDARY OF STEEL LAKE; EXCEPT THE SOUTH 15 FEET OF THE EAST 300 FEET THEREOF; AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 30 FEET OF THE WEST 300 FEET OF THE EAST 600 FEET THEREOF. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC WORKS. 0921049124 u esmt- No. 13 Page 1 of 1 :K:PG T:\CC'M!\' SEATTLE ~/ ~ kif ~ u ~ & ~I ______ 50. R~ 0)' 0) ~ '-..: Vi >.: ~ .:t () ~ G (J Oct. 3. 2008 ~ -- .~~ AFIZM"~ CiwiJ .....lflti~ -- Ru567J.OO' L",10.22' l- I ~I f/ kif I / / / NW 1/4 SEe. 9. T. 21 N. R. 4 E.. WM. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / @ PARCEL NO. 092104- 9124 UnL/7Y EASn,t[NT "" 15.3 5.F.:f" Q 15.32' PARCEL NO. 092104-9149 No IJ ! N.7.5. . _ PROPERTY YN[ AeAD No. 092104-9124 esmt EXHIBIT 8.1 PARCEL NO. 092104-9124 UTILiTY EASEMENT -6- PARCEL: 092104-9124 EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 255817-0010 RIGHT OF WA Y THA T PORTION OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "A", LYING WEST OF A LINE THA TIS 57.00 FEET EAST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99). CONTAINING 643 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A" (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645359, DATED FEB. 21, 2007) LOT 1, FIRETREE ESTATES, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 86 OF PLA TS, PAGE 26, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC WORKS. 2558170010 row- No. 14 Page 1 of 1 :K:PG T:\COM/\' SEATTLE NW 1/4 SEe 9, T. 21 N, R. 4 E., W.M. S 88'26'2~!. E ROW ol.:rrn.;E 305 TH PC "'l1lC -1 €X/STlNG ROW --. ----.:.-...... .... R""5787.00' . L.=2.59' ~ I @ PARCEt NO. 255817-0010 N.T.S. -~ 0:: Q) ~ ~ Vi )..." -* .:t- () fi:: G / if ~ l/ f:J/ GJ _PFfOP€RTY LINE PARCEl. NO. 092104-9124 Rev. J ~ Jan. 7, 2009 No. 14 ACAD No. 255817~OO10 row rev -- -1>0_ CbII ~ ~~ EXHIBIT A-1 PARCEL NO. 255817-0010 RIGHT OF WA Y ~ -4- PARCEL: 2558]7-00]0 EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 255817-0010 UTILITY EASEMENT THAT PORTION OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "A", LYING NORTH OF A LINE THAT IS 35.50 FEET SOUTH OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF SOUTH 305TH PLACE AND LYING EAST OF A LINE THA TIS 57.00 FEET EAST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) AND WEST OF LINE THA T IS 72.00 FEET EAST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99). CONTAINING 159 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A" (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645359, DA TED FER 21, 2007) LOT 1, FIRE TREE ESTATES, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 86 OF PLA TS, PAGE 26, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC WORKS. 2558170010 u esmt - No. 14 Page 10f1 :lCPG T:\COMA'SFJ\TILE . '" ."" .::r '-) ;;1 .------ ________ 50' ROW 0)' O:l ~ '-.::. Vi ).: .~ ::t; $:! ~ Cj t{ Rev. 1 ~ Jan. 7, 2009 KPlG ..- --... ~ CMl ............ -~ NW 1/4 SEC. 9. i. 21 N., R. 4 r.. W.M. I S. 305 TH PL. ROW CENTERLINE S 88"26'23- E . ~ "'"0 <'\Ill: R..S787.00' V..2.59' 2.26' R=25.00' I L."~4'_ ,,-r-- "" ". R=5802.00' " '" L-1O.15' UTILITY EASEMENT "'" 159 S.F.% / @ PARCEl NO. 255817-0010 ~/ :' ~I Gr I / No. 14 ACAD No. 255817-0010 esmt EXHIBIT A-1 PARCEL NO. 255817-0010 UTILITY EASEMENT -5- PARCEL: 255817-0010 EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 092104-9107 RIGHT OF WA Y THA T PORTION OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "An, LYING WEST OF A LINE THA TIS 57.00 FEET EAST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99); EXCEPT THE SOUTH 25.00 FEET OF THE NORTH 227.00 FEET LYING EAST OF A LINE THAT IS 51.50 FEET EAST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) THEREFROM; CONTAINING 1,565 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A" (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645361, DATED MARCH 1, 2007) THA T PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WM., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING EAST OF STA TE ROAD NUMBER 1, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 9 AND THE EAST MARGIN OF SAID STATE ROAD NUMBER 1; THENCE EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 9 A DISTANCE OF 144.6 FEET; THENCE SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 205.6 FEET MORE OR LESS TO A POINT WHICH IS 125 FEET NORTH FROM THE SOUTHERL Y LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 89055' 43" EAST AND PARALLEL TO SAID SOUTHERL Y LINE A DISTANCE OF 183 FEET; THENCE SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 125 FEET TO SAID SOUTHERL Y LINE; THENCE NORTH 890 55' 43" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERL Y LINE A DISTANCE OF 381.3 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE EAST MARGIN OF STATE ROAD NUMBER 1; THENCE NORTHEASTERL Y ALONG THE EAST MARGIN OF STATE ROAD NUMBER 1 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THE NORTH 90.26 FEET THEREOF; AND ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION IN SOUTH 304TH STREET. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WA Y PUBLIC WORKS. 0921049107 row- No. 16 Page 1 of 1 :lCPG TACOMA. SEATTLE I I I I I I I I / I NW 1/4 see. 9. T. 21 N" R. ., f" '10'/. I I 8/' (:i "'l P; ~I ~ jg k! ~I i / f a;- D) ~ '-.: Vi ).: ~ :t: f::! ~ (j ;:: ~ If? Ij Rev_ 1 - Jan_ 19, 2009 K.PG- -- --.. -. CIII ..--. - -... / R=S781.50' L=25........ PARCEl. NO. 255817-0130 No. 16 PARCEL NO. 092104-9105 PROPfRTY LINE: b D ~ ~ 'b Cl " ~ PROPERTY LINE: -----r--- I nT.s. @ PARCEL NO. 092104-9107 ACAD No. 092104-9107 row rev EXHIBI T A-1 PARCEL NO. 092104-9107 RIGHT OF WAY -4- PARCEL: 092] 04-91 07 EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 092104-9107 RIGHT OF WA Y AND UTILITIES EASEMENT THE SOUTH 25.00 FEET OF THE NORTH 227.00 FEET OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "A': LYING WEST OF A LINE THA TIS 57.00 FEET EAST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) AND LYING EAST OF A LINE THA TIS 51.50 FEET EAST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99), CONTAINING 140 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A" (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645361, DA TED MARCH 1, 2007) THA T PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING EAST OF STA TE ROAD NUMBER 1, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING A T A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 9 AND THE EAST MARGIN OF SAID STATE ROAD NUMBER 1; THENCE EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 9 A DISTANCE OF 144.6 FEET,- THENCE SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 205.6 FEET MORE OR LESS TO A POINT WHICH IS 125 FEET NORTH FROM THE SOUTHERL Y LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 89055' 43" EAST AND PARALLEL TO SAID SOUTHERL Y LINE A DISTANCE OF 183 FEET,' THENCE SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 125 FEET TO SAID SOUTHERL Y LINE; THENCE NORTH 890 55' 43" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERL Y LINE A DISTANCE OF 381.3 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE EAST MARGIN OF STATE ROAD NUMBER 1; THENCE NORTHEASTERL Y ALONG THE EAST MARGIN OF STATE ROAD NUMBER 1 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THE NORTH 90.26 FEET THEREOF; AND ALSO EXCEPT THA T PORTION IN SOUTH 304TH STREET. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WA Y PUBLIC WORKS. 0921049107 r& u esmt- No. 16 Page 1 of 1 :IoCPG T/\COMr\' SEATTLE ~ t ei ~I o t-- 5 R~:;~~'{!' I '-0787.00. I ~ ,,- l-25..... 560.~__ I ~ I o if tlt c.; I rCl.C. . t! li) , ct I I~ 19, 2009 ~ -- ~- Q1II ~ - -... NW 1/4 SEe. 9. T. 21 N., R. 4 r.. W.M. I I I (I I l- I I I I I I I I I I I I -I L7' I I RoW TAKE / I ROW AND UT/LI71ES I I EASEMENT = 140 S.F::J:. @ PARCEL NO. 092104-9107 PARCEL NO. 092104-9106 PROPERTYLfNE I 0)' 0) 8j "-.:. &) X ~ ::t' () 9:: G {{ N.T.S. 8 Z "'I c c r....: '" "'I 5.59' L PROPERTY LINE PARCEL .NO. 255817-0130 --I-- I I I I No.'o ACAD No. 092104-9107 r de lJ ~smt EXHIBIT B-1 PARCEL NO. 092104-9107 RIGHT OF WA Y AND UTILITIES EASEMENT -6- PARCEL: 092104-9107 EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 092104-9107 UTILITY EASEMENT THE NORTH 15.00 FEET OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "A", LYING WEST OF A LINE THA TIS 67.00 FEET EAST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99 AND EAST OF A LINE THA TIS 57.00 FEET EAST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99). CONTAINING 152 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A II (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645361, DATED MARCH 1, 2007) THA T PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WM., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING EAST OF STA TE ROAD NUMBER 1, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING A T A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 9 AND THE EAST MARGIN OF SAID STATE ROAD NUMBER 1; THENCE EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 9 A DISTANCE OF 144.6 FEET; THENCE SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 205.6 FEET MORE OR LESS TO A POINT WHICH IS 125 FEET NORTH FROM THE SOUTHERL Y LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 890 55' 43" EAST AND PARALLEL TO SAID SOUTHERL Y LINE A DISTANCE OF 183 FEET; THENCE SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 125 FEET TO SAID SOUTHERL Y LINE; THENCE NORTH 890 55' 43" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERL Y LINE A DISTANCE OF 381.3 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE EAST MARGIN OF STATE ROAD NUMBER 1; THENCE NORTHEASTERL Y ALONG THE EAST MARGIN OF STATE ROAD NUMBER 1 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THE NORTH 90.26 FEET THEREOF; AND ALSO EXCEPT THA T PORTION IN SOUTH 304 TH STREET. SURVEYOR'S NOTE.. THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC WORKS. 0921049107 u esmt- No. 16 Page 10f1 :K:PG- TACOM!\' SEATTLE I I J I , i I I NW 1/4 SEC. 9. T. 27 N.. R. 4 E.. w'M. , I / I f . i gJ '~/' 'i) II Q;; I I I I ~I fll ~ € II) { S;f I;J,I PARCEL NO. 092104-9106 ldl .1/ ;2:/ ~I 0/ Q;:/ ------ I J I I ~ I R""S787.00' L=15.77' N.T.S. f J Pf!Of'ERTY LiNE R=5797.0fJ' It) L=t5.17' ! UTlUTY EASEMENT = 152 S.F.x Oct. J, 2008 I I 0;- f 0) I / Bi I ~ f / (;) I I >.: I ~ 1 I ::t I J () I I !2: I ;-c: \J ~ / I I I I I I f I I , I ! j i , j , . . I No. 16 @ PARCE:L NO. 092104-9107 I J . ACAD No. 092104-9107 estnt ............. ~...- CI?ll~1"'I L'Tl>",,~ EXHIBIT B~1 PARCEL NO. 092104-9107 UTILiTY EASEMENT KFG -6- PARCEL: 092]0-9]07 EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 092104~9106 RIGHT OF WAY THA T PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WM, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION WITH EAST LINE OF STATE ROAD NUMBER 1; THENCE EAST ALONG NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION, 144.6 FEET; THENCESOUTH9Q26FEE~ THENCE WEST PARALLEL WITH NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION, 157.5 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EAST LINE OF STATE ROAD NUMBER 1; THENCE NOR THEAS TERL Y ALONG EAST LINE OF STATE ROAD NUMBER 1, TO POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THA T PORTION IN SOUTH 304TH STREET. CONTAINING 9,217 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 fAG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC WORKS. 0921049106 row rev. doc - No. 17 KPG IN 'OM:\. SLAITLF NW 1/4 SEe. 9, T. 21 N., R. 4 E., W.M. ,a f::! II) " Cl:: I I I I L__________ PARCEL NO. 042104-9106 S. 304 TH ST N. TS ROw CENTERLINE S 88'50'28" E f~ ~ k! ~ (j ~ o Cl:: . ~ 00 "'0: PARCEL NO. 092104-9106 "- ROw AREA 9,217 SF.:t ~~ CD '" o CD PROPERTY LINE 0)' I 0) ~I ~ ~ ~ (rj ~ K )..: 81 ~ ::t I l.> t;: G 1 ;: I PARCEL NO. 092104-9107 ,lu ~ -J ~ .... 0: ~ o '0;: ,Q Rev. April 22. 2009 No. 17 ACAD No. 092104-9106 row rev ~ ATI:h1\ecture t.&.nd~pe ATChll~clurC" Clvn Enalnlec-rtn, lJrbon DUlin [XH/B/ T PARC[L NO. 092704-9106 RIGHT OF WA Y EXHIBIT A PARCEL NO. 042104-9057 RIGHT OF WA Y THA T PORTION OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "An, LYING WEST OF A LINE THA T IS 61.00 FEET EAST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH (SR 99). CONTAINING 4,725 SQUARE FEET. MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A" (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645364, SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT #2, DATED OCT. 13,2008) THA T PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING EAST OF THE EAST LINE OF STA TE ROAD NO.1 AND WEST OF A LINE PARALLEL TO AND 610 FEET WEST OF (MEASURED A T RIGHT ANGLES TO) THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 4; EXCEPT THE WEST 165 FEET (MEASURED ALONG THE SOUTH LINE) OF THE SOUTH 230 FEET (MEASURED ALONG THE LINE PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE OF STATE ROAD NO.1) THEREOF; I I 1 .! AND EXCEPT STEEL LAKE COUNTY ROAD OVER THE REMAINDER OF SAID TRACT; AND EXCEPT ANY PORTION LYING WITH A TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO HENRY C. YOUNG BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 8001310899. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WA Y PUBLIC WORKS. ~ I-I -0 Page 10f1 KPG TACOMA'SEATTI.E 0421049057 row.doc- No. 19 I I I I I I I I I I I I Oct. 1. 2008 KIG- Archltoot.ure Land.lcape Areh1tecture CIvll""aln._ Urb... Iloolp kJ ~ '--J ~ C} () 3:: [E/ o o d ~ 41 0)' 0) B5 '--- Cr) )..: ~ ::r:: Cj G: G ;'f 50' ROW SW 1/4 SEC. 4, T. 21 N., R. 4 E., W.M. PARCEL NO. 042104-9012 PROPERTY LINE 11' ROW AREA = 4,725 S.F.::I: @) PARCEL NO. 042104-9057 _ _ PROPERTY lIN~ _ PARCEL NO. 042104-9106 No. 19 N. T.S. ACAD No. 042104-9057 row ~XHIBIT A-1 PARC~L NO. 042104-9057 RIGHT OF WA Y EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 042104-9012 RIGHT OF WA Y THA T PORTION OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "A", DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL "A", ALSO BEING ON THE EAST MARGIN OF PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH (SR 99); THENCE SOUTH 880 34' 13" EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL "A'; 11.50FEETTOA LINE THA T IS 11.50 FEET EAST OF AND PARALLEL WITH SAID EAST MARGIN; THENCE SOUTH 000 00' 48" WEST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, 438.60 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERL Y ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WHOSE CENTER BEARS NORTH 89059' 12" WEST, 5791.50 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 220.29 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THA T PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 20050418002013, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE NORTH 880 42' 20" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 11.50 FEET TO THE EAST MARGIN OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99); THENCE NORTHERL Y ALONG SAID EAST MARGIN ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT WHOSE CENTER BEARS NORTH 87" 48' 20" WEST, 5780.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 220.03 FEET,' THENCE NORTH 000 DO' 48" EAST ALONG SAID EAST MARGIN, 438.88 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 7,577 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A" (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645365, DA TED MARCH 2, 2007) THA T PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, VY.M, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING EAST OF PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH; EXCEPT THE SOUTH HALF THEREOF LYING WEST OF THE EAST 610 FEET THEREOF; EXCEPT THE EAST 330 FEET OF THE NORTH 183 FEET THEREOF; EXCEPT THE SOUTH 30 FEET THEREOF FOR SOUTH 304TH STREET. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WA Y PUBLIC WORKS. !\Cc';\t\. :-,L\IILl 0421049012 row rev. doc - No. 20 Page 1 of 1 KPG EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 042104-9012 DRAINAGE EASEMENT THA T PORTION OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "A", DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL "A", ALSO BEING ON THE EAST MARGIN OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99); THENCE SOUTH 88" 34' 13" EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL "A", 11.50 FEET TO A LINE THA TIS 11.50 FEET EAST OF AND PARALLEL WITH SAID EAST MARGIN; THENCE SOUTH 00" 00' 48" WEST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, 20.01 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 88" 34' 13" EAST, 10.00 FEET TO A LINE THA TIS 21.50 FEET EAST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE EAST MARGIN OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99); THENCE SOUTH DO" 00' 48" WEST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, 20.01 FEET,' THENCE NORTH 88" 34' 13" WEST, 10.00 FEET TO A LINE THAT IS 11.50 FEET EAST OF AND PARALLEL WITH SAID EAST MARGIN; THENCE NORTH 00" 00' 48" EAST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, 20.01 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 200 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "AU (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645365, DA TED MARCH 2, 2007) THA T PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WM., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING EAST OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH; EXCEPT THE SOUTH HALF THEREOF LYING WEST OF THE EAST 610 FEET THEREOF; EXCEPT THE EAST 330 FEET OF THE NORTH 183 FEET THEREOF; EXCEPT THE SOUTH 30 FEET THEREOF FOR SOUTH 304TH STREET. SURVEYOR'S NOTE' THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WA Y PUBLIC WORKS. 0421049012 esmt rev.doc - No. 20 Page 1 of 1 KPG r \C l '''\ 1\ '~I All II PARCEL NO. 042J04-9038 N.T.S. PARCEL NO.. 042104-9257 Rev. J - June 10. 2009 KPQ. ArC"httK"Lu,.. Land~pe Architecture C~"II En,lneenn. Urben Dnl.n I --~ I I I I I I I I Iv) ).: Ii o IG:: U <( IQ <=> I ~ I 2' I I I I I ----.. Q) Q) Q:: tI) '--' P.O.B. 1n.5a' I 4l "" ~ . :::i il3Q: .'<1- ~ C> ~ P4l C>lu C> ~ ~ Q Q: SW 1/4 SEC. 4, T. 2' N., R. 4 E.. W.M. PARCEL NO. 042104-90.11 P"R9PER TY LINE <=> 10 ~ '<I- ROW AREA = 7.577 S.F.:i: 11.50' @ PARCEL NO.. 042104-90J2 50' Ro.W ~ 0, ~Ud C\j '" II ';;' ;": N", ~Ho; If\ .... :0& V, 50' ~I ~I BI No. 20 PRO':'f.R TY LINE PARCEL NO.. 0.4210.4-90.57 ACAD No. 0.42104-90.12 row EXHIBI T PARCEL NO. 042104-9012 RIGHT OF WA Y SW 1/4 SEC. 4, T. 21 N., R. 4 E., W.M. PARCEL NO. 042104-9011 ~ PROPERTY LINE N. T.S. P.0.8., ~ __ ~r - I 11:.00, "0 lLJ~ T. P. 0.8. "I ",. -J io~ -~I 8~ 0(.) ~I~ I 111.5' I DRAINAGE 50' EASEMENT ..-.., .~ = 200 S.F.:f 0) ROW ROW 0) I TAKE ~ I '--' vi 11.50', I @ PARCEL NO. >-= J I 042104-9012 :s :r: () ~I I LL G ~I I <::( Q ~ I f I I Rev. I - June 10, 2009 No. 20 ACAD No. 042104-9012 esm! ~ EXHIBIT ~blt.ot1U"e PARCEL NO. 042104-9012 LazuS..caP'6 ArchSl.ctwo Clnl !Da1n...... DRAINAGE EASEMENT t1rbllA Dot!p EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 367440-0167 RIGHT OF WA Y THAT PORTION OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "A", LYING WESTERL Y AND NORTHWESTERL Y OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING A T THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL "A" WITH A LINE THA TIS 4.50 FEET EAST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE EAST MARGIN OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99); THENCE NORTH 00. 00' 48" EAST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, 45.46 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERL Y ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WHOSE CENTER BEARS SOUTH 89. 59' 12" EAST, 23.50 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 19.58 FEET TO THE SOUTH MARGIN OF 18TH AVENUE SOUTH AND THE END OF THIS LINE DESCRIPTION. CONTAINING 261 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A" (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645366, DA TED FEB. 22, 2007) LOT 13, BLOCK 2, JEANNETTE SOUND VIEW TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLA T THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 44 OF PLA TS, PAGES 68 AND 69, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE EASTERL Y 327 FEET, AS MEASURED ALONG THE NORTH AND SOUTH LINES, THEREOF; AND EXCEPT THA T PORTION THEREOF DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS' BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT,' THENCE NORTH 01. 38' 47" WEST ALONG THE WESTERL Y LINE OF SAID LOT A DISTANCE OF 18.65 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89. 43' 45" EAST A DISTANCE OF 135.56 FEET,' THENCE SOUTH 15055' 57" EAST A DISTANCE OF 18.13 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT,' THENCE SOUTH 890 46' 04" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 140.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. (ALSO KNOWN AS LOT A, FEDERAL WAY BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT NUMBER 92-0014 RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 9403109003). SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WA Y PUBLIC WORKS. 3674400167 row- No. 22 Page 1 of 1 :K:PG T:\COM;\. SEATTLE ~.. ~I~ 1Xj(l::: ,-. l:! a~ Ou Os ~O Cl: KJ:G. ~lWtl- Uilhbc.,. Aretwlecl-ufl: o.u I!loolr"_ U....n~ N,J:S. ~ 01 01 0:: U) '-' vi ~ ~ ::r: <.> G:: D '<( Cl.. 50' ROW Sept 15. 2008 $W 1/4 SEe 4, r .21 N., R. 4 E, W.M. !I ~I.. >< l.u PARCEL NO. 367440-0167 PRf!P{RTY LINt ROW AREA m ? 154 S.F.::t '" " @ PARCEl NO, 042104-90/1 PRPPfRTY LlN[ PARCEL NO, 042104-9012 ~ o ~I ~! ill! >< WI I NO. 21 ACAD No 042104-9011 row [XHIBfT k.J PARCEL NO, 042104-9011 RIGHT OF WA Y -4- Parcel No.: 042]04-90]] EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 042104-9011 RIGHT OF WA Y THE WEST 8.50 FEET OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "A". CONTAINING 1,154 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL itA" (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645366, DATED FEB. 22, 2007) THE SOUTH 117 FEET OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING EAST OF THE STA TE ROAD KNOWN AS PACIFIC HIGHWA Y, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 117 FEET OF SAID SUBDIVISION WITH THE EAST MARGIN OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y; THENCE EAST ON SAID NORTH LINE 140 FEET; THENCE SOU THEA S TERL Y TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION WHICH IS 170 FEET EAST OF THE EAST MARGIN OF SAID HIGHWA Y; THENCE WEST ON SAID SOUTH LINE 170 FEET TO THE EAST MARGIN OF SAID HIGHWA Y; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID MARGIN TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; TOGETHER WITH THA T PORTION OF LOT 13, BLOCK 2, JEANNETTE SOUNDVIEW TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLA T THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 44 OF PLA TS, PAGE 68, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, MORE FULL Y DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING A T THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT; THENCE NORTH 01" 38' 47" WEST ALONG THE WESTERL Y LINE OF SAID LOT A DISTANCE OF 18.65 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89" 43' 45" EAST A DISTANCE OF 135.56 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 150 55' 57" EAST A DISTANCE OF 18.13 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE SOUTH 89" 46' 04" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 140.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; (ALSO KNOWN AS LOT B OF FEDERAL WA Y BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT 92-0014, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 9403109003). SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WAY PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WA Y PUBLIC WORKS. 0421049011 row- No. 21 Page 1 of 1 K.PG T:\COM/\' SFJ\TTLE N. T.S. lu \JJ1a; :a --.I .~ & 55 is 00 o~ :c:6 !l:: '- KPG ~'4nt teAIe..". ~fttw'. "'" """"-"'* ~...- $ 89'59',2" t ROW .cENTtRUN[ --... Q) Q) ~ "-' v) ): $ :t () G:: G -c( Q 50' ROW Sept. 15. 2008 SWI/of SEC 4, I. 21 N., R. 4 E., W.M. ---- ROW AREA "'" 261 S.F.:t: 'I 3: ~I ~! ~ I f.lo. 22 i ,/ I I / r .....;t. I ,jy. . t'-"'v ri\0 " \ v '6'0' ?-;9 /'~ / / / .; / PARCEL NO. ~e.y 357440-0160 ~~. '" L- ., PROPERT..YjJNC ~ ---- @ PARCEL NO. 367440-0167 ,P'!OPERTr U!,!E_ PARCU NO. 042104-9011 ACAD No. 367440-0167 row EXHIBIT A-I PA.RCEL NO. 367440-0167 RIGHT OF WA Y -4- Parcel No.: 367440-0617 EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 042104-9011 ACCESS EASEMENT THE SOUTH 50.00 FEET OF THE EAST 3.00 FEET OF THE WEST 11.50 FEET OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "A". CONTAINING 150 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A" (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645366, DATED FER 22, 2007) THE SOUTH 117 FEET OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WM., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING EAST OF THE STA TE ROAD KNOWN AS PACIFIC HIGHWA Y, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 117 FEET OF SAID SUBDIVISION WITH THE EAST MARGIN OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y; THENCE EAST ON SAID NORTH LINE 140 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERL Y TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION WHICH IS 170 FEET EAST OF THE EAST MARGIN OF SAID HIGHWA Y; THENCE WEST ON SAID SOUTH LINE 170 FEET TO THE EAST MARGIN OF SAID HIGHWA Y; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID MARGIN TO THE POINT OF BEGINNiNG; TOGETHER WITH THA T PORTION OF LOT 13, BLOCK 2, JEANNETTE SOUND VIEW TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 44 OF PLATS, PAGE 68, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, MORE FULL Y DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT; THENCE NORTH 010 38' 47" WEST ALONG THE WESTERL Y LINE OF SAID LOT A DISTANCE OF 18.65 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 890 43' 45" EAST A DISTANCE OF 135.56 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 15055' 57" EAST A DISTANCE OF 18.13 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE SOUTH 890 46' 04" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 140.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; (ALSO KNOWN AS LOT B OF FEDERAL WA Y BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT 92-0014, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 9403109003). SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WA Y PUBLIC WORKS. 0421049011 esmt - No. 21 Page 1 of 1 :lCPG T/\COlv\;\' SEATTLE 1- p...... wi~ ;_ ~:J ~~ o!'~ ~iJ'l cl" . >: <:10 ~Q; I I rw /7, 2009 K:EG- blli:-"tut:t~... lAHklil..... _~ehh.t..Ur. tl,.g til':.li~d~ lkWn Oe-t..~ 50. ROW '"'" OJ OJ ~ V) ......... tli )..: S u -- k G ~ Q EXHIBIT "B-1" I 5w 1/4 SEe 4. r. 2' N. R. 4 t.. .t:M ;:;1 c '" g, j:;: VI >;; 1.,1 I (~ v:.;; PARC[L NO. 042104- 901 t I I 8.5" ! I --t-----' . Y i ROW TAKE ~ i N ! tL ACCESS ji l~ [A$EMf:NT N ,. 150 S.f:t: ! 8l1~;8 ~l o ie\ ; ~J l'i'~ ! ~ ! N I l~ I .-LL--___..i ~. C)' q;1 01 ~I ~ .3' PRoPEl? T'f LIN[ PARCEL NO. 04 2J04- 9(,11 2 r N.T.$. No 11 /leAD No. 042104-9011 esmt PARCH f'.jO. 042i04~-9011 EXf~NBfT A CCE.s"'S~ E'AS[:~AE!\j r -6- Parcel No.: 042104-9011 EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 082104-9062 RIGHT OF WA Y THA T PORTION OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "A", DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING A T THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL ':4", ALSO BEING ON THE WEST MARGIN OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99; THENCE SOUTH 01012' 06" WEST ALONG SAID WEST MARGIN, 30.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT C, KING COUNTY SHORT PLA T NUMBER 677167, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7710130850; THENCE NORTH 880 57' 43" WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT C, 12.00 FEET TO A LINE THA TIS 12.00 FEET WEST OF AND PARALLEL WITH SAID WEST MARGIN; THENCE NORTH 01012' 06" EAST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, 30.00 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL "A"; THENCE SOUTH 880 57' 43" EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 12.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 360 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A" (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645367, DA TED MARCH 1, 2007) LOT B, KING COUNTY SHORT PLA T NUMBER 677167, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7710130850, BEING A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WM., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THA T PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF FEDERAL WA Y, A WASHINGTON MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 20020111001073. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WA Y PUBLIC WORKS. 0821049062 row- No. 25 Page 1 of 1 :l-C.PG T:\COMr\' SFATTLE NE 1/4 SEX. 8, T. 21 N., R. 4 E.. W,M. PARCEl NO. 082104-9245 j I I I I I @ PARCEL NO. 082104-9062 LOTB KC.S.P. 677167 P.O.B. I N. r:s. Vi I Lu L.J<: ~I~ t'4<: :- .t.J 0(.) <:6 0:: ~ en Q) ~ "-' PARCEL NO. 082104-9061 LOTC K.C.S.P. 577167 I I~ I~ Ie; IB >.: S l: <..) c:: (3 "'C Q PRpp..E:RiY LINE 12.00' L I I 50' ROW .! ! - Sept 15, 2008 No. 25 ACAD No. 082104-9062 row - ~- a.iI -.-... -""""'" EXHIBIT A-I PARCEL NO. 082104-9062 RIGHT OF WA Y K:PG -4- PARCEL: 082]04-9245 EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 082104-9063 RIGHT OF WA Y THE EAST 12.00 FEET OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "AU; EXCEPT THE WEST 3.00 FEET OF THE SOUTH 33.50 FEET OF THE NORTH 123.50 FEET THEREFROM. CONTAINING 2,540 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A" (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645370, SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT #2, DATED OCT 20, 2008) THE SOUTH 220 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT A PORTION OF THE EAST 50 FEET THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE STA TE OF WASHINGTON FOR RIGHT OF WAY FOR STATE ROAD NUMBER 1 BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 1775839, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WA Y PUBLIC WORKS. 0821049063 row- No. 28 Page 1 of 1 :lCPG T,\COM/\' SEATTLE N.T.5. Nt: 1/4 St:C B. r :?I N.. R 4 E.. WI,( @ PARCEL NO 082104-906J PARCEL NO OB21()4- 906<1 PROPf:..P.!" LINE i I _ _ __PflQPfRTY LfNE_ _ PARCEL NO. 082104-9245 KPlG- Sept. 24. 2008 - Rev. I -.... ~ ~R~u.r. 0011 ~ .........- 1201' a 0", " "". " 12. a a ci ~ "- ROW AHiA --V J~' ~ 2.540 $r:i / j \1: .~~ ~I~ \I) II 0:: 1200'/:;,.. 10 0:: Iv I~ >( \oJ i I I ROw >-- ~ J: V l;: G <;( Q .50' 0;' 0", I I J Q: In ,-. Vi (, - <: o _. 01--' '0:: Q~ :I~ 0:: 0 0:: I I No 28 ACAD No 082104-906J tOw fXHIB! T -A:l PARCEL NO. 082104- 9063 RICH T OF WA '( -4- PARCEL: 082104-9063 EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 082104-9063 RIGHT OF WA Y AND UTILITIES EASEMENT THE WEST 3.00 FEET OF THE EAST 12.00 FEET OF THE SOUTH 33.50 FEET OF THE NORTH 123.50 FEET OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "AU. CONTAINING 101 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A" (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645370, SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT #2, DATED OCT. 20, 2008) THE SOUTH 220 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT A PORTION OF THE EAST 50 FEET THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR RIGHT OF WA Y FOR STA TE ROAD NUMBER 1 BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 1775839, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC WORKS. 0821049063 row & u esmt- No. 28 Page 1 of1 :K:.PG- T;\COM/\. SE>\TTLE N[ 1/4 SEC. 8. T 21 N. R. 4 E. WM. f I I PAf?CEL NO. I I 082104- 9064 f J"'(JPE:R" r'~ 0;- j - - - ,. Q) I 1 I B5 I I '--- [ trj I I >: I s J I l: I f CJ / G: I I G ~ 0 I Q I '" I I I I "J I ><j I ~ I N. IS 1 1 S1: I", ~ I~ r I I~ o !\: I I') ~ @ I-; :;;. 5( 111 l<:i w \J PARCEL NO. I 3.00' i 11 ~ ; J !\: 0 0821(J4-9063 Q: i/ 9' I ROW AND UTiLI TIES / ROlf 1 EASEMENT = 101 S.F:t TAKE I - r R=5792.00' Rz5789.00' I L=JJ.5I' t=JJ.5" I I JOO' I ! ! I k-L 50' --.J ROW ROW I rAKE I I i i j / f I Oel. 0, 200e No. 28 ! I ACAD No. 082104-9063 row-u/it I I KPG EXHlBIT A::1 ,l;rc~~~ PARCEL NO, 082104-9063 ~ac.p' An:tht..aet",... Clwl1~M"'lfli: RiGHT OF WAY AND U TlU TJ[S [A$[M[NT ~1l~1'I -5- PARCEL: 082104-9063 EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 082104-9063 UTILITY EASEMENT THE NORTH 14.00 FEET OF THE WEST 5.00 FEET OF THE EAST 17.00 FEET OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "A". CONTAINING 70 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A " (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645370, SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT #2, DATED OCT. 20, 2008) THE SOUTH 220 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WM., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT A PORTION OF THE EAST 50 FEET THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR RIGHT OF WAY FOR STATE ROAD NUMBER 1 BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 1775839, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WA Y PUBLIC WORKS. 0821049063 u esmt- No. 28 Page 1 of 1 :lCPG- Tr\COMi\' SFATTLF. NE 1/4 SEC. 8. T 21 N. R. ... t.. WM, ... f?""5797.00' (='4.01' UTlI..ITY (AS(M[NT ... 70 S.F.:t @ PARCEL NO. 082104-906.3 Oct.. 6. 2008 KJ?llG Itrcbi\.tdUN La,;riHfI9" ^"itn.'K'hf"~ Cl'flU Inlle.ca1111 'b'rldw Dobt:I'" PARCEL NO. 082104-9064 500' I i I I I I 1 I I 1 J f , I / -- ---1 I R=5792, 00' I L",'4.01' 1 I I N.T.$. I 12' ROw TAKE: 50' ROw I~ I~ 18 I I I 1 I f I No. 28 -...... Q) 0) ct Vl ....- Q ~ '0 --' c:i 0:: ~I.~ 111~ ~ ~ !\: 5 0: vj >: S ::t: u ~ G '<( Q I ACAD No. 082104-906.3 esmf EXHIBIT A.: I PARCEL NO. 082104-9063 UTiUTY EASEMENT -5- PARCEL: 082104-9063 EXHIBTT A- PARCEL. NO. 250300-004V RIGHT OF WAY 1HA r PORTION OF IHE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PJlRGEl ~A~ DESCRiBED AS FOLLOWS-: BEGIN1'i11'lG AT THE NOmHE4ST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL "A', ALSO lJ&/lIG THE HVTeRSfi.CTiCW OF THE IM'ST MARGlM OF PACJPfC HIGHWAY soum (SR PIIJ AIVD 1HESOUTH MARGIN OF SOYTH .]D!JH SrREET; THEN"vE SOU1H tn' 11' 2P- Wl;~T AI.CWGo S'NP lM;'ST MARGIN, 42.44 FEETTO to ~ THAT [S 62,.(J(1 FEET WEST OF AND PARALLEL wrffl tHe Cf:/tl'fERUNFJOP PAC/FtC fllGHWAY SOUTH (SR 9!1J; iHENCE NOItrH 82' -G' 5C1" l'VEST; 5.00 FEET: 1HENCE NORTH 03.38' 4T WEST, 31.14 Fa=T; THeNCE;. wr;STERL. Y ON Ii CURVE TO THE LEFT WNOSE CenER BEARS soum 2u- 04' 41.W5T, 17.00 FEET. AJIlARCD/STANCE:' OF 5.27 FrIEr: TI-ENCE HaRTH 7fT' 41r 31" WEST, 24,ep FEET: THENCE NORTH Of" 01' 22" EAST. 5.23 FEET 70 THE SOUTH MARGIN OF SOUTH 301f" S1'REET; 1r1&rowE SOUTH 88' $ 31" EAsr ALONG SAID SOOTH MARGIN, 38.e9 FEET TO THE POINT OF BE.GlNMNG: TOGETHER WlTHTHA T PORTION OF 1HE HERfHNAP'l'ER DESCFfIMD PARGa. "AU, LYING eASfT OF A t..JIVEE mAt IS 62..00 FEET 'NEST (Y AND PAFW.LE1. WITH THE ~tNE OF flACIF1CHIGUWA 'I SOUTH (SR/l9J. CONTAtNWG BOJ) SQUARE FEf!t MORE DR LESS_ PARCEL "A, It (Pffi PAClPIC NORTHWEST TtTLE CCWPIWY ORDER 00. 645372, DATEOFEB. 23. !OtJ7) t.cm;; 8 AND 9, FEDWAY ADDITION. ACCORDING TO THE PLATT HEREOF RE;CORDED IN VOLUME 4tS OF PIA TS, PAGE 50, IN KtNG COUNTY, WASHINGTON.. ~v~~ /.YQY]:: 7HE ct3IJleWNE OF PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED Oft! THE RIGHT OF WAY PLANS FOR SR D HOV l.ANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-1271 OIY Fi'..E WiTH TfE errr OF FEDERAL WAYPUBUC WORKS, .250300004Qro'I'i'.(Jcc-Na.31 Pags 1 01 t KPG TAl.:ow..' !'lfA'f'IU: -3- PARCEL: 250300-0040 . ;.; S\ii Nt: 1/4 SEe B, r. 21 N.. R. 4 E., 1v.t.1. $ BBW'J8' i:: ROW C"'cN7ERLrNr .:>. JOBTH ST. LXISnNG ROW 36.99' - -~-rz-07/! P,O-B, ::?4.69' :%t/) R=f7,OO'. ) RO~=::~ :~/ A - 809 Sf'.x .. V i .~ A, H.g ~ ~11- <-, :11 "'V1 R? 't) II ll::: @ PARCEL NO, 25DOJO-OO4Q Row VARfES 1/1 62' ?!?~"!E_ - - , ---L1 7.67'1 I! I~ >< .., PARCEL NO. 062104-9024 Sept. N. 2008 - Rev. ~ - -- .....- -- N. T.5. i 1 I ! I I . / (" g/~ f!/' ~ "'a'j . v fl:J~ & ! Ol' 0) 85 '-- I I/) ~ ~ ::J: <.> G:: U ;f No.. 31 ACAD No. 250030-0040 row EXHIB! T A::.1 PARCEL NO. 250300-0040 RIGHT OF WA Y -4- PARCEL: 250300-0040 EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 092104-9232 RIGHT OF WA Y THE EAST 12.00 FEET OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "A"; EXCEPT THE NORTH 20.00 FEET THEREFROM. CONTAINING 975 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A " (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645374, DATED MARCH 5,2007) THA T PORTION OF THE SOUTH 100 FEET OF THE NORTH 280 FEET OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WM., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING WESTERL Y OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y NUMBER 1; EXCEPT PORTION CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY FOR ROAD BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 4822183. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WA Y PUBLIC WORKS. 0921049232 row - No. 35 Page 1 of 1 :lCPG- T:\COM/\' SL\TTLE --r- - - I I I r-- NW 1/4 SEC. 9, T. 21 N., R, 4 E" W.M, PARCEL NO. 092104-9036 PR~f..RTY LINE @ PARCEL NO, 092104-9232 PROPERTY LINE - - - - Sept. 15. 2008 KJ:IG ~ ---- ChIl ~ -- DoolIn PARCEL NO. 092104-9192 PARCEL NO. 092104-9254 ROW AREA = 975 S.F.:l: 12' x If? I~ 10 I~ No, 35 ACAD No, 092104-9232 row EXHIBIT U PARCEL NO. 092104-9232 RIGHT OF WAY EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 092104-9254 RIGHT OF WA Y THE EAST 7.00 FEET OF THE NORTH 20.00 FEET AND THE WEST 5.00 FEET OF THE EAST 12.00 FEET OF THE SOUTH 10.00 FEET OF THE NORTH 20.00 FEET OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "A "; CONTAINING 193 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A" (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645374, DA TED MARCH 5, 2007) THA T PORTION OF THE SOUTH 100 FEET OF THE NORTH 280 FEET OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WM., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING WESTERL Y OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y NUMBER 1; EXCEPT PORTION CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY FOR ROAD BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 4822183. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WA Y PUBLIC WORKS. 0921049254 row rev - No. 36 Page 1 of 1 :lCPG- Tr\COM!\' SFATTLF. @ PARCEL NO. 092104-9254 NW 1/4 SEC. 9, T. 21 N., R. 4 E., WM. PARCEL NO. 092104-9036 I I I I I I /-7 7.~ /. R: e:; CV II -..J PROPERTY LINE PARCEL LINE KJ::lG Rev. 1 - May 28, 2009 AroI>ltoctun l.aDd8eape Architecture C\YII__ u....... DeoIp R=5673.00' o L=1O.14' o CV PARCEL NO. 092104-9232 I~ I~ I~ ~ ItS I I No. 36 N.T.S. 0)' 0) ~ '-.:. Vj )...: ~ ~ () C:: () ({ I ... !<J g~ e:;1l:: ">~ :;; ~I : ~I !,if ACAD Na. 092104-9254 row rev EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 092104-9254 RIGHT OF WA Y EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 092104-9036 RIGHT OF WAY THA T PORTION OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "A", DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING A T THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL '~", ALSO BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST MARGIN OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) AND THE SOUTH MARGIN OF SOUTH 304TH STREET,' THENCE SOUTHERL Y ALONG SAID WEST MARGIN ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WHOSE CENTER BEARS NORTH 80048' 48" WEST, 5680.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 151.79 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL "A"; THENCE NORTH 88050' 28" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL "A", 7.10 FEET TO A LINE THA TIS 7.00 FEET WEST OF AND PARALLEL WITH SAID WEST MARGIN; THENCE NORTHERL Y ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT WHOSE CENTER BEARS NORTH 790 16' 13" WEST, 5673.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 121.55 FEET; THENCE NORTH 800 29' 52" WEST, 4.77 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERL Y ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT WHOSE CENTER BEARS NORTH 70.22' 25" WEST, 17.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 32.18 FEET TO A LINE THAT IS 6.86 FEET SOUTH OF AND PARALLEL WITH SAID THE SOUTH MARGIN OF SOUTH 304TH STREET; THENCE NORTH 88050' 28" WEST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, 9.74 FEET; THENCE NORTH 010 09' 32" EAST, 6.86 FEET TO THE SOUTH MARGIN OF SOUTH 304TH STREET; THENCE SOUTH 880 50' 28" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH MARGIN, 41.96 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 1,488 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A " (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645375, DA TED MARCH 5, 2007) THE NORTH 180 FEET, LYING WEST OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH NO.1, OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WM., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THAT PORTION IN SOUTH 304TH STREET AND IN 16TH AVENUE SOUTH. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WA Y PUBLIC WORKS. 0921049036 row- No. 37 Page 10f1 :lCPG- T:\COMf\' SFATTl.F. NVI' 1/4 SEC. 9, r. 21 N., R. " C.. W../A. - ~"T-5 88~'28-;' f -ROW cnm:','?i.WE - !3=, ~'~ S, 304Tf1 ST. - - ~rJNG ROll~ - ~H< .~,41'.9~ 31.p.O.B :J ~ ',- 1',J4' ~ '''"'' R=171)O,J \ ' L=J2, 18' ~ I 4.?rJ "I . ":,:'..AAB.. .fI 8f tJ~ ~ -~N.. ....~ t). :;..,: !,Nj : l'fll 0 "il- ~ I ~--__ $0' I PR,!,!,<'" "'" _. ~ . _ -.I;;J Row; I PAltCEt NO, 7JO' '~ t . OtJ2104-9254 I ~ ,I . ~ I , I~ I I !~ I s;t 15: 2008 . -. - ... ~ '" No, 37 ACAD "Ie;. 0921O..t.-swJ6 toOl J Jt N.T,S. @ PARCEl.. NO. 092104-90* K.IG- - .-.,. -- - .......... ~ ...... [XHfBI T fl::1 Pk~CfL NO. 092104-9036 F~!GHT OF WA 'f -4- I al~ rlJi! ~!!.ti \r;!J~ nlti ll;i!t: ~ I I t I T f l J I I J ! I / I I I I PARCEL: 092104-9036 EXHIBIT A PARCEL NO. 042104-9040 RIGHT OF WA Y tHA T pomlON or {NE IfI.:./:;:f.IiVAFiER DESCRIBED PARCEL 'N, []lESCR/BED AS rouows: BEGINNfNG A r THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PAF?CEL 'A~ AI..50 13EfNG THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST MARGIAl or PACIPlC IHGtfWA Y soum (Sf? 9fJ) ANO THE fv'O''(rH MAi~GIN OF soum 304m STAEEJ; . THENCE NORTH 88" 50' 28" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH MARGIN, (11.61 FEET; THENCE NORTH as 3ft'Of' EAS r, 3682 FEET; THENCE. NOR1)fEASTERL Y ON A CURVE TO rUE LlEF r ~"lHOSE CENtER .BlEARS NORTH 04" 22' oo~ VlEST, 17.00 FEET; AN ARC DiSTANCE OF 22.91 FEET TO A LINE THA T IS 12.00 FEETW'EST OF AND PAR.ALLE/. "'11TH SAiD Vt'EST M/1RGIN: THENCE Nor~rNERL V ALONG SAID PARALLEL WJE ON A CURVE TO THE LEF'T WN06'E: CENTER BEA.RS NORTH 81' 35' 42' WEST, 5688.00 FEET. AN ARC DISTANCE OF 3.71 FEET; THENCE FiOMTH 80'5{)' 2!f' EAST. 5.54 FEET TO A UNE THAT IS 6,50 FEET WEST OF A.ND PARAtU:L WiTH SAID INEsr MARG!N: THENCE NORTHERL V ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE lEFT WHOSE CENTER 13EARS NORTH 81' 38' 22' WEST, 56'1:tSO FEET, AN ARC O1ST.4I'ICE OF 209,21 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE Of SAID PARCEL ',1\" THENCE SOUTH 88" 50' 28" EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 6.53 FEET TO THE l>\E'ST MARGIN OF PACIFIC H!GHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99); THENCE SOUTHER/. Y ALONG SAID INEST MARGIN ON A CURVE TO THE f?IGHr WHOSE CENTER BEARS NORTH 83" 45 29' WEST, 5580,00 FEET. AN ARC D!STANCE OF 231.39 FEET TO THE pomr OF BEGJNNf,""G. CONTAJNfNG 1,782 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A" (PER PACIFIC NORThWEST TInE COMPANY ORDER NO 645376. DII. TED FES, 23, .2007; PARG'EL A: THA T P0.f?110NOF THE SOUTHWEST OUARTEf'{ Of rHE SOUTNWES r QUARTER OF SECTION 4, toVV'NSHI.P 21 NOF?'rH, RANGE 4 EASI, VLM.. IN XING COUNT'f, wASHINGTON, OESCRiBE.D AS FOLLOWS,' BEGINNiNG A T mE SOUTHlNEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 4; THENCE NORTH 89' 29' ()4" bASt ALONG fHE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIV1Sl0N 30.00 FEET to THE EAS T LINE OF THE 'IrEST 30JJO FEET IN W'fDTH OF SAID SUBDiViSION; THENCE NORTH 00'36' 37' '..w;ST AlONG SAID EAST LINE 20000 FEET TO THE NORTH /.INE OF THE: SOUTH 200.00 I'EET IN W)OTH OF SAID SUBDIViSION; THENCE NORTH $g" 29' 04" EAST ALON-GSAlV NORTH LlNF,; 116.00 FEET TO THE TRl)E POINT OF BEGINNING: THENce CONTINUING NORTH 89" 29' ()4' EAst .ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 115.37 FEET 10 INTERSECT THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF PACIFIC H!GHWA Y SOUTH AT A POINT ON A cURVE FROM WH!CH TliE CENTER I.JES NORTH 85' 25' 44' VIlES r .5.,6"80.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERL YALONG SAID HIGHWAY MARGIN AND ALONG SAID CURVE 10 mE RIGHT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF t.W 03' 52' AN ARC DiSTANCE OF 105.52 FEET TO THE NORTH UNE OF THE SOliTH f55.lJO FEET IN W/DTH OF SIlID SV8f>MSfOl'lJ; THENCE SOUTH 89' 29' 04' WEST ALONG SAiD NORtH UNE W4,88 FEn; THENCE NO.RTH W" 3S' 37" 'WEST 105.00 FEET TO Th'E TRUE POlrJT OF BEGINNiNG. 042/049040 roW.GDC - No. 38 .Page 1 af2 KPG l AC()l'yIA. :'F.>\T n.r -3- P ARCEL:042] 04-9040 PARCH B: Th'A T PORTION OF THE SOl)TH'YVEST QVARTER OF THE SOUTH~il/ES'T QUARTER OF SECTiON 4. TO'WNSHiP 21 NORTH, RANGE if EAST,vUM., 1N KING COUNTY. WASHiNGTO,V, DESCRiBED AS ,r"OLLOW$: BEGlMVINt'; A T THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAiD SECTION 4; THENCE: NORTH 89' 2"9' 04~ EAST ALONG THE SOUTH {,}{VE OF SAID SU8DfvISJON30()() FEET TO I1-iE lEAST UNE OF THE lIVEST 30. 00 FEET IN W{OTJJ or SAID SUfJtJIVJstON: THENCE NORTH orr 36' 37"' VVEST ALONG SAID EAST UNE 30,01) FEET TO THE TRUE POlNT OF BEGfMVING: THENCE CONTINUING NORTH oo~ 3/)' 3r WEST ALONG SAJD eAST LINE AND iHEEASTERL Y MARGIN OF 16TH AVENUE SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 125.00 FEET TO THE NORTH UNE OF THE SOuTH 155,00 IN WIDTH OF SAID SU8DiViSION; THENCE NORTH 89> 29' ()4" EAST ALONG SAiD NORTH UNE 220.86 FEET TO INTERSECT THE WESTERL Y MARGiN OF PACiFIC HIQH'IVA Y SOUTH AT A POINT ON A CURVE FROM lA/HIGH THE CENTEF{ LIES NORTH 84' 21' 5TI'lt'EST 5.680,00 FEET; THENCE BOUTHERt Y ALONG SAID HIGHWAY MARGIN AND ALONG SAID CURI/E TO THE RIGHT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF en" 1$' 11 P AN ARC DISTANCE OF 125,87 FEET TO. THE NORTH ONE OF TNE SOUTH 3(),OO FEEr IN WIDTH OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH eJ)" 2g' 04" WEST ALONG SAiD NORTH UNE AND ALONG THE UORTHERL Y MARGiN OF SOMTH 3Oll"! $TREr;;T.,4 DISTANCE OF 2()5.7$ FEET TO. THE TRUE PO/NT OF BEGINNING. SURVEYORS NOTE- THE CIENTERUNE Oi~ PAC/FIC HiGHWAY SOUTH (SR 99)/S BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FaR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE. 4 fAG 00-127), ON FtLE WiTH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC WORKS. -4- P ARCEL042] 04-9040 SW 1/4 SEC. 4, T. 21 N" R. 4 E" W.M. w <: ~ ~ lu ~ o ll: I I I I I I I , vi I N.T.S. ~ <:( I ~ I 1.0 r-- - ~I 0 ~I ~I B @ PARCEL NO. 042104-9040 PARCEL NO. 042104-9237 ,_ _ PROPERTY LINE I -- -_J lu I, "l- I") 8 Ci <: I 30' I ROW ..., L ___ 3 EXISTING ROW - - . ~ _ ~ ~_ S. 304TH ST. 5 88'SO'28H E ROW CENTERLINE R=17.00' L=22.91 , 61,61' Rev. 1 - Dee, 29. 2008 No. 38 ACAD No. 042104-9040 row KPG EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 042104-9040 RIGHT OF WA Y ArcbIteclure Lendaeape; .Archlteclure ct.u ......._ Urban DeoI&n I t I~ I~ ~ l.j I 6.53' Q;' 0) B5 '-.:- Vi >..: ~ :J: () G:: G ({ I~ ~/$ It)<; nit] Cl:: ~ o Q: EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 042104-9040 UTILITY EASEMENT THA T PORTION OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "An, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL "A", ALSO BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST MARGIN OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) AND THE NORTH MARGIN OF SOUTH 304TH STREET; THENCE NORTH 880 50' 28" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH MARGIN, 61.61 FEET; THENCE NORTH 850 38' 01" EAST, 2.15 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTHERL Y ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT WHOSE CENTER BEARS NORTH 810 20' 52" WEST, 5621.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 16.93 FEET TO THE INTERSECT/ON OF A LINE THAT IS 47.00 FEET NORTH OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF SOUTH 304TH STREET AND 109.00 FEET WEST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99); THENCE SOUTH 880 50' 28" EAST ALONG A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF SOUTH 304TH STREET, 16.13 FEET TO A LINE THAT IS 93.00 FEET WEST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99); THENCE SOUTHERL Y ALONG A LINE THA T IS PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WHOSE CENTER BEARS NORTH 81032' 29" WEST, 5637.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 15.34 FEET,' THENCE SOUTH 85038' 01" WEST, 16.42 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 258 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A " (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645376, DA TED FEB. 23, 2007) PARCEL A: THA T PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, w.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING A T THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 4; THENCE NORTH 890 29' 04" EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION 30.00 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 30.00 FEET IN WIDTH OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 000 36' 37' WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE 260.00 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 260.00 FEET IN WIDTH OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 890 29' 04" EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 116.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 890 29' 04" EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 115.37 FEET TO INTERSECT THE WESTERL Y MARGIN OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH AT A POINT ON A CURVE FROM WHICH THE CENTER LIES NORTH 850 25' 44" WEST 5,680.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERL Y ALONG SAID HIGHWA Y MARGIN AND ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01 0 03' 52" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 105.52 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 155.00 FEET IN WIDTH OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 890 29' 04" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 104.86 FEET; THENCE NORTH 000 36' 37" WEST 105.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. - EASEMENT_LEGAL_38- No. 38 Page 1 of 2 :lCPG- T/\COM!\' SEATTLE PARCEL B: THA T PORT/ON OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WM., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 4; THENCE NORTH 890 29' 04" EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION 30.00 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 30.00 FEET IN WIDTH OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 000 36' 37" WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE 30.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 000 36' 37" WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE AND THE EASTERL Y MARGIN OF 16TH AVENUE SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 125.00 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 155.00 IN WIDTH OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 890 29' 04" EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 220.86 FEET TO INTERSECT THE WESTERL Y MARGIN OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH A T A POINT ON A CURVE FROM WHICH THE CENTER LIES NORTH 84021' 52" WEST 5,680.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERL Y ALONG SAID HIGHWA Y MARGIN AND ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01016' 11" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 125.87 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 30.00 FEET IN WIDTH OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 89. 29' 04" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE AND ALONG THE NORTHERL Y MARGIN OF SOUTH 304TH STREET A DISTANCE OF 205.78 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SURVEYORS NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC WORKS. EASEMENT_LEGAL_38 - No. 38 Page 2 of 2 :lCPG- TACQ;\lA.SFATTLE S 88.50'28" E S, 304TH ST. Oct. 6, 2008 KIG Arcb1tec:tare LaDacap. Areblhcture ctriI llDgIDeeriDC UrbaD DaIcn ROW CENTERLINE I No. 38 ACAD No. 042104-9040 esmt EXHIBIT PARCEL NO, 042104-9040 UTILITY EASEMENT EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 042104-9257 RIGHT OF WA Y THE EAST 10.00 FEET OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "A". CONTAINING 7,582 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A " (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645378, DA TED FEB. 22, 2007) THA T PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WM., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 4; THENCE NORTH 890 29' 04" EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION 30.00 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 30.00 FEET IN WIDTH OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 000 36' 37' WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE 560.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 000 36' 37" WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERL Y MARGIN OF 16TH AVENUE SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 759.06 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 890 45' 43" EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 245.61 FEET TO THE WESTERL Y MARGIN OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH; THENCE SOUTH 01039' 09" EAST ALONG SAID HIGHWA Y MARGIN 441.64 TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 5,680.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERL Y ALONG SAID HIGHWA Y MARGIN AND ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03011' 39" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 316.38 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 560.00 IN WIDTH OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 890 29' 04" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 250.58 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT FOR ACCESS, INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER THE EAST 50 FEET OF THE NORTH 230 FEET PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: THA T PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WM., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 0421049257 row - No. 40 Page 1 of 2 :!CPG TACOMi\' SL\TTLE BEGINNING A T THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 4; THENCE NORTH 890 29' 04" EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION, 30.00 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 30.00 FEET IN WIDTH OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 00036' 37" WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE 155.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 000 36' 37" WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERL Y MARGIN OF 16TH A VENUE SOUTH, A DISTANCE OF 405.00 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 560.00 FEET IN WIDTH OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 89029' 04" EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 250.58 FEET TO INTERSECT THE WESTERL Y MARGIN OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH A T A POINT ON A CURVE FROM WHICH THE CENTER LIES NORTH 88027' 40" WEST 5,680 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERL Y ALONG SAID HIGHWAY MARGIN AND ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 030 01' 56" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 300.60 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 260.00 FEET IN WIDTH OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 890 29' 04" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 115.37 FEET,' THENCE SOUTH 000 36' 37" EAST 105.00 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 155.00 FEET IN WIDTH OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 890 29' 04" WEST ALONG NORTH LINE 116.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WA Y PUBLIC WORKS. 0421049257 row - No. 40 Page 2 of 2 :lCPG- T,\CO;W\' SFATTLE N.T.S. Sep t. 15, 2008 KFG Arcblteelure Lan~ Arcb1tect.un C10Il EDcb1_ Urban DeoIcn SW 1/4 SEC. 4, T. 21 N., R. 4 E., W.M. :!:: I I f? PARCEL NO. I~ I I 042104-90.38 I~ 10' : iPR~ER" UNE- ~ I : ~ I I 10'T I ~I~ I - ~_ lli~ 0 lC) I ~ ~ I ~ ~ u ;.. ~ ~ I ~ ~ I ~ I I I I uj I I ~Loj I~i! I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I @ PARCEL NO. 042104-9257 ROW AREA = 7,582 S.F.:t r------:- ?~OPERTY LlN,.E_ PARCEL NO. 042104-9237 No. 40 lulu <': : ::; COO:: ~~ o Z Plu gu Z~ 0:: o o o ~ :/ 0:: ~I ~I uj .1 >-= il ~I G ~l I I I I L-- I I I PARCEL NO. 042104-9011 PARCEL NO. 042104-9012 PARCEL NO. 042104-9057 ACAD No. 042104-9257 row EXHIBI T PARCEL NO. 042104-9257 RIGHT OF WA Y EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 042104-9257 SUBTERRANEAN .WALL ANCHOR EASEMENT THE WEST 4.00 FEET OF THE EAST 14.00 FEET OF THE SOUTH 589.00 FEET AND THE WEST 3.50 FEET OF THE EAST 17.50 FEET OF THE SOUTH 20.00 FEET OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL "A CONTAINING 2,426 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL "A " (PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 645378, DA TED FEB. 22, 2007) THA T PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WM., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING A T THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 4; THENCE NORTH 890 29' 04" EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION 30.00 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 30.00 FEET IN WIDTH OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 000 36' 37' WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE 560.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 00. 36' 37" WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERL Y MARGIN OF 16TH AVENUE SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 759.06 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 890 45' 43" EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 245.61 FEET TO THE WESTERL Y MARGIN OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH; THENCE SOUTH 010 39' 09" EAST ALONG SAID HIGHWA Y MARGIN 441.64 TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 5,680.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERL Y ALONG SAID HIGHWA Y MARGIN AND ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03.11' 39" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 316.38 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 560.00 IN WIDTH OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 890 29' 04" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 250.58 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; 0421049257 swa esmt - No. 40 Page 1 of 2 :lCPG- Tr\COM/\' SFATTLE TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT FOR ACCESS, INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER THE EAST 50 FEET OF THE NORTH 230 FEET PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: THA T PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, w.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING A T THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 4; THENCE NORTH 890 29' 04" EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION, 30.00 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 30.00 FEET IN WIDTH OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 000 36' 37" WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE 155.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 000 36' 37" WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERL Y MARGIN OF 16TH AVENUE SOUTH, A DISTANCE OF 405.00 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 560.00 FEET IN WIDTH OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 890 29' 04" EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 250.58 FEET TO INTERSECT THE WESTERL Y MARGIN OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH A T A POINT ON A CURVE FROM WHICH THE CENTER LIES NORTH 880 27' 40" WEST 5,680 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERL Y ALONG SAID HIGHWA Y MARGIN AND ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 030 01' 56" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 300.60 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 260.00 FEET IN WIDTH OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 890 29' 04" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 115.37 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 000 36' 37" EAST 105.00 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 155.00 FEET IN WIDTH OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 890 29' 04" WEST ALONG NORTH LINE 116.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH (SR 99) IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WA Y PLANS FOR SR 99 HOV LANES PHASE 4 (AG 06-127), ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC WORKS. 0421049257 swa esmt- No. 40 Page 2 of 2 :lCPG- T/\COM.\' SEATTLE SW 1/4 SEC. 4, T. 21 N., R. 4 E., W.M. I 4.00.1 I I I~ I ~ I~ I.JI~ , -' U :2 (()O:: I I~ ~~ P~ gu I ~~~I :2~ 0:: N. T.S, I ~H~ I I @ -J LID' ---... (J) (J) I PARCEL NO, ~I ROW 042104-9257 TAKE 0:: l./) '-- I.J I 50' vi 3;1.J iE' ROW ~ .;;1; I WB~RR~[~ ~ j >-= ~I") WALL ANCHOR ~ uP EASEMENT = ::r: ~IC I 2,426 S.F.:l: (.) ~:2 0, , - I c:: W (() G It) 411 <:( Q ROW - I I ~ I I I I trj I ~ R-5686. 00' ~ I <:( I R=5670.00' L=296,56' L=316.65' ~ I (Q I ~I I I ~ 111 " I PROPEF~TY' LINE '0 R=5662.50' I 0:: C'l L=20.01' PARCEL NO. 042104-9237 Oct. 16, 2008 No. 40 ACAD No, 042104-9257 esmt KI?G EXHIBIT ArebJteet.ure PARCEL NO. 042104-9257 Lan~ Architecture CIvtl__ SUBTERRANEAN WALL ANCHOR EASEMENT u....... Deolan COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 16,2009 mmmmmmmm~!~~ #:~'mb~ CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO FWRC 4.05.060 REGARDING PARK HOURS POLICY QUESTION: Should the City Council adopt an Ordinance declaring an emergency and amending the Park Hours (FWRC 4.05.060) to prohibit people from entering parks from dusk to dawn? COMMITTEE: N/A MEETING DATE: NI A CATEGORY: D Consent D City Council Business IZI Ordinance D Resolution D D Public Hearing Other ~!~J!:J!:~~~9~!~y.:!.\I.!~y!i~~I.!g~!.\<?!iI.!g.f.>.<:)li'?~<::~!~L Attachments: Proposed Ordinance DEPT: Police Department ......................................... .................... ............................................................................................................. ............................................... BACKGROUND The Federal Way Revised Code ("FWRC") Section 4.05,060 sets forth the current park closure hours and currently states that parks are closed from 12:00 a,m. until 5:00 a,m" unless otherwise posted. The Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department and the Police Department recommend that parks be closed after dusk and before 5:00 a,m, or dawn, whichever is later. Staff is recommending definitions of dusk and dawn to make enforcement of these hours easier. There have been an increasing number of complaints from residents regarding people in neighborhood parks after dark but prior to 12:00 a.m. Despite this, the Police Department is not able to respond to complaints regarding people in the parks late at night until a code amendment is passed changing the park hours or the parks are posted with new closure hours. It is not economically feasible to post all parks with modified closing hours. Rather, staff is recommending this proposed code amendment to the change the default closing hours for all parks rather than ordering signs for every park. The Director will still be able to make modifications to the closing hours for special events or for safety reasons. As indicated by the increasing number of complaints, during the summer months, there will most likely be an increase in the number of people attempting to stay in the parks after dark, which may lead to increased disturbance of the public peace and potential damage to public property. As a result, staff is recommending that Council declare this ordinance necessary to protect the public peace and enact it upon first reading, Options Considered: 1, Approve the proposed Ordinance declaring an emergency and amending FWRC 4.05.010 and FWRC 4.05,060 relating to park hours. 2. Reject the proposed Ordinance, STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Option 1. . (P1l?'PJ..' j)GM",-, DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: Council CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: NI A N/A C?II Committee Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: NIA Committee Chair Committee Member Committee Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION(S): 1sT READING AND ENACTMENT OF ORDINANCE (JUNE 16, 2009): "1 move approval of the proposed ordinance. " (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 # 1ST reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Federal Way, Washington, relating to park hours; amending FWRC 4.05.010, Definitions; amending FWRC 4.05.060, Closing hours - Unlawful entry; and declaring an emergency. (Amending Ordinance Nos. 09-593, 01-396, 91-82) WHEREAS, Federal Way Revised Code ("FWRC") Section 4,05.010 sets forth definitions for Chapter 4.15 FWRC, and FWRC 4.05.060 sets forth the current park closure hours; and WHEREAS, FWRC 4,05.060 currently states that parks are closed from 12:00 a,m, until 5:00 a,m" unless otherwise posted; and WHEREAS, the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department recommends that parks be closed after dusk until 5:00 a.m. or dawn, whichever is later; and WHEREAS, dawn and dusk need to be defined for easier enforcement; and WHEREAS, there have been an increasing number of complaints from residents regarding people in neighborhood parks after dark but prior to 12:00 a,m,; and WHEREAS, the Police Department is not able to respond to complaints regarding people in the parks late at night until this code amendment is passed or the parks are posted with new closure hours; and WHEREAS, it is more economically sound to change the closure hours for all parks than to post each and every park with the dusk until dawn closure hours; and WHEREAS, during the summer months, there will most likely be an increase in the number of people attempting to stay in the parks after dark, which may lead to increased disturbance of the public peace and potential damage to public property; and Ordinance No. 09- Page 1 of4 Rev 3/09 WHEREAS, the potential adverse impacts on the public health, property, safety and welfare of the City and its citizens if this Ordinance did not take effect immediately, justify the declaration of an emergency and the designation of this ordinance as a public emergency ordinance necessary for the protection of public health, public safety, public property or the public peace by the City Council; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. FWRC 4.05,010 shall be amended to read as follows: 4.05.010 Definitions. The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise. Terms not defined here are defined according to FWRC 4,03,010 or 1.05,020 in that order. "Dawn" means thirty (30) minutes before sunrise, "Director" means the director of the parks, recreation, and cultural services department or a designated employee of that department. "Dusk" means thirty (30) minutes after sunset. "Park" includes any public park, public square, golf course, bathing beach, or play and recreation ground within the city limits, regardless of ownership; and also includes any city sports field, or any city leased or rented school or private property when being used for recreation. Section 2. FWRC 4,05,060 shall be amended to read as follows: 4.05.060 Closing hours - Unlawful entry. It is unlawful to enter or be in any park during posted hours and in no case bet\yeen the hours of 12:00 midnight and 5:00 a,m,after dusk of any day, or before 5:00 a,m, or dawn of any day, whichever is later, unless otherwise permitted by the director for a special occasion; provided, the director may establish special park closure hours, for specific parks or areas within parks, if the director determines that such special park closure hours are necessary or appropriate to protect public property, protect public safety, prevent public nuisances, prevent breaches of the peace or for special events, Special park closure hours shall be indicated by appropriate signs. Ordinance No. 09- Page 2 of 4 Rev 3/09 Section 3, Severability, Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase ofthis chapter, or its application to any person or situation, be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter or its application to any other person or situation, The City Council of the City of Federal Way hereby declares that it would have adopted this chapter and each section, subsection, sentence, clauses, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional, Section 4, Corrections, The City Clerk and the codifiers of this ordinance are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance including, but not limited to, the correction of scrivener/clerical errors, references, ordinance 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 ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed, Section 6, Effective Date, This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from the time of its final passage, as provided by law, PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this 16th day ofJune 2009, CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MAYOR, JACK DOVEY ATTEST: CITY CLERK, CAROL MCNEILLY, CMC Ordinance No. 09- Page 3 of 4 Rev 3/09 APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY, PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO,: Ordinance No. 09- Page 4 of 4 . Rev 3/09