The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSWP272000(9) (2) CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 14, 1995 TO: Reviewing Departments FROM: Scott Woodbury, Project Manager S SUBJECT: MOSQUITO ABATEMENT PROGRAM Attached is a copy of the environmental review application for the City's Mosquito Abatement Program for your review and comment. Your assistance in returning comments by the 10 am, Thursday, March 16, 1995 due date listed on the attached review sheet is important is our being able to go before the Environmental Review Committee for a determination next Tuesday, March 21, 1995. I appologize for the short notice. Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please call me at X-5547. attachments MEMO.DOT/bh RainierAudabon Society P.O. Box 778 - Auburn, Washington 98071 (206) 939-6411 26029 119th Drive SE Kent,WA 98031, September 15, 1997 Scott Woodbury City of'Renton 200 Mill Ave. South,4th Floor Renton,WA 98055 Dear Scott, Rainier Audubon has received 13 response cards from the Talbot Hill project participants who received Violet-green Swallow boxes in April. The response cards were requested to be returned to us by August 1 St. There were 7 successful nestings reported with successful nesting cards having comments of. "put up in early May", "put on barn facing field", "put on house 15' from ground", "put on house 15' from-ground", `,over garage" and"north and west sides of houses". Unsuccessful nesting cards have comments of. "7-1/2' from ground", "yard of Douglas fir,cedars, maples 20-25' away", "north side of house" and"put up in June". Since the boxes were distributed rather late in the Spring, I think the reported successful nestings is very encouraging. If possible, I would like to see the City send out a reminder in 1998 for project participants to get their Violet-green Swallow boxes up in early April. Thank you again for your participation in this Violet-green Swallow project and we look forward to working with you again in the future! Sincerely, Debbie Fisher Birds in the Balance Chairman (425) 957-5118 - work (253) 852-7766- home CITY OF RENTON =u, Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann, Administrator February 18, 1992 Mr_ Terry Whitworth, Ph.D. Whitworth Pest Control 3707 - 96th Street East Tacoma, WA 98446 SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON MOSQUITO ABATEMENT PROGRAM- MOSQUITO CONTROL ALTERNATIVES REPORT (CAG 90-047) Dear Terry: Enclosed is our final review comment of the draft Mosquito Control Alternatives report for the Mosquito Abatement Program. Please revise the report in accordance with our review comments and provide one (1 ) original copy for publication. The finalization of the Mosquito Control Alternatives Report constitutes the completion of the scope of work as described in consultant contract CAG 90-047. The terms of contract have been satisfied. The final payment for the report is currently being processed. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact me at (206) 277-5547. Very truly yours Ron Straka, roject Manager Stormwater Utility Civil Engineer 0:92-141:RJS:ps CC: Richard J. Anderson Randall Parsons Enclosure 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 MOSQUITO ABATEMENT PROGRAM 1992 WILDLIFE SURVEY 1 City of Renton, Washington 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 Ell JONES& STOKES ASSOCIATES, INC.12820NORTHUP WAY, SUITE 1001 BELLEVUE, WA 98004 2061822-1077 FAX 2061822-1079 June 16, 1992 Mr. Michael Giseburt R.W. Beck and Associates Fourth and Blanchard Building, Suite 600 2121 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98121-2317 SUBJECT: Transmittal of Task 9 (Contract Amendment No.3) - Mosquito Abatement Program, 1992 Wildlife Survey Dear Mike: Transmitted herein is one copy of the 1992 Wildlife Survey, City of Renton Mosquito Abatement Program. Five additional copies have been forwarded to Ron Straka at the City of Renton. Subtask 9.7 (Mosquito Control Alternatives Report) has not yet begun. Please advise as to when this subtask is to begin and if the June 30, 1992, due date remains in effect. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, onathan H. Ives Project Manager JI:dat Enclosure CC: R. Straka, City of Renton i BECK/TI GREEN RIVER 06/16/97e MOSQUITO ABATEMENT PROGRAM 1992 WILDLIFE SURVEY City of Renton, Washington Prepared for: City of Renton Prepared by: Jones & Stokes Associates 2820 Northup Way, Suite 100 Bellevue, WA 98004 (206) 822-1077 June 1992 i 1 Table of Contents ' Page INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 PREVIOUS STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 STUDY AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Bird Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Pitfall Traps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ' Active Searches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Fish Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Incidental Observations : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 6 RESULTS 6 Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Reptiles, Amphibians, and Small Mammals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Fish 9 DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 i Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Amphibians and Reptiles 12 Mammals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Threespine Stickleback Populations 13 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE MONITORING EFFORTS . . . . . . . 14 CITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 BECK/n GREEN RIVER 06/16/92e 1 List of Figures ' Page 1 General Vicinity Map of Panther Creek Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 2 Location of Study Area and Placement of Traps and Observation Points . . . 4 ' List of Tables ' 1 Annual Number of Observations During Timed Bird Surveys Within Three Habitat Types From 1990 to 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ' 2 Mammals, Amphibians, and Reptiles Observed During Field Surveys From 1990to 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 BECKrn GREEN R[VER 06/16/92C 11 i r INTRODUCTION ' This report summarizes the results of the 1992 fish and wildlife monitoring conducted as part of the City of Renton's Mosquito Abatement Program, which began in 1989. The program is carried out at the Panther Creek Wetlands, a 65-acre wetland complex situated east of State Route 167. The city has targeted this area for mosquito abatement because the area provides excellent breeding habitat for mosquitos and because of complaints from adjacent homeowners. Since the program began, the city has conducted annual fish and wildlife surveys before treatment starts in late spring or early summer. The purpose of this monitoring is to identify potential incidental impacts on wildlife resulting from the mosquito abatement program. The abatement program involves two types of application. Altosid a derivative of charcoal, suppresses mosquito larvae development, and Scourge, a synthetic pyrethroid, targets adult mosquitos. Altosid is spread manually throughout open water areas of the wetland, while Scourge is applied through misting upland vegetation. Both are applied ' throughout the summer to reduce mosquito production. ' PREVIOUS STUDIES Fish and wildlife surveys have been conducted each year since 1989 prior to treatment. The first year of the program in 1989 included a listing of species observed during wetland delineations (The Coot Company 1989) and reptile and amphibian surveys ' conducted within forested portions of the wetland (Shapiro and Associates 1989). In 1990, Beak Consultants initiated a more structured monitoring program that was intended to provide results comparable from year to year (Beak Consultants 1990). Beak Consultants continued this work with minor modifications in 1991. Jones & Stokes Associates used similar methods in the present study, as described in this report. Portions of this report, including organization, were adapted from the Beak Consultants reports to facilitate comparison of results. ' STUDY AREA The 65-acre Panther Creek Wetland is located in the central portion of the City of Renton, Washington (Figure 1). The wetland is linear in shape, oriented north to south, with State Route 167 forming the eastern border and a steep slope forming the western border. r BECKM GREEN RIVER o6il6rou 1 1 •: I U A2e u r b BM \ I t \\Eiel �I • �;� I ` WASHING TON 19.6 wo .Ue ``•rp (; /: _ ` '• i. - ■ Uti '"�'' ,�'�� —�• ,i l •tl BM 13 I Gourse ii`° I, ■ + :7 1 - i5I3_s �, \ a A S age i 22 IS i OM 16 114 7_4 t i, Track ti / I NI� ng� Y_A 9. --i.Reservoir ABM � • 25 i , ■3o j' _ • �Ms IBM 2 203 � � 1 •� ---- � `i •�• I'' C •1• l Legend ® Panther Creek ----- -- _ _ Wetland Complex _l 17 � -�M rgal \_ II _I: j : I- ' Figure 1 . General Vicinity M of Panther Creek Wetlands 9 Y Map BECK/T1 GREEN RIVER 06/16/92e 2 The Coot Company (1989) and Beak Consultants (1990 and 1991) described habitats within the study area. In general, habitat at the south end of the wetland begins with a 5-acre patch of forested wetland, characterized by willow (Salir spp.), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa),and red alder(Alnus rubra). Continuing north,this habitat grades into an extensive area dominated by dense stands of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) interspersed with occasional patches of common cattail (Typha latifolia), willow, and buttercup (Ranunculus spp.). The central portion of the wetland contains more surface water and is dominated by a mix of yellow flag (Iris pseudaconus), cattail, and willow. The ' northern end of the wetland complex contains a forested wetland and upland with a dominating understory of salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) and a dominating overstory of willow, black cottonwood, and red alder. METHODS Jones & Stokes Associates conducted fish and wildlife surveys from May 11 through ' May 18, 1992. Methods used were similar to those used by Beak Consultants in 1990 and 1991. Bird Surveys ' Three 10-minute bird surveys were conducted at each of the six observation points established during the 1990 monitoring effort (Figure 2). Stations 1 and 2 were located in ' the reed canarygrass meadow in the southern portion of the wetland complex, stations 3 and 4 were located in the yellow flag-cattail-willow habitat area along the eastern edge of the wetland complex, and stations 5 and 6 were located within the forested wetland in the ' northern portion of the wetland complex. Surveys were conducted within 3 hours of dawn on May 12, 13, and 14, 1992. The number of individuals of each species detected was recorded during each 10-minute survey. Detections included auditory and visual observations. Multiple auditory detections of the ' same species from the same general location were considered one detection. Species observed flying outside of the habitat being surveyed were recorded as incidental observations and were not tallied in the tuned survey. Species heard or seen in upland ' habitats within about 100 feet of wetland habitat being surveyed were included in the tally. Pitfall Traps ' Reptiles,amphibians, and small mammals were censused using pitfall traps and active searches. Twenty pitfall traps, consisting of 5-gallon buckets buried in the ground with the bucket top flush to the ground surface, were placed along three transects within or adjacent BECK/n GREEN RIVER 06/16/92C 3 ' RENTON I -------------------- I I I Puget Power Transmission Line I 1 <> '' ... �.:. • > ::;,. n Q ( I < I : I I ' I I I ' I I I N Legend 1 I O Pitfall Trap I I • Minnow Trap ' I I Valley o lHta ® Bird Survey Point I sw 43rd street I Forested Wetland ' E3 Emergent Wetland ' (Dominated by Cattails) KENT ® Emergent Wetland ' (Dominated by Reed Canarygrass) Source:Adapted from Beak Consultants 1991. ' Figure 2. Location of Study Area and Placement of Traps and Observation Points BECK/I'1 GRFF7J RIVER 06/16/92e 4 ' to wetland habitats. Five-gallon buckets were used in place of the coffee cans used in 1990 and 1991. Clayey soils were packed along the edges of the buried traps to prevent the traps from floating and to provide an overhanging lip to facilitate captures. Species captured were ' identified using descriptions and keys in Burt and Grossenheider (1976), Johnson (1982), and Nussbaum et. al. (1983). ' The 20 traps were distributed throughout different habitat types within and adjacent to the wetland complex. Traps 1 through 3 were located in the forested area on the southern edge of the wetland, traps 4 through 6 were located in the reed canarygrass ' dominated habitat, traps 7 through 14 were located along the eastern edge of the wetland complex between the yellow flag/cattail habitat and the upland forest, and traps 15 through 20 were located in the northern forested wetland. Two Sherman live traps were used experimentally during the 1991 survey, but no Sherman live traps were used as part of this survey. Active Searches Active searches for reptiles and amphibians involved two daytime and one nighttime ' search within the wetland and along the wetland edge. A 5-cell flashlight aided observations during the nighttime search. In open water areas, observers used a dip net to search for amphibians. Along the wetland edge, searching involved examining under and around logs, ' rocks, and other debris. ' Fish Surveys Fish surveys were conducted to provide a qualitative assessment of presence and relative abundance. Survey methods and sample sites employed included those used during studies conducted in 1990 and 1991 to provide comparable population indices. The areas sampled included a combined 800-foot section of Panther Creek and the drainage ditch flowing along the eastern edge of State Route 167, open water sections along the eastern and western sides of the wetland from the Puget Power transmission line crossing south for 1,500 feet, and open water sections within the forested wetland area located to the north of the transmission line crossing. ' Sampling methods used during this survey were similar to those used during previous surveys and included a visual assessment using polarized glasses (1990 and 1991), dip net sampling (1990 and 1991), and baited minnow traps (1991 only). In addition to methods employed during previous studies, a pulsed direct-current backpack electroshocker was used for fish collection. ' Visual assessments, dip net sampling, and electroshocking occurred in all sampled sections of the wetland and stream. Deep water areas and sections under vegetation were BECK/-n GREEN RIVER 5 06/16/92e swept with a dip net. Spot checks were made with the electroshocker in areas where suitable habitat existed. ' Twelve minnow traps were set along the eastern shoreline of the wetland (Figure 2). All traps were set in the approximate location of the 10 most northern trap sites used in the Beak Consultants study(1991). The two most southern trap sites used during the 1991 study ' were not trapped due to lack of suitable fish habitat. Traps employed during the 1991 survey were baited with marshmallows. Because it was thought that some species may be more attracted to another type of bait, 10 traps were baited with salmon eggs during this ' survey. Two traps baited with marshmallows were set alongside salmon egg baited traps to assess preference. Traps were set on May 13, 1992, checked on May 14, 1992, checked and ' rebaited on May 15, 1992, and checked and pulled on May 18, 1992. Captured animals were counted and released. Incidental Observations During all phases of the study, observers recorded incidental observations of wildlife and wildlife sign. RESULTS Birds Results of timed bird census stations were similar to those obtained during 1990 and 1991 (Table 1). A total of 21 bird species were observed during timed surveys, compared to 25 in 1991 and 24 in 1990. Relative abundance of species detected was also similar. Marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris) and red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) were the first or second most abundant species detected within the reed canarygrass and iris-cattail- willow habitat types in all 3 years of standardized bird surveys. Relative abundance in the forested habitat showed less similarity than in previous years, with Bewick's wren (Thryomanes bewickii) replacing song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) as the most abundant species. Fifteen Bewick's wren detections were recorded in forested habitats, compared to none in 1991 and two in 1990; four song sparrow detections were recorded, compared to eight in 1991 and 16 in 1990. ' The two most commonly detected species overall in 1992 and 1991 were marsh wren and red-winged blackbird. In 1990, red-winged blackbird and song sparrow were the most commonly detected birds, but marsh wrens were commonly detected as well. ' BECK/n GREEN RIVER 06/I6/92c 6 i t rr rr rr rr r r r r r r r r rr r■ r r r Table 1. Annual Number of Observations During Timed Bird Surveys Within Three Habitat Types From 1990 to 1992 x Phalaris Meadow Iris-cattail-willow Forested All Habitats Species 190 191 '92 '90 '91 '92 '90 '91 '92 '90 '91 '92 American robin (Turdus migratorius) 4 5 2 6 5 5 1 6 5 6 16 15 13 American kestrel (Falco sparverius) 1 1 barn swallow (Hirundo rustica) 5 1 5 5 1 5 Bewick's wren (Piryomanes bewickii) 2 2 1 2 15 6 16 black-capped chickadee (Parus atricapillus) 10 3 2 5 4 9 18 4 11 black-headed grosbeak (Pheucticus melanocephalus) 2 1 2 1 brown creeper (Cenhia americana) 2 2 brown-headed cowbird (Molothnis ater) 3 1 4 v bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus) 9 2 27 3 1 39 1 2 Canada goose (Branta canadensis) 2 4 6 cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum) 3 3 common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) 4 4 crow (Cones sp.) 1 1 1 1 2 downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens) 4 4 European starling (Stumus vulgaris) 16 3 3 1 6 17 3 9 evening grosbeak (Coccothraustes vespertinus) 1 1 fox sparrow (Passerella iliaca) 1 1 great blue heron (Ardea herodias) 1 1 house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) 13 5 3 1 13 6 3 house sparrow (Passer domesticus) 2 2 mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) 2 4 1 5 1 1 7 5 marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris) 15 13 25 10 12 12 1 25 25 38 Table 1. Continued Phalaris Meadow Iris-cattail-willow Forested All Habitats P � 3 Species 190 191 '92 190 191 '92 '90 '91 '92 190 191 '92 northern flicker (Colaptes auratus) 1 2 2 1 northern rough-winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx 1 1 serripennis) red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) 1 1 1 11 4 12 1 5 1 1 red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) 8 20 10 26 23 21 34 43 31 ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula) 1 1 rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) 1 4 4 4 1 4 song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) 9 11 4 7 2 5 16 8 4 32 21 13 Steller's jay (Cyanocitta stelleri) 2 3 2 1 3 3 2 00 Swainson's thrush (Catharus ustulatus) 3 3 tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) 8 2 4 1 13 2 western wood-pewee (Contopus sordidulus) 1 3 1 8 1 2 11 1 white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys) 1 1 willow flycatcher (Empidonar traillii) 2 2 4 Wilson's warbler (lilsonia pusilla) 1 1 2 winter wren (Troglodytes troglodytes) 1 1 2 [Total Number of Species 17 17 13 13 12 12 13 9 9 24 25 21 Reptiles, Amphibians, and Small Mammals ' Three amphibian, one reptile, and four mammal species were detected during surveys. Table 2 presents results from pitfall traps, minnow traps (amphibian captures only), active surveys, and incidental observations, and includes results from the 1990 and 1991 surveys for comparison. Fish Sampling by all methods resulted in the capture of four threespine sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus ssp.), the only fish species found in the wetland. All of the fish were captured by electroshock sampling near a culverted outlet adjacent to State Route 167. Captured fish were approximately 1 inch in length and were likely yearlings. Minnow traps captured 33 threespine sticklebacks during the 1991 study from the same areas fished during 1992. Four fish were captured by dip net and many were seen during the 1990 survey. ' The wetland appeared to provide poor habitat for fish. Many of the open water components of the wetland were choked with blue-green algae. Sediments were anaerobic ' just below the surface layer. Minnow trap sampling resulted in the capture of two roughskin newts (Taricha ' granulosa) and one Pacific giant salamander (Dicamptodon ensatus). Numerous unidentified taxa were also collected in the minnow traps, including frog and salamander tadpoles, snails (perhaps Physa), adult and larval beetles (order Coleoptera), and leeches (class Hirudinea). ' DISCUSSION ' As mentioned in the introduction, the intent of the fish and wildlife monitoring program is to identify potential impacts on wildlife resulting from mosquito control treatments at the Panther Creek Wetland Complex. Fish and wildlife monitoring is employed to meet this intent and is designed to indicate general trends in wildlife use of the wetland. The results of this year's study suggest an overall stable wildlife population with some reductions in fish abundance from previous years. ' Birds ' The results of the bird surveys indicate no significant change in bird community composition in or adjacent to the wetland. Twenty-one bird species were detected in 1992, BECK/71 GREEN RIVER 06/16/92e {w ray M � m � r Vm M = � M Table 2. Mammals, Amphibians, and Reptiles Observed During Field Surveys From 1990 to 1992 p Pitfall Traps Minnow Traps Incidental Active Searches Total x Observations Species 190 '91 '92 190 191 192 190 191 '92 190 '91 '92 '90 191 '92 Pacific treefrog (Hyla regilla) 1 2 1 4 272 1 5 red-legged frog (Rana aurora) 1 2 4 4 5 6 0 frog tadpoles many many Pacific giant salamander 1 1 (Dicamptodon ensatus) northwestern salamander 15 0 15 0 (Ambystoma gracile) western redback salamander 5 1 2 1 7 2 (Plethodon vehiculum) o roughskin newt (Taricha 5 2 0 5 2 granulosa) Ensatina (Ensatina 1 1 eschscholtzi) salamander tadpoles 2 2 garter snake (Thamnophis sp.) 3 20 2 3 20 5 3 Townsend's mole (Scapanus 1 1 townsendii) shrew-mole (Neurotrichus 5 0 1 5 0 gibbsii) vagrant shrew (Sorex vagrans) 1 1 0 0 dusky (montane) shrew (Sorex 1 0 1 0 monticolus) masked shrew (Sorex cinereus) 5 0 0 5 deer mouse (Peromyscus 1 1 0 0 maniculatus) rr rr r r r■ r r r r M r r r M M ■■� r r Table 2. Continued & Pitfall Traps Minnow Traps Incidental Active Searches Total x Observations 0 Species 190 '91 '92 190 191 '92 190 191 '92 190 191 '92 190 191 192 raccoon (Procyon lotor) 1 4 2 1 4 2 striped skunk (Mephitis 1 1 1 1 0 mephitis) domestic cat 2 1 0 1 2 gray squirrel (Sciurus 2 0 0 2 carolinensis) compared to 25 in 1991 and 24 in 1990. All variation in the number of species and individuals detected is well within the expected range of variation resulting from observer bias; weather and seasonal variation; and random events, such as observations of inconspicuous, wide-ranging, or flocking species. Amphibians and Reptiles As in 1991, sampling for fish using minnow traps resulted in the capture of several amphibians (two roughskin newts and a Pacific giant salamander). Minnow trap sampling during 1991 resulted in the capture of 22 amphibians (Beak Consultants 1991) and three western terrestrial garter snakes (Thamnophis elegans). Beak Consultants (1991) does not specify if all of the captured amphibians were adult animals, but it is assumed they were. Results from this year's sampling suggest a lower level of adult amphibians in the wetland; however, additional data need to be collected to identify trends. One factor that likely contributed to the lack of adult amphibian observations was the dry, warm weather during the survey and for several weeks prior to the survey. During such weather, adult frogs and especially salamanders are less likely to be observed. In addition, while minnow trap sampling is apparently effective for amphibians,it is unknown how selective this method is for capturing the various species and life stages of amphibians and reptiles. Also, factors such as the type of bait used can highly bias the results of the trapping. While fewer adult amphibians were observed, numerous larvae (tadpoles) were observed during dip net surveys, indicating a relatively healthy reproducing population of amphibians. In addition, a constant chorus of treefrogs was heard during nighttime searches for amphibians, indicating an abundant population of this species. Mammals Mammals observed were similar to those found in previous surveys. However,pitfall traps captured masked shrew (Sorex cinereus), while shrew-moles (Neurotrichus gibbsii) and dusky shrew (Sorex monticolus) were captured in 1991 and vagrant shrew (Sorex vagrans) in 1 1990. This change could be the result of misidentifications, random events, or an overall change in the distribution or abundance of small mammals. Because of the relatively low success rate of pitfall traps over the years, this difference is within the sampling error of the 1 technique and does necessarily indicate a change in small mammal populations. i i BECK/n GREEN RIVER 12 06/16/92c Fish The only fish species found in the wetland was the threespine stickleback. All four captures occurred just upstream of the Panther Creek culvert at State Route 167 using a backpack electroshocker. No fish were found in other sampled portions of the wetland. Comparisons with observations from previous studies (Beak Consultants 1990 and 1991) indicate a possible decline in the threespine stickleback population has occurred within the 1,500-foot section of the wetland located south of the Puget Power transmission lines. Thirty-three threespine sticklebacks were captured in this section during the 1991 study. None were captured during this study. Threespine Stickleback Populations The fish sampling methods used in this and previous studies cannot provide firm estimates of population abundance; however, collectively they provide a population index. Sampling between 1990 and 1992 has revealed an apparent decline in the threespine ' stickleback population within the main body of the Panther Creek Wetland Complex. Large numbers of these fish were observed in the open water sections of the wetland, south of the Puget Power transmission lines, during the 1990 study (Beak Consultants 1990). None were observed or captured from this area in 1992. Additional monitoring is needed to determine if this is a short-term or long-term trend. Several factors that could be contributing to the perceived decline in the threespine stickleback population include: • a lack of knowledge concerning the population dynamics of the threespine stickleback in the Panther Creek Wetlands, • annual and long-term changes in the aquatic environment unrelated to mosquito abatement that affect the threespine stickleback population, • changes in the aquatic environment related to mosquito abatement that affect threespine stickleback populations, and • variation in sampling and fish behavior between years. ' The first three factors listed above suggest that a decline in the population has occurred, while the fourth factor indicates that the perceived decline is actually the result of differences in sampling procedures and results. Further study is needed to determine the ' cause and magnitude of this perceived decline. Population Dynamics. The historic extent of population variability for this species in the wetland is unknown. In other words, the apparent fluctuation in the threespine stickleback population observed during this study may be a normal condition of the wetland. BECKfn GREEN RIVER 06/16/9h 13 i Approximately 90% of all threespine sticklebacks in western Washington spawn and die after 1 year of life (Wydoski and Whitney 1979). Therefore, annual abundance is highly dependent on environmental conditions during critical periods in the fishes'life history, such ias spawning and early rearing. Unrelated Environmental Conditions. The environmental conditions present in areas i found to contain fish during past studies is not apparent from previous reports. Minnow traps captured 33 threespine sticklebacks during the 1991 study from the same areas fished during 1992. Very few open water areas existed with a depth in excess of 10 inches during the 1992 study. As mentioned earlier, all areas were heavily choked with blue-green algae. During a die-off, decomposition of algae could deplete the water of oxygen, resulting in fish ikills. In addition, some species of the algae are known to produce toxins (Cole 1979). Related Environmental Conditions. The mosquito abatement program may be i indirectly impacting threespine stickleback populations. Food for this species largely consists of zooplankton and aquatic insect larvae (Wydoski and Whitney 1979). It is likely that the mosquito abatement program is changing the species composition and overall abundance iof preferred threespine stickleback prey in the wetland. Sampling and Behavioral Considerations. All of the methods used to sample fish i populations in the wetland provide a qualitative index of fish species present, but poorly estimate abundance. Abundance estimates using visual observations, dip netting, minnow trap sampling, and spot sampling with the electroshocker can be highly biased by effort, i location, gear, bait used, and technique. Therefore, it is possible that the perceived decline could be a result of unrepeatable and unquantifiable sampling methods. In addition, eight of 12 minnow traps used were constructed of 1/4-inch galvanized screen. The screen may ' be too large to retain captured fish of the size observed in Panther Creek. Fish behavior between years could affect the number of fish observed or captured. i Wydoski and Whitney(1979) have found most freshwater threespine stickleback populations spawn and die after 1 year of life. Spawning mainly occurs between May and July, which is within the study period. Changes in the number of fish observed or captured during the ' last 3 years may be affected by the timing in which spawning and subsequent mortality occurs. Spawning would likely occur earlier in the season during warmer years. The winter and spring of 1992 have been some of the warmest recorded in western Washington since ' record keeping began. ' RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE MONITORING EFFORTS ' The purpose of monitoring is to provide data that are comparable from year to year. Because of this, study methods should not differ. However, some of the study techniques employed over the past 3 years have provided insufficient levels of information and could be eliminated should monitoring be conducted in future years. For example, an insignificant number of captures resulted from pitfall traps. We recommend pitfall traps be replaced by ' BECK/n GREEN RW R 06/16/92e 14 ' Sherman live traps. Sherman live traps would likely result in more small mammal captures and would involve less time and cost to install. ' Minnow traps could be established at precise locations to minimize sampling error. If untreated areas within the wetland exist, two stations could be established therein for use as control stations. Electroshocking and minnow trap sampling would be performed to provide a more quantifiable and comparable index of fish abundance within sections of the wetland. All minnow traps should be fitted with 1/8-inch or smaller mesh to avoid escape by fish and baited with a variety of baits to attract animals based on their preference. Electroshock sampling should be continued in future surveys since it is the least biased sampling method with respect to species selection. In addition to the current scope of work, aquatic invertebrates could be sampled to identify long-term population trends that may affect vertebrate populations. Invertebrate sampling devices, such as Hester-bendy substrates, could be installed 1 month prior to sampling to allow colonization. Carnivorous invertebrates could be sampled with the minnow traps. Pre- and post-treatment monitoring of fish and invertebrate populations in ' treated and untreated areas should be performed to monitor short-term impacts. CITATIONS ' Beak Consultants, Inc. 1990. Final report of wildlife surveys conducted at the Panther Creek Wetland Complex. Prepared for City of Renton, Renton, WA. . 1991. City of Renton mosquito abatement program 1991 wildlife survey. Prepared for City of Renton, Renton, WA. Burt, W., and R. Grossenheider. 1976. A field guide to the mammals north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, MA. Cole, G. A. 1979. Textbook of limnology. 2nd Edition. The C. V. Mosby Company. St. Louis, MO. Johnson, R. 1982. Key to the mammals of Washington. Pullman, WA. Nussbaum, R. A., E. D. Brodie, and R. M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. University of Idaho Press. Moscow, ID. Shapiro and Associates, Inc. 1989. Panther Creek wetland reptile and amphibian survey. ' Seattle, WA. BECKM GREEN RIVER 06/16/91e 15 The Coot Company. 1989. Panther Creek wetlands inventory. Draft report to the City of Renton. Olympia, WA. ' Wydoski, R. S., and R. R. Whitney. 1979. Inland fishes of Washington. University of Washington Press. Seattle, WA. BECK/T1 GREEN RIVER I6/16/91e 16 May 31, 1989 ,.�UFh10E UF '1'IIE IILARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPEULANT: CIIRIS'10NIER I''. CLIFFORD (MOSQUI"r0 AI)ATEMENT APPEAL - PANTIIER CREEK WETLANDS) Pile No: AAD-035-89 LOCATION: Last of SR167 between I-405 and SW 43rd Street. The site is approximately 65 acres. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Appeal Environmental determination of Non-Significances for use of Altosid in the Mosquito Abatement Program for the Panlher Creek Wetlands as proposed by lire City of Renton Parks Department. PU13LIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written letter of appeal and examining available information on file the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the matter as follows: MINUTES The hearing was opened on Mnv 16, 1989 al 1:30 P.M. in Courtroom 03 of the Renton District Court. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by (he Examiner. •1lrroughoul the course of the hearing the following exhibits were entered into lire record: i Exhibit 01 - Yellow Pile containing nppticn(lon, proof of posting and publication and other docunrenInlion pertinent to (Iris request. Exhibit sQ - Printed label from Allosid. Exhibit 03 - Letter from Seattle Audubon Society to City of Renton SETA officials, dated March 13, 1989. Exhibit It4 - Six-page excerpt from Dock 1AI of Agricultural Chemicals. Exhibit 15 - Environmental Review Checklist. Exhibit $0 - Technical Advisory Committee Staff Report dated February 15, 1989. Exhibit 07 - Environmental Committee Determination of Non- Significance (Mitigated) dated February 22, 1989. PERSONS IN ATTENDANCE-: Lawrence Warren, Renton City Attorney Christopher Clifford, Appellant Lenora Dlauman, Senior Planner Opening the hearing the hearing Examiner clnrified for those in attendance that this hearing will only deal with the matter of whether or not the city, through the Environmenlai Review Committee, made an error in its SEPA determination of Non-Significance for the proposed Mosquito Abatement Program scheduled for the Panther Creek Wetlands. L�1lorttev lYnrrei] said after going Through the record he realized the orlginnt appeal letter of March 10, 1989 contained three issues and the latest letter clarifying that appeal now contains seven Issues. 110 asked that this henring be limited 10 the originnl three issues of lire March 1011i letter. The Exnruiner staled he would nccept the second appeal letter as part of Ilse subslanlinlion for this nppcol. Attorney Wnrren objected to the ndmission of (lie second letter just six days before this henring. lie nlso noted Ghri�tapher I'. Clifford MOSQUITO ABATEMENT APPEAL (PANT HER CREEK) XAD-035-89 May 31, 1989 Pago 2 his objection to the issue of conflict of interest raised in the appeal letter and did not feel it was relnled to the environmental issue. - Mr. Clifford responded to the issue of conflict of interest noting the issue was raised as the city used Mr. Whitworth as n consultant to determine if this project was necessary and also to provide information contained within the environmental checklist. The Examiner staled he feels the information provided by Whilworlh is subsidiary as the issue would be whether the information in the checklist is accurate and not wliether Mr. Whitworth had a conflict in the preparation of the checklist. The Examiner (lid not feel (he backp,round of the consultant was mr issue. Continuing, Attorney Warren retched to Mr. Clifford's letter of May 10, 1989 and two instances he (Warren) feels are hearsay, and staled testimony today will be (he recitation of facts relayed from a third party which can not be nutlicnticalcd. Ile made a motion that this hcarsay testimony not be permitted. Mr. Warren nlso moved that the Examiner inquire of Mr. Clifford whether the testimony he intended to present today would be of a technical or hearsay nature. The Examiner slated because this is nn administrative process it will he up to Mr. Clifford or his witnesses to show credibility for the testimony. Responding,�1r. Clifford acknowledged the hearsay information in the letter and slated it was only used 10 provide the Examiner with notice of where !re obtained his information - but said he did not intend to use any witnesses from file Depar(nrcnt of Agriculture nor did he plan to quote them, and Will present factual, not hcarsay information in his presentation today. Presenting an opening statement was appellant Qlifford. Mr. Clifford set out the reasons for his appeal and basically reviewed his latest appeal letter which referred to (he environmental checklist and the alleged omission or incompleteness of certain questions on (hal list which refer to the existence of marumals, fish and other animals in the Panther Creck Wetlands. Ile referred to a letter referencing the insecticide to be used and expressed concern about its growl]' hormone effect. Panther Creek Wetlands is 65 acres, and Mr. Clifford said he felt the amount of insecticide to be used would not be functional or cost-effective due to the size and density of the wetlands. Ile fell much of the area would be left untreated as 100`yo matrual application is almost impossible, and said clue to the fact the checklist failed to list (he animals it may be in violation of RCW 77.16.120 calling for preservation of the nesting sites of raptors. Mr. Clifford also expressed concerns for possible chemical scourge; unknown cffcc(s of the lrcaUnco(; believes an EIS should be required for the wetlands to determine the effect of the proposed program and provide mitignting conditions; and stated the Department of Ecology has tot granted a permit for this program. Allornev Warren advised the permit from DOE is Still pending and if the city does not receive the permit then the program will not proceed. Mr. Clifford continued and said a blower device suggested for use to spread the chemical will create a noise level that will disturb nesting animals and the environment. At this point he called for testimony from QE•RALD ADAMS_Seattle Audubon ocicly, 619 Joshua Green Building, Seattle 98101. Mr. Adams noted the Exhibit 03 letter was prepared pursuant to a telephone conversation Ire had with nn individual at the National Pesticide Teleconununicalions Network on March 12, 1989, a service provided by 'Texas •tech University, and presented a brochure on the 24-hour hotline. The �y Attorney objected to the information presented on chemical scourge and its toxicity as hearsay testimony from Mr. Adams because it was obtained from nn unknown individual, over (Ire telephone, who is not present and cannot be cross-examined. The Examiner permitted the testimony to continue. Mr. Adams continued slating the information he received from the Network by telephone was followed up by mailings which included information on chemical scourge and Altosid. The information was entered into lire record is Exhibit 04. 13ecnuse of the telephone conversation he said he became aware Hint there is very little known nboul chemical scourge, and read instructions for handling and cautions regarding scourge; (lie Audubon Society is concerned about the effect of scourge on water fowl and birds and it's penetration in the air. Allornev Warren objected to the acceptance of this unpublished information. Adams continued by offering the telephone number for Texas "Tech to be used to verify (he credibility of the information provided and again restated his objections to the proposed abatement program as contained in the letter of March 13, 1989. lie said he spent about 45 minutes recently in _. the wetlands and relayed part of his observations as to the wildlife and water fowl present (such as Canadian geese, raptors, herons, owls and hawks). lie said Ire tried to venture further into (he — Wellands but decided not to disturb and possibly flush the wildlife. At this point Mr. Adams stated his concern rep,nrding the application of insecticide briquets and their possible flushing of the birds and wildlife. Allornev Warren queried Adams about toxicity levels present through the spraying of scourge and Adarns replied Ire was not an expert and did not have that information. Adams admitted that in his telephone conversation with Texas Tech he did not inquire about the concentrations or manner in ' which the chemicals were to be applied and was not sure if !re had made such an inquiry. Adams said it was his understanding lhal'scourge was to be applied by (he City through the air and he clarified with city staff to be sure this did not mean (]'e city would be nrnking an nerial spraying of the wetlands. Adams slated there is a concern about the toxic effects of scourge on the water fowl because scourge would become present in•(he walcr'if,lie wetlands were sprnyed. At this point Attorney. Warren made,a move to dismiss nll portions of the complaint as they relate to lire applicalion of allosid.or ❑ny other method used by the city, with the exception of scourge as It Cli'risloph-,r P. Clifford MOSQUITO ABATEMENT APPEAL (PAN I TIER CREEK) AAD-035-89 May 31, 1989 Page 3 related to applications that may get into the water and harm lire water fowl, lie felt all other testimony about this matter has been speculation and should not be admitted. AuyelWit Clifford asked the Examiner to refer to the label for Altosid which staled it is not to be placed in known fish habitats, and even if fish arc not present, nmphibians may be affected. Clifford slated he also believes file concern he expressed as to the omission of replies to questions 10 and Section 7, D (2 & 3) need to be deal( with. Terry Whitworllr, 1Vhi(worth 1'csl Control, 3707 900 rccl East. -I'acoma 98446, PIID Entomologist, presented testimony regarding; altosid rind scourge and described how scourge is suggested to be applied. Ile stale([ it is to be applied by using a back-pack sprayer and riot to be applied in water. Ile said it could be possible for songbirds to be exposed to the spraying but when using a sprayer for npplication the sprayer makes enough noise the birds would disperse - he does not feel the impacts on birds would be significant. lie said most mosquitos lend to slay low in bushy areas so there would really be no reason to spray insecticide up in the air. Scourge is n general insecticide; nllosid briquets will be applied one to every 10 sq. ft. and in the Panther Creek 1Vellands, due to its denseness, it would not be possible to gel 100% coverage - but a substantial reduction in mosquito population can be attained. lie explained his process for selecting the Allosid briquets as opposed to using a liquid insecticide; toxic effects to non-target organisms is virtually non-toxic to those organisms at field concentration which is what the city would be applying; the toxicity of the briquets to be used is very low with a slow-release of their materials over a long period of little. Mr. 1Vhilwoilh explained the effects of the nllosid on larva and responded to concerns about possible contamination of non-target organisms such as birds, frogs and tadpoles. tvlr,__Llifl rd noted the use of Altosid would effect larva and asked if it would effect (he ^eggs^ and Mr. Whilworlh said it lakes a very high concentration to have any impact. Mr. Whitworth also staled it is fell about 80% coverage could be allained in tire wetlands and that should be good enough to achieve the abatement desires of the city. Upon continued questioning from appellant Clifford Mr. Whilwoilli replied there is a zone as you conic out of the wetlands where the hillside begins to climb and where it first begins to flatten is the area the mosquitos lend to congregate; there is no reason for the insecticide to get into the water is it will be sprayed when there is no wind; the success of this spray on -areas of comparable size has been determined to be great enough to justify this product and its use on the subject wetlands. Also called to testify was Eiavid Sullivan Zanus Corporation 1259 El Catilino Real Suite 134 Menlo ]'ark, California 94025 who, when asked by Atlornev Warren for his educational credentials staled he holds -a Bachelors Degree in Science and a Masters Degree in Entomology. Upon questioning Mr Sullivan acknowledged familiarity with the application of Allosid in large bodies of water; staled in Minnesota they treat over 4000 sq. miles with Altosid briquets which are of the larger variety that last about 150 days (whicll are larger than the briquets suggested for use in Panther Creek), with no environmental impact. lie reviewed the application rate to be used and referred to Exhibit dk4 regarding toxicity levels for fish, frogs and oilier animals; referred to other charts and information on application levels and their toxicity as compared to the level of application anticipated for this proposal; focusing on scourge - Sullivan said the likelihood scourge could get into the water, based on the rates the city will be using will pose little or no threat to the wetlands as the airborne particles are of such a size they lend to slay above and riot drift down into water areas, and therefore is not likely to gel into the water of lire wetlands. Chemical scourge information has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency who determined it to be safe, and any reference to scourge being toxic could be removed from the label. Ile said (he use of scourge is of little or no risk and is considered one of the safest insecticides to be used as its chemicals are gone within four (4) hours. Cross-examined by appellant Clifford Mr. Sullivan slated he does riot feel Allosid would have any impact on the food chain because over the years as a reduction in the application rate has taken place it has been found that the natural predators have remained. Ile slated he did not believe scourge would have any impact on adult insects living in the wetlands and if there was -an impact it would be minimal because of the way the product is used, the time of application, and how long it is in the environment. IIe said there is no other pesticide, to his knowledge, that would do the job it was intended to do and remain in the environment for a period of only four (4) hours - therefore the non-target organisms will riot be harmed. Lenora Dlauman__. cnior Planner. City of Renton and Proiect Manager for the Mosquito Abatement Prroi=, was called by Attorney Warren, and upon questioning stated Willi respect to scourge and Allosid she was responsible for contacting a number of sources with respect to the use and safely of (hose two chemicals. She said the results were placed in a report and also into the record separately at Exhibit 06 (which she rend for the audience). Ms. Illaumnn said the Technical Advisory Committee presented this report to the Environmental Review Committee and after (heir review the ERC issued a Declaration of Non-Significance (entered as Exhibit 07). Ms. Dlaunian acknowledged she reviewed the Environmental Checklist for this proposal and if, or whenever a mistake is found every effort is made to correct the record. She did not feel a mistake was made on the checklist being discussed today. There were no more questions of any of lire witnesses and (lie City and Appellant presented closing arguments. ;I Christopher P. Clifford MOSQUITO ADATE•MENT APPEAL (PANTHER CREEK) AAD-035-89 Mny 31, 1989 Page 4 Auuellanl Chrisloulicr Clifford slated he feels the mistakes on the Environnilenlnl Checklist need to be rectified, conditions need to be acknowledged and mitigation proposnls need to be set forth by ilia city. 'I'lio omission of animals, and the blower to be used and it's decibel levels are of concern to him and should be to (lie city. The density of (lie wetlands leads him to believe (lie application of Allosid may not be effective. The wetlands of Renton are the largest in the area and the future plan for this area should be that it be set aside for n greenbelt and n hnbilat for animal life. lie requested that an Environmental Impact Statement be prepared for [lie Panther Creek Wetlands to recognize any impacts on nny•wildlife in the area and definitive mitigating measures should be se( forth to correct any impacts. Mr. Clifford expressed ilia need for the city to proceed as carehilly as possible before n chemical rrcalulenl approach is used to protect the wildlife in Ilia area that will be adversely affected is a result of this progrnm. rvir. Clifford acknowledged somclhing should be done about (lie mosquitos in (lie wellands area but he is not sure this is (he program that should be used. The Hearing Examiner requested St., Planner Mailman to read to the audience the ERC mitigation conditions to enlighten them as to ilia precautions and concerns considered by (lint Committee. Closing argument from -City Altorney Lawrence Warr tl included his reference to RCW 43.21C.031 which requires an Environmental Statement for till proposals having probable significant, advarsc impnc(s and he fell testimony given today referred to strictly speculative impacts that were of concern. lie said speculative impacts would have to be gross speculation in order to arrive it n significant environmental impact. The concentrations of Allosid are 1/2000th of Ihnl which would be necessary to have toxic effects on fish. Scourge and the method it is supposed to be applied has a short life of only 4 hours and would not get into Ilia water in significant concentrations and is not n threat to birds whether water fowl or raplors - with no affect on their food source. Mr. Warren feels we'hnve an improbably, insignificant, non-adverse environmental impact which is the reason (lie DNS was correct in being issued. Referring to the alleged mistakes or omissions in the Environmental Checklist, Mr. Warren fell that issue was irrelevant as it has been shown by testimony given todny'lhat (lie creatures were not mentioned because staff did not feel They would be harmed. 'file level of technical information presented in testimony today would show there is no probable negative environmental impacts and the only cunlrary testimony given was considered hearsny leslimony received from an unidentified individual taken by telephone, without reference to methods and concenlrn(ions of npplicitions. Ile feels at the very best I)iis testimony should be considered speculative. Attorney Warren staled (lie responsible officinl under SETA can not base n decision requiring, an Environmental Impact Statement on speculative environmental effects. lie concluded it was his feeling there is no reason to set aside ilia subject DNS for this proposal. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this proposal. There was no one also wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 3:50 P.M. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed (he record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellant, Christopher P. Clifford, challenged a Determination of Non-Significance issued for a Mosquito Abatement Program operated by the City of Renton. The city Initially issued a Delerninntion of Non-Significance (DNS) for its Mosquito Abatement Program (MAP) for [lie Panther Creek Wetlands ilia subject proposal, on February 22, 1989, willi n publication trite of February 27, 1989. The DNS contained mitigating conditions making the DNS, n DNS-M. I-he publication triggers n comumenl period and an appeal period. )loth Ilse nppellant and the Department of Iiculogy (DOI:) submitted comments or requests for additional information. 'these conuncnls delayed (he original appeal period and extended (lie lime for appeals to April 3, 1989, which was fourteen days front the issuance of the DNS-M on March 20, 1989. The appellant filed n timely appeal on April 3, 1989. The Public Hearing was scheduled and held on May 16, 1989. 2. Tire Pnnlller Creek Wetlands (wetlands) are located cast of SR 167 (Enst Valley highway), west of Talbot Road, north of S.W. 43rd Street and south of 1-405. They can most easily be seen from the northbound lanes of Sit 167. Portions of the wetlands and uplands tire owned by the City of Renton, with the remainder in ilia hands of private parties generally owning homes or vacant properties located on ilia uplands cis(-of the wetlands. 3. The wetlands are npproxlmatcly 65 acres in size. Besides being )ionic to a vnriety of wetland pinnls and animals, the wetlands tire ilia home of Coquillettidia per(urbans, n particularly large variety of mosquito. t . , 11 r I♦ tl`r , 'hrlstopher P. Clifford v1OSQUITO A13ATF-MENT APPEAI-JI'ANTf1ER CREEK) -\AA-035-89 Any 31, 1989 Inge 5 4. Apparently, responding to public complaints last year and this year, the city determined to nbate the problems created by Ilia mosquito population and apply chemical agents to ameliorateilia problem. Complaints regarding mosquitos have nlrcady been received by the city. 5. While the city had used control measures in ilia past, for n number of yenrs they had nbandoned public efforts to control mosquitos in this area. They had attempted to initiate this program last year but the environmental process Avis begun late. After the filing of an,appeal by this same - appcll:ml, the program wns abandoned since, the time frame of hearing, decision and nppeal period would hnve made (lie program ineffective as Ilia window for effective npplicnlion would have passed. 6. 'Pilo city initialed its application earlier this year in order to fit the program within the effective window, 7. The MA1' would require the application of two separate chemical agents to the wetlands or areas surrounding ilia wetlands. Ench agent provides n different form of mosquito control or eradication. One agent retards mosquito maturation, freezing, if you will, development al n stage short of adulthood, ilia singe when mosquitos bite and"reproduce. The second agent actually kills adult mosquitos, effectively preventing biting and reproduction. 8. 'fire first agent is Aitosid which is a trade frame. It is formulated in n clay briquet. The common name of (lie active ingredient is Methoprene. The briquets are applied at n rate of approximately one (1) briquet per Ian (10) square feel of surface water. The application rate varies for water of greater depth or with varying flow rates. As (lie clay dissolves•ilia utclhoprene is released in a "time-release" fashion. The agent affects ilia larval stage of the developing mosquito. The larvae develop "normally" to [lie pupal stage but development is than halted and the pupal stage mosquilos do not develop into adult mosquitos. 'Pile pupal stage mosquilos than die. This agent does not halt development once mosquilos reach the pupal stage, and adult mosquilos would emerge from ilia wetland. It also has no affect on adult mosquitos. 9. The evidence reflects flint both the larval singeAnd Ilia pupal stage mosquitos are nvailnble to support the food chain, although adult mosquitos, apparently reduced in numbers by this agent, would not be. Also, it ilia program were effective no, or substantially reduced, juvenile form mosquilos would be present in Ilia food chain in lho future. 10. Persistence studies of Allosid applied to soil in extremely large amounts demonstrates n hnlf-life (the time for ilia quantity to be reduced by hair through chemical or metabolic breakdown) was approximately 10 days. Applications in water under normal conditions of sunlight and temperature shows n Itnif-life of approximately 2 days. Experiments have shown that there is no uptnka in plants. Manumainn metabolism converts the substance to ordinary waste products or pnsses it through. Melhoprene is administered to beef and dairy cattle to reduce ilia fly population around feed yards. if. The studies have demonstrated low toxicity. It has been shown to have no mutagenic (modified species development) or lerntogenic (abnormal fetal development) or other reproductive affects on small nanumals. It has shown low or no significant levels of eye or skin irritation in rats, rabbits and domestic pets. It does not appear to affect birds or waterrowl. 12. Allosid is not recommended for bodies of water which support fish habilat. The wetlands apparently do not support fish populations. 13. 'The applicant proposes applying Ilia Allosid according to standard prnclices, and OlYsical application will require using sling shots to apply it to interior regions of the welland. 14. Allosid has been used over large nrcas in Minnesota where it is npplied while wetlands are frozen over in winter. The briquets nro simply dropped on the snow or ice overlying wetlands. The briquets enter Ilia writer during the thaw and begin dissolving upon entry. 15. I he second agent which would be employed in the MAI' would be Scourge. Scourge is the brand name of an insecticide containing as its active ingredients a synthetic version of Resmelhrin and Piperonyl buloxide. Resntethrin is n natural constituent of some plants. It npparently possesses insecticidal properties. hhe intent of applying Scourge is to kill any adult mosquito which has already emerged from ilia welland, having been missed by the Altosid application. 16. Scourge is persistent for approximately four (4) days, although some studies show it breaks mown under ultraviolet light in approxintnlely-four (4) hours and does not accumulate in ilia environment. it is no insecticide which kills mosquitos on contact. It begins a natural breakdown upon exposure to sunlight and air. Christopher P. Clifford MOSQUITO ADATEMENT APPEAL (PANTHER CREEK) AAD-035-89 May 31, 1989 Page G 17. Scourge may be toxic to fish and recommendations for its application suggest that it not be npplicd when breezy or windy to avoid its dtifling over water bodies. It is not to be applied directly over water bodies. It does not demonstrate significant mutagenic or leralogenic properties; nor oncogenic (cancer inducing) properties. 18. Scourge is applied by fogging or spraying vegetation surrounding the we(land. Field investigations have shown that the lower bushes and shrubs surrounding the wetland harbor adult nsosquilos. 19. A variety of measurements including I,Dt0 and LCSn ("'call telhnl dose and mean lethal concentration, the rile at which half of brie tested animals die), ppm (parts per million), and mg/kg (nmount per weight) are found in the studies and labels submitted for these two products. The evidence suggests Ilia[ only in quaulilies many times, in some cases thousands of limes as much as the proposed npplicalion are the nffecls acute, toxic, or lethal. The application of Ahosid will amount to .0024 to .0098 ppm or npproxintntely .009 - .037 mg/gallon or water. The recommended application of Scourge is 0.007 pounds per acre. The tested lethal doses were front hundreds to thousands of times gre-atcr. 'Of course, some of linese potentially harmful closes are still relatively small - measured still as only 5000 parts per million. See Exhibit 4, incorporated by reference. 20. The city's DNS-M contained (lie following conditions: . 1. That, in order to ensure viable, sire habitnlion/us0 of properties in Ilia area of the Panther Creek Welland, the npplicant,.for 1989 and 1990 only, utilize the products Allosid and Scourge for mosquito abatement, as inslrucled/permitied by Ilse Department of Ecology and the King County Ileallh Department. 2. That, in order to ensure the necessity/efficacy of (lie 1989 and 1990 abatement program, ilia applicant shall develop and adhere to a plan by which n licensed entomologist will undertake monitoring and testing of Irnps at regular intervals to: o) provide It census; b). recommend nn npplicalion plan, recognizing lltnt more than one application cony be necessary to achieve vector control; and c) monitor the application process Io ensure that product application is scheduled it limes of Ilia day and in weather conditions which ntnxintize the effectiveness of nbalentent control and minimize impact upon the huntnn/natural environment. 3. That, in order to preserve the natural environment of Panther Creek Wetlands and Springbrook Creek, during the 1989 and 1990 abatement program, the applicant shall: a) consult with (lie Department of Wildlife; b) invite comment from the Department of Fisheries. These communications shall lake place in advance of each product application during 1989 and 1990 10 establish Ilse continuing appropriateness of the proposed systems/products to be used and the application schedule in the event that there ale changes in the existing habitat which warrant such approval. 4. That, in order to ensure public health and safely, the applicant shall: n) provide written information which fully describes the abatement program and schedule to nil individual homeowners within the proposed project area along Talbot Road; b) provide written information which fully describes the abatement program and schedule to be published in n local newspaper and posted nt regular intervals in Ilse vicinity of Ilse project area; and c) provide notification for/conduct n public meeting to inform interested parties about the proposed abatement project. All notifications should Include the name and lelephone number of a City representative who can provide further information about the program to Interested parties. The City will not conduct mosquito abatement activities on private property without permission of ilia properly owner. Note: Staff recommend that [lie above-described information programs be implemented prior to the completion of the comntenl period for ilia environmental determination. jr' I.,'� Chrlstopher P. Clifford MOSQUITO ABATEMENT APPEAL (PANTHER CREEK) AAD-035-89 May 31, 1989 Page 7 5. Tint, in order to protect the humnn environment and lire natural environment: n) the npplicant shall reconfirm the suitability-of the*proposed (Altosid, Scourge) chemical system on nn annual basis, over the life (1989-1993) of this project; and b) (lie applicant shall submit n new application if new chemical systems or products (other than Altosid or Scourge) are selected by the City/suggested by DOE during the life of the project (1999-1993). Note: Unless lite Panther Creek Wellnnds Hibitnt is to be developed within the next two years will) a wildlife habitat which will provide biological control of mosquitoes, the Public Works and Pnrks Departments should work together to provide, prior to (lie end of calendar year 1991, a comparative nnnlysis which explores options for mosquito abnlemenl through biological control systems, nnturnl selection systems, water manipulation, mechnnicnl control and the proposed chemical control system, including n description of the components-of those systems, nnticipaled positive rind negntive impacts of each system (e.g. feasibility, efficacy, efficiency, safety), and required mitigation t ntensures. City stnff rind the Environmental Review Conunittc6 will then review this information, in order.to then select n preferred system and issue a Determination. 21. Findings 22 through 25 below refer to answers on the E•nvironmenlnl Checklist prepared by the npplicnnt for MAP and the ripplicnlion of the two chemicrils to the Panther Creek Welland. The npplicanl indicated on the Checklist lint it was for the program for the years 1989"lo 1993 and for insecticides approved each year by the Department of Ecology. 22. In filling out lire checklist the applicant listed waterfowl as the only avian species observed on or near the site or known to be on or near the site, leaving un-checked or un-circled choices including hawk, heron,eagle, rind songbirds. The site wns not listed as part of n migration roule. Similarly, no ntnnrtnnls were identified as being on or near the site: The list names only larger ntnnunnls but includes "other" as n fill-id choice. No threnlened or endnogered species were listed on the checklist. The appellant demonstrated n variety of birds and raptors live on or frequent the site. 23. Under environmental health which requires identification of health hazards and possible toxic exposure, the applicant identified the two agents - Altosid and Scourge. The Fire Department rind Medic One were listed under emergency services which might be required. No particular method was listed to reduce or control environmental health hazards. The applicant indicated the materials will be used according to label directions. 24. SR 167 was listed as a source of noise as was the backpack blower/applicator used to deliver Scourge. No measures were identified to reduce noise impacts. The npplicrint slnted the background noise of the highway would drown out the bnckpnck blower unit. 25. The site was identified as "environmentally sensitive" containing wetlands, serving as greenbelt and within the 100-year flood plain. CONCLUSIONS 1. The decision of the governmenlnl agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to subslnntinl weight. Therefore, Iho dclenninnlion of lhe.Environmenlni Review Committee (ERC), the city's responsible orficini, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates tint the determinntion was in error. 2, The Determination of Non-Significnnce in this ease is entitled to substantial weight and will not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous". (Hayden v. Port Townsend, 93 Wit 2nd 870, 880; 1980). The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Associnlion v. King County Council, 87 Wit 2d 267, 274; 1976, staled: "A finding is 'clearly erroneous' when nllhough there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left will, the definite rind firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Therefore, the determination of the E-RC will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the. above lest. for reasons enumerated below, the decision of the ERC is affirmed. 3. 'l he clearly erroneous test Inns generally been npplied when nn nction results in n DNS since the test is less demanding on the nppellnnt. The reason'is that SEPA requires n thorough examinntion of the environmental consequences of nn nction. 'rile courts have, therefore, made it ensier to reverse n DNS. A second test, the "arbitrary and capricious" lest is generally npplied when a Determination of Significance (DS) is issued. In this second test an nppellnnl would Clir)slopher P. Clifford MOSQUITO ADATEME•NT APPEAL (PANTHER CREEK) AAD-03S-89 Mrry 31, 1989 Pnge 8 hnve to show (lint the decision clenrly flies in (lie fnce of reason. A Declaration of Signlficnnce which results in the prepnrnlion of n full disclosure document (an Environmental Impact S(nlemenl) is more difficult to overturn since it is more proleclive of the environment. 4. An action is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment if more lhnn n moderate impact on (he quality of Ilia environment is a rensona�le probability. (Norway, at 278). Since the Court spoke in Norway, WAC 197-11"794 has been ndopled and it defines "significant" as follows: Significant. (1)"Significant" ns used in SEPA means n tensonnble - likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impncl on environmental quality. (1) Significance involves context and intensity ...Intensity depends on the magnitude and durntion of an impncl.... The severity of the impact should be weighed nloog with the likelihood of its occurrence. An impact mny be significant if its chance of occurrence is not great, but the resulting environmental impact would be severe if it occurred. S. Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term "probnble." Probable. "Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur, ... Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have n possibility of occurring, but are remote or speculative. (WAC 197-11- 782). G. Impacts also include reasonably related and foreseeable direct and indirect.impacts including short-term and long-term effects. (WAC 197-11-000(4)(c)). In this case consequences of the MAP to the food chain, Thal is the interdependence of other specifies on insects such as the mosquito as n food source could be reasonably related. 'rile ERC's nnnlysis of the two chemicnls, nlunl; with the consultants' inform.1don, demonstrates that there should be limited impacts upon (he food chain. The Allosid works on the juvenile mosquito forms. The larval forms, as well as file pupal forms, will be available as a food source'for amphibians and other water feeders. The metamorphosis will slop at Ilia pupal stage so that adult mosquitos will not emerge. Those mosquitos which (to emerge clue to late or incomplete npplicntion of Allosid will be exterminalcd by the Scourge. Unanswered though is what impacts might result from Ilse elimination of juvenile mosquito forms from the food chnin if the process is effective. 7. The proposed MAP will apply very small amounts of two known chemical agents, Altosid and Scourge, to the welland environment. Allosid will be applied to the water and Scourge will be used nt low volumes to spray vegetation adjacent to the wetland. A number of studies have been conducted oil those two agents and while they may have harmful affects if applied improperly (a violation of federal law) they have been generally shown to have limited impncls Oil supposed non-largel species. 8. Ivhile the applicant, City of Renton, did make some errors in filling out the Environmental Checkiist, those errors did not substantially impair the result. Adding n number of birds, small mammnls and nnrphibimrs to the checklist would not have altered the fact (fiat file chemical ngenls chosen apparently have little, if nny, impact on Ilia species named, or even (hose omilled from the checklist. 9. 'therefore, ns defined by SEPA, there appears little likelihood that the MAP will have more than n moderate impact on environmental quality, or that the impact or impacts would be severe. Nor do impacts seem more likely to occur ns opposed to less likely, again, given the lawful and proper application of these agents. 10. rile appellant (lid raise some valuable questions regarding possible impacts. Particularly since (he program Is proposed to be on-going, it seems logical to estnblish some form of methodology to determine if field studies bear out the clinical observations. The ERC has eslnblislred n methodology to determine if the ngenls are effective against mosquitos when clinical evidence demonstrates that it should be wilhoul further testing. So while a census of mosquitos will show whether the eradication program is working or not, it will not show if (Ire wetland is in some way nllered. It will not show what impact (he future loss of juvenile mosquitos will have on other animals which use them as a food source. r •Qhristopher-P. Clifford MOSQUITO ADATGMENT AVVCAI. (PANTHER CREEK) AAD-035-89 Mny 31, 1989 Pnge 9 IL Therefore, the decision of the ERC should include ndditionnl conditions to assure that the Welland euvironnncnl is not substantially nllered. As field obsen•ntions will be used to determine if the mosquito populaliut fins been reduced, field observations should be conducted to determine if faunn relying on the welland habitat for shelter or food are nlsu in any way adversely nffecteci by the MAP, l he city shall be required to conduct n census of birds, fish, amphibians, and small and large mnmmmnls prior to treatment of (lie wetland with any chemical agents. It shall then conduct n similar census in subsequent years to determine what if any impncl the lrctilrnenl fins on (he existing faunn. 12. The initial census Will establish n baseline of existing faurnn. Without such baseline information it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine if the treatment program is harming the welland or species that depend on the wellnnd for hnbitnl or food. As staff indicated, lire DNS was to be periodically reviewed for subsequent yenrs. If subsequent review is envisioned then that subsequent environmenlnl review would benefit from having sufficient information to conclude what impne(s treatment of Ilre wetland fins find. 13. Conditions 2 and 5 of the DNS-M both suggest that preservation of the natural environment of the wellands is also n goal of the city. Therefore, ntosquito'cradication nod wetland preservation should not be handled in such a manner that either gonl excludes file other. 'file issue is not as simplistic is preserving the wetland ns n mere holding system for storm wnter. In order to have a viable wetland lire MAP cannot alter the wellnnd by diminishing or climinnling welland fauna, its inhabilanls or visitors, with the exception of mosquitos nod possibly some other non-farget, "non-importonl" insects. If the purpose of the welland were mere detention, then an EIS would probably be required ns Ihal would be n major alteration of file existing habiltil and enviromnent. Indirectly causing-that result through inadvertent alteration of the welland would require no less - an EIS. The baseline study will permit monitoring to assure that inadvertent alteration does not continue if It in fnet is occurring. ' 14. The ERC did not simply issue a DNS, it nlso imposed a series of conditions to assure the henith nml snfcly of ncnrby residents nod conditions to avoid unnecessary Irenlment if other methods prove sufficienl. 'These conditions, supplemenJed by the ndditionnl condition requiring no initial wildlife census and annual census to determine if tin impact bas occurred, will nssure the integrity of the SEPA process. 15. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in (he miller, unless the reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. The record does not disclose that there has been sufficient error of substantive value to require reversal of file determination issued by the ERC. '!'litre is no doubt that the reviewing agency could have presented n more accurate checklist, but the errors complained of are not significnnl in light of the npimently limited consequences of applying these chemical agents as specified by'lheir respective Inbels. 'file inclusion of the ndditionnl condition regarding n baseline wildlife census will insure that if tiny impacts are revealed future programs will be modified or, in fact, nil EIS will be prepared. DECISION The determination of Ilte Environmental Review Committee is affirmed with the following modificnlion: 'I'he following condition shall be added to the DNS-M: / The city shall be required to conduct a census of birds, fish, amphibians, and small and large mammals prior to treatment of the wetland with nny chemical agents. The initial c6iii s shall establish a baseline of existing faunn and shall be conducted in a formal, professional manner Li and shall include the normal methodology utilized to conduct field observations of species in Q their native environmcul. The observations shall nlso be required to include those species that tesido un file wetland and those that utilize it as n source of food. ! T It shall (hen conduct a similar census in subsequent years to determine what, if any, impact the treatment fins on lire existing fauna. �ORD b THIS 31st day of May, 1989. Vd FRED J. K --MAN IiE-ARING EXAMINER • Christopher 11. Clifford MOSQUITO ADATEMENT APPEAL (PANTIIER CREEK) AAD-035-89 May 31, 1989 Page 10 TItANSMI'I-I'ED '1'111S.31s1 day of May, 1989 to the parties of record: Christopher 1'. Clifford 2721 'Talbot Road South Radon, WA 98055 Lawrence Warren City Attorney City of Menton Lenorn BInuomn Senior Planner City of Renton Gerald Adams Seattle Audubon Society 619 Joshua Green Building Seattle, WA 98101 Terry Whitworth Whitworth PCs( Control 3707 - 96th Street East Ticomn, WA 98446 David Sullivan, Zanus Corporation 1259 E. Camino Real, Suite 134 Menlo Park, California 94205 Gene llnlleslrasse 1804 Lake'AveoWe So. Renton, WA 98055 Matthew D. Devine 527 So. 281h Place Renton, WA 98055 J. D. Murchison 2528 Talbot Crest Drive So. Renton, WA 98035 Greg Schroeder 2331 Talbot Crest Drive So. Renton, WA 98055 Carolyn Wilkinson 2245 Shattuck Avenue So. Renton, WA 98055 Clayton Park Seattle 'Times 1229 West Smith Street Kent, WA 98032 Dina Shively KSTW - News Department 11. O. Box 11411 Tacoma, WA 98411 TRANSMITTED THIS 31st day of May, 1989 to the following: Mayor Earl Clymer Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Lynn A. Gutlrnann, Public Works Director Members, Renton Planning Commission Don Monnghnn, Acting Engineering Supervisor Glen Gordon, Fire Marshal Lnrry M. Springer, Planning Mnnnger Lawrence 1. Warren, City Attorney Ronald Nelson, Building Director Gary Norris, Traffic Engineer John Adamson, Developmental Program Coordinator Garth Cray, Senior Engineering Specialist Valley Daily News . y. Christopher P. Clifford MOSQUITO ABATEMENT APPEAL (PANTHER CREEK) AAD-035-89 May 31, 1989 Page I Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of (lie City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 1'.M. June 14 1989. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of lave or fact, error in judgment, or (he discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for n review by (lie Exnmincr within fourteen (14) days from the dale of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, lake further action as he deems proper. Any appeal is governed by Title IV, Section 3011, which requires that such nppeal be filed with tile. Superior Court of wishingtou for King County within twenty (20) days from the dale of the Examiner's decision. The Appearnnce of fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parle (priva(e one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not conunwlicale in private with nay decision-maker concerning ilia proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include bolls the Ilearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposnl must be made in public. This public communication permits nil interested parties to know the contents of (lie commit nicnIion and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. Tito Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. • CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIG141FICANCE (btITIGAT JIBIm NO. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST NO. : ECF-002-89 1;jqq APPLICATION NO(S) : N/A',I'EM NO. Qom_' A. • "- �" `_ Le i PROPONENT: City of Renton, Parks Department DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Applicant seeks approval for a Mosquito Abatement Program (1989-1993) over 65 acre area of the Panther Creek Wetlands. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Panther Creek Wetlands located east of SR 167 between I-405 and S.W. 43rd Street. Properties include those under private ownership and those under public ownership. LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Community Development Department Planning Division The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2) (c) . Conditions were imposed as.- mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-2822(D) Renton Municipal Code (see attached sheet) . These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2) . Because mitigation measures have been imposed, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fifteen (15) days from February 27, 1989. Any interested party may submit written comments which must be submitted by 5:00 P.M. , March 14, 1989, in order to be considered. A fourteen (14) day appeal period will commence following the finalization of the DNS. Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee c/o Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Planning Division Community Development Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA .- 98055 PUBLICATION DATE: February 27, 19.89 DATE OF DECISION: February 22, 1989 SIGNATUR 77�: ,j;en NY r _____—� Lyn AGuttrn Actingfnmunity Deve pment Director Pub Director DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES PROJECT: MOSQUITO ABATEMENT CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: ECF-002-89 APPLICATION NUMBER: N/A DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Applicant seeks approval for a Mosquito Abatement Program (1989- 1993) over 65 acre area of the Panther Creek Wetlands. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Panther Creek Wetlands located east of SR 167 between I-405 and S.W. 43rd Street. Properties include those under private ownership and -hose under public ownership. RECOM14ENDATIONS: Issue a Determination of Non- significance-Mitigated with the following conditions: 1. That, in order to ensure viable, safe habitation/use of properties in the area of the Panther Creek Wetland, the applicant, for 1989 and 1990 only, utilize the products Altosid and Scourge for mosquito abatement, as instructed/permitted by the Department of Ecology and the King County Health Department. 2. That, in order to ensure the necessity/efficacy of the 1989 and 1990 abatement program, the applicant shall develop and adhere to a plan by which a licensed entomologist will undertake monitoring and testing of traps at regular intervals to: a) provide a census; b) recommend an application plan, recognizing that more than one application may be necessary to achieve vector control; and c) monitor the application process to ensure that product application is scheduled at times of the day and in weather conditions which maximize the effectiveness of abatement control and minimize impact upon the human/natural environment. 3. That, in order to preserve the natural environment of Panther Creek Wetlands and Springbrook Creek, during the 1989 and 1990 abatement program, the..applicant shall: a) consult with the Department of Wildlife; b) invite comment from the Department of Fisheries. These communications shall take place in advance of each product application during 1989 and 1990 to establish the continuing appropriateness of the proposed systems/products to be used and the application schedule in the event that there are changes in the existing habitat which warrant such approval. r • rn:ira%lon of Non-Signi. . -;e uito .Abatement .2 4. That, in order to ensure public health and safety, the applicant shall: a) provide written information which fully describes the abatement program and schedule to all individual homeowners within the proposed project area along Talbot Road; b) provide written information which fully describes the abatement program and schedule to be published in a local newspaper and posted at regular intervals in the vicinity of the project area; and c) provide notification for/conduct a public meeting to inform interested parties about the proposed abatement project. All notifications should include the name and telephone number of a City representative who can provide further information about the program to interested parties. The City will not conduct mosquito abatement activities on private property without permission of the property owner. Note: Staff recommend that the above-described information programs be implemented prior to the completion of the comment period for the environmental determination. 5. That, in order to protect the human environment and the natural environment: a) the applicant shall reconfirm the suitability of the proposed (Altosid, Scourge) chemical system on an annual basis, over the life (1909-1993) of this project; and b) the applicant shall submit a new application if new chemical systems or products (other than Altosid or Scourge) are selected by the City/suggested by DOE during the life of the project (1909-1993) . Note: Unless the Panther Creek Wetlands Habitat is to be developed within the next two years with a wildlife habitat which will provide biological controL-of mosquitoes, the Public Works and Parks Departments should work together to provide, prior to the end of calendar year 1991, a comparative analysis which explores options for mosquito abatement through biological control systems, natural selection systems, water manipulation, mechanical control and the proposed chemical control system, including a description of the components of those systems, anticipated positive and negative impacts of each system (e.g. feasibility, efficacy, efficiency, safety) , and required mitigation measures. City staff and the Environmental Review Committee will then review this information, in order to then select a preferred system and issue a Determination. mmdoc tru- 11-'.r izr: u r re_k :vu L.)o i L„ , " ,. . . REIUT9N PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Below please find an "AUTHORIZATION AND RELEASE" that, when signed by you, will authorize us to inspect, analyze, and treat your property for the purpose of mosquito abaterent in the Panther Creek Wetlands. At AND RELEASE In consideration of my interest as a resident and property owner in King County, Washington, and realizing that mosquito control is essential for my family's health the same as for that of others, I hereby authorize the City of Renton or its representatives to enter my land for the purpose of mosquito abatement through the use of the following methods: 1 . Inspection 2. Testing and Analysis 3. Treatment of Areas For the sarne consideration, I also release and agree to hold harmless the City of Renton and its officers and representatives in their official or individual capacities for any damage that may arise from the use of the above-mentioned methods in its efforts to effect mosquito control on my property. DATE SIGNATURE V Print Name Telephone No. COMMENTS: PLEASE RETURN THE ABOVE INFORMATION TO: City of Renton Public Works Department - Ron Straka 200 Mill Avenue South - Fourth Floor Renton, WA 98055 92.294n:P.JS:ps un%tl%a� ua:�ir I �.1 LUO 440 4041 i%L vl!,.I z "I I " RENT N PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Below please find an "AUTHORIZATION AND RELEASE" that, when signed by you, will authorize us to inspect, analyze, and treat your property for the purpose of mosquito abatement in the Panther Creek Wetlands. AUTHORIZATION AND REL A E In consideration of my interest as a resident and property owner in King County, Washington, and realizing that mosquito control is essential for my family's health the same as for that of others, I hereby authorize the City of Renton or its representatives to enter my land for the purpose of mosquito abatement through the use of the following methods: 1 . Inspection 2. Testing and Analysis 3. Treatment of Areas For the same consideration, I also release and agree to hold harmless the City of Renton and its officers and representatives in their official or individual capacities for any damage that may arise from the use of the above-mentioned methods in its efforts to effect mosquito control on my property. DATE SI ATURE Print �p m e Telephone No. COMMFNTS: _ ? r J , J iJ1,1 77992 PLEASE RETURN THE ABOVE INFORMATION TO: ''eeri g p7-ON p,. City of Renton Public Works Department - Ron Straka 200 Mill Avenue South - Fourth Floor Renton, WA 98055 92.294a:RJS:ps lit)•'ll toki:Uf Cy.l LVo zoa Lu41 L-IN ltj:. t ' IJI1 ,• .�. ._ RENTON PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Below please find an "AUTHORIZATION AND RELEASE" that, when signed by you, will authorize us to inspect, analyze, and treat your property for the purpose of mosquito abatement in the Panther Creek Wetlands. AUTHORIZATION AND REL A E In consideration of my interest as a resident and property owner in King County, Washington, and realizing that mosquito control is essential for my family's health the same as for that of others, I hereby authorize the City of Renton or its representatives to enter my land for the purpose of mosquito abatement through the use of the following methods: 1 . Inspection 2. Testing and Analysis 3. Treatment of Areas For the same consideration, I also release and agree to hold harmless the City of Renton and its officers and representatives in their official or individual Capacities for any damage that may arise from the use of the above-mentioned methods in its efforts to effect mosquito control on my property. DATE SIGNATUR a n C, 7 C Print Name Telephone No. COMMENTS: Vilrf � C/�s'i;, �1� /�r r66-`'ng Q�ON apt PLEASE RETURN THE ABOVE INFORMATION TO: City of Renton Public Works Department - Ron Straka 200 Mill Avenue South - Fourth Floor Renton, WA 98055 92.29da:RJs:ps RENTON PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Below please find an "AUTHORIZATION AND RELEASE" that, when signed by you, will authorize us to inspect, analyze, and treat your property for the purpose of mosquito abatement in the Panther Creek Wetlands. AUTHORIZATION AND RELEASE In consideration of my interest as a resident and property owner in King County, Washington, and realizing that mosquito control is essential for my family's health the same as for that of others, I hereby authorize the City of Renton or its representatives to enter my land for the purpose of mosquito abatement through the use of the following methods: 1 . Inspection 2. Testing and Analysis 3. Treatment of Areas For the same consideration, I also release and agree to hold harmless the City of Renton and its officers and representatives in their official or individual capacities for any damage that may arise from the use of the above-mentioned methods in its efforts to effect mosquito control on my property. P DATE SIGNATURE 11 dari*cX _d, 4.tk 12129 - 40J6 Print Name Telephone No. COMMENTS: 2i PLEASE RETURN THE ABOVE INFORMATION TO '`AY 1��? City of Renton Public Works Department - Ron Straka CITY OF RENTON 200 Mill Avenue South - Fourth Floor Engineering Dept, Renton, WA 98055 92-294a:RJS:ps RENTON PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Below please find an "AUTHORIZATION AND RELEASE" that, when signed by you, will authorize us to inspect, analyze, and treat your property for the purpose of mosquito abatement in the Panther Creek Wetlands, AUTHORIZATION AND RELEASE In consideration of my interest as a resident and property owner in King County, Washington, and realizing that mosquito control is essential for my family's health the same as for that of others, I hereby authorize the City of Renton or its representatives to enter my land for the purpose of mosquito abatement through the use of the following methods: 1 . inspection 2, - Testing and Analysis 3. Treatment of Areas For the same consideration, I also release and agree to hold harmless the City of Renton and its officers and representatives in their official or individual capacities for any damage that may arise from the use of the above-mentioned methods in its efforts to effect mosquito control on my property, DATE SIGNATURE Print Name Telephone No. IZJADv✓AY s4AJ1J7-C"rAdCC COMMENTS: All "Jjrk ✓��v�� vekde.r ,ogr�ed p/i S/o,,1cler or stel67 ew,'11 v rdvo� v f�a Gt/5007� f ,r sor\ � fie �r'ior aPF � o� �M , Aida /'16•/�ten�nce .JatoAr,,.fe. �t PLEASE RETURN THE ABOVE INFORMATION TO: City of Renton Public Works Department - Ron Straka 200 Mill Avenue South - Fourth Floor Renton, WA 98055 92-294a:RJS:ps w - RENTON PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Below please find an "AUTHORIZATION AND RELEASE" that, when signed by you, will authorize us to inspect, analyze, and treat your property for the purpose of mosquito abatement in the Panther Creek Wetlands. AUTHORIZATION AND RELEASE In consideration of my interest as a resident and property owner in King County, Washington, and -realizing that mosquito control is essential for my family's health the same as for that of others, I hereby authorize the City of Renton or its representatives to enter my land for the purpose of mosquito abatement through the use of the following methods: 1 . Inspection 2. Testing and Analysis 3. Treatment of Areas For the same consideration, I also release and agree to hold harmless the City of Renton and its officers and representatives in their official or individual capacities for any damage that may arise from the use of the above-mentioned methods in its efforts to effect mosquito control on my property. PUGET VV T RN, mc. DATE SIGNATURE i-, . -t30YD 2vLi q2,-7 - 4- sLLa Print Name Telephone No. COMMENTS: PLEASE RETURN THE ABOVE INFORMATION TO: City of Renton Public Works Department - Ron Straka 200 Mill Avenue South - Fourth Floor Renton, WA 98055 92-294a:RJS:ps 1 _ a05 N W S_w. 191n Si. 14tti nf10 QUITO EM EN � ASATE�ExT J LLLLL� 1 R:r,{u EN Li ' AREA S z3rd ST a C _7 r r W J J -K Q m J W s_w. 27m sT. S.W. 3Atn N S 37m _ $ CILY Of REfrT�N L(OSOUITO ABATEMENT PROGRAM HOSPITAL . ,. 19515 North Creek Parkway, D Suite 310 � Bothell,WA 98011 TEL (206)487-6550 FAX (206)487-6565 APR 1, 1992 End OF RENTON April 28, 1992 gineering Dept. Mr. Ron Straka Public Works Department City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South - Fourth Floor Renton, WA 98055 Re: 1992 Mosquito Abatement Program Dear Mr. Straka: In accordance with your request, you will find a signed "Authorization and Release" form. The authorization allows the city to enter and treat an area for mosquitos on Puget Western's property identified as: KING COUNTY P RA CEL No. 302305-9076 Please call me on 206-487-6567 in the event you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Gust M. Erikson Manager Real Estate enclosures RENTON PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Below please find an "AUTHORIZATION AND RELEASE" that, when signed by you, will authorize us to inspect, analyze, and treat your property for the purpose of mosquito abatement in the Panther Creek Wetlands. AU I HORiZA'i iO N AND RELENJE In consideration of my interest as a resident and property owner in King County, Washington, and realizing that mosquito control is essential for my family's health the same as for that of others, I hereby authorize the City of Renton or its representatives to enter my land for the purpose of mosquito abatement through the use of the following methods: 1 � Inspection 2. Testing and Analysis 3. Treatment of Areas For the same consideration, I also release and agree to hold harmless the City of Renton and its officers and representatives in their official or individual capacities for any damage that may arise from the use of the above-mentioned methods in its efforts to effect mosquito control on my property. DATE SIGNATURE �-S� Print Name Telephone No, COMMENTS: za PLEASE RETURN THE ABOVE INFORMATION tT City of Renton Public Works Department - Ron Straka 200 Mill Avenue South - Fourth Floor Renton, WA 98055 I 1 92-294a:RJS:ps P-PER 218 1992 CITY OF RENTON Engineering Dept. RENTON PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Below please find an "AUTHORIZATION AND RELEASE" that, when signed by you, will authorize us, to inspect, analyze, and treat"your property for the purpose of mosquito abatement in the Panther Creek Wetlands. AUTHORIZATION AND RELEASE In consideration of my interest as a resident and property owner in King County, Washington, and realizing that mosquito control is essential for my family's health the same as for that of others, I hereby authorize the City of Renton or its representatives to enter my land for the purpose of mosquito abatement through the use of the following methods: 1 . Inspection 2. Testing and Analysis 3. Treatment of Areas For the same consideration, I also release and agree to hold harmless the City of Renton and its officers and representatives in their official or individual capacities for any damage that may arise from the use of the above-mentioned methods in its efforts to effect mosquito control on my property. . 1 17, DATE SIGNATURE ,' _ )� --I t- 4,/] V16x 1—s-da Print Name Telephone No. COMMENTS: )Z� PLEASE RETURN THE ABOVE INFORMATION TO: City of Renton ��ll r 61 Public Works Department - Ron Straka Ct 200 Mill Avenue South - Fourth Floor n' pF Renton, WA 98055 Eng�reeri g.�OIV At. 92-294a:RJS:ps RENTON PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Below please find an "AUTHORIZATION AND RELEASE" that, when signed by you, will authorize us to inspect, analyze, and treat your property for the purpose of mosquito abatement in the Panther Creek Wetlands. AUTHORIZATION AND RELEASE In consideration of my interest as a resident and property owner in King County, Washington, and realizing that mosquito control is essential for my family's health the same as for that of others, I hereby authorize the City of Renton or its representatives to enter my land for the purpose of mosquito abatement through the use of the following methods: 1 . inspection 2. Testing and Analysis 3. Treatment of Areas For the same consideration, I also release and agree to hold harmless the City of Renton and its officers and representatives in their official or individual capacities for any damage that may arise from the use of the above-mentioned methods in its efforts to effect mosquito control on my property. 7 � DAT SIGNATURE Print Name Telephone No. COMMENTS: 61 e,,y i992 PLEASE RETURN THE ABOVE INFORMATION TO: : Op R City of Renton �TO�v Public Works Department - Ron Straka pt. 200 Mill Avenue South - Fourth Floor Renton, WA 98055 92-294a:RJS:ps I RENTON PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Below please find an "AUTHORIZATION AND RELEASE" that, when signed by you, will authorize us to inspect, analyze, and treat your property for the purpose of mosquito abatement in the Panther Creek Wetlands. AUTHORIZATION AND RELEASE In consideration of my interest as a resident and property owner in King County, Washington, and realizing that mosquito control is essential for my family's health the same as for that of others, I hereby authorize the City of Renton or its representatives to enter my land for the purpose of mosquito abatement through the use of the following methods: 1 . Inspection 2. Testing and Analysis 3. Treatment of Areas For the same consideration, I also release and agree to hold harmless the City of Renton and its officers and representatives in their official or individual capacities for any damage that may arise from the use of the above-mentioned methods in its efforts to effect mosquito control on my property. j_11__ 7_ D E SIGNATURE Print Name Telephone No. COMMENTS: D C4ye � APR 3 0 1992 CiTY OF RENTON PLEASE RETURN THE ABOVE INFORMATION TO ngineering Dept. City of Renton Public Works Department - Ron Straka 200 Mill Avenue South - Fourth Floor Renton, WA 98055 92-294a:RJS:ps Mike Ullmann City Editor 872-6600 e 872-6721 LOCAL ValleyDailyNews Algona■Aubtun■Black Diamonds Covington■Fnutnclaw■Fairwood■Kent■Maple Valleys Pacifica Renton■Tukwila TI County rY renter is r ordinance ay EDWARD HEGSTROM County Bureau `A lant Two years ago,Anne Beardsley t t returned to her rental home outside t0 ex; i., Renton to find a For Sale"sign in 11gr I the front yard and an answering P j A machine full of messages from real rgaSO + rat estate agents ready to show the maint home, That evening,"she says,"I was Cy served with an eviction notice." Beardsley,who had requested that tions rath re S al estate agents call before enter- lations,sl +ng her rented home,was deemed Sullivan "uncoo rative." Her notice gave protectint t „r 3 3 her 20 days to find a new home, "A tarn pack her belongings,and move out. that his o Joined by nearly a dozen tenant's sonably n i. �F r. rights advocates,Beardsley relayed Along her story to a County Council corn- landlords r t mince Wednesday. The tenants van'scort .. r /'.. .t r� N►}��Y }w want the county to enact legislation ties of th< protecting renters against unjustified Michas evictions.Seattle already has such a propertie � v law. homish c Biologists Steve Hall and Greg Volkhardt(background)survey animal life in Panther Creek wetland. Valley Daily News photos by MARCUS R.DONNER The city of Kent considered a sim- he was ctilar ordinance last summer, but disruptive eventually on sal. ��0� ��'�� '��'�� Republican,gavefirst pro osed a just He fount County Executive Tim Hill, a spoon the Republican,first proposed ut the melt dab; cause eviction law in 1989.But the called be Democratically controlled County springn. TI By DEAN A.RADFORD So far,the census shows the program has had Council lacked the five votes neces. syringe. V.I.,Daly News no effect on anything but the mosquitoes,Straka sary to pass the bill. In most REN,rON' Mosquitoes,beware.The city is said. can evict itchin'for a right. The city,Straka said,hoped the d winter Cynthia Sullivan,who chairs the ruptive to g y dry council's Growth Management and must first h may not have to wait long.The pesky cant- might reduce the mosquitoes'habitat. Whit- Housing Committee,admits she still rove th• tern are stirring in the Panther Creek wetland worth's early surveys show that hasn't hap- p cannot find council support for the problems. along Highway 157 in south Renton. paned. P �— just=cause law.But Sullivan said she '9t will take a week of fairly warm weather -'o 'r "Despite the warmth,we had plenty of rain. called Wednesday's fact-finding "The tl c and then h (the mosquito population) will * The weather we have had in the Valley is pretty hearing because she is now drafting have the c explode.' .;till Terry Whitworth with Whit- ` M close to normal,"Whitworth said. alternative tenant's rights legisla said. "TI worth Pest Control in Tacoma. He said the mosquitoes are at their worst in tion,which she plans to introduce by bad tenant Whitworth this week set up traps to monitor j ,.� the spring and early summer."The species of July. With ht developing and adult mosquitoes.The actual the mosquitoes creating the bites were gone by two Mont One of the culprits at work. Under state law,a landlord can spraying w kill mosquito larvae and for adults the end of July last summer,"Whitworth said. van coulc could begin next week. rowth regulator that keeps mosquito larvae He expects the same this year. evict a tenant with three days notice g 8. P q Y provided he or she can rove"just in genera have For years, residents on nearby Talbot Hill from maturing. Straka said while the program has been sac- p P J• combine ntrol cause"-the tenant has been dealing them prisoners ed in(heir have made ob.Last^yeaVeh^s`ideahed aosid to dealnwitdo the h the allsthelmos uitces.ublic can't Wecanmakeadentinct"we can itand drugs or destroying property, for with tena I 1 8 P 9 include li example. As awn as the weather turns warm,they're adults.This year,we are." make a difference. landlords back in full force,"said resident Diane Dotson. Dotson said she doesn't care what method is "The intent is to control the population so But state law also allows the land- education .When they. start hatching, you're house- used,"as long as they get those nasty critters." people can live comfortably and enjoy their out- lord to evict the tenant without giv- grams. bound" The construction of Highway 167 in the early doors." ing any reason whatsoever,as long The ke Ron Straka of the city's surface water man- 1970s created a dam and reduced drainage in the The program this year will cost about as the tenant is given 20 days to > agement division said the city has learned some wetland,creating an ideal environment for the $37,000. move out.Both Seattle's law and the who de as Isl j lessons GAlowing three years of spraying.Whit- insects. He sees the problem in general getting worse bill proposed by Hill eliminate the y worth will spend more time spraying the chemi- This week,fisheries biologists for Jones and as government moves to protect the remaining ability to evict for no reason. "Poor cal Scourge on the adults, which kills them Stokes Associates Inc.,conducted a census of wetlands. In an interview after the hearing, when con instantly. wildlife in the wetland.The census will deter- "We're going to be preserving wetlands in Sullivan acknowledged that there them,"sh Whitworth also will use slingshots to hurl into mine whether spraying is harming wildlife, urban areas and one consequence is a problem are flaws in the just causeordinance. "If the the wetland briquettes of Altosid,a hormonal such as fish,reptiles and mammals. with mosquitoes,"said Straka. Many of the complaints voiced by those peo tenants involve civil rights viola- selves,wt Elected officials concede area's failure on water supply pl(, By DANNY WESTNEAT said. "Government has been completely irresponsible Roy Ferguson of Bellevue,who served as the city's none of which sell very well t Special to Valley Daily News on water issues." mayor in the early 1980s. Further,almost any long-te Politics, like oil, does not seem to mix well with Other than some isolated well expansions,the region "The candidates probably aren't prepared to talk water shortage will cost taxi water,regional leaders have found. has not significantly expanded its water sources since about water,"he said."But sometimes it takes a crisis either for building unpopular As King County prepares for what could be the worst 1964. During that time,King County has grown by like this to focus a campaign." ping into ground water sourct drought in its history,some area politicians acknowl- about 600,000 people. Some political analysts say water could become a "If you're a candidate,and edge that they have failed in their most basic mission- Even after the last major drought,in 1987,little was defining issue in many Northwest campaigns.Other nat- get involved in water issues to provide enough water to residents. done to explore new sources for water,Bozeman said. ural resource issues,such as preservation of wetlands Issaquah-based political consi That failure, which could reach crisis proportions The Seattle Water Department,which serves most of and open space,have emerged from relative obscurity run,not walk,from any discs etcher later this summer or in future years,provides a the Eastside,has concentrated on conservation efforts recently to transform the language of suburban politics. No city or county races are massic example of why people are fed up with govern- instead.The utility has plans to divert a new store of Because water is such a vital commodity to everyone, so ire from residents will h ritics say. water from the North Fork of the Toll River,but that it has the potential to rival traffic jams in its power as a candidates for governor or sit Elected officials can respond to a crisis,but they rare- won't happen until 1998. political issue,some analysts sal ly have the foresight or political will to prevent one, P° Y Y But Bozeman and others hol local leaden nay. As lawns turn brown this summer,political observers But like growth management and transit issues,water long-neglected water a key is "None of this had to happen,"said Bellevue Mayor speculate that voters may start asking the current crop of planning is the kind of complex and expensive problem to be a summer full of campail Cary Bozeman. "we've known for some time that we candidates for some answers-answers that in all likeli- that many political candidates shy away from. •`People should take local were going to have one water crisis after another in this hood the candidates will not have. With few easy solutions in sight,politicians may find this,"Bozeman said."Peopl, community. "Water has never been a top issue in political cam- themselves forced to talk about water using words such task anytime a government so "As a region. Ne didn't do anything about it."he paigns around here,but it should be,"said State Rep. as"sacrifice,""conserve,"and"lifestyle change"- most basic obligations." f� li I I li If {I 1{ f{) 11 - - I I I I I I $Cm 0 ,,.-•••, Wpm WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION OR MODIFICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY USE ONLY - DO NOT COMPLETE THIS SECTION Date Received Office Reviewer Action Date of Action Applicant: Agent: Address: Address Phone: Phone: Name and Location of Project: County: Corps Public Notice No. Location: Sec. _ Twp Range (if applicable) — Description of Proposed Activity (include map or diagram if necessary): Nature of Expected Water Quality Problems and any Proposed Discharges Schedule and Duration of Construction Activities,' Life of Project: Proposed Actions During Construction to Reduce Severity or Duration of Water Quality Impacts: COMPLETE ONLY IF A MODIFICATION IS NEEDED The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was complied with on (date) by (lead agency). Signature Date r 1 1 r r 1 1 1 r r r r r r r r r JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES, INC. renvironmental planning • natural resource sciences r TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM City of Renton Mosquito Abatement Program October 30, 1992 t ' TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM City of Renton Mosquito Abatement Program Prepared for: Mr. Michael S. Giseburt R. W. Beck and Associates 2121 Fourth Avenue, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98121 Prepared by: Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 2820 Northup Way, Suite 100 Bellevue, WA 98004 (206) 822-1077 October 30, 1992 r r r r r r r r r r r r This document should be cited as: Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1992. City of Renton Mosquito Abatement Program. Technical memorandum. October 30. (JSA 91-094-001.) Bellevue, WA. Prepared for R. W. Beck and Associates, Seattle, WA. I r ' JONES& STOKES ASSOCIATES, INC.12820 NORTHUP WAY, SUITE 1001 BELLEVUE, WA 98004 2061822-1077 FAX 2 0 61822-1 0 79 DATE: October 30, 1992 TO: Mr. Michael S. Giseburt, Project Manager, R. W. Beck and Associates ' FROM: Steve Hall SUBJECT: City of Renton Mosquito Abatement Program - Task 9.7 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Introduction In response to citizen complaints, the City of Renton has, since 1989, conducted a mosquito abatement program using chemical applications at the Panther Creek Wetland (PCW). As part of concurrent city plans for flood control and fish and wildlife habitat ' improvements, new alternatives to mosquito control are now being considered. These alternatives include alterations to the wetland that would reduce mosquito breeding habitat. The most desirable alternative would be a cost effective, integrated management plan that simultaneously meets the city's objectives for flood control; fish, wildlife, and wetland protection; and mosquito abatement. 1 This technical memorandum summarizes the relationships between several ongoing planning efforts and the PCW Mosquito Abatement Program, and it provides a brief overview of fish and wildlife habitat improvement options at the PCW that are consistent with the city's goals and objectives. BECK/T1 GREEN RIVER _ I0/30/92e Mr. Michael S. Giseburt, Project Manager, R. W. Beck and Associates October 30, 1992 ' Page 2 Relationship To Other City Planning Efforts and Studies East Side Green River Watershed Plan The City of Renton has worked for several years to develop and implement ' management plans to control flooding and protect water quality in the Renton valley area. One of these ongoing plans is the East Side Green River Watershed (ESGRW) Plan, the goal of which is to identify the best approach for flood control in the Renton valley area ' (R. W. Beck and Associates 1991). As part of the ESGRW planning process, the PCW is being evaluated for potential water detention, habitat enhancement, and water quality enhancement. Some preliminary alternatives for the ESGRW Plan include alterations to the PCW. The Reestablish Panther Creek (RPC) Project is a potential element of the ESGRW ' Plan. The purpose of the project is to reroute Panther Creek into the PCW and to reestablish a natural stream outlet within the P-9 Channel, situated between Springbrook Creek and the PCW. A portion of this channel would be designed for salmon spawning habitat. This project would also alleviate flooding problems in the vicinity of East Valley Road and Southwest 34th Street. Specific elements of the project include: • Install a new culvert crossing under State Route (SR) 167 for the proposed reestablished Panther Creek (P-9 Channel). The purpose of this culvert crossing is to carry outflows from the PCW to the restored stream channel, which would ' convey flow west and discharge into Springbrook Creek. • Divert low flows to the new culvert crossing and the reestablished Panther Creek channel to maintain adequate base flows for the spawning channel during the spawning season. ' • Reduce the number of outlets from the PCW to two by plugging all other SR 167 culvert crossings. ' • Design a section of the reestablished Panther Creek between Lind Avenue and East Valley Highway for salmon spawning. Deepen and widen (size as required) the existing ditch along the P-9 Channel alignment to allow construction of the reestablished Panther Creek between the ' proposed new PCW outlet and Springbrook Creek. BECK/-n GREEN RIVER Ioi30i92c ' Mr. Michael S. Giseburt, Project Manager, R. W. Beck and Associates October 30, 1992 ' Page 3 Critical Areas Inventory A fish and wildlife inventory of the City of Renton was completed in July 1991 as part of the requirements of the Washington Growth Management Act (David Evans and ' Associates 1991). The inventory identified three potential corridors that could be managed as fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas: the Panther Lake corridor, the Cedar River ' corridor, and the May Creek corridor. The Panther Lake corridor contains the PCW. Official designation of fish and wildlife conservation areas or specific ordinances for these areas have not been completed. Other Reports and Studies Mosquito Control Alternatives Report. Whitworth (n.d.), an entomologist and consultant to the city, prepared a report outlining eight options for mosquito control at the PCW: • Option 1: Suspend Efforts. Suspend city mosquito control efforts and let homeowners handle the problem individually. • Option 2: Altosid-Scourge. Continue treating the water with Altosid Briquets ' and fogging upland areas with Scourge; make no habitat changes. • Option 3: Increase Access. Make changes to improve mosquito control efforts ' such as access paths through vegetation or small ponds. Improve the path along the wetland edge. • Option 4: Manipulate Water Levels. Provide wetland outflows with gates to allow manipulation of water levels in the wetland. i • Option 5: Channelize and Drain. Channelize the wetlands to prevent standing water. • Option 6: Create Ponds. Build a series of ponds connected by channels with water levels controlled by flood control gates. i • Option 7: Flood Wetland. Construct a large lake with a flood gate. • Option 8: Combine Options. Utilize a combination of these options. Whitworth (n.d.) recommended Option 6 (Create Ponds), because it would prove effective while retaining the wetland character of the site. Flooding, either through creation BECK/n GREEN RIVER _ - ' I0/30/92c ' Mr. Michael S. Giseburt, Project Manager, R. W. Beck and Associates October 30, 1992 ' Page 4 of a series of ponds (Option 6) or through creation of a single lake (Option 7),would target Coquillettidia preturbans, which has historically been the most serious mosquito pest species in the PCW. The species requires rooted aquatic vegetation, such as cattails, on which to lay its eggs and support its larvae. Flooding reduces the amount of rooted aquatic vegetation, thereby reducing C. preturbans populations. %W. Beck and Associates - Technical Memorandum. The attached technical memorandum addressing PCW hydrology, prepared by R.W. Beck and Associates (1992), included the following preliminary recommendations regarding the RPC Project: ' • The RPC Project should include provisions for outlet control to allow submergence of wetlands. Consideration should be given to multiple-purpose ' outlet control (e.g., filling the wetland in May through July for mosquito control, releasing flows in October and September for augmenting base flows in the reestablished Panther Creek spawning channel, and emptying the wetland by ' November for flood control). • If the outlet control mentioned above proves infeasible or inadequate for mosquito control, the RPC Project should 'include the development of open pond(s) in the wetland. The pond(s) should be a combination of aboveground and excavated belowground (with the majority being aboveground). A ' combination of the two pond types is suggested for the following reasons: (1) An entirely excavated pond would be too costly, and (2) a portion of the pond (at the upstream end) should be excavated below grade to trap sediments year- round. ' Wildlife Habitat and the PCW Mosquito Abatement Program Based on the preliminary recommendations described above, and on the analysis prepared by Whitworth (n.d.), flooding the PCW during the summer is a viable option to reduce mosquito populations,and flooding could be conducted as part of an integrated flood management plan. This option is preliminary and has not been fully evaluated for its feasibility or for its potential effects on fish and wildlife habitat. The remainder of this ' report introduces considerations regarding fish and wildlife habitat and the PCW Mosquito Abatement Program. BECK/n GREEN RIVER 10/30/92a ' Mr. Michael S. Giseburt, Project Manager, R. W. Beck and Associates October 30, 1992 Page 5 Existing Control of Mosquitos by Wildlife Mosquitos are fed upon by many types of animals inhabiting PCW. Fish, amphibians, ' young waterfowl, and insects feed on larval mosquitos. Most small birds will take adult mosquitos when available, and several species of bats also feed on mosquitos. Wildlife monitoring efforts at the PCW found many types of animals known to prey on mosquitos, ' including threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), tree swallow(Tachycineta bicolor), northern rough-winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx serripennis), and the adult and larval forms of several amphibian species (Jones & Stokes Associates 1992). Threespine sticklebacks ' were found in low numbers in the wetland and, therefore, are not considered to be a major predator of mosquito larvae at the site. ' Collectively, existing biological control in the form of predation contributes to some reductions in mosquito populations at the PCW; however, summer mosquito populations achieve such high levels that predation does not reduce numbers to levels acceptable to ' most local residents. It is difficult to quantify existing biological control at the PCW, but based on the current mosquito populations, existing biological control is inadequate to fully control mosquito populations. Using Wildlife as a Tool to Reduce Mosquito Populations ' Even with extensive efforts to increase wildlife species that feed on mosquitos, it is unlikely that these efforts alone would significantly reduce mosquito population levels. ' Many species of wildlife do not feed on mosquitos because of the small prey size. High predation levels may take place only when the mosquito population is high and mosquitos ' are extremely abundant. In addition, mosquitos have an extremely high reproductive potential, so predation generally cannot keep up with recruitment. ' Nevertheless, wildlife habitat enhancement could be integrated into any plan that would alter habitat at the wetland, and such enhancement could focus on species that feed on mosquitos. Because alterations to the PCW hydrology for flood and mosquito control ' would adversely affect some wildlife species,wildlife enhancement measures to mitigate such impacts should be included in any proposal to alter the wetland. In addition, biological control as part of an overall mosquito abatement program should receive popular support ' from the public and regulatory agencies. Options available to increase populations of mosquito-eating wildlife include the ' introduction of mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) and placement of bat roost boxes and swallow nest boxes. Mosquitofish have been successfully used to control mosquitos in Washington (Wydoski and Whitney 1979). However, the effects of mosquitofish on native ' fish species have not been fully evaluated. In addition, mosquitofish typically do not survive BECK/n GREEN RIVER Ioi30i9k ' Mr. Michael S. Giseburt, Project Manager, R. W. Beck and Associates October 30, 1992 Page 6 winters in Washington and have to be reintroduced annually (Wydoski and Whitney 1979). ' Because of these considerations,more information is required to fully evaluate the trade-offs of using mosquitofish versus native species. In addition, the Washington Department of Fisheries and the Washington Department of Wildlife should be consulted for ' recommendations and regulatory implications. Bat roost boxes and swallow nest boxes could be placed throughout upland areas adjacent to the wetland. These boxes could increase bat and swallow populations and the associated mosquito predation. Costs associated with this measure are relatively minor,with initial purchase and installation of boxes being the greatest expense. Annual maintenance and monitoring would be required after installation. In summary, wildlife habitat enhancement measures could be used as part of a comprehensive mosquito abatement program at the wetland, but these measures alone would not significantly reduce mosquito populations. Major habitat alterations or ' continuation of the chemical control program will be necessary to continue to reduce mosquito populations at the wetland. Flooding and Wildlife Habitat The following sections focus on (1) evaluating the effects flooding would have on wildlife and (2) identifying opportunities to improve wildlife habitat within the framework of flooding. ' Effects of Flooding on Wildlife Habitat. Seasonal flooding of the wetland would alter wildlife habitats and communities. This alteration would benefit some species while adversely affecting others. In general, diving ducks, swallows, and some species of bats would increase during high water levels, while many of the most abundant species in the PCW would decline, including many species of birds and amphibians. Habitat for all ' mammals currently using the site would be reduced as well. Table 1 illustrates some species and types of wildlife that would be most affected by increased water levels and decreased ' amounts of emergent vegetation. Opportunities to Improve Wildlife Habitat with Flooding Alternatives. The same ' conditions that support mosquitos also support wildlife species. Emergent vegetation and stagnant water, which support mosquitos, are also ideal habitats for many species of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, and other insects produced in such areas. In ' particular, the dense vegetation and large woody debris present in the northern half of the wetland provide a diverse and well structured habitat used by many types of wildlife. For example, amphibians forage on algae and seek shelter within the dense vegetation of the BECKfn GREEN RIVER Ioi30rou Table 1. Species and Types of Wildlife Likely to be Most Affected by Creating Deep Water Habitats at the Panther Creek Wetland, ' Renton, Washington Likely to Increase Likely to Decline pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps) northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) ' Canada goose (Branta canadensis) Virginia rail (Rallus limicola) lesser scaup (Aythya affmis) great blue heron (Ardea herodias) bufflehead (Bucephala albeola) (winter only) western screech-owl (Otus kennicottii) hooded merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus) marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris) (winter only) tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) northern rough-winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx common yellowthroat (Geothlypis ' senipennis) trichas) Keen's myotis (Myotis keenii) red-winged blackbird (Agelaius ' phoeniceus) beaver (Castor canadensis) western terrestrial garter snake ' (Thamnophis elegans) muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) several species of amphipians and small mammals BECK/n GREEN RIVER I0/30/92c 7 ' Mr. Michael S. Giseburt, Project Manager, R. W. Beck and Associates October 30, 1992 ' Page 8 wetland, marsh wrens (Cistothorus palustris) nest and forage among the stands of common cattail (Typha latifolia), and raccoons (Procyon lotor) forage along the shoreline and within the wetland. ' Based on the preceding discussion, measures to improve wildlife habitat that do not also increase mosquito populations are limited to those aimed at species that do not require ' the same habitats as mosquitos. Because many types of wildlife are closely associated with the same shallow water and emergent vegetation favored by breeding mosquitos, any habitat alteration to reduce mosquitos will most likely reduce many types of wildlife as well. ' Therefore, some fish and wildlife habitat improvements should be included as part of any plan to alter the PCW. Plans to improve wildlife habitat can (1) focus on improving habitat for species that utilize deep water habitat, (2) improve habitat in upland areas, or (3) include some trade-offs between wildlife habitat and mosquito abatement and manage the wetland edge for wildlife. Most of the following discussion on these three approaches concerns habitat features that would be present during the spring and summer months, the ' breeding season for both mosquitos and wildlife. Focus on Deep Water Habitat. Habitat improvement measures focused at ' species associated with deep water would be compatible with seasonal flooding of the wetland. The flooding of the wetland is itself the most effective measure to improve habitat for such species. Other improvement techniques could include installing: ' s islands for waterfowl nesting and for general wildlife food and cover needs, ' • floating logs for waterfowl resting sites, • submerged root wads for fish and amphibian habitat, and nesting platforms and perch structures for raptors. ' Improve Upland Areas. Habitat improvement of upland areas would benefit wildlife while not creating or preserving mosquito breeding habitat. Improvement techniques could include installing: • nest boxes for cavity nesting birds and roost boxes for bats, ' • vegetation plantings in areas currently void of vegetation or supporting non- native plant species, e spot planting of vegetation to add diversity, and BECKfn GREEN RIVER Ioi30/92e Mr. Michael S. Giseburt, Project Manager, R. W. Beck and Associates October 30, 1992 ' Page 9 • placement of wood piles, root wads, and large logs near wetland areas for amphibian and small mammal habitat. ' Vegetation plantings could be costly and would need to be carefully planned to ensure effective use of funds. Manage the Wetland Edge. Managing the wetland edge for wildlife habitat would cause some trade-offs between creating wildlife habitat and reducing mosquito breeding habitat. However, because the flooding alternatives (Options 6 and 7) would significantly reduce emergent habitats at the wetland, some emergent vegetation could be retained along the wetland edge to ensure that these habitats and associated wildlife are not completely eliminated. To do this, the edges of the wetland should be gently sloping. ' Extensive plantings should not be necessary because cattails and other emergent plants would likely regenerate naturally. ' Summary The City of Renton is currently evaluating options to its current chemical approach to mosquito abatement at the PCW. Because the PCW is also being evaluated under flood ' and water quality management plans, options for mosquito abatement must be integrated into a multipurpose management plan. One preliminary alternative is to flood the PCW during the spring and summer to eliminate mosquito breeding habitat, release water in the ' fall to augment base flows for salmon spawning in the P-9 Channel (as part of the RPC Project), and empty the wetland by November to allow for stormwater detention and flood control. This plan shows some promise of meeting the multiple goals of the city, but it has not yet been fully evaluated for feasibility or for its effects on fish and wildlife habitat. ' This technical memorandum introduced some considerations regarding fish and wildlife habitat and the PCW Mosquito Abatement Program. While use of wildlife as a tool to control mosquitos is desirable, its potential is limited. Current levels of predation do not ' control mosquitos, and extensive habitat improvements would, at best, produce enough mosquito predation to match mosquito reproduction at the PCW. Based on the results of previous studies, major habitat alterations or continuation of the chemical control program ' will be necessary to significantly reduce mosquito populations. Major habitat alterations would also cause major alterations to wildlife communities at the site. In general, flooding the wetland would reduce habitat for many types of amphibians, small mammals, and birds, ' while increasing habitat for a few species of waterfowl, swallows, and bats. Because of this potential loss of wildlife habitat, some fish and wildlife habitat ' improvements should be included as part of any plan to alter the PCW. Plans for such BECKfn GREEN RIVER 1oi30i92c Mr. Michael S. Giseburt, Project Manager, R. W. Beck and Associates October 30, 1992 Page 10 improvements should (1) focus on improving habitat for species that utilize deep water habitat, (2) improve habitat in upland areas, and (3) include some trade-offs between wildlife habitat and mosquito abatement and manage the wetland edge for wildlife. Likely, some combination of these approaches would best allow the PCW to continue to provide important wildlife habitat under a cost effective and integrated flood, water quality, and habitat management plan. Citations David Evans and Associates. 1991. Critical areas inventory - City of Renton fish and wildlife habitat. Bellevue, WA. Prepared for City of Renton, Renton, WA. Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1992. Mosquito abatement program 1992 wildlife survey. Bellevue, WA. Prepared for City of Renton, Renton, WA. R. W. Beck and Associates. 1991. East Side Green River Watershed Plan project summary document. Seattle, WA. Prepared for City of Renton, Renton, WA. 1992. Mosquito abatement program - Panther Creek Wetland hydrology. Technical memorandum. Seattle, WA. Prepared for City of Renton, Renton, WA, Whitworth, T. n.d. Panther Creek Wetlands Mosquito Abatement Program mosquito control alternatives report. Tacoma, WA. Prepared for City of Renton, Renton, WA. Wydoski, R., and R. Whitney. 1979. Inland fishes of Washington. University of Washington Press. Seattle, WA. BECK/n GREEN RIVER IU/3o/92c Technical Memorandum, Mosquito Abatement Program - 1 Panther Creek Wetland Hydrology 1 1 1 1 r r CITY OF RENTON SURFACE WATER UTILITY r TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Mosquito Abatement Program — Panther Creek Wetland Hydrology r r 1 ' September 1992 r r R.W. BECK ANDASSOCIATES ' CITY OF RENTON MOSQUITO ABATEMENT PROGRAM PANTHER CREEK WETLAND HYDROLOGY TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION NUMBER SECTION TITLE PAGE SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SECTION 2 PREVIOUS STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 SECTION 3 CURRENTLY CONSIDERED MOSQUITO CONTROL ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 SECTION 4 CURRENTLY CONSIDERED IMPROVEMENTS UNDER THE RE-ESTABLISHED PANTHER CREEK (RPC) PROJECT . . 4 ' SECTION 5 HYDROLOGIC CONTROL MODIFICATIONS TO REDUCE MOSQUITO POPULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 SECTION 6 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 APPENDIX 1 1415WW0.662 -1- DRAFT 9/30/92 1 rCity of Renton Mosquito Abatement Program Panther Creek Wetland Hydrology SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION This memorandum discusses opportunities for mosquito control at the Panther Creek Wetland (PCW) through altering wetland hydrology. Efforts to control mosquitos began in 1989 with the City of Renton's Mosquito Abatement Program. The program is carried out at the 65 acre PCW, located along the east side of SR-167 between I-405 and SW 43rd Street. The ' wetland is a large breeding ground for mosquitos resulting in complaints from homeowners in the Talbot Hills area above the wetland. The purpose of this memorandum is to identify and discuss opportunities to reduce mosquito populations by modifying wetland hydrology. This memorandum is being transmitted to Jones and Stokes Associates who will integrate this information into a more comprehensive technical memorandum which considers hydrologic control as well as habitat control and effects on the wetland environment. The current mosquito abatement program involves two types of chemical applications. Altosid, a derivative of charcoal, suppresses mosquito larvae development, and Scourge, a synthetic pyrethroid, targets adult mosquitos. Altosid is spread manually through open water areas of the wetland, while Scourge is applied through misting upland vegetation. Both are applied through the summer to reduce mosquito populations (Jones and Stokes, 1992). rThis memorandum is organized into six sections, as follows; ' Section 1 Introduction, Section 2 Previous Studies, which lists the documents reviewed as a part of this review, Section 3 Currently Considered Mosquito Control Alternatives, which lists the mosquito control alternatives identified in the Mosquito Control Alternatives Report (Whitworth, 1991) Section 4 Currently Considered Improvements under the Re-established Panther Creek Project, which describes the project improvements currently being considered under the City's East Side Green River ' Watershed (ESGRW) Plan (R.W. Beck, 1991), Section 5 Hydrologic Control Modifications to Reduce Mosquito Populations, and, Section 6 Discussion and Recommendations. 1159WW0.692 -1- 9/30/92 rSECTION 2 - PREVIOUS STUDIES Several alternatives for mosquito control were identified in the City of Renton Panther Creek Wetlands Mosquito Abatement Program, Mosquito Control Alternatives Report (Whitworth, 1992). This memorandum discusses these alternatives with respect to wetland ' hydrology. The general project elements of the Re-established Panther Creek (RPC) Project are ' described in the East Side Green River Watershed (ESGRW) Plan Project Summary Document (R. W. Beck, 1991). A second report, Panther Creek Wetlands, Part IV, Final Draft Plan (Coot Company, 1986) developed for the Soil Conservation Service, discusses more detailed 1 environmental enhancements to the wetland for compliance with the ESGRW Plan Environmental Mitigation Agreement. For more information on the ESGRW Plan Environmental Mitigation Agreement, refer to the ESGRW Plan Project Summary Document. The Panther Creek Wetland report recommends several enhancements to the wetland; however, at the present time, this report is in draft form and City staff may not support the entire recommended enhancement program. 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1159WW0.692 -2- 9/30/92 ' SECTION 3 - CURRENTLY CONSIDERED MOSQUITO CONTROL ALTERNATIVES ' Mosquito control alternatives identified in the PCW Mosquito Abatement Program, Mosquito Control Alternatives Report are listed below. ' Option 1. Suspend City mosquito control efforts and let homeowners handle problem individually. Option 2. Continue treating water with Altosid Briquiets and fogging upland areas with Scourge; make no habitat changes. ' Option 3. Make habitat changes to improve mosquito control efforts such as access paths through vegetation or small ponds. Improve paths along wetland edge. Option 4. Provide wetland outflows with gates to allow manipulation of water levels in the wetland. ' Option 5. Channelize the wetlands to prevent standing water. Option 6. Build a series of ponds connected by channels with water levels controlled by flood control gates. Option 7. Construct a large lake with a flood gate. Option 8. Utilize a combination of these options. 1159WW0.692 -3- 9/30/92 ' SECTION 4 - CURRENTLY CONSIDERED IMPROVEMENTS UNDER THE RE-ESTABLISHED PANTHER CREEK (RPC) PROJECT The following paragraphs describe the improvements under the RPC Project. This discussion is taken from the ESGRW Plan Project Summary Document. The project improvements are illustrated on Figure 4 in the Appendix, which is excerpted from the ESGRW Plan Project Summary Document. The purpose of the project would be to re-establish a natural stream channel between Springbrook Creek and Panther Creek with a portion of this channel ' designed for salmon spawning habitat. This project would also alleviate flooding problems in the vicinity of East Valley Road and SW 34th Street. ' Install a new culvert crossing under SR-167 for the proposed Panther Creek (re-established) (P-9 Channel). The purpose of this culvert crossing is to carry outflows from the Panther Creek Wetland to the restored stream channel, which ' would convey flow west and discharge into Springbrook Creek. • Reduce the number of outlets from the Panther Creek wetland to two by plugging ' all other SR-167 culvert crossings. The two remaining crossings include the new crossing discussed under item 1 above and the existing 3-ft. x 4-ft. box culvert which carries runoff from the Rolling Hills Basin underneath SR-167. In addition, a control structure would be installed on this box culvert to divert low flows to the new culvert crossing and the re-established Panther Creek channel for the purpose of maintaining adequate base flows for the spawning channel during the spawning season. • Deepen and widen (size as required) the existing ditch along the P-9 Channel alignment to allow construction of the re-established Panther Creek between the proposed new Panther Creek Wetland outlet and Springbrook Creek. • Design a section of the re-established Panther Creek between Lind Avenue and East Valley Highway for salmon spawning. 1159WW0.692 -4- 9/30/92 ' SECTION 5 - HYDROLOGIC CONTROL MODIFICATIONS TO REDUCE MOSQUITO POPULATIONS ' This section discusses some of the options for hydrologic control to reduce mosquito populations with consideration of the proposed RPC project. ' Outlet Control The purpose of outlet control would be to either drawdown water in the wetlands to eliminate habitat and interrupt the mosquito colonization cycle or to submerge the wetland vegetation to drown mosquito larvae and enhance predation. ' The currently envisioned RPC project includes some outlet control of the wetland. Provisions are planned at the planned Yx 4' box culvert to divert flows towards the re- established Panther Creek to increase base flow during the spawning season. The need for outlet control at the wetland's discharge to the re-established Panther Creek has not been determined. The planned wetland outflow elevation at the re-established Panther ' Creek is at about the existing ground surface elevation of the wetland. A lower outflow elevation is not contemplated because of the need for longitudinal slope along the re- established creek between SR-167 and Lind Avenue for the planned spawning channel. To accomplish drawdown of the wetland, a new lower outlet would need to be constructed (lower than planned under the RPC Project. In addition, channelization of the wetland would likely be required to convey all waters to this lower outlet. Drawdown of the wetland would result in a loss of wetlands and would not likely be supported by environmental agencies, and therefore, it is not recommended. To submerge wetland vegetation, outlet control would be required at both h 4'g g q t the 3 x box culvert outlet and the re-established Panther Creek outlet. Submergence of wetland vegetation would need to occur approximately between May and July. During this time, the combined base flow of Panther and Rolling Hills creeks is estimated to be between 6 to 12 acre-ft per day (Herrera, 1992). Assuming a 65-acre wetland surface area, the rate of filling would be 0.09 feet to 0.19 feet per day. This flow rate appears to meet the minimum recommended rate of 1 inch in 24 hours as suggested in the Mosquito Control ' Alternatives Report. This method would likely be more effective for the palustrine wetlands located in the northerly portion of the wetland. This is because the palustrine wetlands have lower vegetation and the volume of water (and time) to submerge these ' wetlands would be reasonable. This method would be less effective in the areas of emergent vegetation in the southerly portion of the wetland unless water was retained for much longer periods of time (on the order of 1 to 2 months depending on the height of ' the emergent vegetation and the actual base flow rates tributary to the wetland). Raising the water level in the wetland will result in a temporary reduction in flood storage ' of the wetland. This is not believed to be a concern because there is little risk of a major flood during this time of year. 1159W W0.692 -5- 9/30/92 ' Option 7 of the Mosquito Control Alternatives Report includes raising the elevation of the outlet control to form a permanent large lake within the existing wetland. This would ' be inconsistent with one of the RPC project criteria, which is to not increase wetland flood elevations over current conditions. This criteria was developed due to concerns of the slope stability of the adjacent Talbot Hills. In order to meet this criteria, this alternative would result in lost flood storage and higher downstream flow rates. Consequently, a permanent lake is not recommended. ' Alternatively, a temporary lake could be considered. The outlet control could be manually adjusted throughout the year such that wetland water levels rise in May through July for mosquito control (creating a temporary 65 acre lake). The water could then be ' slowly released during the spawning season, September and November, to augment the base flows in the proposed re-established Panther Creek spawning channel. The stored water could be completely released by November, in time to provide flood control storage. A disadvantage of this approach is that a temporary lake would submerge the Seattle Water Department's Cedar River pipeline access road which crosses the wetland. ' Creation of Ponds Within the Wetland The creation of ponds within the wetland was noted in options 3 and 6 of the Mosquito ' Control Alternatives Report. The creation of an open water habitat was also recommended in the Panther Creek Wetlands, Part IV, Final Draft Plan (Coot Company, 1986) to enhance wildlife habitat. These ponds could be constructed in two ways, above ' ground or excavated below the ground surface. Above ground ponds would either have to be built up above the existing ground surface using a raised outlet control or through the construction of dikes for containment. Above ground ponds were recommended in ' the Panther Creek Wetlands report. An example of an above ground pond is illustrated on Figure 5 in the Appendix, excerpted from the ESGRW Plan Project Summary ' Document. Above ground type ponds, if permanently constructed, would result in elimination of ' flood storage and therefore are not recommended. Temporary above ground ponds having flood gates which allow the pond to be lowered during flood season would be preferred. Above ground ponds created by dikes would involve placing fill in the wetland and would ' result in an associated loss of wetlands. Excavated ponds would be constructed primarily by excavation or dredging the soil. The ' Mosquito Control Alternatives Report suggests that pond depths be approximately 6 feet to preclude emergent vegetation. With regard to environmental considerations, excavated ponds would likely be preferred over above ground ponds because they would not cause ' a loss of wetland acreage and they would obviate the need for annual manipulation of water levels which could affect habitat. However, excavated ponds would be costly, at a roughly estimated cost of $100,000/acre for a 6-foot deep pond. ' Advantages of either type of pond for mosquito control are that they generally result in habitat enhancement, and therefore are favorably looked upon by resource agencies. In addition, ponds could be stocked with Gambusia, a minnow type fish, which has been 1159 W W0.692 -6- 9/30/92 successfully used as a mosquito predator. Disadvantages of this option is that the ponds would tend to fill and would require maintenance. The extent of such maintenance can be controlled through construction of a sediment trap at the inlet to the wetland. Channelization of Wetland to Prevent Standing Water ' Channelization of the wetland would be accomplished by excavating a system of ditches to drain the entire wetland, thereby reducing mosquito breeding habitat. This alternative would result in a net loss of wetlands and would be discouraged by environmental agencies, and therefore, it is not recommended. 1159WW0.692 -7- 9/30/92 ' SECTION 6 - DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ' Of the three types of hydrologic control modifications discussed, outlet control and the creation of small ponds are the preferred methods to reduce mosquito populations. Channelizing the wetland to prevent standing water is not recommended. Implementing hydrologic ' modifications (along with habitat modifications) will reduce the need for chemical control and associated environmental impacts. The following paragraphs provide preliminary recommendations to reduce mosquito populations through hydrologic modifications of the wetland. These recommendations should be considered preliminary because they have not been evaluated with respect to costs, effects on ' habitat and the wetland environment, or their relative effectiveness (in comparison to other methods such as habitat control, and chemical control) in reducing mosquito populations. ' The City's entomologist should be involved in future planning decisions regarding the Panther Creek system. ' The City may wish to expand the scope of the current RPC design study to include a more comprehensive management plan for the Panther Creek Wetland. • The RPC project should include provisions for outlet control to allow submergence of wetlands. Consideration should be given to multiple purpose outlet control (e.g., filling the wetland in May through July for mosquito control, ' releasing flows in October and September for augmenting base flows in the re- established Panther Creek spawning channel, and emptying the wetland by November for flood control) ' If it is determined that outlet control mentioned above is not appropriate i.e. to ( ' the extent that the entire wetland can be submerged) or that it will not be sufficiently effective for mosquito control, the RPC should include the development of open pond(s) in the wetland. The pond(s) should be a ' combination of above ground and excavated below ground (with the majority being above ground). A combination of the two pond types is suggested for the following reasons; (1) An entirely excavated pond would be too costly, and (2) a ' portion of the pond (at the upstream end) should be excavated below grade to trap sediments year round. r 1159WW0.692 -g- 9130/92 REFERENCES R. W. Beck and Associates 1991. City of Renton East Side Green River c ' Watershed Plan, Proiect Summary Document, City of Renton, Washington. Jones and Stokes Associates. 1992. Mosquito Abatement Program, 1992 Wildlife Survey, City of Renton. Whitworth. 1991. City of Renton Panther Creek Wetlands Mosquito Abatement Program, Mosquito Control Alternatives Report, City of Renton, Washington. Coot Company. 1986. Panther Creek Wetlands, Part IV: Final Draft Plan, Soils ' Conservation Service. Herrera. 1992. Water Quality Assessment, Black River Water Quality ' Management Plan, City of Renton, Department of Public Works. 1159WW0.692 -9- 9/30/92 1 nrreNnIX i ! MONO * ...........•,..... _. ._-� Fn z / p c a ••✓ ==:.«•./ ,•"',;i,w^�'�.�•i• ? Jt'iti,�l''rIi i:•�!'�',l� �,t � °%"!! ,!,!'''• .•i C S t'' z .. I "i t'} ,� ..i t'"» •:'� .... aw Q `�`ti.� �,. .•.. •\ 6Q ,,............� �� 1 48�`t ltt� <:_'�• '3! `t, "71!. i i i rr1 !! / ST ......�.,, i i ..•........................................ ... ,........... m tt ! N 1 r 1 / Z t w �µj !+ ! �/ �.......... QCA , J( ..�',.•+ Il ', (j i a '' .J••• ...r.L..........••..,.•......••......._......+ 1..,"1' i\..'...... .,,'C:.> ♦ /, µ j t !, ,�;:' • ». -t'' ;�F/� :' ,.,�.:�'''' �E ? ._.......... . ....»_,_..M.... ...`�...M N•j ! (( ..�.... �� i�, ......................... _i..__...,:.......... .....__.._... // t•' 1 r" t t i € Xrx - f •i } I Cyr/! t•� M- �.:. ;...) rs� ;irf , ��! , t,�1 VI , 1! 60 M� iel e 1 �, %` J `' _.............................. ':...:.'°.........................�.: 1....:::.... .,............... _ i ♦�:i� S1• ♦.; ��J i r�l `y `•�. I�.:::�'I ............................................."..... tttjtj / 1ik ® w 011 = r C C Q; �•• S�4' :rth a'I' ST t c� ,��!i t, ZQ < < m L.................,...... .. w � j; i.� .......... y/.✓ En z m m g z 24':. �:....'. ;: . _............ :�::........._ j o� i !._..• ............ �! i rrn m � X 0 24 x —� - G7 m D K:i ......_....... O '0 Q N II ! "'...'.\.,/ ( t r.Ro f m C o ' t f Z m D K , :co n -zi m � i I > sw \............._........_.. ` th ST5.1.!?, �j ; ) N r D i m ! /'�� i ! =Jj jt t f f-. ;; j ``y i 1 ✓ ,,.... 3ilr .��J IDS FIR Ze r,i !/ �.�..........._............... ......._ ! ,. �........... _ ` ......"__....•........F ....; ill....................... .._ n c� , M D —i m / �i9� 4IS. S. .:...... ,.'........... ..............•t '.t..... ! ! ', ...............:::....r I .............. / r .................. CA P o SW .(1 r j m O D1. !f.... ..........,� 54 5`�i n;rd f 48� 'Sf _.. /uc SPRIN..BRON �,1 j'I �L �St11 PI.. i 0 GDR i i(..............._ ...., w ..._._w....._........... ._ ~\ Z //� III ! ✓ � "1•it i r! j E O�tP�t {` O Ttl•.. .. :. t1"'�,•,~„'.:~•�.�a,1:',µt. SHOPPING 'I'r'iltl / `\\� *� .ri �.f•�,r•w %rtl .,y !. , 1 „____.,,.yi.Yl� pt jr •, ;`.+.. ,•,•• .,,,,w .....✓ rrr' ••f^""'r'•.r" `) ;i+• } t� f r7{I;(t i ..;. �x /F •w♦ . .. �}� O t /r': „=pay `•: .` .....„..„. f t I....:......i...........!�........, _.........�_............ . ...... .... �� 48" . 7ih a( ) i .Y� .w_ m _ _ _._.........._...... .._............._.... .......__........... ..............w__........ r , i > p 7t" Z r I i/t LS „--' D f Al vs �•> (_ rK'1'� rJ ~„ OX r„..✓^"'::\ �� /� ; t�.,•. ~. "•"'�.J..„••~„""'r„/..ter„„••„'""'".yJ( E~(J1 ��r~„w w,.r•"'�� t' �..�•._... r ........... ^„...„• i : 3 '��i7♦ `r�„r.��~ rl�„„�t. "" „•r „ �r / p „ 7ri "'� C / ,,, �,) 1, 11•, ! ,,•' �.r �.l:=_.._...._.... ., is �.._.._.w.,..w�"+ .,, M° �; .::.:, 1. .. ..:��......__.....w� ............ l.._........., ...._.........._._......._.. .............................. _.......... I I of ? Ci?tyi t �' /)i:......r.......... t ``t �', �i l� ♦{{'J / f (" / Y O �� S•�r � ' 1tl{ti S? L� o ._..__.;t 1! 3(.._.._....,.� Z ..i E..............................................:....,J )........_.._.....i .t._....,.....1 f........�_...::'.. ,. 60 l 1 � ( • � i cn (' L� { CD p;�; 11 CJ ff o ((C t \\♦\\''/'' �i ....7 i 1 � � , l n.7 ,T, ,� o _ .. t............_............ t.............. t 24, . .v : J / � i > I * 00 \. r„ D c rv' rn I j i ''� �m m tt Z m �' v z I ., sit i�{h "T `i�r I 3a{h S7 Rm� D v t......... ..........M..:... .......... � n '•`�etw1 / 0 rm- N o 11 F"......._...36 ::.... ..........._.. :So :.._.......� . ...... ......36�. ....... ....._.� + I v�D Imo? mm i tl f v —1 I w i f - p Z ;................_3 11 r �JS Jj r D , f�O f f ;m Ckji z r,) c m O ems' 1 ,! z ' i K:. M1 30" )ifr s:alh .)i i I '00 ................................„.,.... .. t..,._.. 1 Dn-i < I ±' S',� �1s1: `�f.........a I.. 5'� 4t�t m m 1 �"::. M..........._ .........:::::... .......... m m c z , 0(n N ::12 ::12*:: :.} 36 1 i i t !• ::' ;t;, 1� l J fTt O D 1 ,rt, r 48 Y' ....�_..__...... _.. f ............. 4�r> f m N CITY (:(.. , ,.. m 'MP MP _sp ' ,;