Res 13-631RESOLUTION NO. 13-631
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Federal Way,
Washington, to renew the Steel Lake Management District number 1,
calling for a vote by affected property owners on the renewal of the
proposed district.
WHEREAS, the City has completed the attached 2014-2023 Steel Lake Management District
Plan (SLMDP) (Exhibit A) which includes the basis for the annual LMD work plan and LMD
mat�agement goals; and
WHEREAS, the Plan was created because of citizen interest in the long term protection of
Steel Lake; and
WHEREAS, Steel Lake contains significant natural resources including wetlands, and
supports many beneficial public purposes including recreation, water quality, stormwater
protection, aesthetics, and property value support; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to chapter 35.21 RCW and chapter 36.61 RCW a lake management
district may be formed to provide funding to support the maintenance and improvement of lakes;
and
WHEREAS, the Steel Lake community has demonstrated support for the Steel Lake
Management District nurnber 1(District) through submittal of a petition calling for the renewal
of the District (Exhibit B) pursuant to the requirements of chapter 36.61 RCW; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to a City resolution, a public meeting was conducted on February
19, 2013, on the renewal of the District after public notice of the hearing was provided to a11
affected property consistent with Chapter 36.61 RCW; and
Resolution 13-631 Page 1 of 4
WHEREAS, after considering the testimony received at the public hearing, the City of
Federal Way City Council declares that submitting the question of renewal of a lake management
district to a vote by the affected property owners is within the public's interest; and the proposed
financing for a lake management district is considered feasible;
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY,
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findin�s. The City of Federal Way City Council finds that it is in the public
interest to renew the District and the financing of the lake improvement and maintenance
activities is feasible. Attached and hereby incorporated is the 2014-2023 SLMDP (Exhibit A).
The plan describes (1) the proposed lake improvement and maintenance activities which avoid
adverse impacts on fish and wildlife and provide for appropriate measures to protect and enhance
fish and wildlife; (2) the number of years the lake or beach management district will exist; (3) the
amount, method, description, and frequency of special assessments or rates and charges, and the
possibility of revenue bonds that are payable from the rates and charges; and (4) the estimated
special assessment or rate and charge proposed to be imposed on each parcel included in the
proposed lake management district.
Section 2. Vote of Affected Properhy Owners. The renewal of the Steel Lake
Management District Number One (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 renew a Lake Management District for Steel Lake is attached hereto as Exhibit B and
incorporated herein by this reference. The City Clerk of Federal Way shall prepare the
appropriate ballot, based upon criteria in Chapter 36.61.080 RCW, calling for a vote on the
Resolution 13-631 Page 2 of 4
renewal of the District. The ballots shall be submitted to the affected residents no later than
February 25, 2013, and shall be returned to the City of Federal Way by no later than five o'clock
p.m. (5:00 p.m.) on March 20, 2013. 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 1, 2014 and shall remain in effect for a
term of ten (10) years, said term to expire on December 31, 2023.
Section 3. Severabilitv. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution should be
held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence,
clause or phrase of this resolution.
Section 4. Corrections. The City Clerk and the codifiers of this resolution are authorized to
make necessary corrections to this resolution including, but not limited to, the correction of
scrivener/clerical errors, references, resolution numbering, section/subsection numbers and any
references thereto.
Section 5. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date
of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed.
Resolution 13-631 Page 3 of 4
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 19th day of February, 2013.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
� � '�
� _/���
.
, �. . ..
ATTEST:
.
CITY CLERK, CAROL M EILLY, C C
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
�
CITY AT EY, PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 2-12-2013
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 2-19-2013
RESOLUTION NO.: 13-631
Resolution 13-631 Page 4 of 4
The 2014-2023 Steel Lake
Management District Plan
February 8, 2013
CITY OF
Federal Way
Pubiic Works Department
Surface Water Management Division
33325 8"' Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003
APPROVALS
�, City of Federal Way
Manager
Dan Smith, City of Federal Way
Surface Water Quality Coordinator
� ���ti�t�
Hollie Shilley, City of Federal Way
Surface er Quality Coordinator
Tom Dezutte , Lake Resident
SLAC Chair
�-
Margaret Reyhner, Lake Resident
SLAC Co-Chair
�'L
Bill Linehan, Lake Resident
SLAC Committee'Member
��...� ��--
Mela e Cannon, Lake esident
SLAC Committee Member
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................................1
1.0 LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT GOALS ............................................................................................1
2.0 BACKGROUND AND PAST LAKE MANAGEMENT EFFORTS ........................................................2
2.1 EARLY EFFORTS ............................................................................................................................................ 2
2.2 2001- 2002 ................................................................................................................................................... 2
2.3 2003 ............................................................................................................................................................. 2
2.4 20042013 ....................................................................................................................................................3
3.0 LAI{E AND WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................................. 3
3.1 L,atvn UsE .................................................................................................................................................... 3
3.2 SHORELINE USE ............................................................................................................................................ 5
3.3 OUTLET, STREAM AND WETLAND LOCATIONS ............................................................................................. 6
3.4 NON-POINT NUTRIENT SOURCE LOCATIONS ................................................................................................. 7
3.5 LAKE BATHYMETRY .................................................................................................................................... 7
3.6 WATERSOURCE ...........................................................................................................................................8
3.7 WA1'ER QUALI'fY .......................................................................................................................................... 8
3.7.! Historic Water Quality Data ....................................................................................:.............................. 8
3. 7.2 Water Quality Assessments .....................................................:............................................................... 9
3.8 WATER RIGHT'S .......................................................................................................................................... 1 O
3.9 BENEFICIAL AND RECREATIONAL USES ...................................................................................................... 10
4.0 THE AQUATIC WEED PROBLEM .........................................................................................................13
5.0 AQUATIC PLANT CHARACTERISTIC5 ................................................................................:..............14
S.1 NATIVE AQUATIC PLANTS IN STEEL LAKE .................................................................................................. 14
5.1.1 Native Emergent Plants ......................................................................................................................... 1 S
5.1.2 Native Rooted Floating-Leaved Plants ................................................................................................. IS
5.1.3 Native Submerged Macrophytes ............................................................................................................ IS
Small-leafed pondweed (Polamogeton pusillus) ..............................................................................................................15
Naiads(Najaflexilis) ........................................................................................................................................................15
5.1.4 Native Submerged Macroalgae ............................................................................................................. IS
Plant-like algae (Chara, sPP) ............................................................................................................................................16
Plant-like algae (Nitella, sp.) ............................................................................................................................................16
S 2 NON-NATIVE AQUATIC PLANTS IN STEEL LAKE ......................................................................................... 16
5.2.1 Non-Native Emergent Plants ................................................................................................................. 17
Yellow flag iris (lris pseudacorus) ...................................................................................................................................17
Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) ...................................................................................................................17
5.2.2 Non-Native Rooted Floating-Leaved Plants ......................................................................................... 17
Fragrant water lily/ White water lily (Nymphaea odoratn) ...............................................................................................17
5.2.3 Non-Native Submerged Macrophytes .................................................................................................... 18
Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) ..............................................................................................................18
6.0 AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................20
6.1 AQUATIC HERBICIDES ................................................................................................................................ 20
6.1.1 Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit ........................................................................ 21
6.1.2 Discharge Management Plan ................................................................................................................ 22
6.1.3 Aquatic Herbicide Control of Milfoil .................................................................................................... 22
6.1.4 Aquatic Herbicide Control of Fragrant Waterlily ................................................................................. 22
6.1. S Aquatic Herbicide Control of Emergent Vegetation: Yellow Flag Iris and Japanese Knotweed ........ 23
6.1.6 Aquatic Herbicide Control of Native Aquatic Plants ............................................................................ 24
6.2 M.4rru.a�, METxovs .................................................................................................................................... 25
6.2. ! Hand-Pulling ......................................................................................................................................... 25
6.2.2 Cutting or• Raking .................................................................................................................................. 2S
6.2.3 Weed Rolling ......................................................................................................................................... 26
ManualMethod Advantages .............................................................................................................................................26
ManualMethod Disadvantages ........................................................................................................................................26
Manual Method Suitability for Steel Lake ........................................................................................................................27
6.3 D[vEtt DttEnGUJG ....................................................................................................................................... 27
DiverDredging Advantages ..............................................................................................................................................27
Diver Dredging Disadvantages .........................................................................................................................................27
Diver Dredging Permit Requirements ...............................................................................................................................28
Diver Dredging Suitability for Steel Lake ........................................................................................................................28
6.4 BOTTOM BARRIERS .................................................................................................................................... 28
BottomBarrier Advantages ..............................................................................................................................................28
BottomBanier Disadvantages ..........................................................................................................................................29
Bottom Barrier Permit Requirements ...............................................................................................................................29
Bottom Barrier Suitability for Steel Lake .........................................................................................................................29
6.5 BIOLOGICAL CONTROL ............................................................................................................................... 29
6.5.1 Grass Carp ............................................................................................................................................ 29
6.5.2 Watermilfoil Weevil ............................................................................................................................... 31
6.6 ROTOVATION ..............................................................................................................................................31
6.7 HnttVESTING .............................................................................................................................................. 32
6.8 MECxAN1ICA[.CuTTING ........................:.....................................................................................................32
6.9 D►zawnowrl ...............................................................................................................................................32
6.10 NO ACTION ALTERNATNE ......................................................................................................................... 33
7.0 INTEGRATED AQUATIC PLANT MANAGEMENT AND TREATMENT PLAN .......................... 33
8.0 PRESERVATION OF NATIVE VEGETATION AND AQUATIC HABITAT ...................................34
9.0 ALGAE MANAGEMENT PLAN ...............................................................................................................36
10.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM ................................................................................... 37
11.0 LAKE OUTLET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM ..................................................................................... 38
12.0 CANADA GEESE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ...................................................................................38
13.0 COMMUNITY EDUCATION AND INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM ...................................................39
14.0 LMD ANNUAL COSTS AND COMMITTEE AUTHORIZATION ...................................................... 40
14.1 PRIMARY LMD MANAGEMENT Go,4L ............................................................................................................. 40
14.2 OP'fIONAL LMD MANAGEMENT GOALS .......................................................................................................... 42
143 SLAC RESrOxSIDU.rrIES/AUrxoRrl'Y ............................................................................................................. 43
14.4 PETITION To CREa'cE LMD ............................................................................................................................. 43
15.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................44
APPENDICES
Appendix A ...........................................................Signed Petition
Appendix B......... ...................................................Assessment Rate by Parcel
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig 1 ......................................................................Steel Lake Watershed/Stormwater Conveyance Map
Fig 2 ............................................................:.........Steel Lake Land Use Map
Fig 3 ......................................................................2010 Steel Lake Bathymetry Map
Fig 4 ......................................................................Steel Lake TSI values, 1994-2004
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 ..................................................................Land Use Estimates for the Steel Lake Watershed
Table 2 ..................................................................Shoreline Use Estimates for Steel Lake
Table 3 ..................................................................Physical Characteristics of the Steel Lake Watershed
Table 4 ..................................................................Trophic State Index (TSI) Water Quality Parameters
Table 5 ..................................................................List of Steel Lake Beneficial Uses
Table 6 ..................................................................2002 WDFW Total Fish Counts
Table 7 ..................................................................Kent/Auburn Rainer Audubon 2010 Bird Count
Table 8 ..................................................................Primary LMD Management Goals
Table 9 ..................................................................Estimated Annual Cost for Contracted Aquatic Plant
Management Program
Table 10 ................................................................Optional LMD Management Goals
DISTRIBUTION LIST
The following lists City staff involved with the implementation of this project:
• Will Appleton, P.E., Surface Water Manager, City of Federal Way
• Dan Smith, SurFace Water Quality Program Coordinator, City of Federal Way
• Hollie Shilley, Water Quality Specialist, City of Federal Way
Page Intentionally Left Blank
INTRODUCTION
In 2003, the City of Federal Way City Council, by Ordinance 03-452, created the inaugural ten-yeaz Steel
Lake Management District (LMD) Number 1 sun-setting on December 31, 2013. In 2012, the appointed
members of the Steel Lake Advisory Committee (SLAC), representing the property owners of the LMD and
acting per Resolution 03-397, began preparing the work scope to renew Steel Lake Management District
Number 1 for a second multi-year period. This document, the 2014-2023 Steel Lake Management District
Plan (SLMDP), outlines management goals established by the SLAC to provide the basis for the creation of
a renewed Steel Lake Management District, set to become effective the beginning of 2014.
Per the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 35.21.403, any city or town may establish lake management
districts (LMD) within its boundaries as provided in chapter 36.61 RCW. The Washington State legislature
finds that the environmental, recreational, and aesthetic values of many of the state's lakes are threatened by
eutrophication and other deterioration and that existing governmental authorities are unable to adequately
improve and maintain the quality of the state's lakes. It is through RCW 36.61 that a governmental
mechanism may be established by which property owners can embark on a program of lake improvement
and maintenance for their and the general public's benefit, health, and welfare.
RCW 36.61.020 outlines the requirements for the creation of a lake management district, including the
protocols for financing the LMD improvements and maintenance of a lake. RCW 36.61 also describes the
set of activities pernutted to be undertaken by an LMD: (1) The control or removal of aquatic plants and
vegetation; (2) water quality; (3) the control of water levels; (4) storm water diversion and treatment; (5)
agricultural waste control; (6) studying lake water quality problems and solutions; (7) cleaning and
maintaining ditches and streams entering or leaving the lake; and (8) the related administrative, engineering,
legal, and operational costs, including the costs of creating the lake management district.
1.0 LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT GOALS
Depending upon year-to-year fund balances, the renewed Steel Lake Management District Number 1 will
allow for the implementation of all activities granted by RCW 36.61.020. However, a more reasonable set of
management goals have been established for the 2014-2023 Steel Lake Management District Plan
(SLMDP). These management goals are based upon lake improvement and maintenance activities that may
be expected to be implemented over the LMD's ten-year period (2014-2023) per approval by the Steel Lake
Advisory Committee (SLAC):
1. Management of non-native aquatic plants and vegetation
2. Preservation of native vegetation and aquatic habitat
3. Management of hazardous algae blooms
4. Water quality monitoring
5. Maintenance of lake outlet channel
6. Management of Canada geese
7. Community Education and Public Involvement
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
2.0 BACKGROUND AND PAST LAKE MANAGEMENT
EFFORTS
Past lake management work for Steel Lake has primarily been limited to aquatic plant management and
public education and involvement. The following outlines these efforts.
2.1 Early efforts
Until the incorporation of the City of Federal Way in 1990, the Steel Lake community was under the
jurisdiction of King County. Early aquatic plant management efforts were spear-headed by the Steel Lake
Residents Association to improve Steel Lake and the region around the lake. In the late 1980s, Steel Lake
was reported to be infested by the non-native aquatic plant, Eurasian watermilfoil (see Section 5.2.3 for a
description. The Eurasian watermilfoil (milfoil) infestation covered large littoral areas of Steel Lake up
to the 15-foot depth interval, and was severe enough to result in the formation of dense beds that affected
shallower near shore areas. The conditions caused restrictions to fshing, swimming, sailing, and other
types of boating.
In 1990, Federal Way was incorporated as a city and the Surface Water Management (SWM) division
began actively engaging in the lake water quality issues. By 1994 the City of Federal Way and the Steel
Lake Residents' Association agreed to equally fund a multi-year aquatic plant management program for
Steel Lake to combat recuning milfoil infestations. In addition, the City was able to obtain a Department
of Ecology Grant to augment costs. During a successive four-year period, a number of efforts were
undertaken by the Residents' Association-City alliance including: a whole-lake Sonar� treatment in
1994 (Resource Management, Inc.); annual diver surveys (Herrera Environmental); and the preparation
of a 1994 Lake Management Plan (Envirovision,1994).
2.2 2001- 2002
A lull followed the mid-to-late 1990's aquatic vegetation work, then Steel Lake became reinfested with
milfoil in the summer of 2001. The City of Federal Way provided notification of the issue to all Steel
Lake residents and immediately began to develop a strategy for future aquatic weed management. In
early 2002, although the Steel Lake Residents' Association had dissolved, SWM began gathering support
of lakefront residents to re-form the aquatic plant management program. SWM obtained a two-year Early
Infestation Grant from the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) that funded a series of
underwater surveys and provided permit-authorized and contractor-implemented 2,4-D herbicide
treatments that were successful in eradicating a five-acre milfoil infestation. Concurrently, efforts also
began that year to form a Steering Committee to initiate the process to create a Lake Management
District (LMD) for Steel Lake.
2.3 2003
In 2003, SWM staff completed an updated Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP)
required by the Ecology-issued Aquatic Noxious Weed Control National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Waste Discharge General Permit. The IAVMP was approved by Ecology and provided the basis
for LMD development. That year, SWM coordinated a number of Steel Lake Steering Committee
meetings that resulted in the formation of a long-term aquatic vegetation management work plan. Cost
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
estimates from both the IAVMP and the work plan were used to calculate the necessary property
assessment rates (based on parcel types) that would be required to fund a ten-year LMD.
AquaTechnex continued to work under contract for the City in 2003. Two systematic aquatic plant diver
surveys were performed that established populations of all submerged, floating and emergent aquatic
plants (both native and non-native). Following the successful efforts taken under the Ecology Grant in
2002, milfoil populations were limited and scuba-diver hand-pulling was sufficient to control the
infestation.
After a public vote and action by Federal Way City Council, the process to form Steel Lake Management
District Number One was completed toward the end of 2003. The ten-year LMD began in 2004.
2.4 2004-2013
Surface Water Management (SWM) has managed all aquatic plant management activities on Steel Lake
per the ten-year (2004-2013) Steel Lake Management District (LMD). In summary, the annual LMD
programs have been administered through the implementation of work plans that included: quarterly
Advisory Committee meetings, annual aquatic plant surveys, treatment and control methods as
warranted, and effective public education. Steel Lake LMD Final reports describing annual aquatic plant
management efforts during this period may be found at http://www.citvoffederalwav.com/index.asox?nid=189
3.0 LAKE AND WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS
The Steel Lake watershed is located approximately twenty miles south of Seattle, in the City of Federal
Way, King County, Washington. The watershed is 429 acres in size and drains a gently sloping
topographic area with elevations ranging from 440 feet to 500 feet (Figure 1). The entire watershed of
Steel Lake lies within the City of Federal Way.
3.1 Land Use
Land use in the watershed is primarity comprised of single-family residences (Figure 2 and Table 1).
Steel Lake Park, multi-family residences, and vacant land comprise most of the remaining land in the
watershed. It should be noted that the sub-basin boundary in Figure 1 and land use estimates in Table 1
are for Redondo Creek sub-basin CPR3, which includes an additional acreage to the north and west of the
lake outlet.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
CitV of Figure 1: '
Federal Way 'h'�,;ershed :;torm�narer Conveyarce M'3r _ ..._ .,..
��
� �� �
� ` � � �'
� �� 1., f � f ��' _.:,
�' }� ...�' .;�
I� � �
���� �1
J�;
` i'
j � � . �� ,xyr
, �� �� ` r��
a�
Watershed Stormwater Conveyance
�
� ��.. �• ' ' "`' ``•" � Federil Way
� _. . � F r
�t...
City of Figure 2:
Federal Way vL'atershed iand Use M�o
- P
_ . F:� ^ . �• . F
.. • U i � N
� � , ��V=
,�,N �° � - _ . _�,, .. .�r.
_ �r5� ` " . .� ' : .. ...,
. � h _� ..,.-
_ ._ M :.:a:�w.,� , � e ..- c
Land Use Category ; x r �"'" � '� a
. _ ou�.n. .. r
? COf!V71EtCi3 .. .tr. .�r �' ,. <
Crainage � „ � , p
IntlusC3 ' t�s� 65os S� E � ; . • c - v
�;;a:;� Instilutc: al y � � ; Ltl0 ^•
f " �
%aiI-F3T'fy �, ti
� ,
O'FCB V
(�L = � N•�
' i il�.
W
PYk . � ' vc. � � i 'v �"
-.. p F
Rigttt o`'iiay °-T �
S^�e=3rily .�.. ' .�. y'
e : ., ti
�1[ :�.i a + J'2 ST � - �
S 512 8i
dacant 1
�co =.:o=
� F�-
'�i^.I^It1 Ma0
0
a
�� Federal Way
4 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
Table 1. Land Use Estimates for the Steel Lake Watershed (Subbasin CPR3)
Land Use Classifcation Area (Acres) Percent (°�)
Commercial 12.34 2.88
Drainage 0.74 0.17
Industrial 0.6 0.14
Institutional 5.81 1.36
Multi-family 27.26 6.36
Office 5.84 1.36
Open Space 2.65 0.62
Park 28.70 6.70
Right of Way 65.23 15.22
Single family 172.27 40.19
Steel Lake 47.37 11.05
Utilities 2.29 0.54
Vacant 57.52 13.42
Watershed (Total) 428.63 100.00
Data Source: King County Parcel Assessor Information and City of Federai Way GIS, 2012
3.2 Shoreline Use
Steel Lake includes 7,129 feet of shoreline (Table 2). The majority of the shoreline includes lake
frontage adjacent to single-family property (5,179 feet). Public access to the lake is from Steel Lake Park
(parce1092104 9026), owned and managed by the City of Federal Way. The Park is located on the south
shore of the lake and includes a public beach area. A public boat launch (parcel 798440 0210), also
located on the south shore near the park, is owned by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW). The largest undeveloped parcel (092104 9012) is located at the northwest corner, and has a
shoreline measuring 542 feet, with a portion classified as a Category I Wetland (see Section 33).
Table 2. Shoreline Use Estimates for Steel Lake
Shoreline Use Total frontage (ft) Percent %)
Sin le famil 5,178.63 72.64
Steel Lake Park 872.67 12.24
Vacant 699.1 9.81
Multi famii 314.13 4.41
Public boat launch 64.49 0.90
Total 7,129.03 100.00
Data Source: King County Parcel Assessor Information and City of Federal Way GIS, 2012
5 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
3.3 Outlet, Stream and Wetland Locations
Steel Lake forms the headwaters of Redondo Creek. Outflow from the lake generally occurs only during
the wet season (November through April). The lake outlet drains in a northwest direction from the west
end of the lake, passing through wetlands to a culvert crossing at South 304th Street. The outlet continues
to flow underneath Pacific Highway South to eventually discharge into Puget Sound at Redondo Beach in
the City of Des Moines (approximately 1.5 miles downstream of the lake).
The Steel Lake outlet channel has a history of flow congestion due to an accumulation of sediment, fallen
trees, woody debris, invasive blackberry vegetation, and trash. In addition, there is a lack of a defined
channel immediately downstream of the lake. SWM will continue to maintain the culvert crossing at S.
304�' Street. In addition, it is envisioned that the Steel Lake LMD will maintain the wetland area
upstream of the culvert crossing to minimize impacts to lake levels caused by identified causes and
natural wetland processes.
Steel Lake wetland areas were surveyed by Sheldon & Associates for the City of Federal Way in 1998,
and this information is included in the July 1999 Final Wetland Inventory Report. The purpose of the
wetlands inventory report was to identify and map the general location of the wetlands within the city
limits of Federal Way. General wetland and buffer conditions and characteristics, wetland sizes, and
wetland ratings based on the City's proposed rating system are provided in the report. Although all
wetlands inventoried were mapped, the inventory process did not include delineation of wetland edges
(only approximate boundaries and locations of wetlands were determined).
The 1999 Sheldon & Associates Final Wetland Inventory Report lists two separate categories of wetlands
associated with Steel Lake:
1. Category I wetland at the west end of Steel Lake (04-21-04-39) on parcels 092104 9196 and
092104 9124. Category I wetLands are defined as those greater than 2,500 square feet in area and
those that meet one of the fotlowing criteria:
1. Contain the presence of species or documented habitat recognized by state or federal
agencies as endangered, threatened or potentially extirpated plant, fish or animal species; or
2. Contain the presence of plant associations of infrequent occurrence, irreplaceable ecological
functions, or exceptional local significance including but not limited to estuarine systems,
peat bogs and fens, mature forested wetlands, groundwater exchange areas, significant
habitat or unique educational sites; or
3. Have three or more wetland classes one of which is open water.
2. Category III wetlands at the north shore (09-21-04-38) from approximately 2111 South 304�'
Street east to 2231 South 304`� Street. These Category III wetlands are described as having an
approximate cumulative size between 500 to 2,500 square feet. Category III wetlands do not
exhibit characteristics of Category I or II wetlands.
6 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
3.4 Non-point Nutrient Source Locations
The majority of surface water is conveyed to the lake through the City's stormwater system from the 429-
acre watershed. (Figure 1). The largely urbanized nature of the watershed contributes typical urban area
nutrient-related pollutants to the lake, in particular nitrogen and phosphorous. Pollutant sources in the
watershed—including landscaping, gardening, domestic pets, flocks of resident and migratory Canada
geese, and vehicle washing in upland areas of the watershed—all have the potential to contribute a
loading of nutrients into the lake. Large concentrations of these non-point nutrients can increase the
biological productivity of the lake and stimulate plant growth. It is worthy to note that all lakefront
residences and most of the development in the watershed are connected to the Lakehaven Utility District
sanitary sewer system.
3.5 Lake Bathymetry
On March ll, 2010, AquaTechnex completed a bathymetry mapping effort for Steel Lake (Figure 3). A
sonar unit accurate to a tenth of a foot was paired with a Trimble GPS data logger with sub-foot accuracy
to record depth readings at two second intervals along pre-determined transects. There were a total of
20,674 points generated in the production of the mapping effort.
Figure 3, 2010 Steel Lake Bathymetry Map
_.r..> , _ — _ -,r _ _ � _„_
��e ����.�� r y+� � ��� ` e { �' � � , '!����
�. �JT Cl � �I�1';I �' � {.� `I '� .�.'�y�� F � .,`:`
�
� � '�' t�' ` ,,,� ;��`•� �r�'t � � •`��� �; �, ' ,�� � f w ; `
�'��� � �.� �► � t.: _ ��
,: ; ►
,
� �y�� � r����Y�,�l
1 � , �.a
�(Iw�
i6� , # �"ti.'�� �r�.��J �'.. . . ',,
r y .f',:�4 ` +yy�.,; j � . i ! � . .Y... ,
�� � '. ��. �
r � �,
'' . ,, , : , ,,� .� C :`�
.� ��a � , � �, � +�`,��
o � � (
..:a j � • �"�
) ,
. . ,� `� f� � � E1 ` t�(��� �
, . _�Y��I���L_! ���rLr' �tr..'fi�I
; �� `�
..�` ,
`� �,��a
� - � �t �
:� � ; �;' ..�
�� �.;; :
k,; -;� :,•► ,,
� t �
.. �weiM e �:
�•� C F 2� 3fr.
� 1 p Y:-13
4 •
� �PWM t�lam lon.
� '� � C� I�: P A �E-. W. h 201
�y` . e y ed I -u� e ra,rl
79���� ✓ 1i;u
��t �w� i r.nroo�
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
Physical characteristics of Steel Lake are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3. Physical Characteristics of Steel Lake Watershed
Characteristic Unit
Surface area 48.6 acres
Lake volume 607 acre-feet
Maximum depth 29 feet
Average depth 12.5 feet
Lake altitude 440 feet
Shoreline length 7,129 feet
Data Source: AquaTechnex Bathymetry Mapping, 2010. Note that the lake surface area calculated by AquaTechnex reflects full
lake pool conditions, and differs from the figure provided in Table 1.
3.6 Water Source
The majority of surface water enters the lake via stormwater outfalls located around the perimeter of the
lake (Figure 1). No streams flow into the lake.
3.7 Water Quality
Population growth, and specifically residential development, is associated with many environmental
impacts, including nutrient pollution and subsequent eutrophication of lakes. Eutrophication of lakes
refers to a group of symptoms that lakes generally display when tlley have been overloaded by nutrients,
namely nitrogen and phosphorus. These symptoms include a disruption of the natural ecological state of
the lake, including higher primary production, higher algae biomass, and a shifting of the algal
community to a larger proportion of large blue-green algae that can be toxic to humans and pets. Thus,
eutrophication often leads to lakes that are less economically beneficial and less aesthetically desirable to
humans (2003, Moore, Schindler, Scheuerell, Smith and Frodge). Although the developed region
surrounding Steel Lake has seen a reduction in point source nutrient pollution (i.e. hook up to public
sanitary systems), there continues to be sources of nonpoint pollution in the watershed.
3.7.1 Historic Water Quality Data
A King County Lake Stewardship Program Volunteer Monitoring Program for Steel Lake began in
the 1980s and continued for several decades until budget cuts ended the program in ?004. The most
recent data generated by this program indicates that Steel Lake is relatively low in primary
�roductivity (borderline oligotrophic to mesotrophic) with very good water quality.
The assessment of biological activity (or trophic state) can be classified into three general categories
of lake water quality: oligotrophic, mesotrophic, and eutrophic. A common measurement used to
calculate a lake's water quality classification is the numerical trophic state index (illustrated in
Table 4). Lakes with low concentrations of nutrients, low concentrations of algae, and high
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
transparency (or clarity) are considered oligotrophic. A lake with high concentrations of nutrients
and algae and low transparency is considered eutrophic. Lakes whose quality ranges between
eutrophic and oligotrophic are considered mesotrophic.
Table 4. Trophic State Index (TSI) Water Quality Parameters
Trophic State/Biological Activity TSI
Oligotrophic/Low <40
Mesotrophic/Moderate 40-50
Eutrophic/High >50
Data Source: Carlson, 1977
Historical water quality data for Steel Lake are represented graphically in Figure 4. The data
indicate Steel Lake has been consistently trending toward lower primary productivity (borderline
oligotrophic to mesotrophic) with very good water quality.
Figure 4, Steel Lake TSI 1994-2004
70
�, 50
� 50
�
� �Q
� 30
20
� Secchi - - - • - - - Ch lor —•�- TotP
_ _ � �
--� - -
� � (O I� 00 m O N ch �
m � m � � Oi O O O O O
m � � m � � O O O O O
Data Source: King County Lake Stewardship Program
3.7.2 Water Quality Assessments
The federal Clean Water Act, adopted in 1972, requires that all states restore their waters to be
"fishable and swimmable." Washington's Water Quality Assessment—developed by the Department
of Ecology—lists the water quality status for all water bodies in the state. This assessment meets the
federal requirements for an integrated report under Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water
Act.
The most up-to-date information, The 2008 Water Qualiry Assessment and 303(d) List, was
reviewed for the 201�-2023 Steel Lake Management District Plan (Ecology, 2012). The following
two assessment listings for Steel Lake were found to be present:
9 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
1. Fecal Coliform, Category 2, Waters of Concern: Waters where the data are not suffcient
for listing a waterbody segment as impaired but may still raise a concern about water qualiry.
. Department of Ecology lakes monitoring data shows 0 of 3 daily maximum samples exceeded
the percentile criterion in 2003. Samples were collected near Steel Lake Park recreation area
to reflect water quality conditions in this area only.
. King County unpublished data from station A730 show a geometric mean of 134 cfu/100mL
with 50% exceeding the percentile criterion during 1998.
. King County unpublished data from station A730 show a geometric mean of 260 cfu/100mL
with 100% exceeding the percentile criterion during 1999.
. Remarks: Based on comments produced by the City of Federal Way, the assessment for this
listing was changed from Category 5(Polluted Waters that Require a TMDL) to Category 2
(Waters of Concern) on January 5, 2006.
1. Invasive Exotic Species, Category 2, Waters of Concern: Waters where the data are not
suff cient for listing a waterbody segment as impaired but may still raise a concern about
water quality.
• Ecology survey (Parsons and O'Neal, 2000) found Eurasian water-milfoil (Myriophyllum
spicatum).
• Remarks: Based on comments produced by the City of Federal Way, the assessment for this
listing was changed from Category 4C (Waters Impaired by a Non-Pollutant) to Category 2
(Waters of Concern) on January 31, 2005. Information cited for the new listing included the
implementation of an active aquatic weed management program in 2002, including an
annual milfoil eradication program; the approval by Ecology of the Steel Lake Integrated
Aquatic Vegetative Management Plan in 2003; and the formation of Lake Management
District Number One for Steel Lake in 2004.
3.8 Water Rights
In ,June 2012, the Department of Ecology Water Resources Program was accessed electronically to
determine current water right certificates, water use permits; applications for water use, and claims of
water use on Steel Lake (Ecology, 2012). Using Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping, it was
determined that only one Certificate of Water Right currently exists on Steel Lake:
• 2605 South 304th Street (parce1092104 9078).
3.9 Beneficial and Recreational Us�s
Table 5 contains a list of beneficial uses that Steel Lake provides to area residents, visitors, and wildlife.
In particular, the lake supports a large public park, excellent wetland habitat, and a trout-stocking
program. It is also important to note that motorized boats are prohibited on Steel Lake per City of Federal
Way Ordinance Number 12-715.
10 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
3.10 Wildlife
Steel Lake is managed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) as a trout and
warm-water fishery. Between 1947 and 1969, the lake was rehabilitated on five occasions by treating
with rotenone to reduce populations of spiny-ray fish and was stocked each of those years with
approximately 7,000 rainbow trout fry (Salmo gairdneri). Due to the mixed species character of the fish
community and the poor survival of trout fry, the fish management program changed in the 1970s by
eliminating rotenone treatments and by stocking with rainbow trout of catchable size ( between 8 and 12
inches long) in the spring of each year (City of Federal Way, 2003). Since 1991 an average of 6,000
trout hav� been released into the lake each year.
Due to program cutbacks, WDFW has not conducted fish population surveys in Steel Lake since 2002.
The results of that survey (utilizing electro-fishing and gull and fyke nets), may be found in Table 6.
Table 5. List of Beneficial Uses for Steel Lake
Beneflcial Use �ocation
Swimming Public and private shorelines and docks
Fishing Whole lake
Sailing Whole lake
Waterfowl habitat Concentrated along western shore
Aestetic enjoyment In lake and surrounding shoreline
Bird watching Throughout the lake
Wetland habitat Near the lake outlet (western end of the lake)
Wildlife habitat Crayfish, turtles, and frogs primarily near shore
Trout stocking Deep water habitat. No trout spawn in the lake
City park Approximately 873 feet of shoreline
Fish habitat Spawning (warmwater fish) occurs near docks
and lilies in the west end. No salmon spawn in the lake
Table 6. 2002 WDFW Total Fish Counts
Species Yellow Perch Largemouth pumpkinseed Rainbow Trout Brown
Bass Bullhead
Total Sampled 621 148 79 16 37
Percent 68.9% 16.4% 8% 4.1 % 1.8%
Size,1-4 inch 4 88 8 0 0
Size, 4-7 inch 46 49 51 0 2
Size, 7-11 inch 22 7 28 37 12
Size, 11-14 inch 0 1 0 0 2
Size, 14-17 inch 0 1 0 0 0
Slze, 17-19 inch 0 2 0 0 0
11 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
The KentlAuburn chapter of the Rainier Audubon Society 2010 Christmas Bird Count may be used as a
gauge of bird species that may visit Steel Lake (Table 7). Birds, mammals and small amphibians are also
known to use Steel Lake. Residents report seeing muskrats, bald eagles, skunks, raccoons, opossums,
squirrels, turtles and frogs. There are no known threatened or endangered fish species using Steel Lake.
Table 7. Kent/Auburn Rainier Audubon 2010 Christmas Bird Count
All available information on sensitive, threatened, or endangered aquatic animals (excluding fish) using
the water body is on a county-specific basis, and little or no information is available on Steel Lake
proper.
Several non-native animal species are known to inhabit Steel Lake, including red swamp crayfish
(Procambarus clarkii), Chinese mystery snails (Bedlamya chinensis) and the red-eared slider turtle
(Trachemys scripta elegans). These species were likely introduced to Steel Lake, and although the
impact of these non-native species is unknown, most invasive aquatic animal species compete against
native species for food sources, thereby presenting implications for the lake ecosystem if they multiply
dramatically.
� 2 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
In 2012, AquaTechnex completed a Steel Lake Discharge Management Plan (DMP) and State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Addendum per the requirements of the State of Washington,
Department of Ecology, Aquatic Plant and Algae General Permit, National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) and State Waste Discharge General Permit (Appendix G), section S2.B.4.
This requirement must be satisfied when the totat proposed treated area in the water body is expected to
be five or more acres. The SEPA Addendum includes an "environmental checklist" that examines the
potential impacts of the project on the environment and answers questions regarding the current status of
Steel Lake including but not limited to: presence of sensitive, threatened, or endangered aquatic plant
species; sensitive habitats or wetlands; threatened or endangered fish species; aquatic animals using the
water body; sensitive, threatened or endangered aquatic animals; and waterfowl and other types of birds.
Historical observations of sensitive, threatened, or endangered aquatic plant species have been
documented, but only reported for King County as a whole in the years prior to 1977. None listed have
been reported or identified within Steel Lake (AquaTechnex, 2012). According to the Washington
Department of Natural Resources database of high quality/rare ecological communities, there are no
sensitive, threatened, or endangered aquatic plant species located in Steel Lake (2012 DMS,
AquaTechnex).
4.0 THE AQUATIC WEED PROBLEM
Noxious freshwater aquatic weeds are plants that are not native to Washington. They are generally of
limited distribution, invasive, and pose a serious threat to our State's water bodies if left uncheeked.
Because nonnative plants have few natural controls in their new habitat, they spread rapidly, out-
competing and effectively destroying native plant and animal habitats. In addition, the presence of
noxious freshwater weeds may lower values of lakefront properties. The historical presence of aquatic
p(ants in Steel Lake, (including non-native and noxious species), have been shown to impair the use and
aesthetic value of the lake. Because of the lake's shallow characteristics, aquatic plants have the potential to
restrict the available area for recreation activities such as fishing, swimming and boating. In addition, other
regional lakes are in danger of becoming infested with noxious or invasive aquatic plants originating in
Steel Lake. The 2014-2023 Steel Lake Management District Plan provides a long-term strategy for the
control of aquatic plants in Steel Lake.
Under the authority of Chapter 17.10 RCW, the King County Noxious Weed Control Board classifies
noxious weeds based on each species' stage of invasion. This classification system is designed to: (1)
prevent small infestations from becoming large infestations; (2) contain already established infestations
to regions of the state where they occur, and, (3) prevent their movement to un-infested areas of
Washington. The following three major classes (A, B and C) are listed according to the seriousness of the
threat they pose to the state, or a region of the state:
Class A Weeds: Non-native species with a limited distribution in Washington. Preventing new
infestations and eradicating existing infestations is the highest priority. Eradication is required by law.
Class B Weeds: Non-native species presently limited to portions of the state. Species are designated for
control in regions where they are not yet wide-spread. Preventing new infestations in these areas is a high
13 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL IAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
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.
Between 2000 and 2012, the following five noxious weed species have been detected in Steel Lake:
Common Name Scienti�c Name Weed Class
Eurasian watermilfoil Myriophyllum spicatum B
Fragrant water lily Nymphaea odorata C
Yellow flag iris Iris pseudacorus C
Japanese knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum B
5.0 AQUATIC PLANT CHARACTERISTICS
Steel Lake is a typical urban Western Washington naturally-formed glacial lake, and the aquatic plants
(both native and non-native) that inhabit it are also typical. Surface Water Management (SWM), through
a ten-year Steel Lake Management District (LMD) that began in 2004, has coordinated all aquatic plant
management activities on Steel Lake.
5.1 Native Aquatic Plants in Steel Lake
Through the LMD, annual systematic surveys have been performed on Steel Lake to identify and
quantify the presence of native and non-native aquatic vegetation. This information has provided a
continued baseline of lake plant communities. Plant location maps may be found in all Steel Lake Annual
reports generated from 2004 to 2011.
Overall, the Steel Lake native aquatic plant community has been rated as healthy through this period.
Native vegetation has covered most littoral areas and did not interfere with the water use designations for
the lake community during the period (swimming, boating, and fishing). Based upon the information
provided in the annual surveys, Steel Lake has been within the parameters calculated from WDFW and
Ecology criteria and adopted by the SLMDP for native vegetation littoral zone coverage (See section
8.0).
The following includes a summary of the types and characteristics of the dominant aquatic plant species
found during Steel Lake Aquatic Plant Surveys that have been conducted during the last eight years. A
portion of this information has been obtained from the Department of Ecology website (Ecology, 2012).
14 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
5.1.1 Native Emergent Plants
There have been no dominant native emergent plant types noted in Steel Lake. Scattered along the
shoreline in moderate to dense patches have been a number of emergent species, Typha spp.
(Cattail), Edeocharis sp. (Spike Rush), and Scirpus spp. (Bull Rush), that grow in shallow lake
margins. The seeds of the rushes are an important food for waterfowl and mammals. Cattail
rhizomes and their basal portions are a food source for geese. All Steel Lake's native emergent
vegetation provides habitat for amphibians and fish and helps to stabilize shorelines.
5.1.2 Native Rooted F/oating-Leaved P/ants
The most dominant native rooted floating-leaved plant type that has been noted in Steel Lake is
Nuphar spp. (Yellow pond lily). This plant is a perennial water lily plant that has established a
moderate-sized stand in the shallow waters of the lake near the public beach and swimming area. It
is a food source for mammals and waterfowl and provides spawning habitat for fish.
5.1.3 Native Submerged Macrophytes
The most dominant native submerged macrophyte communities noted in Steel Lake are as follows:
Smail-leafed pondweed (Potamogeton pusillus)
These pondweeds have long, narrow leaves, and except for an occasional flower spike that
briefly rises above the water, they remain underwater for their entire lives. Their stems are
slender and profusely branched, and often have small, paired yellowish glands at the leaf base.
The flower appears in 1-4 whorls on spikes measuring 3-15 mm long, not always above the
water. The root is fibrous to form the base of the plant. The planYs seeds and winter buds form at
the lateral branch tips and near the leaf bases. Its seeds and vegetation provide cover and food for
aquatic animals.
Naiads (Naja flexilis)
Naiads (or slender water-nymph and common water-nymph) are completely submerged annual
plants, although they are often found as floating fragments. They have opposite leaves that are
often clustered near the tips of the stems. The leaf base is much wider than the rest of the leaf
blade, which helps to distinguish the naiads from other underwater plants. These plants have
inconspicuous flowers and fruits that are almost completely hidden by the leaf bases. Naiad
pollination takes place underwater. The plants have glossy, green, and finely toothed leaves that
are oppositely arranged, but appear to be whorled near ends of the stems. The leaves are long and
narrow with broad bases that clasp the stem, and taper to a long point 1-3 cm long and 1-2 mm
wide. The entire plant is eaten by waterfowl. Naiads are considered to be one of their most
important food sources. They also provide shelter for small fish and insects.
5.1.4 Native Submerged Macroa/gae
The most dominant native submerged macroalgae communities noted in Steel Lake are as follows
(information obtained in part from the Department of Ecology website):
15 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
Plant-like algae (Chara, spp)
Although these common lake inhabitants look similar to many underwater plants, they are
actually algae. Chara are green or gray-green colored algae that grow completely submersed in
shallow (4 cm) to deep (20 m) water. Individuals can vary greatly in size, ranging from 5 cm to
1 m in length. These algae are identifiable by their strong skunk-like or garlic odor, especially
evident when crushed.
Chara, like other algae, do not produce flowers. Instead, microscopic, one-celled sex organs
called oogonia are formed. These tiny organs and patterns in the cases that surround them are
used to distinguish between species. Tiny spores are produced in fruiting bodies. In some species
the fruiting bodies are orange and very conspicuous. In addition, Chara may be attached to the
bottom by root-like structures called holdfasts.
Plant-like algae (Nitella, sp.)
Nitellas are bright green algae that often are mistaken for higher plants because they appear to
have leaves and stems. These long, slender, delicate, smooth-textured algae lie on the bottom of a
lake or pond and are seldom found in the water column. They often grow in deeper water than
flowering plants and frequently form a thick carpet or grow in clumps along the bottom. Whorls
of forked branches are attached at regularly spaced intervals along the "stems". Nitellas
sometime grow together with muskgrasses (Chara spp.), another plant-like algae, to form
underwater meadows.
The plant has no true leaves. Six-eight evenly forked branchlets grow in whorls at regulazly
spaced intervals along the "stem". Unlike the rough branchlets of most muskgrasses (Chara
spp.), Nitella branchlets have a smooth texture. Nitellas have no true stems, but have hollow,
stem-like structures that have whorls of forked branches along their entire length. The largest
Nitella species have "stems" up to 2 xn long. The plant does not bear flowers; instead they have
microscopic spore-producing organs. The plants may be attached to the bottom by root-like
structures called holdfasts or be floating free above the sediment. Nitellas provide cover for fish,
food for fish and waterfowl, and stabilize the sediment. Because they have no roots, they remove
nutrients directly from the water. Nitellas are considered desirable species in Washington.
5.2 Non-Native Aquatic Plants in Steel Lake
As with native aquatic plants, annual systematic surveys performed on Steel Lake have identified and
located non-native aquatic vegetation. From this information, control strategies have been developed.
Plant location maps may be found in all Steel Lake Annual reports, 2004-2011.
During this period, the Steel Lake non-native aquatic plant community has been limited to four noxious
species: Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) Class B; Fragrant water lily (Nymphaea
odorata) Class C; Yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus) Class C; and Japanese knotweed (Podygonum
spidatum) Class B. The following sections describe these non-native plant species in greater detail.
16 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
5.2.1 Non-Native Emergent Plants
The non-native emergent plants noted in Steel Lake are as follows:
Yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus)
Yellow flag iris is a Class C Noxious Weed. Yellow flag iris is native to mainland Europe, the
British Isles, and the Mediterranean region of North Africa and was introduced widely in western
Washington as a garden ornamental, the earliest from Lake McMurray in Skagit County in 1948.
The yellow flowers are a distinguishing characteristic, and when not in flower, it may be
confused with cattail (Typha sp. ) or broad-fruited bur-reed (Sparganium eurycarpum).Yellow
flag iris is considered an obligate wetland species, with a>99% probability of occurring in
wetlands as opposed to upland areas. The plants produce large fruit capsules and corky seeds in
the late summer. Yellow flag iris can spread by both seeds and by rhizome growth, where it can
form dense stands that can exclude even the toughest native wetland species, such as Typha
latifolia (cattail). In addition to threatening plant diversity, this noxious weed can also alter
hydrologic dynamics through sediment accretion along the shoreline. This species produces
prolific seeds that may easily transport downstream to invade other valuable resource areas.
Yellow flag iris continues to populate shoreline areas of Steel Lake, but its numbers are
decreasing as it has been effectively targeted for treatment through the LMD aquatic plant
management program.
Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum)
Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) is a Class B Noxious Weed. It is an escaped
ornamental that is becoming increasingly common along stream corridors and rights-of-way in
Washington. The plant has spreading rhizomes and numerous reddish-brown, freely branched
stems. It can reach four to eight feet in height and is otten shrubby.
Although not formally listed as an a�uatic plant by the Department of Ecology, Japanese
knotweed can form dense stands that crowd out all other vegetation, degrading native plant and
animal habitat. It is difficult to control because it has an extremely vigorous deep and dense
rhizomes mat system. In addition, the plant can re-sprout from fragments to create new shoreline
infestations.
Japanese knotweed (JK) was documented to be colonizing a very small area on one single
property shoreline along South 308�` Street. After two successive glyphosate treatments ending in
2009, it has been successfully eradicated.
5.2.2 Non-Native Rooted F/oating-Leaved P/ants
The only non-native rooted floating-leaved plant noted in Steel Lake is:
Fragrant water lily/ White water lily (Nymphaea odorata)
Fragrant water lily is a Class C Noxious Weed. Fragrant waterlilies are water plants with floating
leaves and large, many-petaled fragrant blossoms. Requests for waterlily control represent a high
percentage of the herbicide permit requests received by the Department of Ecology.
� 7 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
The hardy white and (sometimes) pink lilies have become naturalized in Washington lakes and
rivers. These plants are native to the eastern United States and it is believed that the waterlily
was introduced to Washington in the late 1800s. Water lilies have been intentionally planted in
many Washington lakes, especially those lakes in western Washington. Lake residents are
strongly discouraged from planting fragrant waterlilies in lakes or natural waterbodies because
they are aggressive plants. Oftentimes "hitchhiker" plants such as hydrilla can also be introduced
to our lakes when water lilies are planted. Shallow lakes like Steel Lake are particularly
vulnerable to becoming completely covered by ftagrant waterlilies.
Left unmanaged, waterlilies will restrict lake-front access and eliminate swimming opportunities.
Waterlilies grow in dense patches, excluding native species and even creating stagnant areas with
low oxygen levels underneath the floating mats. These mats make it difficult to fish, water ski,
swim, or even paddle a canoe through. Although relatively slow-spreading, waterlilies will
eventually colonize shallow water depths to six feet deep and can dominate the shorelines of
shatlow lakes.
Waterlilies reproduce by seed and also by new plants sprouting from the large spreading roots
(underground stems called rhizomes). A planted rhizome will cover about a 15-foot diameter in
about five years. Each spring (April) new shoots appear from the rhizomes and grow up through
the water until they reach the surface. The flowers appear from June to September. Root systems
are tenacious, and if pieces of the rhizome are broken off during control efforts, they will dritt to
other locations and establish a new patch of lilies. Fragrant waterlily continues to populate
sporadic areas of Steel Lake, but their numbers are decreasing as they have been effectively
targeted for treatment through the LMD aquatic plant management program.
5.2.3 Non-Native Submerged Macrophytes
The only non-native submerged macrophyte noted in Steel Lake is as follows:
Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum)
Eurasian watermilfoil (milfoil) is a Class B Noxious Weed. Because it is widely distributed and
difficult to control, milfoil is considered to be the most problematic aquatic plant in Washington.
The introduction of milfoil can drastically alter a waterbody's ecology. Milfoil forms very dense
mats of vegetation on the surface of the water. These mats interfere with recreational activities
such as swimming, fishing, water skiing, and boating.
Milfoil is an attractive plant with feathery underwater foliage. Once commonly sold as an
aquarium plant, milfoil originated from Europe and Asia. It was introduced to North America
fifty to one-hundred years ago. The first known specimen of milfoil in Washington was collected
from Lake Meridian near Seattle in 1965. By the mid-1970s it was also found in Lake
Washington. Now milfoil is found throughout the Northwest; and in western Washington, has
spread up and down the Interstate 5 corridor.
Some tips to identify milfoil:
• Count the pairs of leaflets. Milfoil usually has twelve or more pairs on each leaf.
� 8 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
• Milfoil leaves tend to collapse around the stem when removed from the water. Other milfoil
species have thicker stems and are usually more robust.
• The mature leaves are typically arranged in whorls of four around the stem.
Milfoil is an extremely adaptable plant, able to tolerate and even thrive in a variety of
environmental conditions. It grows in still to flowing waters, roots in water depths from one to
ten meters (regularly reaching the surface while growing in water three to five meters deep), and
can survive under ice. Relative to other submersed plants, milfoil requires high light, has a high
photosynthetic rate, and can grow over a broad temperature range. Milfoil grows best on fine-
textured, inorganic sediments and relatively poorly on highly organic sediments.
The sheer mass of milfoil plants can interfere with water flow to cause flooding. Stagnant mats
can create good habitat for mosquitoes. Milfoil mats can rob oxygen from the water by
preventing the wind from mixing the oxygenated surface waters to deeper water. The dense mats
of vegetation can also increase the sedimentation rate by trapping sediments. Milfoil also starts
spring growth sooner than native aquatic plants and can shade out these beneficial plants. When
milfoil invades new territory, the species diversity of nearby aquatic plants typically declines.
While some species of waterfowl will eat milfoil, it is not considered to be a good food source.
Mono-specific stands of milfoil provide poor habitat for waterfowl, fish, and other wildlife.
Significant rates of plant sloughing and leaf turnover, as well as the decomposition of high
biomass at the end of the growing season, increase the internal loading of phosphorus and
nitrogen to the water column. Dense milfoil mats alter water quality by raising pH, decreasing
oxygen under the mats, and increasing temperature.
Milfoil exhibits an annual pattern of growth. In the spring, shoots begin to grow rapidly as water
temperatures approach 15 degrees centigrade. When they near the surface, shoots branch
profusely, forming a dense canopy. The leaves below one-meter senesce in response to self-
shading. Typically, plants flower upon reaching the surface (usually in mid- to late-July). After
flowering, plant biomass declines as the result of the fragmentation of stems. Where flowering
occurs early, plant biomass may increase again later in the growing season and a second
flowering may occur. During fall, plants die back to the root crowns, which sprout again in the
spring. Milfoil frequently over-winters in an evergreen form and may maintain considerable
winter biomass.
Although Milfoil can potentially spread by both sexual and vegetative means, vegetative spread
is considered the major method of reproduction. During the growing season, the plant undergoes
auto-fragmentation. The abscising fragments often develop roots at the nodes before separation
from the parent plants. Fragments are also produced by wind and wave action and boating
activities, with each fragment having the potential to develop into a new plant. Milfoil can easily
be transported from lake to lake on boat trailers or fishing gear.
Milfoil continues to re-infest azeas of Steel Lake as it is transported into the waterbody via boats,
trailers or waterfowl. But its densities have been held mostly in-check as it has been effectively
targeted for early identification and treatment through the LMD aquatic plant management
program.
19 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
6.0 AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
The aquatic plant management control goals outlined in the 2014-2023 Steel Lake Management District
Plan (SLMDP) are based on, at a minimum, controlling three identified non-native plant communities:
milfoil, fragrant water lily, and yellow flag iris. To some extent, native submerged plants may be also
controlled if they are determined to impact the beneficial uses of the lake. The feasibility of the different
plant control techniques will depend on the specific aquatic plant and the degree of control desired. This
section outlines common methods used to control aquatic vegetation including their advantages and
disadvantages, and their suitability for Steel Lake.
6.1 Aquatic Herbicides
Aquatic herbicides are often required to manage freshwater noxious vegetation as the effects of the
weeds may be significant and pervasive, having a serious potential to profoundly impact species
diversity, habitat, water quality, recreation, water supply, drinking water, flood control, safety, and
health. Aquatic herbicides are often the most effective tools to remove these invasive plants and restore
the ecosystem (Ecology, 2012).
Aquatic herbicides are chemicals specifically formulated for use in water to kill or control aquatic plants.
Herbicides approved for aquatic use by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have
been thoroughly reviewed and are considered compatible with the aquatic environment when used
according to label directions. Note that the state of Washington imposes additional constraints on their
use above and beyond federal guidelines.
Aquatic herbicides are sprayed directly onto floating or emergent aquatic plants or are applied to the
water in either a liquid or pellet form. Systemic herbicides are capable of killing the entire plant. Contact
herbicides cause the parts of the plant in contact with the herbicide to die back, leaving the roots alive
and able to regrow. Non-selective, broad spectrum herbicides will generally affect all plants that they
come in contact with. Selective herbicides will affect only some plants. Dicots, broad leafed plants such
as Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), will be affected by selective herbicides whereas
monocots like Brazitian elodea (Egeria densa) may not be affected.
The Integrated Aquatic Plant Management and Treatment Plan (Section 7) contains detailed information
concerning the selected herbicide control measures used to prevent andlor halt the spread of aquatic plant
species infestations to prevent potential lake degradation and to provide the opportunity for the
reintroduction of native aquatic plants to Steel Lake.
Because of environmental risks due to improper application practices, aquatic herbicide treatment in
Washington state waters is regutated by the following restrictions:
• Applicators must be licensed by the Washington State Department of Agriculture.
• A 2001 9th Circuit District Court decision requires that applicants obtain coverage under a
National Pollutant Elimination ,System Discharge (NPDES) permit before they can legally apply
aquatic herbicides to the waters of the state.
• The Washington Department of Ecology requires notification and posting before treatment.
Mitigation to protect rare plants or threatened and endangered species is also required.
20 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
6.1.1 Aquatic P/ant and A/gae Management Genera/ Permit
Aquatic herbicide applications on Steel Lake are covered under a State of Washington, Department
of Ecology, Aquatic Plant and Algae General Permit, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) and State Waste Discharge General Permit (permit). The current permit regulates
the use of pesticides and other products applied to manage aquatic nuisance plants, noxious weeds,
quarantine listed weeds, algae, and nutrients in fresh surface waters of the state of Washington.
Permit requirements differ depending on plant growth forms and the legal status of the plant species.
Impact to non-target plants is acceptable only to the extent needed to control the target plants.
Ecology limits direct herbicide application to a percentage of the littoral zone for most control
treatments to preserve native plant habitat. As such, one of the goals of the SLMDP will be to
maintain native aquatic vegetation for habitat while allowing partial plant removal to maintain
recreation and other beneficial uses (see Section 8).
Compliance with the permit ensures the following:
1. That the application of pesticides will not cause or contribute to a violation of the Water
Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington (chapter 173-201A WAC),
Ground Water Quality Standards (chapter 173-200 WAC), Sediment Management Standards
(chapter 173-204 WAC), and human health-based criteria in the National Toxics Rule (40 CRF
131.36).
2. That all known, available, and reasonable methods of pollution control, prevention, and
treatment (AKART) will be used when applying pesticides. Compliance with this permit, the
Washington Pesticide Control Act and the requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) label constitute AKART.
Additionally, Federal and state regulations require that effluent limits in an NPDES permit must be
either technology or water quality-based:
• Technology-based limitations are based upon the methods available to treat specific pollutants.
Technology-based limits are set by EPA and published as a regulation or Ecology develops the
limit on a case-by-case basis (40 CFR 1253, and chapter 173-220 WAC).
• Water quality-based limits are calculated so that the effluent will comply with the Surface
Water Quality Standards (chapter 173-201A WAC), Ground Water Standards (chapter 173-
200 WAC), Sediment Qua(ity Standards (chapter 173-204 WAC) or the National Toxics Rule
(40 CFR 13136).
• Ecology must apply the more stringent of these limits to each parameter of concern.
Eradication projects target only state-listed noxious weeds or quarantine-list weeds. The goal is the
complete and permanent removal of these species from the entire waterbody. Therefore, littoral zone
limitations do not apply to eradication of noxious weeds or weeds on the quarantine list. Impacts to
non-target plants are acceptable to the extent needed to eradicate the target plants. Eradication is
allowed only for all noxious weeds as identified in chapter 16-750 of the Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) including those targeted under the SLMDP: Eurasian water milfoil,
fragrant water lily, yellow flag iris, and Japanese knotweed.
2� CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
The permit has vetted all permit-covered herbicide applications through the Herbicide Risk
Assessment for the Aquatic Plant Management Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(Ecology, 2000).
6.1.2 Discharge Management P/an
In compliance with section a S.3.D of the permit, a detailed, site-specific Discharge Management
Plan (DMP) and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) addendum has been prepared and approved
for Steel Lake. This particular requirement is for projects where herbicide treatment areas are
expected to be five or more acres. The DMP and SEPA Checklist provides a way to identify
possible environmental impacts that may result from aquatic herbicide applications, and helps
agency decision-makers, applicants, and the public to understand how the plan will affect the
environment. The fina12010 DMP-SEPA Checklist for Steel Lake is found in Appendix F.
6.1.3 Aquatic Herbicide Contro/ of Milfoil
Within the past eleven seasons (2002-2012), Steel Lake has experienced localized Eurasian
watermilfoil (milfoil) infestations that have been controlled manually through diver hand-pulling six
different years. During this period, the size and scope of the infestation required permit-covered
herbicide treatments on four different occasions. Each time, the infestations have reacted well to
partial lake herbicide spot applications using 2,4-D AquaKleen� (2002), 2,4-D DMA*IVM (2005),
and Triclopyr Renovate OTF (2009 and 2010).
The Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board (WAC Chapter 16-750) lists milfoil as a Class
B Weed: a non-native species that is designated for control in regions where it is not yet wide-
spread, and where preventing new infestations is a high priority (as is the case with Steel Lake).
Milfoil, when detected in Steel Lake, shall be treated with aquatic herbicide only under State of
Washington, Department of Ecology, Aquatic Plant and Algae General Permit, National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and State Waste Discharge General Permit coverage.
When the aquatic plant surveys have detected milfoil in densities that require herbicide treatment,
the contracted aquatic biologist will consult with SWM staff in the selection of the most appropriate
product to be used (based on location of plants, product effectiveness, swimming restrictions, and
cost). The current permit authorizes the Permittee to discharge the following herbicide products
designated for milfoil control into freshwaters of the state:
• 2,4-D: 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, butoxyethyl ester
• 2,4-D: 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, dimethylamine salt (DMA*IVM)
• Tric(opyr TEA: Triethylamine salt of 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridyloxyacetic acid
6.1.4 Aquatic Herbicide Contro/ of Fragrant Waterlily
Fragrant waterlily has historically infested Steel Lake, inhabiting near shore areas around the lake.
Per the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board (WAC Chapter 16-750), fragrant water lily
is a Class C Weed: a non-native weed that requires a long-term program of suppression and control.
Under permit coverage, Steel Lake has seen progressive eradication of fragrant waterlily during the
first ten-year LMD (2003-2013) through imp(ementation of selective herbicide treatments.
22 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
The current permit authorizes the Permittee to discharge the following herbicide into freshwaters of
the state:
• Glyphosate: N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine, isopropylamine salt
Glyphosate (trade names include Rodeo, AquaMaster, and AquaPro) is a systemic, broad spectrum
herbicide registered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for aquatic
applications to floating-leaved plants and shoreline plants; it has no water use restrictions. It is
generally applied as a liquid to the leaves. Plants treated with glyphosate can take several weeks to
die and a repeat application is often necessary to remove plants that were missed during the first
application. The active ingredient in glyphosate moves through the plant from the point of foliage
contact into the root system. Visible effects on most annual weeds occur within two to four days,
seven days or more on most perennial weeds, and thirty days or more on most woody plants. It is
known that extremely cool or cloudy weather following treatment may slow the activity of this
product and can delay visual effects of control. Visible effects include gradual wilting and yellowing
of the plant, which will advance to complete browning of above-ground growth and deterioration of
underground plant parts.
Glyphosate has been very effective for treatment of fragrant waterlily colonies on Steel Lake
because it can be applied directly to the floating leaves) making it easier to kill the targeted
vegetation (unlike fluridone or endothall which must be applied to the water). Generally two
applications of glyphosate have been required (second applications are made later in the summer to
control plants missed during the first herbicide application). The control effectiveness of fragrant
waterlily is easy to measure through visual surveys of the impact to floating leaves.
One drawback of using herbicides has been the "uplifting" of mats of decomposing waterlily roots
that form large floating islands in the waterbody aRer treatments killed the plants. Floating mats
were problematic at the implementation of the LMD in 2003, but have since become non-existent as
the densities of the lily colonies have been severely diminished over time.
6.1.5 Aquatic Herbicide Contro/ of Emergent Vegetation: Yellow
F/ag Iris and Japanese Knotweed
Yellow flag iris and Japanese knotweed have historically infested Steel Lake. Under permit
coverage, Steel Lake has seen the gradual eradication of yellow flag iris and the complete
eradication of Japanese knotweed during the first ten-year LMD (2003-2013) through the
application of selective herbicides. Per the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board (WAC
Chapter 16-750), Yellow flag iris is a Class C Weed (a non-native weed that requires a long-term
program of suppression and control); and Japanese knotweed is a Class B Weed (a non-native
species that is designated for control in regions where it is not yet wide-spread and where preventing
new infestations is a high priority, as is the case with Steel Lake).
The current permit authorizes the Permittee to discharge the following herbicide into freshwaters of
the state:
• Glyphosate: N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine, isopropylamine salt
23 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
These emergent species have abundant leaf surface areas that absorb the chemical for translocation.
As Japanese knotweed is resistant to foliar application, stem injection of glyphosate has been
accomplished. The use of glyphosate herbicide has enabled the elimination of mature plants without
the destructive disturbance of the shoreline by excavation. Future applications will ensure that
experienced herbicide applicators will selectively target individual weed species to limit collateral
damage to other native plant species. The application of glyphosate to emergent plants (Yellow flag
iris, and Japanese knotweed) has also allowed specific areas to be targeted for removal by manual
spot applications on private property, which requires Temporary Rights of Entry granting the city
and its agents (AquaTechnex) access to complete treatments of the emergent weeds.
6.1.6 Aquatic Herbicide Contro/ of Native Aquatic P/ants
The permit covers aquatic plant management activities including partial plant removal for recreation
and other beneficial uses. Permit requirements differ depending on plant growth and the legal status
of the plant species.
Following aquatic plant surveys, or when lake residents report native plant growth in densities that
may be impacting the beneficial uses of the lake (i.e. swimming, boating, fishing), the contracted
aquatic biologist will be asked to provide their professional judgment regarding the need for control
of native aquatic plants via herbicide treatment. The Steel Lake Advisory Committee (SLAC) will
have the authority to approve or disapprove of contractor recommendations for native plant control.
When required, the contracted aquatic biologist will consult with both SWM staff and the SLAC in
the selection of the most appropriate herbicide product to be used (based on tazgeted plant species,
location of plants, product effectiveness, swimming restrictions, and cost). The permit has vetted all
permit-covered herbicide applications through the Herbicide Risk Assessment for the Aquatic Plant
Management Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. The current permit authorizes
the Permittee to discharge the following herbicides (expected products for native submerged
vegetation control, i.e. Chara, spp. and Nitella, sp.) into freshwaters of the state:
• Diquat: Dibromide salt of 6,7-dihydrodipyrido (1,2-a:2',1 "-c) pyrazinediium
• Endothall: Dipotassium salt of 7-oxabicyclo[2.2.1 ]heptane-2,3dicarboxylic acid
• Endothall: mono(N,N-dimethylalkyalmine) salt of 7- oxabicyclo[2.2.1 ]heptane-2,3-
dicarboxylic acid
• Imazamox:2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-lH-imidazol-2ylj-5-
(methoxymethyl�3-pyridinecarboxylic acid
Aquatic Herbicide Control Advantages
Aquatic herbicides are easily applied around docks and underwater obstructions. Aquatic herbicide
application can be less expensive than other aquatic plant control methods, especially when used in
controlling wide-spread infestations of state-listed noxious aquatic weeds.
Aquatic Herbicide Control Disadvantages
• Some herbicides have swimming, drinking, fishing, irrigation, and water use restrictions.
• Non-targeted plants as well as nuisance plants may be controlled or killed by some herbicides.
24 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
• Depending on the herbicide used, it may take several days to weeks or several treatments during
a growing season before the herbicide controls targeted plants.
• Rapid-acting herbicides may cause low oxygen conditions to develop as plants decompose. Low
oxygen may cause fish kills.
• To be most effective, herbicides must be applied to rapidly-growing plants during the growing
season only.
• Some expertise in using herbicides is necessary in order to be successful and to avoid unwanted
impacts.
• Public perception to the application of chemicals to water can be unfavorable.
Aquatic Herbicide Control Suitability for Steel Lake
The application of aquatic herbicides, in combination with other aquatic plant control methods,
substantially increases the likelihood of eradicating all targeted noxious aquatic plants (and native
aquatic plants when warranted) from Steel Lake. In situations where eradication is the goal, the
application of aquatic herbicides is the most aggressive and prudent method to rapidly reduce vegetation
coverage and readily allows for other methods such as bottom barrier installations and diver hand
pulling.
6.2 Manual Methods
A number of manual methods for both non-native and native vegetation control in Steel Lake have been
implemented from 2004 to 2011 during the duration of the Lake Management District (LMD). The
following describes commonly used manual methods:
6.2.1 Hand-Pulling
Diver hand-pulling of aquatic plants in Steel Lake (specifically Eurasian watermilfoil) has been
successfully implemented when the number of plants has been small (2003, 2005, 2006, 2008, and
2011). The process is similar to pulling weeds out of a garden. It involves removing entire plants
(leaves, stems, and roots) from the area of concern and disposing of them in an area away from the
shoreline. In water less than three feet deep no specialized equipment is required, although a. spade,
trowel, or long knife may be needed if the sediment is packed or heavy. In deeper water, hand-
pulling is best accomplished by divers with SCUBA equipment and mesh bags for the collection of
plant fragments. Some sites in Steel Lake may not be suitable for hand pulling such as areas where
there are deep flocculent sediments.
6.2.2 Cutting or Raking
Cutting differs from hand pulling in that plants are cut and the roots are not removed. Cutting is
performed by standing on a dock or on shore and throwing a cutting tool (weed rake) out into the
water. Weed rakes may only be used on Steel Lake to the minimum extent necessary to maintain
beneficial use of the shoreline (not to exceed the maximum length of ten linear feet), as specified in
the WDFW Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet (Appendix H).
The Steel Lake LMD has implemented a weed rake loan program that provides Steel Lake residents
an opportunity to borrow rakes that are designed especially for the control of native aquatic
25 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
vegetation. Rakes may be checked out once the Lake Management District determines that the
targeted area does not contain milfoil or other submerged non-native vegetation. Each year on
September 15, the program is shut down pursuant to WDFW pamphlet requirements.
Weed rakes have been used as necessary by lake residents from 2004 to 2011 to maintain the
beneficial uses of the shoreline for fishing, boating and swimming. In addition, the City of Federal
Way Parks and Recreation staff has also utilized aquatic weed rakes to remove unwanted native
plants from the public swimming area prior to the opening of swimming season. Lake residents and
City staff have been able to controt 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 slight(y submerged plants.
6.2.3 Weed Rolling
Several automatic plant control products are commercially available that mechanically disturb the
lake bottom to remove aquatic plants and prevent their re-growth within a well-defined area. They
sweep, roll, or drag repetitively over the plants and sediments to keep the area free of aquatic plant
growth. These devices must be attached to a dock or post to work properly and each product requires
electricity to operate. Depending on the equipment used, up to a 42-foot radius around the dock or
post can be controlled.
Manual Method Advantages
• Manual methods are easy to use around docks and swimming areas.
• The equipment is inexpensive.
• Hand-pulling allows the flexibility to remove undesirable aquatic plants while leaving desirable
plants.
• These methods are environmentally safe and will not harm aquatic wildlife.
• Manual methods do not require expensive permits, and can be performed on aquatic noxious
weeds with Hydraulic Project Approval obtained by reading and following the WDFW Aquatic
Plants and Fish pamphlet.
Manual Method Disadvantages
• As plants re-grow or fragments re-colonize the cleared area, the treatment may need to be
repeated several times each summer.
• Because these methods are labor intensive, they may not be practical for large areas or for thick
weed beds.
• Even with the best containment efforts, it is difficult to collect all plant fragments.
• Some plants, like waterlilies which have massive rhizomes, are difficult to remove by hand
pulling.
• Pulling weeds and raking stirs up the sediment and may make it difficult to see remaining plants.
26 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2074-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
• Sediment re-suspension can also increase nutrient levels in lake water. Hand pulling and raking
may impact bottom-dwelling animals.
• The V-shaped cutting tool is extremely sharp and can be dangerous to use.
Manual Method Suitability for Steel Lake
• Annual diver hand-pulling (when appropriate), should be sufficient to remove small quantities of
re-emerging milfoil plants. In combination with herbicide treatments (when warranted), manual
methods used to contain and control can effectively combat milfoil re-infestations in subsequent
years.
• Due to the success of herbicide (glyphosate) treatments, manual efforts for the control of fragrant
water lily and yellow flag iris is not necessary.
� The weed rake load program for Steel Lake has proven to be successful. The LMD ensures that
the rakes should only be used to the minimum extent necessary to maintain beneficial use of the
shoreline (not to exceed the maximum length of ten linear feet), as specified in the WDFW
Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet.
6.3 Diver Dredging
Diver dredging (suction dredging) is a method whereby SCUBA divers use hoses attached to small
dredges to suck plant material from the sediment. The purpose of diver dredging is to remove all parts of
the plant including the roots.
Diver dredging is more effective in areas where softer sediment allows easy removal of the entite plants,
(although water turbidity is increased with softer sediments). Harder sediment may require the use of a
knife or tool to help loosen sediment from around the roots. In very hard sediments, milfoil plants tend to
break off leaving the roots behind and defeating the purpose of diver dredging. Diver dredging is less
effective on plants where seeds, turions, or tubers remain in the sediments to sprout the next growing
season. For that reason, Eurasian watermilfoil is generally the target plant for removal during diver
dredging operations.
Diver Dredging Advantages
• Diver dredging can be a very selective technique for removing pioneer colonies of Eurasian
watermilfoil.
• Divers can remove plants around docks and in other difficult to reach areas.
• Diver dredging can be used in situations where herbicide use is not an option for aquatic plant
management.
Diver Dredging Disadvantages
• Diver dredging is very expensive.
2� CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
� Dredging stirs up large amounts of sediment. This may lead to the release of nutrients or long-
buried toxic materials into the water column.
• Only the tops of plants growing in rocky or hard sediments may be removed, leaving a viable root
crown behind to initiate growth.
• Acquisition of permits may take more than a year.
Diver Dredging Permit Requirements
Diver dredging requires Hydraulic Approval from the Department of Fish and Wildlife and a Temporary
Modification of Water Quality Standards from Ecology. Also diver dredging may require a Section 404
permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Diver Dredging Suitability for Steel Lake
Although diver dredging could be used after the initial herbicide applications to remove plants that were
missed or unaffected by the herbicide, the method greatly disturbs sediments and can affect nutrient
concentrations and algal production in the lake. Therefore, because other removal and control techniques
have proven to be successful, diver dredging is not considered suitable for Steel Lake.
6.4 Bottom Barriers
A bottom screen or benthic banier covers the sediment like a blanket, compressing aquatic plants while
reducing or blocking light. Materials such as burlap, plastics, perforated black Mylar, and woven
synthetics can all be used as bottom screens.
Bottom barriers will control most aquatic plants however freely-floating species will not be controlled by
bottom screens. In addition to controlling nuisance weeds around docks and in swimming beaches,
bottom barriers have become an important tool to help eradicate and contain early infestations of noxious
weeds such as Eurasian watermilfoil and Brazilian elodea. Pioneering colonies that are too extensive to
be hand pulled can sometimes be covered with the bottom barrier material. When using this technique for
Eurasian watermilfoil eradication projects, divers should recheck the banier within a few weeks to make
sure that all milfoil plants remain covered and that no new fragments have taken root nearby. The less
plant material that is present before installation, the more successful the barrier will be in staying in
place.
Bottom Barrier Advantages
• Installation of a bottom barrier creates an immediate open area of water.
• Bottom barriers are easily installed around docks and in swimming areas.
• Properly installed bottom barriers can control up to 100 percent of aquatic plants.
• Barrier materials are readily available.
28 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
Bottom Barrier Disadvantages
• Bottom barriers are only suitable for localized control.
• For safety and performance reasons, bottom barriers must be regularly inspected and maintained.
� Harvesters, rotovators, fishing gear, propeller backwash, or boat anchors may damage or dislodge
bottom barriers.
• Improperly anchored bottom barriers may create safety hazards for boaters and swimmers.
• Swimmers may be injured by poorly maintained anchors used to pin bottom barriers to the
sediment.
• Some bottom barriers are difficult to anchor on deep muck sediments.
• Bottom barriers interfere with fish spawning and bottom-dwelling animals.
• Without regular maintenance aquatic plants may quickly colonize the bottom barrier.
Bottom Barrier Permit Requirements
Bottom barrier installation in Washington requires an hydraulic approval obtained from the Department
of Fish and Wildlife. In addition, the City of Federal Way Community Development must review each
installation to determine whether a shoreline permit is required.
Bottom Barrier Suitability for Steel Lake
Several bottom barriers have been installed by individual lakefront homeowners prior to 2001, and they
appear to have held up quite well. LMD-funded and/or contractor-installed bottom barriers have not been
required. They will only be used to eradicate tocalized infestations, or when dense milfoil areas show
resistance to herbicide applications.
6.5 Biological Control
Many problematic aquatic plants in the western United States that are non-indigenous species (i.e
Eurasian watermilfoil) may be controlled biotogically by organisms from their native ranges. Classic
biological control agents are host-specific and attack the growth or reproduction of only the species that
are targeted for control. Theoretically, by stocking an infested waterbody or wetland with these
organisms, the target plant can be controlled, allowing native plants to recover. The following list
outlines a number of approved biological control agents that are available for release in the United States:
6.5.1 Grass Carp
The grass carp (Cteno pharynogodon), also known as the white amur, is a vegetarian fish native to
the Amur River in Asia. Because this fish feeds on aquatic plants, it can be used as a biological tool
to control nuisance aquatic plant growth. In some situations, sterile (triploid) grass carp may be
permitted for introduction into Washington waters.
29 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife determines the appropriate stocking rate for each
waterbody when issuing a grass carp-stocking permit. Success with grass carp in Washington has
been varied (sometimes the same stocking rate results in no control, control, or even complete
elimination of all underwater plants). Grass carp should be stocked only in waterbodies where
complete elimination of all submersed plant species can be tolerated.
Grass Carp Advantages
• Grass carp are inexpensive compared to some other control methods and offer long-term
control.
• Grass carp offer a biological a(ternative to aquatic plant control.
Grass Carp Disadvantages
• Depending on plant densities and types, it may take several years to achieve plant control
using grass carp and in many cases control may not occur.
• If the waterbody is overstocked, all submersed aquatic plants may be eliminated. Removing
excess fish is difficult and expensive.
• The type of plants grass carp prefer may also be those most important for habitat and for
waterfowl food.
• Fish may need to be restocked at intervals
• If not enough fish are stocked, less-favored plants, such as Eurasian watermilfoil, may take
over the lake.
• Stocking grass carp may lead to algae blooms due to a sudden loading of fecal-related
nutrients.
• All inlets and outlets to the lake or pond must be screened to prevent grass carp from escaping
into streams, rivers, or other lakes.
Grass Carp Permit Requirements
Stocking grass carp requires a fish-stocking permit from the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife. Also, if inlets or outlets need to be screened, a Hydraulic Project Approval application
must be completed for the screening project.
Grass Carp Suitability for Steel Lake
Grass carp are not suitable for aquatic plant control in Steel Lake. Infestations of milfoil have not
reached levels where a bio-control such as grass carp would be necessary. The lake also has an
outlet stream that eventuatly flows into Puget Sound, making it much more difficult to obtain the
permits necessary to stock grass carp.
30 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PIAN
6.5.2 Watermilfoil Weevil
The milfoil weevil, Euhrychiopsis lecontei, has been associated with declines of Eurasian
watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) in the United States (e.g., Illinois, Minnesota, Vermont, and
Wisconsin). In Washington State, the milfoil weevil is present primarily in eastern Washington and
occurs on both Eurasian and northern watermilfoil (M. sibiricum), the latter plant being native to the
state. Although the milfoil weevil shows potential as a biological control for Eurasian watermilfoil,
more work is needed to determine which factors limit weevil densities and what lakes are suitable
candidates for weevil treatments in order to implement a cost and control effective program.
Watermilfoil Weevil Advantages
• Milfoil weevils offer a biological alternative to aquatic plant control.
• They may be cheaper than other control strategies.
• Biocontrols enable weed control in hard-to-access areas and can become self-supporting in
some systems.
• If they are capable of reaching a critical mass, biocontrols can decimate a weed population.
Watermilfoil Weevil Disadvantages
There are many uncertainties as to the effectiveness of this biocontrol in western Washington
waters.
There have not been any documented declines of Eurasian watermilfoil in Washington State
that can be attributed to the milfoil weevil.
• Bio-controls often do not eradicate the target plant species.,
Watermilfoil Weevil Permit Requirements
The milfoil weevil is native to Washington and is present in a number of lakes and rivers. It is found
associated with both native northern milfoil and Eurasian watermilfoil. However, importing out-of-
state weevils into Washington requires a permit from the Washington Department of Agriculture.
Watermilfoil Weevil Suitability for Steel Lake
Since the milfoil weevil is a new bio-control agent, it has not been released yet intentionally in
western Washington to control Eurasian watermilfoil, therefore it is uncertain how effective the
weevil will be and whether populations per stem can be maintained at levels high enough to
eradicate Eurasian watermilfoil. Milfoil infestations in Steel Lake have not been severe enough to
warrant bio-control introduction of watertnilfoil weevil as other methods are readily available and
more suitable.
6.6 Rotovation
Rotovators are underwater rototiller-like blades that are used to uproot submerged aquatic plants. The
rotating blades churn seven to nine inches deep into the lake bottom to dislodge plant root crowns that
31 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
are generally buoyant. The plants and roots may then be removed from the water using a weed rake
attachment to the rototiller head or by harvester or manual collection.
6.7 Harvesting
Mechanical harvesters are large machines which both cuts and collects aquatic plants. Cut plants are
removed from the water by a conveyor belt system and stored on the harvester until disposal. A barge
may be stationed near the harvesting site for temporary plant storage or the harvester carries the cut
weeds to shore. The shore station equipment is usually a shore conveyor that mates to the harvester and
lifts the cut plants into a dump truck. Harvested weeds are disposed of in landfills, used as compost, or
in reclaiming spent gravel pits or similar sites.
6.8 Mechanical Cutting
Mechanical weed cutters cut aquatic plants several feet below the water's surface. Unlike harvesting, cut
plants are not collected while the machinery operates.
Rotovation, Harvesting or Mechanical Cutting Suitability for Steel Lake
None of these options (rotovation, harvesting or mechanical cutting) are suitable for the level of non-
native aquatic plant infestations expected in Steel Lake. These are not considered eradication tools but
rather are used to manage and control heavy, widespread infestations of aquatic weeds. Because the
process creates plant fragments, these methods may serve to spread and expand any existing infestations.
According to Ecology, "There is little or no reduction in plant density with mechanical harvesting."
Since the aim of the SLMDP is to eliminate non-native aquatic plants milfoil from Steel Lake, rotovation,
harvesting or mechanical cutting are not compatible control strategies (harvesting and cutting do not
remove root systems; and rotovation would cause damage to the lake sediments and associated animals in
a system that does not already receive dredging for navigability).
6.9 Drawdown
Lowering the water levet of a lake or reservoir can have a dramatic impact on some aquatic weed
problems. Water level drawdown can be used where there is a water control structure that allows the
managers of lakes or reservoirs to drop the water level in the waterbody for extended periods of time to
control some aquatic plant species. However, regular drawdowns can also make it difficult to establish
native aquatic plants for fish, wildlife, and waterfowl habitat in some reservoirs.
Drawdown Suitability for Steel Lake
Drawdown is not a viable control strategy for Steel Lake. The outlet from Steel Lake flows through a
wetland to a natural stream system, and does not have a control structure installed. Not only would
drawdown be difficult to achieve, it would also cause significant damage to the ecosystem. The amount
32 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
of drawdown required to impact milfoil would dry out the littoral zone of the lake. This would damage
native plants and animals in both the lake and the adjacent wetland and have many negative
consequences for residents living around the lake. Without a surface inflow to the system, returning the
water level to a previous state would be both cost and time prohibitive.
6.10 No Action Alternative
The no action alternative acknowledges the presence of invasive aquatic plants in Steel Lake but does not
call for any control or planning activities.
No Action Advantages
There are few advantages to "doing nothing" to control or prevent the further spread of invasive aquatic
plants; however, there may be a perception of saving money by not investing in activities such as
herbicide application or mechanical controt methods.
No Action Disadvantages
The no action alternative may result in long-term deleterious effects on the ecology, recreational uses and
aesthetics of Steel Lake. Invasive aquatic plants disrupt dissolved oxygen patterns, displace native plant
species, and impair navigation. While changes to water quality may be less obvious, their seasonal and
long-term impacts can seriously threaten features that attract homeowners, outdoor enthusiasts, anglers,
and boaters to Steel Lake.
No Action Suitability for Steel Lake
Based upon the recurrent milfoil infestations of Steel Lake, the "no action" alternative is not appropriate
for Steel Lake.
7.0 INTEGRATED AQUATIC PLANT MANAGEMENT AND
TREATMENT PLAN
The following Integrated Aquatic Plant Management and Treatment Plan for Steel Lake provides
information regarding the selected aquatic plant management control measures designed to halt the
spread of aquatic plant species infestations, to prevent potential lake degradation, and to provide the best
opportunity for the reintroduction of native aquatic plants:
Annual diver surveys will be performed by a contracted aquatic plant management firm to
monitor changes in the aquatic plant community.
An aquatic biologist will develop a management plan for all identified non-native aquatic plants
to target them for control at as low a density as environmentally and economically feasible and at
levels that do not impact public safety or the beneficial uses of the lake.
All aquatic herbicides will be applied per a State of Washington, Department of Ecology, Aquatic
Plant and Algae General Permit, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and
State Waste Discharge General Permit (permit).
33 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
All identified species of noxious weeds as listed in WAC 16-750 shall be reduced to levels that do
not impact public safety or the beneficial uses of the lake.
All appropriate aquatic plant control and treatment methods shall be used as needed for all other
problematic aquatic weeds and native aquatic plants, using the best available science to identify
and understand their effects on human, aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems prior to their
implementation.
Each year, the SLAC will review the findings of the annual diver survey, and in consultation with the
contracted aquatic biologist, will determine the direction of the annual plant management and treatment
plan. The aquatic plant species in Steel Lake targeted for eradication are expected to be: Eurasian
watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), fragrant water lity (Nymphaea odorata), and yellow flag iris (Iris
pseudacorus).
In addition, native aquatic weeds (i.e., thin-leafed pondweed and submerged macro algae) may also be
controlled when warranted. Manual methods wilt be implemented by lake residents per stipulations
outlined in Section 6.2.2. Aquatic herbicides may also be used to control native vegetation to levels that
do not impact fish and wildlife habitat when the contracted aquatic biologist has documented that their
densities are impairing public safety or the beneficial uses of the lake (Section 6.1.6), and when the
SLAC concurs with this determination.
8.0 PRESERVATION OF NATIVE VEGETATION AND
AQUATIG HABITAT
Noxious freshwater aquatic weeds, if left unchecked, pose a serious threat to our State's water bodies.
The historical presence of non-native aquatic plants in Steel Lake has been shown to impair the use and
aesthetic value of the lake. Because of Steel Lake's shallow characteristics, aquatic plants have the
potential to restrict the available area for recreation activities such as fishing, swimming and boating. In
addition, other regional lakes are in danger of becoming infested with noxious or invasive aquatic plants
that aze transported from Steel Lake via boat, boat trailer or waterfowl.
Since 2001, the year-by-year systematic era.dication of noxious aquatic plant species in Steel Lake has
allowed for the re-introduction of desirable native aquatic plants. In theory, the integrated approach
implemented during the first Steel Lake LMD (2003-2013), has improved fish and wildlife habita.t and
the overall ecological health of Steel Lake by assuring that the native aquatic vegetation propagates and
that habitat is preserved. The text below, adapted from the Department of Fish & Wildlife Aquatic Plants
and Fish Publication, illustrates the importance of aquatic habitat preservation:
Aquatic noxious weeds can adversely affect ecological functions by crowding out native
vegetation and creating single species stands. While it is recognized that native aquatic plants
can become a nuisance to swimmers and boaters due to excessive growth, it is dmportant to
recognize the value of native plant species for f:sh and widdlife. These native plants provide
habitat for fish and wildlife, help stabilize shorelines, produce oxygen, trap beneficial
nutrients, and keep sediment in place.
34 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
For example, pondweed is a critical food source for waterfowl and marsh birds. Pondweed
also provides cover from predators for warmwater ftsh such as perch and bass. Aquatic
beneficial plants are defined as native plants (such as pondweeds, bladderwort, or coontail) or
non-native plants not included on the noxious weed list.
Warmwater gamefish often utilize vegetation in the shallow waters of lakes for spawning, early
rearing, and feeding. Largemouth and smallmouth bass generally prefer ponds and reservoirs
with abundant aquatic vegetation. Bluegill, sunfish and crappie also inhabit vegetated quiet or
slow-moving waters for protection from predators. Too much vegetation can result in
overpopulation if predators that access prey species, while too little vegetation can adversely
affect the predator prey balance and result in a decline in the frshery.
Aquatic plants provide important living space for insects, snails and crustaceans, which in turn
become food for fish and waterfowL Vegetated areas support marry times more of these tiny
creatures than to do non-vegetated areas. The plants make important nurseries for young fish,
frogs, salamanders, and other amphibians. Several species of reptiles, including turtles, garter
snakes and water snakes use these areas for cover and forage (WDFW, 1998).
In 2003, AquaTechnex reported that submersed native aquatic plants were scattered in moderate to dense
patches around the shoreline of the lake, and that floating leaf and submerged native aquatic plants
covered approximately 55 percent of the lake littoral zone. In successive years, the native plant
populations in the lake were reported to be healthy as mapped. In 2010 and 2011, it was noted that the
native plant community had remained healthy and relatively unchanged (however plant densities were
down from the same period of time in previous years due to a multi-year pattern of summertime cooler
weather).
The removal of non-native plant species during the early years of the Steel Lake LMD program may have
had a short-term negative impact on warmwater fish populations due to a loss of habitat cover, but as
mentioned above, the removal of invasive vegetation has promoted growth of native plants and has
allowed native plant species to re-seed over the long-term.
Although the need to re-vegetate is not likely at this time, the goal of the SLMDP will be to continue
maintaining at least 35% native aquatic vegetative cover. This level is based upon the following targets:
• Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife recommended extent of native vegetative cover for
fish habitat needs of 20% to 60% of the lake acreage (Jackson, 2003, WDFW, personal
communication).
• The Department of Ecology recommended warmwater fishery needs for native vegetative cover
of 25% to 40% of the lake acreage (Hamel, 2003, Ecology, personal communication).
Based on a lake surface area of 48.6 acres (AquaTechnex, 2010), the acreage needed for adequate native
vegetation coverage will be calculated from the results of the annual plant survey. If there are less than
17 acres (35% coverage of the lake) of native aquatic vegetation cover, the Steel Lake Advisory
Committee will determine whether mitigation measures are necessary to support wildlife species. If
mitigation efforts are deemed necessary, native aquatic vegetation may be planted in the lake to
supplement natural recovery efforts. Native vegetation may include floating leaved rooted plants such as
Brasenia schreberi (water-shield); submerged plants such as Ceratophyllum demersum (coontail),
35 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
Utricularia vulgaris (common bladderwort), and Potamogeton spp. (pondweeds); and submerged
macroalgae such as Chara spp. (muskgrass) and Nitella sp.
9.0 ALGAE MANAGEMENT PLAN
In 2007, the Department of Ecology began implementing an Algae Control Program that provides
funding of $250,000 annually for local governments to help in the identification (freshwater lake toxicity
testing) for potential hazardous algae blooms (HAB) that pose health risks to humans, pets, and livestock.
The following year, The Washington Department of Health (DOH) developed statewide recreational
guidelines for blue-green algae toxins (Washington State Recreational Guidance for Microcystin and
Anatoxin-A) that SWM began using as a decision-making document concerning public notification and
the posting of health advisories.
The following summarizes significant blue-green algae blooms occurring on Steel Lake which have been
investigated under the Algae Control Program:
In 2009, SWM responded to two separate algae blooms: one on April 20 and one on June 3.
Samples indicated the presence of blue-green algae. Microcystin toxins were detected above
action levels during the April event which required the posting of Warning signs at the public
swimming beach. SWM fotlowed through with public notifications (sign postings and email
notices) to both the LMD and the public until each bloom dissipated per DOH guidance.
In 2010, SWM staff responded to a large bloom on September 14 that was reported by numerous
residents and lake users. Although the presence of blue-green algae was documented, fixrther
follow-up laboratory analysis showed that toxin levels were below the DOH action level. Per
DOH guidance, proper sign posting and notifications were provided until the bloom dissipated.
In 2011, SWM was awarded a four-year Freshwater Algae Control Program Grant from the
Department of Ecology for the management of algal blooms occurring in City of Federal Way
freshwater lakes (including Steel Lake). The grant improved and enhanced the Lake Management
District's algal bloom management efforts, and assisted in our response to HAB reports, early
detection investigations, water quality sampling, sample delivery/analyses, public notification,
data reporting, and community outreach. In 2011, there were two separate blue-green algae
blooms: June 20 and September 14. Water samples for both blooms were not toxic per the DOH
guidance, but caution signs were posted at the public swimming beach until the bloom dissipated.
Since 2008, there have been five major HAB events resulting in a total of thirty nine (39) days of
beach health advisories (both warning and caution) posted at the Steel Lake public swimming
beach.
The SLMDP, depending on the annual budget and work plan developed by the Steel Lake Advisory
Committee (SLAC), will ensure that blue-green algae blooms will be competently identified when they
occur, and Washington Department of Health guidelines regarding public notifications, health
advisories and recreational waters closure will continue to be implemented.
Through June 2014, algae management efforts will be partially funded by a Washington Department of
Ecology (Ecology) Freshwater Algae Grant obtained by SWM. Additionally, Ecology has advised
SWM that the blue-green algae toxicity testing component (a high priority program totally funded by
36 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
the department), will continue in perpetuity as the sunset date was removed from the legislative record
(Hamel, 2012, personal communication).
10.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
The King County Lake Stewardship Program Volunteer Monitoring Program for Steel Lake began in the
1980s and continued for several decades until budget cuts ended the program in 2005. Although the most
recent data generated by this program (six years prior to the date of this report) indicates that Steel Lake
had been relatively low in primary productivity (borderline oligotrophic to mesotrophic) with very good
water quality, a significant data gap exists.
The intent of a newly established water quality monitoring program will be to provide residents,
scientists, lake managers, and interested individuals with current information on the water quality and
physical conditions for Steel Lake. The SLAC recognizes that these data may represent the only reliable
source of information for assessing current water quality, and can be used to address questions regarding
the characteristics and ecology of Steel Lake.
The objective of the Steel Lake Management District Water Quality Monitoring Program includes: (1)
continuation of the gathering of baseline data with the intent of assessing long-term trends; (2) defining
seasonal and water column variability; (3) identifying potential problems, proposing possible
management solutions when feasible, or pinpointing additional studies to be made; and (4) educating lake
residents, lake users, and policy makers regarding lake water quality.
Water chemistry and physical characteristics in lakes vary seasonally as well as by depth over the course
of a year. The most dynamic period for lakes is during the "growing season" of mid-spring through early
autumn when lake dwelling organisms are most active. To maximize information obtained for this effort,
the Steel Lake Water Quality Monitoring Program will involve the collection of data all year on
precipitation, lake level, surface water temperature, and water clarity (with an emphasis on the
hydrological balance between the lake and its watershed, as well as temperature ranges and the impacts
of inputs on water clarity). Additionally, samples for water chemistry will be collected from May through
October—the second emphasis being an effort on nutrient balances coinciding with much of the primary
recreational period for lakes in the Pacific Northwest (which is the chief beneficial use of most of the
regional lakes from the human standpoint).
If part of an annual work plan approved by the SLAC, Surface Water Management staff will collect,
analyze and manage the data. During the summer, water chemistry and temperature vary with depth in
Steel Lake. On each sampling trip, samples will be collected from a depth of one meter. In early summer
and again in late summer, samples will be collected from the surface (1 m), middle, and one meter above
the bottom from the deepest part of the lake to define changes found in the vertical profiles of the
parameters. Ideally, lake level and precipitation will be recorded daily by lake volunteers, however, the
actual scope of the water quality monitoring program will be developed and authorized by the SLAC on
an annual basis.
3� CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
11.0 LAKE OUTLET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
If part of an annual work plan approved by the SLAC, the following action items will be implemented to
prevent future lake outlet blockages:
• Perform periodic maintenance to relieve flow congestion due to fallen trees, woody debris,
invasive vegetation, and trash (large appliances, shopping carts, plastic, etc.) between the lake
outlet and the South 304�` Street culvert crossing.
• Perform hand work to better define outlet channel at northwest corner of lake.
City staff has discussed establishing a long term maintenance agreement with various outlet channel
property owners to ensure that this drainage system continues to be properly maintained in the future.
Most of the outlet channel owners have indicated that they are willing to allow volunteers or city staff to
access their property to perform channel maintenance activities as long as the work is sponsored and
administered by either the City or Lake Management District and evidence of liability insurance is
provided. All outlet maintenance activity will comply with all required and appropriate permitting
requirements.
12.0 CANADA GEESE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Canada geese (Branta canadensis) are among the most familiar birds in Washington. They are a source
of recreation for bird watchers and hunters and symbolize nature for many people. But unfortunately,
populations of resident Canada geese have dramatically increased over the past 25 years, particularly in
urban areas in and around Steel Lake. These environments have few predators, no hunting prohibitions,
and a dependable year-round supply of food and water.
Canada geese are extremely adaptable. They use food and other resources present in urban landscapes for
nesting, raising young, molting, feeding, and resting. In parks and shorelines with short grass, large
flocks of geese can denude areas of vegetation and litter them with their droppings and feathers.
Although Canada geese are not normally considered to be a significant source of infectious diseases that
are transmittable to humans or domestic animals, their droppings are increasingly cited as a cause for
water quality concerns in municipal lakes and ponds.
Waterfowl feces contain large amounts of E. coliform, a bacterium that is strongly correlated with the
presence of pathogens and a common cause of gastrointestinal illness contracted by swimmers who
ingest lake water. Fecal matter produced by waterfowl has been demonstrated to elevate bacteria within
lakes to levels which may be sufficient to cause water-quality standard violations. High bacteria levels
have been known to result in swimming beach closures. "Swimmers Itch" (schistosome or cercarial
dermatitis) is caused by a parasite that can be spread by goose droppings. Furthermore, waterfowl feces
contain nutrients that can cause hazardous algae blooms (see Section 9.0). Elevated nutrients in a lake
can also exacerbate non-native aquatic weed growth.
Public health concerns presented by populations of resident Canada geese have been demonstrated by a
water-quality monitoring effort conducted at Collins Lake (a 60-acre urban lake in New York). In the late
38 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
1970s and throughout the 1990s, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
documented a dramatic increase in nutrient and algae levels directly attributable to increases in waterfowl
populations over the monitoring period (Tobissen and Wheat, 2000).
The Steel Lake LMD, through public education efforts, has attempted to reduce waterfowl populations
through the implementation of a public education campaign. "Stop Feeding the Geese" signs have been
posted at the public swimming beach. Lake residents have been informed regarding waterfowl control
practices and physical installations that may be established on their property including, plant barriers and
fences. Information regarding residential harassment and scare tactics (flags, streamers and scarecrows)
has also been disseminated by the LMD. Although it is di�cult to gauge whether public education
efforts have been effective, there have been five major hazardous algae bloom events at the Steel Lake
public swimming beach since 2008 (See Section 9.0) that have resulted in a total of 39 days of posted
beach advisories.
In public areas with favorable habitat, it is rarely desirable (or possible), to eliminate geese entirely.
Ideally, management programs should strive to reduce goose numbers and related problems to a level that
a community can tolerate. No single, quick-fix solution is likely to solve conflicts with geese. An
integrated approach using several techniques in combination will be required for Steel Lake.
Canada geese are protected under federal and state law. Therefore, if a Canada geese management
program, a Cooperative Service Agreement will be established between the Waterfowl Management
Committee and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS), Wildlife Services (WS). The contract will set forth the objectives, activities
and budget of the wildlife control activities for a specified period.
If part of an annual work plan approved by the SLAC, the Canada geese management program will be
designed to reduce/alleviate property damage and human health and safety concerns, including reducing
the contamination of Steel Lake's recreational waters. A Canada geese management program will include
technical assistance, population monitoring, and population control (reduction in the number of geese
utilizing certain areas). The objectives of a Canada geese management program may include:
Technical assistance upon request, including on-site evaluation of problem areas.
Monthly surveys of Canada geese.
A direct control program (egg addling and lethal control) if needed to reduce damage in
designated areas as requested.
13.0 COMMUNITY EDUCATION AND INVOLVEMENT
PROGRAM
Since 2004, SWM has implemented an effective public education and involvement program associated
with the Steel Lake Management District. Using this model, the community education and involvement
program designed per the 2014-2023 Steel Lake Management District Plan (SLMDP) will include the
following elements:
• Quarterly SLAC meetings (or as needed) to discuss annual work plan and budget.
39 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
• Production of SLAC written minutes.
• Quarterly LakeView publication.
• Annual Steel Lake LMD Report.
� Distribution of necessary email notifications to lake resident subscribers concerning lake
management activities, events and public health notices.
• Production and distribution of necessary educational materials concerning the
prevention/introduction of noxious weeds, nuisance plants and non-native animal species to the
lake; nutrient reduction and impacts of toxic blue-green algae; lake watershed stewardship and
stormwater pollution prevention; natural yard care; efforts to control non-native animal species
and Canada geese
14.0 LMD ANNUAL COSTS AND COMMITTEE
AUTHORIZATION
The following priorities have been established for the 2014-2023 Steel Lake Management District Plan
(SLMDP). These are based upon lake improvement and maintenance activities which may be implemented
over the LMD's ten-year period:
1. Management of non-native aquatic plants and vegetation
2. Preservation of native vegetation and aquatic habitat
3. Management of hazardous algae blooms
4. Water quality monitoring
5. Maintenance of lake outlet channel
6. Management of Canada geese
14.1 Primary LAAD Management Goal
It is projected that each annual work plan will include the primary LMD goal of controlling or removing
non-native aquatic plants and vegetation through contracted aquatic plant management activities. The
scope, RCW reference, description and estimated annual cost for this effort is described below in Table
8:
40 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2074-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
Table 8, Primary LMD Management Goal: Description and Costs for Management of Non-Native
Aquatic Plants and Vegetation
Estimated
Scope Item Re e�WCe Description Annuat
Cost
Development of 36.61.020 (8) Estimate 30 SWM hours at $50/hour. One time cost of $1,500 g�50.00
LMD spread out over ten-year LMD.
ContraCted Based upon AquaTechnex 2012-2015 conVact and e�ected
Aquatic Plant 36.61.020 (1) scope, including public education materials, annual permitting, $8,790.00
Management and King County assessment collection fees (see Table 9 for
detail).
SWM Estimate 50 SWM man hours per year at $50lhour. Indudes:
Implemented 36.61.020 (1) development of annual work plan, management and oversight of $2,500.00
Aquatic Plant contractor(s), finance budgeting, public education, coordination
Management of SLAC meetings, notifications, and final report.
PRIMARY LMD MANAGEMENT GOAL-TOTAL ANNUAL COST $12,440.00
The estimated annual cost for implementing a contracted aquatic plant management program was derived
from a review of recent Steel Lake Work Plans, including the 2012 LMD budget. See Table 9 for a
detailed itemization of the expected tasks and associated costs for this effort.
Tabls 9, Estimated Annual Cost for Contracted Aquatic Plant Managsment Program
TASK ESTIMATED ANNUAL
COST
Annual permit fee $500
Initial systematic survey $1,480
Treatment notifications $725
Glyphosate treatments $1,800
Milfoil treatments $1,700
Second systematic survey $1,480
Annualreport $500
Public education $500
Native plant control (1 acre) $400
KC assessment fee $430
Contractor meetings $275
TOTAI 59,790
41 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
14.2 Optionai LMD Management Goals
The balance of the lake improvement and maintenance activities that may also be performed over the
LMD's ten-year period (2014-2023) are considered optional and will be implemented on an as-needed
basis when funds are available based upon Steel Lake Advisory Committee (SLAC) review and approval.
The SLAC must formally authorize the implementation of these optional activities (see section 14.3).
The scope, RCW reference, description and estimated annual cost of these goals are described below in
Table 10:
Table 10. O tional LMD Mana ement Goals
Scope Item RCW Description Estimated
Reference Annual Cost
Introduction of native plantings when warranted by
Preservation of Native SLAC. Cost is based upon pricing provided in
Vegetation and Aquatic 36.61.020 (1) AquaTechnex 2012 contract. Indudes labor, 5300.00
Habitat mobilization, and materials. (One time cost of
$3,000.00).
Hazardous Algae Bloom (HAB) inspections and
investigations. Partially funded by a Department of
Management of 36.61.020 (2), Ecology grant through 2014. Estimates based on two
Hazardous Algae Blooms (6) (2) blooms per year sampling, delivery, notifications, $5�
and follow-up. Estimate ten (10) SWM man hours at
$50/hour annually. Estimate that lab costs are covered
through Ecology Freshwater Algae Control Program.
Estimate based on existing North Lake LMD WQ
volunteer program. Estimate six (6) annual on-lake
SWM Implemented monitoring events and Uavel time: 14 SWM man hours
Water Quality Monitoring 36.61.020 (6) at $50/hour. Estimate six (6) rounds of lab sample g3,540
Program analysis per year. Estimate six (6) man hours of data
management per year at $50lhour. Purchase of one
YSI ODO probe ($1,200) and one lake water sampler
($500).
Annually remove sediment in channel. Annually
Maintenance of Lake perform periodic maintenance (remove vegetation and
Outlet Channel 36.61.020 (7) $480
trash). Annual hand work to define channel. Estimate
16 SWM man hours per year at $30/hour
Contract with USD�Idlife Services to implement
Management of Canada annual Canada geese control activities (technical
Geese 36.61.020 (6) $2,200
assistance, population monitoring, and population
control)
42 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
14.3 SLAC Responsibilities/Authority
The Steel Lake Advisory Committee (SLAC) will be created to represent the property owners of Steel
Lake and to advise City Council during the renewed Steel Lake LMD, set to become effective the
beginning of 2014. Members of the SLAC shall be appointed by the City Council following an open
recruitment process approved by the City Council. Members of the SLAC shall be selected from
individuals who own property or represent government bodies that own property within the LMD. Intent
of the selection process shall be to proportionally represent the various property types identified in the
district assessment roll. A Resolution of the City Council of the Ciry of Federal Way Creating a Lake
Management District Advisory Committee for Steel Lake will clearly establish the duties and authority of
the Committee
14.4 Petition to Create LMD
Per RCW 36.61.030, a lake management district may be initiated upon either the adoption of a resolution
of intention by a county legislative authority or the filing of a petition signed by ten landowners or the
owners of at least fifteen percent of the acreage contained within the proposed lake management district,
whichever is greater. A petition or resolution of intention shall set forth: (1) The nature of the lake
improvement or maintenance activities proposed to be financed; (2) the amount of money proposed to be
raised by special assessments or rates and charges; (3) if special assessments are to be imposed, whether
the special assessments will be imposed annually for the duration of the take management district, or
the full special assessments wi(1 be imposed at one time, with the possibility of installments being made
to finance the issuance of lake management district bonds, or both methods; (4) if rates and charges are to
be imposed, the annual amount of revenue proposed to be collected and whether revenue bonds payable
from the rates and charges are proposed to be issued; (5) the number of years proposed for the duration of
the lake management district; and (6) the proposed boundaries of the lake management district.
On November 11, 2012, a public meeting was held to discuss and hear comments regarding the SLMP.
Afterwards, the Steel Lake Advisory Committee submitted a signed petition (Appendix A) to the City
Clerk which met the criteria set forth in RCW 36.61.030:
The petition contained a total of thirty seven (37) signatures from landowners within the
proposed district; and,
The petition contained a total of twenty percent (20%) of the acreage contained within the
proposed district.
The estimated assessment rates imposed on each parcel in the proposed Steel Lake LMD is included in
Appendix B.
43 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
15.0 REFERENCES
AquaTechnex, LLC. 2010. Steel Lake Bathymetry Mapping Report.
AquaTechnex, LLC. 2012. Steel Lake Discharge Management Plan.
Carlson, Robert. E. 1977. A Trophic State Index for Lakes, Limnological Research Center, University of
Minnesota, Minneapolis.
City of Federal Way, Washington. 2003. An Ordinance (03-452) of the City Council of the City of
Federal Way, Washington, creating Lake Management District Number 1 for Steel Lake and setting a
public hearing on the assessment roll for the district.
City of Federal Way, Washington. 2003. A Resolution (03-397) of the City Council of the City of
Federal Way, Washington, creating a Lake Management District Advisory Committee for Steel Lake and
establishing the duties thereof.
City of Federal Way, Washington. 2003. Steel Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan.
City of Federal Way, Washington. 2012. An Ordinance (12-715) of the City Council of the City of
Federal Way, Washington, relating to boats and watercraft; amending FWRC 7.03.010 and FWRC
7.03.040.
Envirovision, Inc. 1994. Steel Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan.
Hamel, Kathy. 2012. Washington Department of Ecology, Aquatic Plants, Algae & Lakes Program.
Personal communication.
Moore, Schindler, Scheuerell, Smith and Frodge. 2003. Lake Eutrophication at the Urban Fringe, Seattle
Region. Vol. 32 No. 1, Feb. 2003� Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
Sheldon and Associates. 1999. City of Federal Way Wetland Inventory Report.
Tobissen, P. and E. Wheat. 2000. Long and Short-Term Effects on Waterfowl on Collins Lake, An Urban
Lake in Upstate New York.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2000. Herbicide Risk Assessment for the Aquatic Plant
Management Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2011. Aquatic Plant and Algae General Permit, National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and State Waste Discharge General Permit.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2012. On-Line Aquatic Plant and Algae Identification.
http://www.ecy.wa.�v_/programs/wq/plants/plantal�aeid.html
44 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2012. Fact Sheet for the State of Washington Aquatic Noxious
Weed Management General Permit.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2012. On-Line Statewide water rights web map.
http://www.ecv.wa.gov/pro�rams/wr/info/webmap.html
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1998. Aquatic Plants and Fish. Publication #APF-
1-98.
Washington State Department of Health (DOH). 2010. Washington State Recreational Guidance for
Microcystin and Anatoxin A.
45 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
Appendix A
Signed Petition
Petition to the Federal Way City Council to Renew the
Lake Management District Number 1 for Steel Lake, 2014-2023
We, the undersigned Steel Lake property owners, request that the Federal Way City Council renew the
Lake Management DisVict (LMD) Number 1 for Steel Lake pursuant to RCW 36.61that will otherwise
expire in 2013. The LMD funds will finance efforts to protect and enhance Steel Lake in terms of water
quality, recreational and aesthetic value.
1. Purpose of the Lake Management District may include the following activities:
a) Management of non-native aquatic plants and vegetation
b) Preservation of native vegetation and aquafic habitat
c) Management of hazardous algae blooms
d) Water quality monitoring
e) Maintenance of lake outlet channel
fl Management of Canada geese
g) Community Education and Public Involvement
It is expected that all management district lake improvement and maintenance activities described
in RCW 36.61.020 may be considered as LMD funding allows. The attached 2014-2023 Steel
Lake Management District Plan (SLMDP) provides additional detail regarding the basis for the
annual LMD work plan, management goals and budget.
2. Boundary
The proposed boundary of the LIvID would include all the property with lakefront on Steel Lake.
See attached map of proposed properties within the district.
3. Duration
The proposed dwation of the LMD renewat is 10 years.
4. Charges to property:
Annual rates and charges will be used to raise funds to support LMD activities. The following is
the formula of rates and charges proposed for estabtishment of the assessment role for the LMD:
ASSESSMENT CATEGORY RATE REVENUE (S)
Single Family Residential Zone R89.6, Lakefront
Developed property (89 units) X$95 per unit $8,455.00
Vacant property (9 units) X$33.00 per unit $279.00
City Park (1 unR) X $2,279.00 $2,279.00
WDFV1/ Public Boat Launch (1 unit) X$3,895.00 $3,895.00
Muiti-Family Residential Zone (RM 1800), Lakefront
Village at the Lake Apartments (1 unit) X$306.00 $306.00
TOTAL ANNUAL ASSESSMENT 515,232.00
Steel Lake LMD 2014-2023 Petition
Page I of 4
It is proposed that unallocated funds in the current LMD (estimated at $15,000) roll over into the
Lake Management District (LNID) Number 1 for Steel Lake, 2014-2023.
The estimated amount that is proposed to be collected for the LMD per year is $15,232. Issuance
of revenue bonds is not proposed.
The LMD budget and rates will be approved through a public hearing and a public vote after the
city council adopts a resolution to renew the LNID. Once approved by the public and city council,
the annual rates and charges may not be altered without another public vote and city council
approval.
5. Steel Lake Management District Advisory Committee
The volunteer Steel Lake Management District Advisory Committee (SLAC) is proposed to
represent the interests of LMD property owners. City staff will work with the SLAC to develop
the annual work plan. The annual LMD work plan and budget will be forwarded by the SLAC for
implementation by the City's surface water utility. The SLAC will track and review activities and
expenditures by the City as well as outside contractors. City staff will provide SLAC support
including quarterly financial reports.
Steel Lake LMD 2014-2023 Petidon
Page 2 of 4
Petition to the Federal Way City Council to Renew the
Lake Management District Number 1 for Steel Lake, 2014-2023
RCW 36.61.030 — A lake management distrid may be initiated upon either the adoption of a resolution of intention by
a county legislative authority w the filing of a petition signed by ten landowners or the owners of at least fifteen
percent of the acreage contained within the proposed lake management district, whichever is greater.
Steel Lake LMD 2014-2023 Petition
Page 3 of�t�
.�
`�_
�
� Petition to the Federal Way City Council to Renew the
Lake Management District Number 1 for Steel Lake, 2014-2023
RCW 36.61.030 — A lake management district may be initiated upon either the adoption of a resolution of intention by
a county legislative authority or the filing of a petition signed by ten landowners or the owners of at least fifteen
percent of the acreage contained within the proposed lake management district, whichever is greater.
Steel Lake LMD 2014=2023 Petidon
Page 4 of 4
m
N
N
N
N
�
a
d
v
a
�
N
L
H
Clty Of
Federal Wav
Steel Lake
Existing Land Use Map
Map Date: November 2012
City of Federal Way
33325 8th Ave S
Federal Way, WA 98003
(P) (253)-835-7000
Land Use Category Open Space' Single Family p 250 500 -a `�T� oF
Multi-Famil Park Vacant Feet ` Federal Way
Y
�
Y
f0
�
w
V
N
.o
g
�
�
N
�
�
Appendix B
Assessment Rates by Parcel
,
z
3
4
5
8
7
8
B
10
71
12
13
14
15
18
77
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Z6
27
28
�
30
31
32
33
34
35
�
37
38
39
40
47
12
43
�
45
48
47
48
4B
50
51
52
53
Steel Lake LMD 2014-2023, Assessment Roll
Steel Lake LMD 20142024
Asssessment Roll
Page 1
u
ss
ss
57
58
59
60
81
82
63
84
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
B1
82
83
84
85
�
87
88
89
Steel Lake LMD 20142023, Assessment Roll
Steel Lake LMD 20142024
AsssessmeM Roll
Page 2
Steel Lake LMD 20142023, Assessment Roll
0
7AXPAYER NAME AUORESS LMIE tt ADDRESS LNE i2 PARCEI NO. ItATE LANDUSE ZONIN(iCD
1 IT/ OF FEUERAL WAV - . 092104 9026 52,279.00 PARK RS71
Open Space (WDFW Public Boat Launch)
TAXPAYER NAME ADDRESS UNE /H ADDRESS LINE /] PARCEL NO. RATE LANDUSE ZONMIfiCD
t STATE OF WASHINGTON DOT REAL ESTATE SERVICE3, ���Pw WA 98504 79&1400210 53,895.00 OPEN SPACE RS9.8
� PO BOX 47338
Steel Lake LMD 20142024
Acssessment Roll
Page 3
�x����r �
Petition to the Federal Way City Council to Renew the
Lake Management District Number 1 for Steel Lake, 2014-2023
We, the undersigned Steel Lake pmperty owners, request that the Federal Way Ciry Council ren�w the
Lake Manageraent District (LMD) Number 1 for Steel Lake pursuant to RCW 36.61that will ott►erwise
expire in 2013. The LMD funds will finance eFforts to protect and enhance Steel Lake in terms of water
quality, recreational and aesthetic value.
1. Purpose of the Lake Management District may incfude the following activities:
a) Management of non-aative �quatic plants and vegetation
b) Preservation of native vegetation and aquatic habitat
c) Management of hazardous algae blooms
d) Water quality monitoring
e) Maintenance of take outlet channel
fl Management of Canada geese
g) Community Education and Public Involvement
It is expected that all management district lake improvement and maintenance activities described
in RCW 36.b1.020 may be considered as LMD funding allows. The attached 20142023 Steel
Lake Management District Plan (SLMDP) provides additional detail regarding the basis for the
annual LMD work plan, management goals and budget.
2. Boundary
The proposed boundary of the LMD would include all the property with lakefront on Steel Lake.
See attached map of proposed properties within the district.
3. Duration
The proposed duration of the LMD renewal is 10 years.
4. Chazges to property:
Annual rates and charges will be used to raise funds to support LMD activities. T'he foltowing is
the formula of rates and charges proposed for establishment of the assessment role for the LMD:
Steel Lake LMD 2014-2023 Petitioa
Page 1 of 4
It is proposed that unallocated funds in the current LMD (estimated at $15,000) roll over into the
Lake Management District (LMD) Number 1 for Steel Lake, 20142023.
The estimated amount that is proposed to be collected for the LMD per year is S 15,232. Issuance
of revenue bonds is not proposed.
Ttie LMD budget and rates will be approved through a public hearing and a public vote after the
city council adopts a resolution to renew the LMD. Once appmved by the public and city council,
the annua) rates and charges may not be altered without another pub(ic vote attd city council
approval.
5. Steel Lake Management District Advisory Committee
The volunteer Steel Lake Management District Advisory Committee (SLAC) is proposed to
represent the interests of LMD property owners. City staff wili work with the SLAC to develop
the annual work plan. The annual I.MD work plan and budget will be forwardal by the SLAC for
implementati� by the City's surface water urility. Thc SLAC will track and reviev�+ activities and
expenditures by the City as well as outside contractors. City staff will provide SLAC support
including quarterly fmancial reports.
Steel Lake LMD 2014-2023 Petition
Page 2 of 4
��tllinn tm�►f�ct�er�l��y �t7ig� �Gasm�ii dt� iii��e+�r �
'l.�ic� ►�ka�m�rtt rme�io�:t �lurribes n r%Or �1 u,.aN�. �DraL�a
i�tGh`i 3iE.Ei i:123�0 -::�, tgd�+rrmr�gerreert'ctle�udii rta�yllr mi�utou+a stttea�tN�e a�mr'� �'=er r�tt�r�sibt�tm�niriy
a��nurtyyt�tiv�e<autfsu►tQy�ra:tit�;ri�r,agafa{�a�nr ;sgr�ilgyts�n�S�a�mnere�arnee�c�f.et��8t��n
IPe28tltcofltt�amteage�cmtFea�*.v'ftl►��tree;�E�6[e!tr�r�e��t�itstYted� �vN�is'iesg�+a�er
. T _ __— . _ ___—_, _ _--
� ! ��g�attu�adfA4a�art�y =� 1�16�fii�e [�i�Yl4l�itl� I ��� ({iF
� l; _: �i j �t�► _; . _ _ -- _ _ _�
I 1 �
� I
li � � ` � --
.
����� �.,%..-.-:-�'-,._�— .;.���.'L: d�s�c �L� ���; (. -�• . �}�3��£ ������ �
-t - _ — - -- --- —
� -���- ' '�,� _ � ' �1; %�r.di�!!�� � ,�<�` ;��ll�r '� ;�
��� ����� �
� , , .. 1 _
_ ,
' � ��. /ill��.. .�,•:i I� ��' ' • � ... 4�. r ��: • . r � �. ..J . / _ � �.�.fl � C�.
_ . - f ::
. . _ �_.'".' . ..,.'" _ . . ' ; . r -., � . ;
� . _ " .. :._�.� . ..._"_ _ ' ___� .t
# � .� J .
t � �L•—
.. _.___
-'_ ' - ' �.
� � : � , w. ! iLttrL�
� � `�
(6 � . . � :�.
i
� ; �.''�''r.�, l.�%/
�> , ��� � � -,
_- �o _ 4�'� _ _ –
ito i ��
. _ :�.�._ � �--•�..-.-.
�I'�.L `� ___.
:.�� }} ` �f' ��
���'.. � �'; .� t�% (�� L' �. �•c
� t�� -�--- ` � r"Z :�L_ -,
!f�'1�<<'lRf� �:�c,:�;-� :"'Z S ��� — a�3 7c� aZ��
� _.� - __ _
_ _ . __ ..� _ . _ __ _. __...
�� (�� � �� � f
����.�_ . :w�i/� �'f��.il��,a�'!i �! ,G�''?�� ��_
; - -
{ L .,. , � . . ' - �. - • a�.: � : .�.� � i �� �, "�'�=� r
.. � - ,
. . .
_�— _� __ �_ _ _— - —
,
�� � -
, -
, : /�6ir�' �.�`'L�r1 ' � ..�..�. "��. f� '}}��J�'y� ��1�$(r `
_ _ -- — -
: ��
. ; ;
� `�!�'Il
`-���%,�u'f4�s�a��� ' ���.�� - �i�'''�{7�(�Y( ,'�' _
,
i
— — — --- _
( �����,�� �'�i
4� ��-�+$ID .'�?t�48t�ft .� , � � � ,�����%� �,}�t�r�%�� ,
_.�._ ---- �� --- - -� -- _ .... ., .
_ r��... !�.'�%Sa1c.c . �'S�3 �. �n;'ty��.►.�— 31�'_%�(('lt, � _�(�(�
'� �
-�- . - ;
•/GN1��.l�7F� � .'�%7/G /�fl�� S. �a �2� �L �i2�''-� -�
� -- -- —
�, �J
'.�,ufx!� q.✓N�n.J _�+G"IOc� /LL'� S �C�`�!L/G�r1'/G� �
---- --- ---� -�
�Mrrr,� t�� �;�s� ,� ' �v � �v �� /� _-S_ --�-��1���`1�
irs � �-
;
'� �%�.�.� ����«,��1
�ir�' � , =�
, � �� :
--�.---- .� --�—
l� {f,- ' ` ��li
_ ;��r`�..� ��: ._�""�,`. �-
. �E9 � t,�..y l r.::%,2 t1;c�y ��
. . ...__s__ .. _-__a�_. .
�� I ;�� � .�;r�i.'.ai%Dr
� �.�,� a - .r. .� �c.:�? � �� c. ���- ,u� S . -; �" �0,�.2��
- -- -- _- —t _ _- ---
�4 L p� S � G'� �Z�OD7�,G
--�.�Y�� � N?L�--=
� ,f � 3
��?�L� N�� _ � o S � � s r- _�as_`t7o � � 2S
, a
, �,� _ �
'�t_�� � '�w�F�r �u� .�'�'�;,ff,�� _ ��rt��:�rt��
- �1r __,
, � -• -
�,�;i�,� -, .a,r, �m`Y� �ll �l4ryr�"",���_ ����'� `�+�.
� jy.F'_'1� �." __ _ ,!�
? lX� �YMt � �t ���7�la /:f �i IJIi trj � :Z � �.��.. _� �!1'� �� Sll iSr 2a .J _�(i:i[:'T+!���4/�! �
—_ , .. I .. _ . ... . .,
r,{� C�y �� I� � It �
. J4a1.''�'•r�it�� �T�3'N,t ' ��� �:�1��•�J�, G�'s� �,Y!��%;l�iJl�i� :
:ic�i:!'..�VC:Ii?N�;;.`1`II:n-3�'l_;: N:futur,
'• �.'�� '"u' ��
�.
�
� Petition to the Federal Way City Council to Renew the
Lake Management District Numbe� 1 for Steel Lake, 2014-2023
RCW 36.61.030 — A lake management distrid may be initfated upa� eilher the adopdon of a resoiuUon of �►te�tbn by
a county legislative authortry or ihe filing of a petitlon signed by te� landowners or the owners of at least fifteen
percent of the acxeage contained within the proposed lake management disMd, whichever is greater.
Stce! Lake LMU 2014=2023 Petition
Page 4 of 4
C Ity Ot 8t�01 Lil i�• ����§ �� A�d' �y
Feder�l W�y �8�"F��"� ' "�����
�xi��i�� ���d l��� M�s ;�� ����,-��4:�ee�
w;..v p�t � w� �
,---- -- – � --,- --�---r--;— • - �
• � ; _ , l � , _ _ ' r-r_ � � ;
i � � �` I ,= i
---- -- �-- � ' ` 4 � ,I ! I I � ; , � i--I I � , f— .__; � I
! _J � � � � � �
6 ���Ifib �F
--1--� -i---� I ���� 8fi_ i I I � , __T-�-- � �g �0 b �fi - -
I � I
,
� I � � I I � �
� j;' �' ��I, ��,'��� i,�� ��� � I I I, �; �' � � i � j i' ! �+
� �
���� �!,; i; �' � i �� �� � i I � l i� l l I� I i � i � , �
� I; ' , � I �', � � � Ii l i' ;. � � � � � � � � I�� � ��`
. ; �II ���I ,I �I�i� �i� �� !II� � ��
; � , � ; �r
� � l
\ —� -
\ � I
. � �
i '
_� �
i . �� t
�/, , I
,
,,�� ,�
; , , I I =-T � � _
i�/ �' � I' I I I � _ I = -_-_�
i
�
.I�I ����li�llljll I'',� � I � i -
,
I I
���I � II ', ► �''I I ►I _� ��
i I I, I � � , i I �
, II �li ,� i ��i I(�� li —� I
a�r;a � ��a►�a`�L:� � � � I � � I! � � �� r
� �
, � � 1 , � � I � � � §� I � ; � • vwFlnr � � '
�,_; ; i � P�o��� �fi�i�i� M��
, ; �---- , � � ,� � Boac � ; ;
I � � Launcn --- O
� ' � , �
—y I 1 , i I I, � ' � i �I I � i I
� �
��_ � i .-`���
T�-�
Lifld U� C�t@�OI�I ��� ����` �Ifl�l@ ���II�
M�Iti=��r�ily ��� ���fl�
i $:
_� i
�� � ,
��I I
� ��° �� � :.� �Federal Way
__ __ ����