The URL can be used to link to this page

2018-07-03 City Council - Full Agenda-2132Agenda Edmonds City Council COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 JULY 3, 2018, 7:00 PM Edmonds City Council Agenda July 3, 2018 Page 1 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of June 26, 2018 2. Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks. 3. Appoint Kimberlee Armstrong for Position #1 to the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board EPFD 5. PRESENTATIONS 1. Park & Recreation Month Proclamation (5 min) 2. Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental (30 min) 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3-MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) - REGARDING MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. STUDY ITEMS 1. Council 2019 Budget Goals Discussion (60 min) 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS 10. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(I). 11. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. ADJOURN City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/3/2018 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of June 26, 2018 Staff Lead: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda. Narrative N/A Attachments: 06-26-18 Draft Council Meeting Minutes 4.1 Packet Pg. 2 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2018 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES June 26, 2018 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Michael Nelson, Mayor Pro Tem Diane Buckshnis, Council President Pro Tem Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Dave Earling, Mayor STAFF PRESENT Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Frances Chapin, Arts & Culture Program Mgr. Steve Fisher, Recycling Coordinator Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Nelson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Mayor Earling. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. PRESENTATIONS 1. REPUBLIC PRESENTATION ON RECYCLING MARKETS AND OPERATIONS Recycling Coordinator Steve Fisher introduced Janet Prichard, Municipal Manager, and General Manager Corby Stevens. Republic Services. He explained Republic Services is the largest private waste hauler operating in Edmonds with over 9,000 residential customers as well as numerous commercial and multi-family customers. In addition, Republic serves 6,600 customers in the Town of Woodway and parts of Lynnwood and unincorporated Snohomish County for a total of approximately 15,500 customers. Ms. Prichard commented it has been a pleasure for Republic to partner with Mr. Fisher, “the recycle guy.” She referred to a mailer that customers received from Republic regarding a recycling surcharge; the charge is likely to be lower than the letter suggested, approximately $0.50-0.60/month. She reviewed: 4.1.a Packet Pg. 3 Attachment: 06-26-18 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2018 Page 2  Recycling Reimagined and what does China have to do with it (Macroeconomics in your recycling cart) o China Sword Explained  For decades China has been the largest importers of the world’s recycled commodity, and the U.S. was 40% of the inbound stream.  In 2017 China announced efforts to clean up the country, which included dramatic changes for acceptance criteria of imported recyclables  A significant reduction in acceptable contamination levels (from ~3% to 0.5%) in any recovered paper and plastic grades.  Additionally, China banned all mixed paper from import, regardless of contamination levels. (20% of historic stream)  Reductions took effect in March 2018, and drive costs and changes at most recycling facilities in the country to meet new standards. o Why did China shut its border?  Clean up the environment and eliminate corruption  They want to see their blue sky again o Diagram of Recycling Supply Chain  China bought 50% of the world’s recycling - Consumption - Recycling - Collection - Process refinement - Residual waste - Resale to markets - Production - Residual waste  Transportation to alternative markets takes longer and not as frequent o What about the U.S.?  Map of mill closures in the U.S. 2014-2016 o China closes the door, prices crash  The average price paid to recyclers for a ton of mixed paper in the Pacific NW and across North America has plummeted in the last year - Graph of prices 2016-2018 o Republic Services’ Response  Keep you informed  Educate public: empty, clean, dry recycling  Slow processing lines and add labor to reduce contamination levels to the new standard  Investment in advanced equipment, which also aims to reduce contamination  Switch end markets, globally and domestically  State-approved surcharge to be added in July to offset increased processing costs  Recycling rebate that shares commodity value with ratepayers will drop to pennies in August  But we cannot open new markets  What can you do? o Empty, clean and dry o Be sure to keep these items out of recycling cart:  Ropes, chain, cordage  Batteries  Diapers  Latex gloves  Food 4.1.a Packet Pg. 4 Attachment: 06-26-18 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2018 Page 3  Clothes  Hardcover books  Styrofoam  Shoes  Plastic grocery bag  Tissue, napkins, paper towels  Yard waste  Fun Fact: A bale of aluminum contains 35,000 cans Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis asked what could be done about junk mail. Ms. Prichard agreed junk mail was a problem and suggested signing up to stop junk mail at CatalogChoice. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested Republic try as an industry to remove that as a method of marketing. Ms. Prichard commented on the other avenues of communication such as social media, email, etc. Councilmember Mesaros commented he usually donates books but asked why hardback books were not recyclable. Ms. Prichard said the paper is, but the covers have to be manually removed at the processing plant and there are different grades of paper in books. She personally did not like to see books destroyed and preferred they be donated. Councilmember Mesaros agreed about donating books. He suggested creating a poster of the items that should be kept out of recycling cart. Ms. Prichard agreed they could work with Mr. Fisher to create that and send it this out via social media and email. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis suggested including it in customers’ bills. Councilmember Mesaros said he lives in a condominium so the residents do not receive a bill. He suggested emailing a poster to Councilmembers and he will post it in the recycling areas at the condominium. Councilmember Mesaros commented Republic is seeking a way to solve community problems. He recalled with electricity, public utility districts and co-ops were formed. He suggested conferring with others in the industry about forming a co-op to address the issue. The Puget Sound region has been a leader in forming co-ops in the last 100 years such as Group Health, REI, PCC, etc. He concluded that would seem to be a vehicle to solve the problem when no one wants to invest money in a mill. Ms. Prichard emphasized Republic still wants customers’ mixed paper as they are selling more than half of it. She anticipated China would accept mixed paper again and when they do, Republic will be first in line with the cleanest material. China needs the feed stock, but they need to clean up their system and processes for accepting material first. She reiterated customers should not stop recycling, but be better at it – empty, clean and dry and not include any of the inappropriate materials. Councilmember Johnson said she is a Republic customer. She inquired about the markets for glass and aluminum. Ms. Prichard answered all markets are domestic with the exception of mixed paper and 3-7 plastics. Alternative markets have been found for 3-7 plastics and most of the mixed paper. She provided an insider fact: most of the world cannot recycle glass as well as Republic because there is a facility down the street that makes bottles from recycled glass. Republic has a very sophisticated system that includes glass cleaning equipment. Glass recycling is problematic because of the weight; if it has to be transported more than 150 miles, it does not pencil out and there are not a lot of bottle remanufacturing plants like the one near Republic’s recycling facility. Aluminum recycling is also domestic. Councilmember Teitzel relayed the Council is interested in significantly increasing the rate of composting in Edmonds. He asked what challenges the City could face in achieving that. Ms. Prichard said like dry recycling, one of the issues is keeping out contaminants. The contamination threshold for dry recycling has been reduced to .5%, for wet recycling, the contamination threshold is 0% because the materials are not sortable. Plastic bags, glass, etc. are very problematic but contamination is the number one threat to a successful organics program. She noted most biodegradable bags are green, but many grocery stores use 4.1.a Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: 06-26-18 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2018 Page 4 green plastic to identify organic produce. She summarized everyone is trying to do the right thing so education is important. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she ran a recycling program for the State; the organics were put in big bins that allowed the contents to be tumbled and the product was sold privately. She asked where Republic’s yard waste goes. Ms. Prichard answered yard waste materials go to Cedar Grove who processes it and sells it. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she does not use Republic’s yard waste bin because she uses a tumbling composter and uses the compost in her yard. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no audience comments. 6. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 19, 2018 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 7. ACTION ITEMS 1. SNOHOMISH COUNTY DIVERSION CENTER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT Assistant Police Chief Jim Lawless explained this is an agreement between City and Snohomish County regarding the City’s ability to utilize a 40-bed diversion facility Snohomish County established in the former jail facility that will be staffed with medical personnel 24/7. This facility is intended to be transitional for people suffering from drug addiction, mental health issues, etc. and provide a better way to assist them than putting them in jail or leaving them on the street. Use of the facility requires an imbedded social worker to be the case manager for individuals in the center. Edmonds and Lynnwood have been promised a total of two beds in the center with the remainder dedicated to Snohomish County and Everett. There is no cost to Edmonds; the center and its operations are being funded via a federal grant that Snohomish County oversees. The only cost to the City will be staff time for transportation; case management is one of the social worker’s assigned duties. Councilmember Teitzel asked if the population to be addressed by the diversion center will also be addressed by the Chronic Utilizer of Alternative Response Team (CHART) program. ACOP Lawless answered CHART is a City of Everett program. Edmonds staff are working with Verdant and others to establish something similar in south Snohomish County that would be modeled after Everett’s program. The intent is to utilize the social worker and contacts in the field. Councilmember Teitzel asked if the two beds would be held for Edmonds/Lynnwood’s use exclusively and not used by other entities. ACOP Lawless answered Edmonds/Lynnwood has been promised there will be two beds at their disposal. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY DIVERSION CENTER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT. 4.1.a Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: 06-26-18 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2018 Page 5 Councilmember Johnson recalled when this program first described, she asked if Edmonds would be able to use it and the response was that was unknown. She was pleased Edmonds would be able to participate at no cost and was hopeful the City would have opportunity to use the facility. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING ECC 5.05 ADOPTING NEW PROVISION (LEAVING ANIMAL UNATTENDED IN MOTOR VEHICLE) Assistant Police Chief Jim Lawless explained throughout the year, particularly during summer months, citizens call with concerns about animals locked in vehicles and perhaps becoming overheated. On many occasions, the animal control officer responds, finds an animal in distress and is required to take action. The first step is to quickly track down the owner and if that is not successful, an attempt is made to unlock the car and remove the animal. In the existing code, the only available charge is animal cruelty which has a higher threshold for the burden of proof and is automatically a misdemeanor and a criminal offense. In researching other jurisdictions, staff found ordinances that specifically address leaving animals unattended in situations that could be dangerous to the animal such as excessive heat or cold, lack of air flow, etc. The scope of the proposed ordinance is very narrow; charging someone would require the animal to be in a situation where it could be or was likely to be harmed or killed by exposure to excessive heat or cold. These are generally complaint driven when someone observes it and calls. When an officer arrives, they will take the entire situation into consideration to determine if the animal is in distress. It is usually an animal control officer responding but it could also be a patrol officer. The penalties are similar to other animal control ordinances. The first two offences are infractions and the third is a misdemeanor with progressively higher fines on the infractions. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis anticipated she and Off Leash Area Edmonds would receive questions about this ordinance. She asked for clarification if an owner left their dog in the car and it was neither too hold nor too cold and the windows were open, they would not receive a ticket. ACOP Lawless clarified the animal would need to be in distress due to excessive heat, cold, extended period of time in a vehicle without food or water, etc.; the situation would be viewed by the officer in its totality. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis summarized it would be on a case-by-case basis and this ordinance would allow officers to issue an infraction. ACOP Lawless explained this ordinance provides language more specific to the situation instead of the broader animal cruelty charge. Councilmember Teitzel, a dog owner, spoke in favor of the ordinance. He referred to the wording of section A in the ordinance, noting the term “excessive heat” was subjective and suggested specifying temperatures above 75 degrees. ACOP Lawless answered it will be a case-by-case situation. If it is 75 degrees in the car, how long the dog has been in the car is a consideration, whether the dog is in obvious distress, etc. He relayed information from Senior Animal Control Officer Tabatha Shoemake regarding temperatures:  Outside temperature 75 degrees o Time for temperature inside closed vehicle to reach 100 degrees: 10 minutes o Time for temperature inside vehicle to reach 120 degrees: 30 minutes  Outside temperature 85 degrees o Time for temperature inside closed vehicle to reach 100 degrees: 7 minutes ACOP Lawless explained officers also have infrared thermometers to read the temperature inside the vehicle. Mayor Pro Tem Nelson expressed support for the proposed motion, commenting many dog owners and/or animal lovers have come across an animal in a locked car. This will be a great tool for officers to have the discretion to make that decision. 4.1.a Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: 06-26-18 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2018 Page 6 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she is not a dog owner but appreciates the proposed ordinance because she considers it abusive what some people do to dogs that they would not do to children or seniors. To Councilmember Teitzel’s comment about stating a temperature, she noted puppies may be able to tolerate heat better than an older dog. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4116 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ECC 5.05 TO ADOPT A NEW PROVISION “LEAVE OR CONFINE ANY ANIMAL IN UNATTENDED MOTOR VEHICLE OR ENCLOSED SPACE – PENALTIES – OFFICERS’ AUTHORITY TO REASONABLY REMOVE ANIMAL” AS SECTION 5.05.128.2. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. STUDY ITEMS 1. PRESENTATION OF CREATIVE DISTRICT DESIGNATION APPLICATION PROCESS Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty and Arts & Culture Program Manager Frances Chapin reviewed:  Program Background o In 2017 State Legislature approved legislation creating the Certified Creative District Program, similar to programs in Colorado, Louisiana and other states o The Washington State Arts Commission (“ArtsWA”) was given the program to administer o A Program Director was hired last fall and the program and application process were developed o Early this year the program went live, and the application process was opened  Background in Edmonds o Economic Impact of Arts and Culture Sector, presented to Council in February, had list of recommended actions, including:  “Seek Creative District designation through the Washington State Arts Commission.”  Recommendations 1) Strengthen the arts and culture sector citywide in economic development efforts - Embrace arts and culture as a core of the Edmonds community identity citywide. 2) Integrate arts and culture’s contributions to the economy in new and existing community economic development efforts - Seek Creative District designation through the Washington State Arts Commission - Identify arts and culture businesses and stakeholders as a targeted economic cluster along with others identified in the City of Edmonds’s Economic Development Element - Advocate for city infrastructure decisions that support arts and culture growth - Cultivate a robust arts and culture sector  What is a Certified Creative District o Geographically defined hub of activity o Focal point for people to gather, enjoy arts and culture o A vehicle to grow jobs & economic opportunities o A conduit to promote a community’s uniqueness  Why was this program created? o Washington State will support communities to use arts and creative industries to:  Grow jobs  Increase economic & cultural opportunities  Enhance culture and accessibility to the arts o In Colorado designated Creative have seen a 5% annual increase in employment and a 6% increase in revenue 4.1.a Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: 06-26-18 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2018 Page 7  Creative industries drive the economy in Washington State o In 2016, 207,000 people in Washington were employed in creative industries  $22.7 billion total industry earnings  $51,251 average annual salary across the sector  $26.37 average hourly earnings  7.9% of Washington’s GDP ($35.6 billion [#1])  4% growth in sector from 2015-2016 o Many activities that are creative in nature are creative industries o Economic Impact Study focused on traditional arts and culture activities  Arts/Culture Sector in Edmonds is Big Business o In 2016, $19 million in revenue generated by the arts/culture sector o $50 million in total economic impact o 440 full time jobs o $17 million in labor income  How the program works o Planning, application and state-certification process o Customized to each community o Fosters authentic, diverse community engagement o Opportunities for affordable housing options for artists & creatives  What certification can do for a community o Enhance local culture & accessibility to the arts o Promote quality of life o Economic mobility o Support small business growth o Encourage redevelopment o Rural community development o Enhance livability o Achieve items in Strategic Plan o Hoping legislature will provide grant funding for special projects  Communities interested in certification o Anacortes o Nisqually Tribe o Chewelah o Olympia o Edmonds o Port Townsend o Everett o Pullman o Federal Way o Puyallup o Hilltop Tacoma o Sequim o Issaquah o Tenino o Kennewick o Vashon Island o Kirkland o Wenatchee o Mercer Island o Yakima  How does the process work? 1. Gather the planning Team 2. Plan – Work with the team to plan the Creative District 3. Apply – Write & submit the formal application 4. Begin – Implement the District plan and track progress  Edmonds Recent Actions o In response to the application process requirements, the City of Edmonds has taken the following recent actions:  Parks and Eco. Dev. staff join to work on application prep/process  Arts Commission & EDC discussed and offered suggestions 4.1.a Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: 06-26-18 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2018 Page 8  Convened group of 30 local “creative sector” stakeholders, including Councilmember Tibbott  Held 2 stakeholder meetings (5/18 & 6/14) to focus on goals, strategies & milestones for 5-year program. Stakeholders that attended meetings included: Creative District Stakeholders Edmonds Community College ARTspot Edmonds Ed! – Edmonds Downtown Alliance Artworks Edmonds Economic Development Commission CAFÉ – Creative Age Festival Edmonds Edmonds Historical Museum Cascadia Art Museum Edmonds Senior Center Edmonds Arts Commission Port of Edmonds Edmonds Arts Festival Downtown residents Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation Rick Steves’ Europe Edmonds Center for the Arts Ten Gun Design Edmonds Chamber of Commerce ZINC Art + Object Edmonds City Council  Held Community Meeting 6/7 - Attended by approximately 50 people, including Councilmembers Johnson and Tibbott and Mayor Earling - Presentation by State Program Director, Annette Roth - Copious public comment and suggestions offered  Map of Proposed Creative District Boundaries o State is seeking walkable, dense section of the community o Includes venues where art activities/events occur o Includes the native plant garden and fish hatchery o Map is a draft, will include further discussion with stakeholders o Program Director visiting the City July 10 to walk the proposed district and provide input  Next Steps o Compile and organize input from Stakeholders and Community Meeting o Develop goals, strategies and milestones for five-year program o Finalize Creative District boundaries o Fill out application form o Return to City Council for Resolution stating City’s intent to pursue Creative District application (July) o Submit application mid-Summer  Possibly first application received by State! o Certification decisions expected by year’s end  Other Creative Districts o Ridgway Creative District o Trinidad Creative District o Parker’s Creative District at Old Town o Creative District Wilmington o Creative District Crested Butte o Golden Triangle Creative District Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis inquired about the list of stakeholders. Ms. Chapin answered there are many stakeholders; that list was the ones who attended the stakeholder meetings. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis expressed support for establishing a Creative District, noting the Edmonds Arts Festival last weekend was very successful. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the State Program Manager was in the Department of Economic Development. Ms. Chapin advised the part-time staff position established with the Certified Creative 4.1.a Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: 06-26-18 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2018 Page 9 District Program is in the State Art Commission but the Program Manager’s background is working with economic development agencies. Councilmember Tibbott relayed a question he has heard, whether there were any potential downsides of designating Edmonds as a Creative Art District such as state regulations, auditing, maintenance costs, etc. Ms. Chapin answered she did not consider it a downside but there is some administrative work; the plan is to spread the work among existing staff. She anticipated that could possibly being an issue for a city with fewer resources. She was not aware of any other downsides. Mr. Doherty agreed there were organizational impacts if the City was granted the Creative District designation. For example, goals and milestones identified the program would need to be pursued; those goals and milestones would be great for the community, grow the economy, contributed to the quality of live, etc. If the City were designated a Creative District, it would add positive challenges. Councilmember Tibbott commented his impression of the program was Edmonds was already doing the things that fulfill the requirements and there is already staff in place to help fulfill the goals that are part of Arts and Culture Plan. Ms. Chapin agreed, noting Councilmember Tibbott participated in the stakeholder and community meetings where it was recognized many of the items have been in the City’s planning process as well as things the City is already doing. Councilmember Tibbott expressed his support for the designation and recognized Ms. Chapin and Mr. Doherty’s efforts to move it forward. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out the boundary on the map goes through the center of the marsh but should be on the south side where the viewing platform and gardens are located. Mr. Doherty explained the original intent was the activities on the north side of the marsh but including the native garden and the fish hatchery would expand the boundary. He recognized the boundaries may be modified after staff walks it with the State Program Director, Councilmember Johnson recalled there was criticism at the community meeting about the boundary and asked if it would be changed in the future. Mr. Doherty advised the map had been revised as result of the community meeting. He invited Councilmembers to email him with suggestions about the boundaries. Councilmember Johnson observed reasons for creating the program was to grow jobs, increase economic and cultural opportunities and enhance culture and accessibility to arts. She questioned how the inclusion of most of Civic Field and all of City Park fit the character. She recognized there were programs in those locations that attract people in the summer but wondered if those could be omitted to condense the map. She recalled people questioning that at the community meeting including concern that grants may be consumed by Civic Field and not given to arts. Ms. Chapin answered the draft map was a broad brush. Staff plans to ask the Program Manager how much wiggle room there is around the boundaries of the core area. She acknowledged the goal was to create a district that was manageable and identifiable. If Edmonds is selected, there will be sign on the highway stating, “Edmonds Creative District.” Mr. Doherty assured staff will follow the advice given by the Program Manager when she visits the City. Mayor Pro Tem Nelson expressed concern about the size of the district, noting is seems large. The district basically is downtown plus the Port which he did not view as a district. He suggested tightening up the boundaries somewhat. Ms. Chapin commented the district may be a more contained area but connections to areas outside the district could be leveraged. The boundaries of the district will be discussed with the State Program Manager 9. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD & COMMITTEE MEETINGS Councilmember Mesaros reported he continues to be heavily involved with the potential merger of Snohomish Emergency Radio System (SERS) and Snohomish County 911. Both boards agree they will vote on potential merger by September 30. The PFD Board is meeting Thursday, June 28. He reported the main topic of the SeaShore Transportation Forum (a group of King County municipalities north of Seattle along with several Snohomish County cities who discuss transportation issues in north King County and 4.1.a Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 06-26-18 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2018 Page 10 south Snohomish County into Seattle) was the Port of Seattle. The Port of Seattle recently provided a grant to promote whale watching. SeaTac Airport is anticipating tremendous growth to meet the tremendous transportation needs at the airport. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported:  Diversity Commission will be making recommendations to the Mayor and City Council  She plans to participate with the Diversity Commission in the 4th of July parade  Judge Coburn established a group to address how the opioid issue affects the municipal court  The Council Opioid Task Force (Council President Nelson, Johnson and herself) meets tomorrow  She and Councilmembers Teitzel and Johnson attended the Police Awards Ceremony which was very well attended  The South County Cities meeting included a report from the Department of Transportation Secretary who predicted even if I-5 was widened to eight lanes each way, it would fill up. Other transportation alternatives need to be identified including transit  Snohomish County Coalition for Transportation Choices is considering turning over the entity to a non-profit.  The consultant the Homelessness Task Force hired is seeking input from Councilmembers. She invited Councilmember to provide input to Mayor Pro Tem Nelson, Councilmember Teitzel or her.  Attended the PSRC General Assembly with Councilmembers Mesaros and Teitzel. The mayors of the three largest cities in the state (Everett, Tacoma and Seattle) are female. Councilmember Teitzel reported:  The Disability Board has been struggling for several months with very costly long term assisted care for one individual. The Board engaged a senior care consultant at no cost to the City who helped identify a very good solution that will save the City a substantial amount.  Affordable Housing Alliance approved a draft policy about administering the Snohomish County Housing Trust Fund. An open house of the studio unit at Edmonds Lutheran Church is tentatively scheduled for July 12. This affordable housing project will be managed by Compass.  Snohomish County Tomorrow included a presentation about proposed development around light rail transit stations in Everett and Mill Creek. Everett has prepared a detailed subarea plan regarding potential development including increased heights in mixed use buildings.  The Climate Protection Committee discussed providing a steering committee to help with implementing the single use plastic ban. Several members offered to help with stakeholdering and education efforts. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis thanked Councilmember Teitzel for attending the Climate Protection Committee. She hoped to have citizens on the steering committee and encouraged anyone interested in participating to contact the Climate Protection Committee, Councilmember Teitzel or her. She recalled Taming Bigfoot’s Steering Committee had 10 people. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis reported the Tree Board is working on a booth for the Saturday market, completed their logo, are looking at giving away bare root lilacs at the Saturday market, creating a brochure for small trees and have been reviewing the Urban Forest Management Plan. WRIA 8 considered the budget and work plan; the cost to Edmonds decreased by approximately $400. WRIA 8 also reviewed salmon recovery projects. She noted the change in the assisted care that was facilitated by the Disability Board will save the City $4,000/month. Mayor Pro Tem Nelson reported the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) reviewed the proposed 2019 budget and applicants for funding. Based on projected revenues for 2018, the 2019 budget will be the same as 2018. He participated in the SERS Board meeting, one of the more animated meetings ever due to the nature of the merger opportunity with Snohomish County 911. He thanked Councilmember Mesaros 4.1.a Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: 06-26-18 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2018 Page 11 for his dedicated work on that issue. One June 20th, the Snohomish County City Council adopted an ordinance moving forward a ballot proposition to the voters for a sales tax increase of 0.1% to help fund replacement of the aging emergency radio system for first responders. Councilmember Tibbott reported  Attended the Shoreline’s State of the City for Shoreline. Learned Shoreline is considering 1% levy to improve and expand their walkway system  Attended the opioid meeting called by Judge Coburn; interesting to have public defenders, medical personnel, housing personnel and prosecutors collaborate on solutions that are not readily apparent.  Attended stakeholder meeting and public meeting for Creative District. A lot of public interest and public participation; a way for more volunteers to be involved in arts community.  Attended Economic Development Commission meeting. New members bringing new energy. A new subcommittee, Art and Tourism, was formed.  Attended Port Commission meeting. Five years ago the Port adopted a policy model for increasing moorage rates. As a result the Port has been able stay on top of maintenance. Several other marinas in the area struggle with maintenance and are raising rates dramatically and some are still not able to keep up with maintenance. Via proactive management and staying on top of maintenance, the Port of Edmonds is in remarkable shape and a destination for boaters. Councilmember Johnson reported she participated in some of the meetings that have already been reported on, including the Council Opioid Task Force and the Marsh Task Force. The marsh consultant, Windward, will make a presentation to Council next week. She encouraged Councilmembers to read the report in advance. The consultant will conduct scientific study over four quarters and take an inventory in each season. Data will be collected by the consultant as well as citizen scientists, but the data will not be merged. The Historic Preservation Commission is considering the addition of a historic home to the historic registry. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Pro Tem Nelson reported an hour has been allocated at the July 3 Council meeting for discussion of 2019 Council budget goals. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Tibbott reported he plans to attend the AWC annual meeting this week in Yakima. He reported riding his bike to appointments on Highway 99 last week instead of driving and rode on the new bike path on 76th. He found it very comfortable to ride on and was thankful to have that amenity in City. He looked forward to more bike trips on that system as well as others in Edmonds. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis reported the Ballard Locks celebrated their centennial anniversary. In 2018 the Army Corp of Engineers allocated an additional $13.15 million for repairs, bringing the total to $23 million. Councilmember Teitzel wished Councilmembers and citizens a Happy 4th of July, and enjoyment of the parade and fireworks. For anyone going places that allow fireworks, he urged them to be careful. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas hoped to see Councilmembers in the parade. Councilmember Mesaros commented the June 9 Council retreat was a productive meeting. He anticipated a lot of unity when the Council talks about budget goals and how to allocate resources. He reported the 2018 Special Olympics USA Games will be held in June 29 – July 8 at Husky Stadium, an opportunity see great athletes doing great things. He and wife will be volunteering on July 2. 4.1.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 06-26-18 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2018 Page 12 12. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 13. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 14. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m. 4.1.a Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 06-26-18 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/3/2018 Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks. Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of claim checks #231921 through #232024 dated June 28, 2018 for $1,529,639.93 and wire payment in the amount of $22.95. Approval of Kelly buy back checks for Law Enforcement Commissioned Employees #63306 through #63334 for $34,108.53. Staff Recommendation Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks. Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non-approval of expenditures. Attachments: claim cks 06-28-18 wire 06-26-18 FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 06-28-18 Kelly Buy Back 06-21-18 4.2 Packet Pg. 15 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds1 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231921 6/28/2018076040 911 SUPPLY INC CM-10084INV#CM-10084 - CR FOR TWILL PANTS (T. DO64304-019-4 5.11 WM PDU A-CL TWILL001.000.41.521.11.24.00 -164.9710.0% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.11.24.00 -16.50INV#CM-10089 - CR FOR SAFARILAND PROTECHCM-100891157457-20X34 SAFARILAND PROTECH G2G628.000.41.521.23.31.00 -3,970.0010.0% Sales Tax628.000.41.521.23.31.00 -397.00INV#IN-12457 - EDMONDS PD - R. SMITHIN-12457DN6501-DN-2215/2215 SAFARILAND SECOND001.000.41.521.22.24.00 200.00I-000-AS3-OOYK - SAFARILAND PROTECH001.000.41.521.22.24.00 5.00HEAT PRESS - CUSTOM001.000.41.521.22.24.00 15.00HERO'S NAME TAPE - BLANK - DRK NAVY001.000.41.521.22.24.00 8.00HERO'S NAME TAPE - BLANK DRK NAVY -001.000.41.521.22.24.00 8.00VELCRO001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.0010.0% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.24.00 24.60INV#IN-12562 - EDMONDS PD - B. BARKERIN-125629820-04-LR BLAUER 9820 TACSHELL JACKET001.000.41.521.22.24.00 234.994660-04-LR - BLAUER 4660 SOFTSHELL001.000.41.521.22.24.00 119.99HERO'S NAME TAPE - BLANK - DRK NAVY001.000.41.521.22.24.00 32.0010.0% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.24.00 38.701Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 16Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds2 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231921 6/28/2018(Continued)076040 911 SUPPLY INCINV#IN-12563 - EDMONDS PD - A. SAUNDERSIN-12563TP33-BK SAFARILAND PROTECH TOURNIQUET001.000.41.521.22.24.00 29.9910.0% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.24.00 3.00INV#IN-12564 - EDMONDS PD - COMPTON /A.IN-12564SAFARILAND PROTECH TOURNIQUET POUCH -001.000.41.521.22.24.00 59.9810.0% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.24.00 6.00INV#IN-12565 - EDMONDS PD - M BOWER/N. HIN-12565SAFARILAND SECOND CHANCE DN6501 MOLLE001.000.41.521.22.24.00 400.00HEAT PRESS - CUSTOM001.000.41.521.22.24.00 40.00HERO'S NAME TAPE - BLANK DRK NAVY 1"X5"001.000.41.521.22.24.00 32.00VELCRO001.000.41.521.22.24.00 20.00SAFARILAND BIANCHI MOLLE BATON HOLER -001.000.41.521.22.24.00 25.00SAFARILAND BIANCHI 7300 MOLLE VOVERED001.000.41.521.22.24.00 57.00SAFARILAND PROTECH TOURNIQUET PUCH -001.000.41.521.22.24.00 59.98BIANCHI 7307 MOLLE OC/MACE SPRACY POUCH001.000.41.521.22.24.00 22.25BIANCHI 24738 ACCUMOLD DBL MAG POUCH -001.000.41.521.22.24.00 35.7510.0% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.24.00 69.20INV#IN-12566 - EDMONDS PD - M. MOOREIN-12566HEAT PRESS - CUSTOM001.000.41.521.22.24.00 20.002Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 17Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds3 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231921 6/28/2018(Continued)076040 911 SUPPLY INCHERO'S NAME TAPE - BLANK DRK NAVY 1"X5"001.000.41.521.22.24.00 16.0025376 - BIANCHI 7307 MOLLE OC/MACE001.000.41.521.22.24.00 22.2525378 SAFARILAND BIANCHI MOLLE001.000.41.521.22.24.00 35.2524739 BIANCHI ACCUMOLD DBL CUFF CS MOLLE001.000.41.521.22.24.00 34.00DN6501-DN-2015/2015 - SAFARILAND SECOND001.000.41.521.22.24.00 200.0010.0% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.24.00 33.75VELCRO001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.00INV#IN-12567 - EDMONDS PD - A. GREENMUNIN-125678446-04-2XLR BLAUER 8446 S/S SUPERSHIRT001.000.41.521.22.24.00 129.98X158710B - HERO'S NAME TAPE - BLANK -001.000.41.521.22.24.00 16.0045118- NVY -3.5X22 SAM BROOME POLY/WOOL001.000.41.521.22.24.00 15.0010.0% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.24.00 16.10INV#IN-12568 - EDMONDS PD - J. SHIERIN-12568BLAUER 8472-04-MR 3 BLAUER S/S001.000.41.521.22.24.00 134.9710.0% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.24.00 13.50INV#IN-12687 - EDMONDS PD - A. GREENMUNIN-126878436-04-18/37 BLAUER L/S SUPERSHIRT001.000.41.521.22.24.00 139.98HERO'S NAME TAPE - BLANK/MIDNIGHT NAVY001.000.41.521.22.24.00 8.0010.0% Sales Tax3Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 18Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds4 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231921 6/28/2018(Continued)076040 911 SUPPLY INC001.000.41.521.22.24.00 14.80INV#IN-12724 - EDMONDS PD- B. BARKERIN-12724HP37432 HEAT PRESS POLICE - REFL SILVER001.000.41.521.22.24.00 20.00HP37432 HEAT PRESS POLICE - REFL SILVER001.000.41.521.22.24.00 20.0010.0% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.24.00 4.00INV#IN-12725 - EDMONDS PD - T. SHOEMAKEIN-127255.11 ATAC 6" SIDE ZIP BOOT001.000.41.521.70.24.00 95.9910.0% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.70.24.00 9.60INV#IN-12726 - EDMONDS PD - J. GIAMMALVAIN-12726ALTERATIONS001.000.41.521.22.24.00 12.00REMOVE & INSTALL 3 PATCHES001.000.41.521.22.24.00 9.0010.0% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.24.00 15.608561P6W-04-4R BLAUER TROUSER 6 PKT WOOL001.000.41.521.22.24.00 89.99ALTERATIONS001.000.41.521.22.24.00 12.00REMOVE & INSTALL 3 PATCHES001.000.41.521.22.24.00 9.00X158710B NVY HEROS NAME TAPE001.000.41.521.22.24.00 24.00INV#IN-12727 - EDMONDS PD - CRYSTAL,MEHLIN12727DN6501-DN1SC/1SLC SAFARILAND SECOND001.000.41.521.22.24.00 200.00DN6501-DN1 LRC/LLC SAFARILAND SECOND001.000.41.521.22.24.00 200.0025377 SAFARILAND BIANCHI MOLLE BATON4Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 19Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds5 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231921 6/28/2018(Continued)076040 911 SUPPLY INC001.000.41.521.22.24.00 25.0025374 SAFARILAND BIANCHI 7300 MOLLE001.000.41.521.22.24.00 57.0025376 BIANCHI 7307 MOLLE OC/MACE SPRAY001.000.41.521.22.24.00 44.5024739 BIANCHI ACCUMOLD DOUBLE CUFF CASE001.000.41.521.22.24.00 34.00TP33-BK SAFARILAND PROTECH TOURNIQUET001.000.41.521.22.24.00 29.99I-0000-AS3-OOYK SAFARILAND PROTECH001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.00HEAT PRESS CUSTOM001.000.41.521.22.24.00 30.00VELCRO001.000.41.521.22.24.00 20.00SX03-3A-LRC/LRXC SAFARILAND BODY ARMOR001.000.41.521.22.24.00 795.00XR1-DN-LRC/LRXC SAFARILAND ABA XTREME001.000.41.521.22.24.00 65.00SXO3-3A-1RC/1LXC SAFARILAND BODY ARMOR001.000.41.521.22.24.00 795.00XTR1-DN-1RC/1LXC SAFARILAND ABA XTREME001.000.41.521.22.24.00 65.00SX03-3A-1SC/1SLC SAFARILAND BODY ARMOR001.000.41.521.22.24.00 795.00XTR1-DN-1SC/1SLC SAFARILAND ABA XTREME001.000.41.521.22.24.00 65.00SX03-3A-LRC/LLC SAFARILAND BODY ARMOR001.000.41.521.22.24.00 795.00XTR1-DN-LRC/LLC SAFARILAND ABA XTREME001.000.41.521.22.24.00 65.00HEROS NAME TAPE - BLANK DARK NAVY001.000.41.521.22.24.00 32.0010.0% Sales Tax5Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 20Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds6 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231921 6/28/2018(Continued)076040 911 SUPPLY INC001.000.41.521.22.24.00 412.25INV#-IN-12728 - EDMONDS PD - S. TRYKARIN-1272822127 BIANCHI DUTY BELT001.000.41.521.22.24.00 64.7522091 BIANCHI 7906 BELT KEEPER 4 PACK001.000.41.521.22.24.00 14.9910.0% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.24.00 7.97Total :2,811.17231922 6/28/2018076697 ALEXANDER PRINTING CO 55841WOTS BROCHURE & POSTER PRINTWOTS BROCHURE & POSTER PRINT123.000.64.573.20.49.00 1,327.0110.3% Sales Tax123.000.64.573.20.49.00 136.68Total :1,463.69231923 6/28/2018076696 ALLPLAY SYSTEMS LLC 2018-065FAC PLAYGROUND LESS RETAINAGEFAC PLAYGROUND LESS RETAINAGE125.000.64.594.76.65.00 135,941.00RETAINAGE125.000.223.400 -13,594.1010.3% Sales Tax125.000.64.594.76.65.00 14,001.92Total :136,348.82231924 6/28/2018065568 ALLWATER INC 062018055FINANCE DEPT WATERFinance dept water001.000.31.514.23.31.00 29.7510.3% Sales Tax001.000.31.514.23.31.00 3.06WWTP: 6/20/18 DRINK WATER SERVICE0620180566/20/18 Water services, rental &423.000.76.535.80.31.00 23.8010.3% Sales Tax6Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 21Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds7 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231924 6/28/2018(Continued)065568 ALLWATER INC423.000.76.535.80.31.00 2.45Total :59.06231925 6/28/2018074718 AQUATIC SPECIALTY SERVICES INC 15415SKIMMER NETSKIMMER NET001.000.64.576.80.31.00 61.9810.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.39Total :68.37231926 6/28/2018 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1990755621PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICEPARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE001.000.64.576.80.24.00 56.86WWTP: 6/20/18 UNIFORMS,TOWELS+MATS1990765899Mats/Towels423.000.76.535.80.41.00 106.38Uniforms423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.5010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.41.00 10.9610.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE1990765900PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE001.000.64.576.80.24.00 56.86PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1990769731PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.61PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS111.000.68.542.90.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS421.000.74.534.80.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS422.000.72.531.90.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS7Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 22Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds8 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231926 6/28/2018(Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES423.000.75.535.80.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.0810.3% Sales Tax001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.3310.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.6610.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.6610.3% Sales Tax422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.6610.3% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.6610.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.34FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1990769732FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.68FLEET DIVISION MATS511.000.77.548.68.41.00 18.4010.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.5910.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.89Total :296.92231927 6/28/2018072576 ART ACCESS 14820EAC LISTING JULY/AUGEAC LISTING JULY/AUG117.100.64.573.20.41.40 78.00Total :78.00231928 6/28/2018071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 1264778-INWWTP: 6/14/18 DIESEL FUEL6/14/18 ULSD #2 DYED - BULK fuel423.000.76.535.80.32.00 1,559.5210.3% Sales Tax8Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 23Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds9 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231928 6/28/2018(Continued)071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM423.000.76.535.80.32.00 160.63Total :1,720.15231929 6/28/2018065950 ATS ELECTRO-LUBE INTL INC 105572WWTP: PANASONIC BATTERY PACKSPANASONIC BATTERY PACKS423.000.76.535.80.31.00 220.50Freight423.000.76.535.80.31.00 25.00Total :245.50231930 6/28/2018 072577 BAURECHT, MAGRIT 2018CONCERTS PRINTING RACK CARD & POSTER PRICONCERTS PRINTING RACK CARD & POSTER117.100.64.573.20.49.00 851.50Total :851.50231931 6/28/2018069989 BERK CONSULTING INC 10251-05-18 HOUSING STRATEGYHOUSING STRATEGY001.000.62.524.10.41.00 14,413.28Total :14,413.28231932 6/28/2018066673 BILLS BLUEPRINT INC 576159E6FA.SPECS AND PLAN REPRODUCTIONE6FA.Specs and Plans Reproduction422.000.72.594.31.65.41 450.11Total :450.11231933 6/28/2018074307 BLUE STAR GAS 7499FLEET AUTO PROPANE 570.1 GALFLEET AUTO PROPANE 570.1 Gal511.000.77.548.68.34.12 995.91Total :995.91231934 6/28/2018073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC 38757E6JC.SERVICES THRU MAY 2018E6JC.Services thru May 2018421.000.74.594.34.65.41 553.20Total :553.20231935 6/28/2018072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY SUMMER YOGA6638 6641 6644 6983 6984 YOGA INSTRUCTIO9Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 24Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds10 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231935 6/28/2018(Continued)072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY6638 YOGA INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 970.206641 YOGA INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 533.506644 YOGA INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 595.836983 YOGA INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 115.506984 YOGA INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 59.40Total :2,274.43231936 6/28/2018073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 18751519PARKS & REC C5250 COPIER CONTRACT 001-05PARKS & REC C5250 COPIER CONTRACT001.000.64.571.21.45.00 415.15CONTRACT/METER COPIER- BLDG18751523CONTRACT/METER COPIER- BLDG001.000.62.524.10.45.00 40.75CONTRACT/METER COPIER-PLANNING18751524CONTRACT/METER COPIER-PLANNING001.000.62.524.10.45.00 40.55P&R PRINTER IRC250IF CONTRACT 001-05721018751525P&R PRINTER IRC250IF CONTRACT001.000.64.571.21.45.00 66.17PARKS IRC250IF COPIER CONTRACT 001-0572118751526PARKS IRC250IF COPIER CONTRACT001.000.64.576.80.45.00 81.84CANON COPIER MONTHLY LEASE18751529Contract Charge 6/1 - 6/30/18001.000.11.511.60.45.00 26.44B/W Meter Usage001.000.11.511.60.45.00 9.26Color Meter Usage001.000.11.511.60.45.00 38.8010.3% Sales Tax10Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 25Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds11 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231936 6/28/2018(Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES001.000.11.511.60.45.00 7.68ENG COPIER JUNE 201818755361Eng Copier June 2018001.000.67.518.21.45.00 557.37CONTRACT/METER COPIER- DSD18755362CONTRACT/METER COPIER- DSD001.000.62.524.10.45.00 1,217.32Total :2,501.33231937 6/28/2018075023 CAROLYN DOUGLAS COMMUNICATIONS79COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANT AConsulting: Communications and001.000.61.557.20.41.00 2,500.00Total :2,500.00231938 6/28/2018 075849 CARTER, JEANNE June 2018DIVERSITY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES FOR JUDiversity commission administrative001.000.61.557.20.41.00 500.00Total :500.00231939 6/28/2018003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 261783WATER - SUPPLIESWater - Supplies421.000.74.534.80.31.00 49.1010.4% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.31.00 5.10WWTP: 80PPM CARBN MONOXDE+XC2888880PPM CARBN MONOXDE+ULTRA ZERO AIR423.000.76.535.80.31.00 993.1910.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.31.00 102.30Total :1,149.69231940 6/28/2018067314 CERTIFIED FOLDER DISPLAY SVC LTAC-550000LTAC TOURISM BROCHURE DISTRIBUTION MAY-OLTAC tourism brochure distribution120.000.31.575.42.41.00 4,653.71Total :4,653.7111Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 26Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds12 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231941 6/28/2018065682 CHS ENGINEERS LLC 451601-1805 E6GB.SERVICES THRU MAY 2018E6GB.Services thru May 2018423.200.75.594.35.65.41 5,383.25Total :5,383.25231942 6/28/2018069457 CITY OF EDMONDS E5DB.ENG20180285 E5DB.ENG20180285 ROW PERMITE5DB.ENG20180285 ROW Permit112.000.68.595.33.65.41 335.00Total :335.00231943 6/28/2018073851 C-N-I LOCATES LTD 26997UTILITY LOCATE AT LIBRARY BOOK DROPUTILITY LOCATE AT LIBRARY BOOK DROP001.000.64.576.80.41.00 170.00Total :170.00231944 6/28/2018075042 COVERALL OF WASHINGTON 7100178581WWTP: JUN 2018 JANITORIAL SERVICEJUN 2018 JANITORIAL SERVICE423.000.76.535.80.41.00 514.00Total :514.00231945 6/28/2018067362 CRYSTAL, H. KENNETH CRYSTAL 06/18CRYSTAL EXPENSE CLAIM - LONGVIEW 6/12-13PER DIEM - LONGVIEW 6/12-13/18001.000.41.521.40.43.00 96.00Total :96.00231946 6/28/2018 069529 D & G BACKHOE INC E6JC.Pmt 2E6JC.PMT 2 THRU 6/1/18E6JC.Pmt 2 thru 6/1/18421.000.74.594.34.65.10 428,995.10E6JC.Ret 2421.000.223.400 -19,803.26Total :409,191.84231947 6/28/2018006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3337880E8CC.RFQ ADVERTISEMENTE8CC.RFQ Advertisement112.000.68.542.30.41.00 329.14E8CC.RFQ Advertisement126.000.68.542.30.41.00 82.2912Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 27Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds13 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231947 6/28/2018(Continued)006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCEE8CC.RFQ Advertisement422.000.72.542.30.41.00 476.57Total :888.00231948 6/28/2018064531 DINES, JEANNIE 18-385706/19/2018 CITY COUNCIL MEETING06/19/2018 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES001.000.25.514.30.41.00 394.40Total :394.40231949 6/28/2018071255 ECOLIGHTS NORTHWEST LLC 200040FAC MAINT - RECYCLING FEESFac Maint - Recycling Fees001.000.66.518.30.48.00 542.76Total :542.76231950 6/28/2018007850 EDMONDS COMMUNITY COLLEGE 6/21 REFUND DAMAGE D6/21 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT PLAZA RM PERM6/21 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT PLAZA RM001.000.239.200 100.00Total :100.00231951 6/28/2018069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP 6549 NASSIRI6549 AREZU NASSIRI YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP6549 AREZU NASSIRI YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP122.000.64.571.20.49.00 54.006588 ARMANN NASSIRI YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP6588 NASSIRI6588 ARMANN NASSIRI YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP122.000.64.571.20.49.00 65.00Total :119.00231952 6/28/2018069912 EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DIST 4626BRIDGE LOAN - ROOFING PROJECTV&R Roofing invoice - Roof Project Grant001.000.39.575.20.52.00 87,908.27Total :87,908.27231953 6/28/2018 067345 EDMONDS TOWING 0131424UNIT 15 - TOWINGUnit 15 - Towing511.000.77.548.68.48.00 150.0010.3% Sales Tax13Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 28Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds14 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231953 6/28/2018(Continued)067345 EDMONDS TOWING511.000.77.548.68.48.00 15.45Total :165.45231954 6/28/2018008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00025WILLOW CREEK HATCHERY / METER 75832746WILLOW CREEK HATCHERY WATER AND STORM001.000.64.576.80.47.00 342.49OLYMPIC BEACH SPRINKLER / METER 758327461-00575OLYMPIC BEACH SPRINKLER / METER 75832746001.000.64.576.80.47.00 159.16BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM / METER 72851-00825BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM / METER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,163.88SPRINKLER 21 MAIN ST / METER 16191-00875SPRINKLER 21 MAIN ST / METER 1619001.000.64.576.80.47.00 47.59SUNSET & CASPER SPRINKLER/ METER 27191-02125SUNSET & CASPER SPRINKLER/ METER 2719001.000.64.576.80.47.00 55.79SPRINKLER 290 MAIN ST / METER 718703461-03710SPRINKLER 290 MAIN ST / METER 71870346001.000.64.576.80.47.00 47.59SPRINKLER 290 DAYTON ST / METER 752275311-03900SPRINKLER 290 DAYTON ST / METER 75227531001.000.64.576.80.47.00 63.99SPRINKLER 101 2ND AVE N / METER 75401-05125SPRINKLER 101 2ND AVE N / METER 7540001.000.64.576.80.47.00 51.69SPRINKLER 102 W DAYTON ST / METER 7189251-05285SPRINKLER 102 W DAYTON ST / METER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 47.59SPRINKLER 190 DAYTON ST / METER 16331-05340SPRINKLER 190 DAYTON ST / METER 1633001.000.64.576.80.47.00 63.99CITY PARK SPRINKLER/ METER 714586761-05650CITY PARK SPRINKLER/ METER 7145867614Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 29Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds15 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231954 6/28/2018(Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION001.000.64.576.80.47.00 47.59CITY PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP / METER 2701-05675CITY PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP / METER 270001.000.64.576.80.47.00 923.80SPRINKLER @ 3RD/PINE / METER 719647871-05700SPRINKLER @ 3RD/PINE / METER 71964787001.000.64.576.80.47.00 92.69SPRINKLER 350 MAIN ST / METER 699729491-09650SPRINKLER 350 MAIN ST / METER 69972949001.000.64.576.80.47.00 68.09SPRINKLER 390 DAYTON ST / METER 320385471-09800SPRINKLER 390 DAYTON ST / METER 32038547001.000.64.576.80.47.00 76.29FOUNTAIN 490 MAIN ST/METER 757614521-10778FOUNTAIN 490 MAIN ST/METER 75761452001.000.64.576.80.47.00 76.29SPRINKLER 500 MAIN ST / METER 51621-10780SPRINKLER 500 MAIN ST / METER 5162001.000.64.576.80.47.00 68.09SPRINKLER 439 5TH AVE S / METER 87291-16130SPRINKLER 439 5TH AVE S / METER 8729001.000.64.576.80.47.00 68.09SPRINKLER 500 DAYTON ST / METER 699897051-16300SPRINKLER 500 DAYTON ST / METER 69989705001.000.64.576.80.47.00 117.29LOG CABIN SPRINKLER / METER 699727311-16420LOG CABIN SPRINKLER / METER 69972731001.000.64.576.80.47.00 47.59CENTENNIAL PLAZA SPRINKLER 150 5TH AVE1-16450CENTENNIAL PLAZA SPRINKLER 150 5TH AVE001.000.64.576.80.47.00 97.18SPRINKLER 575 MAIN ST / METER 752139791-16630SPRINKLER 575 MAIN ST / METER 75213979001.000.64.576.80.47.00 117.29SPRINKLER 590 DAYTON ST / METER 719650861-1747515Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 30Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds16 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231954 6/28/2018(Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISIONSPRINKLER 590 DAYTON ST / METER 71965086001.000.64.576.80.47.00 72.19PINE STREET PLAYFIELD / METER 61631-19950PINE STREET PLAYFIELD / METER 6163001.000.64.576.80.47.00 93.28SPRINKLER 1141 9TH AVE S / METER 32858301-36255SPRINKLER 1141 9TH AVE S / METER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 47.59WEST PLANTER IRRIGATION 870 CASPERS ST /2-25150WEST PLANTER IRRIGATION 870 CASPERS ST001.000.64.576.80.47.00 55.79EAST PLANTER IRRIGATION 875 CASPERS ST /2-25175EAST PLANTER IRRIGATION 875 CASPERS ST001.000.64.576.80.47.00 47.59LIFT STATION #3 729 NORTHSTREAM LN / MET2-26950LIFT STATION #3 729 NORTHSTREAM LN /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 96.88PLANTER IRRIGATION 1400 9TH AVE N / METE2-28275PLANTER IRRIGATION 1400 9TH AVE N /001.000.64.576.80.47.00 88.59LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / METER 722-29118LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / METER423.000.75.535.80.47.10 51.69SAM STAMM OVERLOOK / METER 87942-37180SAM STAMM OVERLOOK / METER 8794001.000.64.576.80.47.00 65.11LIFT STATION #14 7909 211TH PL SW / METE4-34080LIFT STATION #14 7909 211TH PL SW /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 47.59Total :4,510.34231955 6/28/2018008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR105545ACCT#MK5648 CONTRACT 2600-02 PRINTER MAIMaintenance for printers 06/21/18 -512.000.31.518.88.48.00 307.2010.3% Sales Tax16Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 31Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds17 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231955 6/28/2018(Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES512.000.31.518.88.48.00 31.64Total :338.84231956 6/28/2018076383 ENERGY WORKS BLD20180160 REFUND, DUPLICATE ITEMSREFUND, DUPLICATE ITEMS001.000.257.620 56.00Total :56.00231957 6/28/2018069469 ENNIS-FLINT INC 223450TRAFFIC - LINES, SIGNSTraffic - Lines, Signs111.000.68.542.64.31.00 8,924.1010.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.64.31.00 919.17Total :9,843.27231958 6/28/2018076483 EUROFINS FRONTIER GLOBAL SCI 8050999WWTP: METHOD 30B TRAPS ANALYSISMETHOD 30B TRAPS ANALYSIS423.000.76.535.80.41.00 960.00WWTP: EPA 30B LARGE BED UNSPIKED/SPIKED8060662EPA 30B LARGE BED UNSPIKED/SPIKED TRAPS423.000.76.535.80.41.00 570.00Freight423.000.76.535.80.41.00 9.54Total :1,539.54231959 6/28/2018009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH798010CITY NOTICES GUNN STREET VACATIONCITY NOTICES - GUNN STREET VACATION001.000.25.514.30.41.40 60.20E8CC.RFQ ADVERTISEMENTEDH810349E8CC.RFQ Advertisement112.000.68.542.30.41.00 143.44E8CC.RFQ Advertisement126.000.68.542.30.41.00 35.86E8CC.RFQ Advertisement422.000.72.542.30.41.00 207.7017Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 32Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds18 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231959 6/28/2018(Continued)009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALDLEGAL AD PLN20180033EDH812120LEGAL AD PLN20180033001.000.62.558.60.41.40 70.52LEGAL AD PLN20180031EDH812121LEGAL AD PLN20180031001.000.62.558.60.41.40 73.96LEGAL AD PLN20180035EDH812467LEGAL AD PLN20180035001.000.62.558.60.41.40 61.92Total :653.60231960 6/28/2018 011900 FRONTIER 253-007-4989SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINESEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETRY CIRCUIT421.000.74.534.80.42.00 31.09TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES253-012-9166TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES421.000.74.534.80.42.00 162.56TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES423.000.75.535.80.42.00 301.89TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE253-014-8062TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE421.000.74.534.80.42.00 19.86TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE423.000.75.535.80.42.00 36.87TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE253-017-4360TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE421.000.74.534.80.42.00 47.00TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE423.000.75.535.80.42.00 87.27CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE LINE425-712-8347CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE LINE 250001.000.66.518.30.42.00 70.15MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL425-745-3335MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL INTERNET001.000.64.571.29.42.00 71.9818Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 33Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds19 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231960 6/28/2018(Continued)011900 FRONTIER425-771-4741 CEMETERY PHONE/INTERNET425-771-4741425-771-4741 CEMETERY PHONE/INTERNET130.000.64.536.20.42.00 128.16425-775-1344 RANGER STATION425-775-1344425-775-1344 RANGER STATION001.000.64.571.23.42.00 68.40FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER ALARM LINE425-776-3896FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE AND001.000.66.518.30.42.00 133.67Total :1,158.90231961 6/28/2018 069571 GOBLE SAMPSON ASSOCIATES INCBINV0006958 WWTP: WATM 01,02,03,04WATMs 01,02,03,04423.000.76.535.80.48.00 4,855.00Freight423.000.76.535.80.48.00 30.3710.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.48.00 503.20Total :5,388.57231962 6/28/2018 012199 GRAINGER 9811520411PM: HEX KEY, STRIPING MACHINE, PAINTPM: HEX KEY, STRIPING MACHINE, PAINT001.000.64.576.80.31.00 220.6310.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 22.72WATER - SUPPLIES9817817829Water - Supplies421.000.74.534.80.31.00 278.6210.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.31.00 28.70Total :550.67231963 6/28/2018071446 GREAT FLOORS COMMERCIAL SALES 899143FAC - SUPPLIESFAC - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 748.7419Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 34Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds20 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231963 6/28/2018(Continued)071446 GREAT FLOORS COMMERCIAL SALES10.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 77.12Total :825.86231964 6/28/2018074804 HARLES, JANINE 527265PHOTOGRAPHY - MONTH 2018Photography for June 2018001.000.61.558.70.41.00 200.00Total :200.00231965 6/28/2018060985 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS 007J2464WWTP: DIAPH VLV+ROTAMETERS&DIAPHRAGMSDIAPH VLV+ROTAMETERS&DIAPHRAGMS423.000.76.535.80.48.00 318.00Freight423.000.76.535.80.48.00 14.7710.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.48.00 34.28WWTP: 3" PIPE P/E PVC007J24653" PIPE P/E PVC423.000.76.535.80.48.00 612.0010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.48.00 63.04Total :1,042.09231966 6/28/2018012900 HARRIS FORD INC 180313UNIT 54 - SEAT BELTUnit 54 - Seat Belt511.000.77.548.68.31.10 64.5810.4% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.72Total :71.30231967 6/28/2018072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 42501WATERFRONT PARK REDEVELOPMENTWATERFRONT PARK REDEVELOPMENT125.000.64.594.76.65.41 1,761.86Total :1,761.8620Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 35Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds21 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231968 6/28/2018074966 HIATT CONSULTING LLC 2018-92TOURISM PROMOTION AND MARKETING, WEBSITETourism promotion and marketing for120.000.31.575.42.41.00 1,666.00Tourism website maintenance June 2018120.000.31.575.42.41.00 200.00Total :1,866.00231969 6/28/2018067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1073873PM: WORK APRONS, SANDERPM: WORK APRONS, SANDER001.000.64.576.80.31.00 79.8810.0% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.99PM: CORNER BRACE - LATER RETURNED2021881PM: CORNER BRACE - LATER RETURNED001.000.64.576.80.31.00 28.6210.0% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.86PM: TAP & DIE SET, TOUGH CASE, GLOVES,2085836PM: TAP & DIE SET, TOUGH CASE, GLOVES,001.000.64.576.80.31.00 160.0710.0% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 16.01RETURN INV 2021881 CORNER BRACES232395RETURN INV 2021881 CORNER BRACES001.000.64.576.80.31.00 -28.6210.0% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 -2.86PM: WASHERS, SCREWS, BIT, AUGER3023991PM: WASHERS, SCREWS, BIT, AUGER001.000.64.576.80.31.00 95.2210.0% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.52PM: SPRAY BOTTLE, HOSE SAVER, NOZZLES3070978PM: SPRAY BOTTLE, HOSE SAVER, NOZZLES001.000.64.576.80.31.00 56.8210.0% Sales Tax21Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 36Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds22 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231969 6/28/2018(Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.68PM: SCREW EXTRACTOR, SPLICER5086959PM: SCREW EXTRACTOR, SPLICER001.000.64.576.80.31.00 25.8210.0% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.58PM: SOD6204264PM: SOD001.000.64.576.80.31.00 78.9610.0% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.90Total :546.45231970 6/28/2018061013 HONEY BUCKET 0550675195HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKETHICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET001.000.64.576.80.45.00 607.62YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET0550675196YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET001.000.64.576.80.45.00 309.21HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUCKET0550675197HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUCKET001.000.64.576.80.45.00 218.78PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKET0550675198PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKET001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET0550675199SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY HONEY BUCKET0550675200WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY HONEY BUCKET001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85CIVIC FIELD 6TH & BELL HONEY BUCKET0550675201CIVIC FIELD 6TH & BELL HONEY BUCKET001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85MARINA BEACH HONEY BUCKET055067520222Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 37Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds23 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231970 6/28/2018(Continued)061013 HONEY BUCKETMARINA BEACH HONEY BUCKET001.000.64.576.80.45.00 1,394.23CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD 6TH & EDMONDS0550675203CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD 6TH & EDMONDS001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HONEY BUCKET0550675204CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HONEY BUCKET001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85Total :3,212.94231971 6/28/2018073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 3117994COPY PAPERCOPY PAPER001.000.62.524.10.31.00 58.58FILE FOLDERS PAPER3120122FILE FOLDERS PAPER001.000.23.512.50.31.00 319.9110.3% Sales Tax001.000.23.512.50.31.00 32.95FIRST AID KIT, PAPER PLATES3121284First Aid Kit, Paper plates001.000.31.514.23.31.00 45.4210.3% Sales Tax001.000.31.514.23.31.00 4.68Total :461.54231972 6/28/2018 075356 JENNIFER ZIEGLER PUBLIC 036STATE LOBBYIST FOR JUNE 2018State lobbyist for June 2018001.000.61.511.70.41.00 3,358.00Total :3,358.00231973 6/28/2018067568 KPG INC 4-18018E8CA.SERVICES THRU 4/25/18E8CA.Services thru 4/25/18112.000.68.595.33.65.41 8,419.10Total :8,419.1023Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 38Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds24 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231974 6/28/2018073950 KUBWATER RESOURCES 07726WWTP: POLYMERPOLYMER423.000.76.535.80.31.51 8,529.2210.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.31.51 878.51Total :9,407.73231975 6/28/2018016850 KUKER RANKEN INC INV-041294STORM - MARKING STICKSStorm - Marking Sticks422.000.72.531.40.31.00 54.0010.3% Sales Tax422.000.72.531.40.31.00 5.56Total :59.56231976 6/28/2018074417 LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTIAN SMITH 157CONFLICT COUNSEL 5Z0916101CONFLICT COUNSEL 5Z0916101001.000.39.512.52.41.00 300.00Total :300.00231977 6/28/2018067725 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER 80500235096 UNIT 66 - 2 TIRES INVENTORYUnit 66 - 2 Tires Inventory511.000.77.548.68.34.30 939.12Tire Tax511.000.77.548.68.34.30 2.0010.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.34.30 96.73Total :1,037.85231978 6/28/2018075159 LIFE INSURANCE CO OF NO AMER July 2018JULY 2018 CIGNA PREMIUMSJuly 2018 Cigna Insurance Premiums811.000.231.550 12,119.88Total :12,119.88231979 6/28/2018068957 LYNN PEAVEY COMPANY 345994INV#345994 CUST #980012 - EDMONDS PD05566 PHAS TAPE SK 2" X 10YD FROSTED /001.000.41.521.80.31.00 101.2524Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 39Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds25 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231979 6/28/2018(Continued)068957 LYNN PEAVEY COMPANY05568 PHAS TAPE SK 4X10YD FROSTED /001.000.41.521.80.31.00 97.5005539 BRUSH SK FIBER DUSTER FIBERGLASS001.000.41.521.80.31.00 82.50Freight001.000.41.521.80.31.00 32.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.80.31.00 32.26Total :345.51231980 6/28/2018018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 1035569STORM - GAS CANSStorm - Gas Cans422.000.72.531.40.31.00 238.1210.3% Sales Tax422.000.72.531.40.31.00 24.53STORM - SUPPLIES1035982Storm - Supplies422.000.72.531.40.31.00 54.1710.3% Sales Tax422.000.72.531.40.31.00 5.58Total :322.40231981 6/28/2018 001780 MAGIC TOYOTA SCION TOCS721623UNIT 15 - REPAIRSUnit 15 - Repairs511.000.77.548.68.48.00 202.5010.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.48.00 20.86Total :223.36231982 6/28/2018076115 MCCLOUGHAN, SAMUEL JOHN 6/11-6/25 VOLLEYBALL6/11-6/25/18 VOLLEYBALL ATTENDANT6/11-6/25/18 VOLLEYBALL ATTENDANT001.000.64.571.25.41.00 144.006/6/18 BASKETBALL GYM MONITOR6/6 GYM MONITOR6/6/18 BASKETBALL GYM MONITOR001.000.64.571.25.41.00 42.0025Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 40Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds26 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :186.00231982 6/28/2018 076115 076115 MCCLOUGHAN, SAMUEL JOHN231983 6/28/2018 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 65671402WWTP: TUBE FITTINGSTUBE FITTINGS423.000.76.535.80.48.00 939.26Freight423.000.76.535.80.48.00 48.16WWTP: PIPE FITTINGS,T-STRAINERS,CLAMPS65802351 PIPE FITTINGS,T-STRAINERS,CLAMPS423.000.76.535.80.48.00 383.42Freight423.000.76.535.80.48.00 17.23Total :1,388.07231984 6/28/2018018950 NAPA AUTO PARTS 3276-796713 UNIT 139- FILTERSUnit 139- Filters511.000.77.548.68.31.10 42.2310.4% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.39Total :46.62231985 6/28/2018075539 NATURE INSIGHT CONSULTING 11WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING PROJ MGMTTasks 1 - 4: Parks Project Mgmt and125.000.64.575.50.41.00 812.50Total :812.50231986 6/28/2018024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S8682427.001WWTP: SELECTOR SWITCHES/HAND-OFF AUSELECTOR SWITCHES/HAND-OFF AU423.000.76.535.80.48.00 326.0010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.48.00 33.58Total :359.58231987 6/28/2018068451 NORTHEND TRUCK EQUIPMENT INC 1035892UNIT E152RE - UTILITY BOXUnit E152RE - Utility Box511.100.77.594.48.64.00 18,450.0026Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 41Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds27 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231987 6/28/2018(Continued)068451 NORTHEND TRUCK EQUIPMENT INC10.3% Sales Tax511.100.77.594.48.64.00 1,900.35Total :20,350.35231988 6/28/2018025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 829HPC NOTES 6/14/18HPC NOTES 6/14/18001.000.62.558.60.41.00 108.00Total :108.00231989 6/28/2018070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC 117035UNIT 435 - TOWINGUnit 435 - Towing511.000.77.548.68.48.00 164.0010.4% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.48.00 17.06Total :181.06231990 6/28/2018075183 PETERSON FRUIT CO 381326MONTHLY FRUIT PICKUPJune Fruit pickup001.000.22.518.10.31.10 130.95Total :130.95231991 6/28/2018076133 PETERSON, RYAN 6/25 VOLLEYBALL ATTE 6/25/18 VOLLEYBALL ATTENDANT6/25/18 VOLLEYBALL ATTENDANT001.000.64.571.25.41.00 18.00Total :18.00231992 6/28/2018008350 PETTY CASH 6/25 PARKS PETTY CAS 6/25/18 PARKS PETTY CASHBEVINGTON: QFC: FOOD FOR CITY COUNCIL001.000.64.571.21.31.00 43.06AQUARIUM CO-OP: WATER CONDITIONER FOR001.000.64.571.23.31.00 14.32STEELE-SMITH: ACE: SWIFFER WET JET FOR001.000.64.571.28.31.00 11.02COLLEY: DOLLAR TREE: DISCOVERY001.000.64.571.23.31.00 3.3127Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 42Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds28 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231992 6/28/2018(Continued)008350 PETTY CASHLEACH: EDMONDS HARDWARE: ADHESIVE &001.000.61.558.70.31.00 17.61LEACH: LETTERS FOR BIRD FEST BANNER001.000.61.558.70.31.00 8.00PARKER: HOBBY LOBBY: PRESCHOOL001.000.64.571.29.31.00 8.59Total :105.91231993 6/28/2018 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY R414468STREET - LED LIGHTINGStreet - LED Lighting111.000.68.542.63.31.00 4,859.9410.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.63.31.00 500.57LIBRARY - SUPPLIESR616994Library - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.52LIBRARY - SUPPLIESR622014Library - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 31.4010.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.23Total :5,400.66231994 6/28/2018064088 PROTECTION ONE 1988948ALARM MONITORING ANDERSON CENTERALARM MONITORING FRANCES ANDERSON001.000.66.518.30.42.00 307.17ALARM MONITORING - PARKS MAINT./FS #16291104ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS MAINTENANCE001.000.66.518.30.42.00 22.21ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS MAINTENANCE001.000.64.576.80.42.00 22.21Total :351.5928Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 43Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds29 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231995 6/28/2018046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 200002411383YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN WAY / METERYOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN WAY / METER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,549.39OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 0200007876143OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER421.000.74.534.80.47.00 54.52FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W / METE200011439656FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W /001.000.66.518.30.47.00 50.65CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / METER 00052200016558856CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / METER001.000.66.518.30.47.00 78.42FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER 0200016815843FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER001.000.66.518.30.47.00 193.37FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 72ND AVE W /200017676343FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 72ND AVE W511.000.77.548.68.47.00 120.19SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 001200019895354SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER001.000.66.518.30.47.00 51.12PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE200020415911PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /001.000.65.518.20.47.00 4.69PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /111.000.68.542.90.47.00 17.82PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /421.000.74.534.80.47.00 17.82PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 17.82PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /511.000.77.548.68.47.00 17.82PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /422.000.72.531.90.47.00 17.80WWTP: 5/21-6/20/18 METER 000390395: 20020002182958129Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 44Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds30 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231995 6/28/2018(Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY5/21-6/20/18 200 2ND AVE S / METER423.000.76.535.80.47.63 38.59CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE S / METER200024711901CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE S /001.000.66.518.30.47.00 87.76Total :2,317.78231996 6/28/2018 076695 RAMIREZ, ANA 6/18 REFUND 6/18/18 REFUND6/18/18 REFUND001.000.239.200 500.00Total :500.00231997 6/28/2018065044 ROTARY CLUB OF EDMONDS LTAC 062018LTAC PROMOTION AWARD FOR EDMLTAC promotion award for Edmonds120.000.31.575.42.41.40 1,000.00Total :1,000.00231998 6/28/2018073066 SAFARILAND LLC I18-064436INV#I18-064436 - SWAT - LAWLESS8922NRSC 11 G LOW ROLL II DD NR W/628.000.41.521.23.31.00 2,200.5010.3% Sales Tax628.000.41.521.23.31.00 226.65Total :2,427.15231999 6/28/2018067802 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIP CO 633200INV#633200 CUST#1733 - EDMONDS PDFEDERAL - LE127RS-CF3 12GA 2.75", 1OZ001.000.41.521.40.31.00 1,619.5210.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.40.31.00 166.81Total :1,786.33232000 6/28/2018066918 SEDOR, NORMAN 43REIMBURSEMENTReimbursement009.000.39.517.20.29.00 10,917.00Total :10,917.0030Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 45Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds31 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232001 6/28/2018063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS OE0039274A8594 PM: PAINTPM: PAINT001.000.64.576.80.31.00 46.3810.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.78Total :51.16232002 6/28/2018036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 14-370052UNIT 106, 47 - SUPPLIESUnit 106, 47 - Supplies511.000.77.548.68.31.10 277.8410.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 28.62Total :306.46232003 6/28/2018060889 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL ARV/ 36417648 FLEET - SCANNER UPGRADEFleet - Scanner Upgrade511.000.77.548.68.35.00 984.3410.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.35.00 101.39Total :1,085.73232004 6/28/2018037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-0254-7PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95TH AVE W /PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95TH AVE W /111.000.68.542.64.47.00 16.60YOST POOL2002-6027-1YOST POOL001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,353.30TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W / METER 12003-4823-3TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 34.73CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE RD / METER 1002003-8645-6CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE RD / METER001.000.66.518.30.47.00 53.93LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / METER 12004-6859-3LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / METER423.000.75.535.80.47.10 237.9131Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 46Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds32 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232004 6/28/2018(Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION METER2004-9314-6MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION METER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 18.89OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 12006-3860-9OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER421.000.74.534.80.47.00 180.02SEAVIEW PARK2007-1403-8SEAVIEW PARK001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.51LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN / ME2008-6520-2LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 65.46HICKMAN PARK2011-8453-8HICKMAN PARK001.000.64.576.80.47.00 22.78SEAVIEW PARK2011-9708-4SEAVIEW PARK001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.30FISHING PIER RESTROOMS2012-3682-5FISHING PIER RESTROOMS001.000.64.576.80.47.00 165.43LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL W / METE2012-6598-0LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL W /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 141.50PINE ST PARK2013-2711-1PINE ST PARK001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.17LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH PL W / M2013-7496-4LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH PL W /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 19.72SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 1002015-5174-4SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,614.34TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / METER 10002015-7289-8TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / METER32Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 47Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds33 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232004 6/28/2018(Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1111.000.68.542.64.47.00 36.96LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL SW / METE2015-9448-8LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL SW /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 32.57TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W / METER 12016-1195-1TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W / METER111.000.68.542.63.47.00 34.79TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW / METER 12017-5147-6TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 38.68TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / METER 10002017-8264-6TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 17.74TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW / METER 12019-0786-2TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW / METER111.000.68.542.63.47.00 31.61PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE2019-4248-9PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /001.000.65.518.20.47.00 80.31PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /111.000.68.542.90.47.00 305.19PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /421.000.74.534.80.47.00 305.19PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 305.19PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /511.000.77.548.68.47.00 305.19PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /422.000.72.531.90.47.00 305.219TH/CASPER LANDSCAPED BED2022-5062-79TH/CASPER LANDSCAPED BED001.000.64.576.80.47.00 18.32TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / METER 100042022-8912-0TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 52.1033Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 48Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds34 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232004 6/28/2018(Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #17 250 5TH2022-9166-2CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #17 250 5TH001.000.66.518.30.47.00 4,797.57STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY / NOT METERE2023-8937-5STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY / NOT111.000.68.542.63.47.00 9.16CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 100012612024-3924-6CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,111.26SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 190TH ST SW2025-4064-7SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 190TH ST SW001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.74MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGATION & SUMP2026-2041-5MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGATION & SUMP001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.74TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW (FS #16)2028-0763-2TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW (FIRE001.000.66.518.30.47.00 19.83WWTP: 5/16-6/14/18 METER 1000135381: 2002030-9778-75/16-6/14/18 200 2ND AVE S / METER423.000.76.535.80.47.61 23,856.02VETERANS PLAZA METER 1000597278221732084VETERANS PLAZA METER 1000597278001.000.64.576.80.47.00 92.16Total :36,781.12232005 6/28/2018037303 SO SNOHOMISH CO FIRE & RESCUE EDMS 2018-7JUL-2018 FIRE SERVICES CONTRACTJul-2018 Fire Services Contract Payment001.000.39.522.20.51.00 614,893.17Total :614,893.17232006 6/28/2018074990 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES 1372311PLAN REVIEW SERVICES THRU 6/1/18Plan Review Services thru 6/1/18001.000.67.518.21.41.00 1,783.62Plan Review Services thru 6/1/1834Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 49Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds35 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232006 6/28/2018(Continued)074990 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES421.000.74.534.80.41.00 891.81Plan Review Services thru 6/1/18422.000.72.531.90.41.00 891.81Plan Review Services thru 6/1/18423.000.75.535.80.41.00 891.81Total :4,459.05232007 6/28/2018 068360 SUMMIT LAW GROUP 92831TEAMSTERS NEGOTIATIONSCivil Service001.000.22.521.10.41.00 60.00Parks001.000.64.571.21.41.00 676.80Water421.000.74.534.80.41.00 1,240.80Sewer423.000.75.535.80.41.00 1,240.80Storm422.000.72.531.90.41.00 1,240.80Street111.000.68.542.31.41.00 1,240.80Total :5,700.00232008 6/28/2018 074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC 4826SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES FOR JUNE 2018Social media services for June 2018001.000.61.557.20.41.00 300.00Total :300.00232009 6/28/2018040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18203421FLEET SHOP SUPPLIESFleet Shop Supplies511.000.77.548.68.31.20 902.0010.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.20 92.91TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES18203422Traffic - Supplies111.000.68.542.64.31.00 446.1835Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 50Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds36 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232009 6/28/2018(Continued)040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC10.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.64.31.00 45.96Total :1,487.05232010 6/28/2018071666 TETRA TECH INC 51293778E5FD.SERVICES THRU 2/23/18E5FD.Services thru 2/23/18422.000.72.594.31.65.41 3,506.09Total :3,506.09232011 6/28/2018072649 THE WIDE FORMAT COMPANY 108363PAPER FOR PLOT PRINTERPAPER FOR PLOT PRINTER001.000.62.524.10.31.00 562.53Total :562.53232012 6/28/2018041960 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC 56760HICKMAN PARK REMOVAL OF FENCEHICKMAN PARK REMOVAL OF FENCE001.000.64.576.80.41.00 875.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.41.00 90.13Total :965.13232013 6/28/2018042260 TRAFFIC SAFETY SUPPLY CO INV002399TRAFFIC - SUPPLIESTraffic - Supplies111.000.68.542.64.31.00 303.84Freight111.000.68.542.64.31.00 11.9110.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.64.31.00 32.52Total :348.27232014 6/28/2018 075762 VECA ELECTRIC COMPANY 85923WWTP CAT6 UPGRADE BILL #2WWTP CAT6 Upgrade Bill #2512.000.31.518.88.41.00 11,970.0010.3% Sales Tax512.000.31.518.88.41.00 1,232.9136Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 51Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds37 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232014 6/28/2018(Continued)075762 VECA ELECTRIC COMPANYCOURT & POLICE STATION CAT6 UPGRADE BILL85924Court & Police Station CAT6 upgrade512.000.31.518.88.41.00 17,640.0010.3% Sales Tax512.000.31.518.88.41.00 1,816.92Total :32,659.83232015 6/28/2018 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9808992180C/A 671247844-00001Cell Service-Eng001.000.67.518.21.42.00 56.51Cell Service Fac-Maint001.000.66.518.30.42.00 80.23Cell Service-PD001.000.41.521.22.42.00 283.71Cell Service-PW Street/Storm111.000.68.542.90.42.00 18.63Cell Service-PW Street/Storm422.000.72.531.90.42.00 18.63Cell Service-PW Water421.000.74.534.80.42.00 18.63Cell Service-PW Sewer423.000.75.535.80.42.00 55.91Cell Service-WWTP423.000.76.535.80.42.00 18.63Total :550.88232016 6/28/2018068259 WA ST CRIMINAL JUSTICE 201130572INV 201130572 EDMONDS PD - MACHADO DT MA2170-2 MACHADO DT MASTER INST.001.000.41.521.40.49.00 250.00Total :250.00232017 6/28/2018067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 60457INV#60457 - EDMONDS PDTOW 1998 CHEBY S10 BLACK #B83412V WA001.000.41.521.22.41.00 164.0010.4% Sales Tax37Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 52Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds38 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232017 6/28/2018(Continued)067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC001.000.41.521.22.41.00 17.06Total :181.06232018 6/28/2018075283 WAVE8136 50 211 00055035FIBER HIGH SPEED INTERNET SERVICEHigh Speed Internet service 07/01/18 -512.000.31.518.87.42.00 816.00Total :816.00232019 6/28/2018075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 10127924AFAC MAINT - EXCHANGESFac Maint - Exchanges001.000.66.518.30.31.00 114.82PM: LINERS10687158PM: LINERS001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1,270.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 130.81PM: BATH TISSUE10698330PM: BATH TISSUE001.000.64.576.80.31.00 21.8010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.25FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES10709146Fac Maint - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 226.0210.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 23.28FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES10711209Fac Maint - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1,174.4410.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 120.97Total :3,084.39232020 6/28/2018073552 WELCO SALES LLC 7486CITY CLERKS - COPY PAPER4-CASES OF X9000 COPY PAPER38Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 53Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds39 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232020 6/28/2018(Continued)073552 WELCO SALES LLC001.000.25.514.30.31.00 141.4010.3% Sales Tax001.000.25.514.30.31.00 14.56Total :155.96232021 6/28/2018072627 WEST SAFETY SERVICES INC 169489MONTHLY 911 DATABASE MAINTMonthly 911 database maint512.000.31.518.88.48.00 100.00Total :100.00232022 6/28/2018 076326 WILLIAM H REILLY & CO INC 1499WWTP: GEAR OILGEAR OIL423.000.76.535.80.31.00 70.00Freight423.000.76.535.80.31.00 32.9910.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.31.00 10.61Total :113.60232023 6/28/2018070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 1205JUN-18 RETAINERMonthly Retainer001.000.36.515.33.41.00 22,204.74Total :22,204.74232024 6/28/2018051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 22964TRAFFIC - BLANKSTraffic - Blanks111.000.68.542.64.31.00 1,173.10Freight111.000.68.542.64.31.00 29.2510.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.64.31.00 123.84Total :1,326.19Bank total : 1,529,639.93104 Vouchers for bank code :usbank1,529,639.93Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report10439Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 54Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/28/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds40 7:07:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount40Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 55Attachment: claim cks 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) 06/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds1 2:57:16PMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount6262018 6/26/2018062693 US BANK 7000HOPE- VISAParking- Hope001.000.62.524.10.43.00 18.00goods for Housing meeting001.000.62.524.10.49.00 4.95Total :22.95Bank total : 22.951 Vouchers for bank code :usbank22.95Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report11Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 56Attachment: wire 06-26-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E5FE STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC STM 183rd Pl SW Storm Repairs c491 E6FE SWR 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 E5CC SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB STR 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades i016 E6DC STR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA SWR 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB WTR 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA STR 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades i022 E7DA STR 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program i023 E7DB STR 2017 Overlay Program i018 E7CA SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA SWR 2017 Sewerline Overlays i020 E7CC STR 2017 Traffic Calming i021 E7AA WTR 2017 Waterline Overlays i019 E7CB WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6JB STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 E8FA STR 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project i032 E8DA STR 2018 Overlay Program i030 E8CB SWR 2018 Sewerline Overlays i035 E8CE SWR 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC STR 2018 Traffic Calming i027 E8AA WTR 2018 Waterline Overlays i034 E8CD WTR 2018 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 E8GA Revised 6/21/2018 4.2.c Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA STR 220th Adaptive i028 E8AB STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)c485 E6DA STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC STR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 E8CA STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA STR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 E8CC STR 89th Pl W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB FAC A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 E5LA STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE STR ADA Curb Ramps i033 E8DB STR ADA Transition Plan s016 E6DB STR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB STR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 E7DC STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)c482 E5JB STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c472 E5FC STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB PRK FAC Band Shell Replacement c477 E6MB WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating c473 E5KA STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD Revised 6/21/2018 4.2.c Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization s014 E6AA STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5GB STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC STR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive i011 E6FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)m013 E7FG STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB STR SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing c454 E4DB UTILITIES Standard Details Updates s010 E5NA STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA STR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB UTILITIES Utility Rate Update s013 E6JA PRK Veteran's Plaza c480 E6MA STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF PRK Waterfront Restoration m103 E7MA STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA PRK Yost Park Spa c494 E6MC Revised 6/21/2018 4.2.c Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study SWR E2GB c390 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) STR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project STR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring Revised 6/21/2018 4.2.c Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System STR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming STR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis STM E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility STM E5FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications WTR E5JA c468 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating FAC E5LA c476 A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers UTILITIES E5NA s010 Standard Details Updates STR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization STR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion STR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays STR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) STR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan STR E6DC i016 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades STR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program STM E6FA i011 Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements STM E6FC i012 3rd Ave Rain Gardens STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update STM E6FE c491 183rd Pl SW Storm Repairs SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project Revised 6/21/2018 4.2.c Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II SWR E6GC c492 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project UTILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Update WTR E6JB i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects WTR E6JC c493 2018 Waterline Replacement Project PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza PRK E6MB c477 FAC Band Shell Replacement PRK E6MC c494 Yost Park Spa STR E7AA i021 2017 Traffic Calming STR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STR E7CA i018 2017 Overlay Program WTR E7CB i019 2017 Waterline Overlays SWR E7CC i020 2017 Sewerline Overlays STR E7CD i025 89th Pl W Retaining Wall STR E7DA i022 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades STR E7DB i023 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program STR E7DC i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Restoration STR E8AA i027 2018 Traffic Calming STR E8AB i028 220th Adaptive STR E8CA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements STR E8CB i030 2018 Overlay Program STR E8CC i031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th WTR E8CD i034 2018 Waterline Overlays SWR E8CE i035 2018 Sewerline Overlays STR E8DA i032 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project STR E8DB i033 ADA Curb Ramps STM E8FA s018 2018 Lorian Woods Study SWR E8GA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor Revised 6/21/2018 4.2.c Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study SWR E2GB c390 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) STR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays STR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept Revised 6/21/2018 4.2.c Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project STR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program STM E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects WTR E5JA c468 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System STR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays FAC E5LA c476 A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers PRK E6MB c477 FAC Band Shell Replacement General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) STM E5FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements STR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II STM E6FE c491 183rd Pl SW Storm Repairs SWR E6GC c492 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR E6JC c493 2018 Waterline Replacement Project PRK E6MC c494 Yost Park Spa STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement SWR E8GA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays STR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays Revised 6/21/2018 4.2.c Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays STM E6FA i011 Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive STM E6FC i012 3rd Ave Rain Gardens SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project WTR E6JB i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects STR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion STR E6DC i016 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades STR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program STR E7CA i018 2017 Overlay Program WTR E7CB i019 2017 Waterline Overlays SWR E7CC i020 2017 Sewerline Overlays STR E7AA i021 2017 Traffic Calming STR E7DA i022 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades STR E7DB i023 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program STR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals STR E7CD i025 89th Pl W Retaining Wall STR E7DC i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements STR E8AA i027 2018 Traffic Calming STR E8AB i028 220th Adaptive STR E8CA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements STR E8CB i030 2018 Overlay Program STR E8CC i031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th STR E8DA i032 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project STR E8DB i033 ADA Curb Ramps WTR E8CD i034 2018 Waterline Overlays SWR E8CE i035 2018 Sewerline Overlays STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Restoration STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization UTILITIES E5NA s010 Standard Details Updates SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study UTILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Update STR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization STR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update STM E8FA s018 2018 Lorian Woods Study Revised 6/21/2018 4.2.c Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number FAC A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 E5LA FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA PRK FAC Band Shell Replacement c477 E6MB PRK Veteran's Plaza c480 E6MA PRK Waterfront Restoration m103 E7MA PRK Yost Park Spa c494 E6MC STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E5FE STM 183rd Pl SW Storm Repairs c491 E6FE STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 E8FA STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c472 E5FC STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive i011 E6FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)m013 E7FG STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB Revised 6/21/2018 4.2.c Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB STR 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades i016 E6DC STR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA STR 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades i022 E7DA STR 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program i023 E7DB STR 2017 Overlay Program i018 E7CA STR 2017 Traffic Calming i021 E7AA STR 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project i032 E8DA STR 2018 Overlay Program i030 E8CB STR 2018 Traffic Calming i027 E8AA STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)c485 E6DA STR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 E8CA STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA STR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 E8CC STR 89th Pl W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE STR ADA Curb Ramps i033 E8DB STR ADA Transition Plan s016 E6DB STR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA STR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 E7DC STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD STR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization s014 E6AA STR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB STR SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing c454 E4DB STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA Revised 6/21/2018 4.2.c Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA STR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA STR 220th Adaptive i028 E8AB SWR 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 E5CC SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA SWR 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA SWR 2017 Sewerline Overlays i020 E7CC SWR 2018 Sewerline Overlays i035 E8CE SWR 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 E8GA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5GB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC UTILITIES Standard Details Updates s010 E5NA UTILITIES Utility Rate Update s013 E6JA WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB WTR 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA WTR 2017 Waterline Overlays i019 E7CB WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6JB WTR 2018 Waterline Overlays i034 E8CD WTR 2018 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)c482 E5JB WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating c473 E5KA WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA Revised 6/21/2018 4.2.c Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 06-28-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) Payroll Earnings Summary ReportCity of EdmondsPay Period: 910 (06/21/2018 to 06/21/2018)Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class DescriptionKELLY DAYS BUY BACKKELLY DAY149976.00 43,674.82Total Net Pay: $34,108.53$43,674.82976.0006/28/2018Page 1 of 14.2.dPacket Pg. 69Attachment: Kelly Buy Back 06-21-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.) City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/3/2018 Appoint Kimberlee Armstrong for Position #1 to the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board EPFD Staff Lead: N/A Department: City Council Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History Kimberlee Armstrong has applied for Position #1 on the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board EPFD. Staff Recommendation Confirm the appointment of Kimberlee Armstrong to the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board EPFD. Narrative The Council interviewed Kimberlee Armstrong at the 7/3 Special meeting and is recommending confirmation. Attachments: Kimberlee Armstrong PFD application_Redacted Kimberlee Armstrong - Appointment to EPFD Board - June 2018 CoC_LetterOfSupport_Edmonds_PFD_Board_6-2018 4.3 Packet Pg. 70 4.3.a Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Kimberlee Armstrong PFD application_Redacted (Appoint Kimberlee Armstrong for Position #1 to the Edmonds Public Facilities 4.3.a Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Kimberlee Armstrong PFD application_Redacted (Appoint Kimberlee Armstrong for Position #1 to the Edmonds Public Facilities 4.3.a Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Kimberlee Armstrong PFD application_Redacted (Appoint Kimberlee Armstrong for Position #1 to the Edmonds Public Facilities 4.3.a Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Kimberlee Armstrong PFD application_Redacted (Appoint Kimberlee Armstrong for Position #1 to the Edmonds Public Facilities 4.3.a Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Kimberlee Armstrong PFD application_Redacted (Appoint Kimberlee Armstrong for Position #1 to the Edmonds Public Facilities 4.3.a Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Kimberlee Armstrong PFD application_Redacted (Appoint Kimberlee Armstrong for Position #1 to the Edmonds Public Facilities Memorandum To: Edmonds City Council Cc: Mayor Dave Earling From: Edmonds Public Facilities District Date: June 28, 2018 Re: Recommending Kimberlee Armstrong for Appointment to the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board of Directors Per the Interlocal Agreement between Edmonds Public Facilities District (EPFD) and the City of Edmonds, approval of Edmonds City Council is required for appointment to the EPFD Board, and/or renewal of EPFD Board terms. On Thursday, June 28, 2018, the Board of Directors of Edmonds Public Facilities District voted unanimously to recommend Kimberlee Armstrong for appointment to the EPFD Board to fill the open position resulting from the completion of Marla Miller’s term as a PFD Board member. If appointed, Dr. Armstrong’s first term will expire on June 30, 2022, as noted below. The current Members of the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board of Directors respectfully request that the Edmonds City Council appoint Kimberlee Armstrong to the EPFD Board, Position #1, and that the appointment be effective immediately. The current term for Position #1 is scheduled to expire June 30, 2022. The additional members of the EPFD Board include: Mr. Mike Popke – President Mr. Larry Ehl – Vice President Mr. David Brewster Mr. Kevin McKay Mr. Scott James, Finance Director, City of Edmonds – Ex Officio – Treasurer* We wish to thank the Edmonds City Council for your continued support of Edmonds Public Facilities District and Edmonds Center for the Arts. *Per the Interlocal Agreement between Edmonds Public Facilities District and the City of Edmonds, the City’s Finance Director, by virtue of his/her position, serves as an Ex- Officio Member and Treasurer of the EPFD Board. 4.3.b Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Kimberlee Armstrong - Appointment to EPFD Board - June 2018 (Appoint Kimberlee Armstrong for Position #1 to the Edmonds June 28, 2018 Edmonds City Council 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear City Council Members; The Edmonds Chamber of Commerce would like to recommend Dr. Kimberlee Armstrong to fill the current vacancy on the Edmonds Public Facilities District (EPFD) Board. Dr. Armstrong, the Director Equity and Public Relations with Edmonds School District has many years of experience in public education leadership, finance, facilities oversight and community services. Dr. Armstrong is eminently qualified for this position and would be an incredible asset to the PFD. In addition to her many years of service in the public education sector, she has engaged locally by focusing on inclusivity and equity through her membership on both school district and private committees in the region. Sincerely, Greg Urban President & CEO Edmonds Chamber of Commerce cc Joe McIalwain 4.3.c Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: CoC_LetterOfSupport_Edmonds_PFD_Board_6-2018 (Appoint Kimberlee Armstrong for Position #1 to the Edmonds Public City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/3/2018 Park & Recreation Month Proclamation Staff Lead: Mayor Earling Department: Mayor's Office Preparer: Carolyn LaFave Background/History Each year since 1985 Americans have celebrated National Park & Recreation Month during the month of July to recognize the importance of parks and recreation in establishing and maintaining quality of life and contributing to the physical, economic and environmental well-being of communities. Staff Recommendation Narrative Park and Recreation programs are of immense value to the community. Please join in celebrating Park and Recreation month and in thanking the staff for all they do to make this community a better place. Attachments: P&R_July_2018 5.1 Packet Pg. 79 5.1.a Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: P&R_July_2018 (Park & Recreation Month Proclamation) City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/3/2018 Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental Staff Lead: Maureen Judge/ Diane Buckshnis Department: City Council Preparer: Maureen Judge Background/History The Edmonds Marsh is of considerable pride to the community and is an ecologically unique saltwater marsh, hydrologically connected to the uplands and Puget Sound and is part of many of the City’s planning documents, Shoreline Master Program and Critical Area Ordinance. Restoration of the Edmonds Marsh, which includes the Daylighting of Willow Creek, will assist in potential impacts of climate change and sea level rise, as well as stormwater management, educational and scientific education value and should be considered a high priority for completion. From 2011-2016, the City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Department began a feasibility and then design for the Daylighting of Willow Creek which would assist in restoring the Edmonds Marsh and over $500,000 has been received from federal and local grant dollars for this effort. In 2012 the City Council set aside $200,000 showing a dedication to this environmental asset and in 2017, an additional $100,000 was set aside to further start the funding of this complex project. An ordinance was established creating Fund 017 for the restoration and preservation of the Edmonds Marsh; this will allow citizens to donate funds to be part of the effort of showing ownership in saving our marsh. Funds donated will be tax deductible and will be solely dedicated to our Edmonds Marsh restoration and preservation. In 2017, Council approved the process of obtaining an independent contractor to provide a scientific study as part of the SMP process of understanding this native wildlife preserve and providing information regarding wildlife habitat, vegetation and a variety of other issues. Windward Environmental LLC (Windward) was selected and they began an 18-month scientific study in April. The tasks were not meant to be done in the sequential process and a copy of the schedule is found in attachment A: Final Project Schedule Table Task 2 of the Edmonds Marsh Study Project was completed in May 2018, and Windward brought white papers (deliverables) to the Marsh Study Task Force for review on May 9th. Windward and the Marsh Study Task Force then met with the City of Edmonds Director Shane Hope and Environmental Programs Manager Kernen Lien to go over the white papers and maps (see attachment B and C) and discuss the upcoming schedule and methods to the process. The power point presentation will be the summation of these white papers; this document will be distributed to Council on 7/3. Also, during the month Windward met with a number of stakeholders including the Port of Edmonds, the Save our Marsh Group and many others. 5.2 Packet Pg. 81 With the completion of Task 2, they will be moving onto Task 1 which is the draft monitoring plan (see attachment E) and It is anticipated they will begin the 16-month field study on July 9th. As many know, the Council commissioned this Study to have a better understanding of the wildlife habitat, buffer ranges needed for the wildlife, food availability and better quantifying and qualifying the stormwater and/or freshwater concerns with the gate closed continually during the late fall and early spring months. Additionally, with grant funding from WRIA8 (about $500,000), the City has commissioned studies and performed field work to better understanding the sediment, hydrology and impact of Daylighting Willow Creek as well as preliminary design features. Of concern also is the vegetation for the wildlife and what is needed for enhancements such as large woody debris and the impacts of both BNSF and Unocal not allowing access onto their property. Windward will attempt to gather all these reports and synthesize them for summary and appendices data for baseline references for their 16-month data collecting task. Lastly, the City of Edmonds Dayton Street Pump Station has been stalled by potential FEMA grant funding which will have a tremendous impact on the flooding along Dayton Street from Shellabarger Marsh. The consultants have been asked to do an oversight review of the City owned property on that side of 104. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative Windward is presenting Marsh Study Task 2 findings to the Council as a whole for review and comment; this includes estimated buffer evaluation. As part of the review, Windward will also include an overview of the project and the timeline for the upcoming Marsh Study Task 1. Notes for budgeting purposes. · The total budget for Task 1 is $102,559; in May 2018, $18,316.25 was expended on Windward labor for this task. · The total budget for Task 2 is $34,399; in May 2018, $10,821.25 was expended on Windward labor for this task. A total of $26,760 has been expended on Task 2 to date; this task is understood to be largely complete. · The total budget for Task 3 is $8,180; in May 2018, $970.00 was expended on this task. There have been no changes in scope to date for the project. Attachments: Attachment A_FINAL project sched table_3_21_18 Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 Attachment C_Final Buffer Eval Rpt_6-1-18 with photolog Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 Attachment D_Final Marsh Budget 5.2 Packet Pg. 82 ,Table 2. Project schedule Project Task/Milestone Estimated Initiation Date Estimated Completion Date Kick-off Meeting with City Council January 1, 2018 February 27, 2018 Contract Approval by City Council March 27, 2018 Task 1: Baseline Analysis – develop monitoring study work plan Prepare draft work plan May 7, 2018 June 1, 2018 City review of work plan June 4, 2018 June 15, 2018 Revise work plan per City comments June 18, 2018 June 29, 2018 Task 1: Baseline Analysis - field effort one field event per quarter for a year July 2018 June 2019 Task 1: Baseline Analysis – data report Prepare draft data report July 1, 2019 August 2, 2019 City review of data report August 5, 2019 August 16, 2019 Revise data report per City comments August 19, 2019 August 30, 2019 Task 2: Evaluation of Wetland Buffers Prepare draft deliverables April 9, 2018 May 4, 2018 City review of deliverables May 7, 2018 May 18, 2018 Revise deliverables per City comments May 21, 2018 June 1, 2018 Task 3: 2019 SMP Update Information Meet with City and prepare draft deliverables (text and map) October 1, 2018 October 19, 2018 City review of draft deliverables October 22, 2018 November 2, 2018 Revise deliverables per City comments November 5, 2018 November 16, 2018 Task 4: Analyze Impacts from Daylighting Willow Creek using REA/HEA model Develop model and draft tech memo March 4, 2019 March 29, 2019 City review of draft tech memo April 1, 2019 April 12, 2019 Revise tech memo per City comments April 15, 2019 April 26, 2019 Task 5: Vegetation Enhancement Project Impacts Draft tech memo July 30, 2018 August 24, 2018 City review of draft tech memo August 27, 2018 September 14, 2018 Revise tech memo per City comments September 17, 2018 September 28, 2018 Task 6: Preparation for a Long-term Watershed Management Study Meet with City and draft tech memo May 1, 2019 May 31, 2019 City review of draft tech memo June 3, 2019 June 14, 2019 Revise tech memo per City comments June17, 2019 June 28, 2019 Final meetings, presentation, document revisions August 1, 2019 August 30, 2019 Project completion September 13, 2019 5.2.a Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Attachment A_FINAL project sched table_3_21_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward EVALUATION OF BUFFER WIDTHS AND ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS: A REVIEW TO SUPPORT THE EDMONDS MARSH STUDY Prepared for Edmonds City Council 121 - 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA June 27, 2018 Prepared by: 200 West Mercer Street, Suite 401  Seattle, Washington  98119 5.2.b Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) 5.2.b Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Study Buffer Width Evaluation June 27, 2018 i Table of Contents Table of Contents i Tables i Figures i Acronyms ii 1 Introduction 1 2 Ecological Functions Provided by Wetland Buffers 5 2.1 WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS 5 2.1.1 Sediment removal 7 2.1.2 Nutrient removal 10 2.1.3 Toxic pollutant removal 13 2.2 MAINTAINING AN APPROPRIATE MICROCLIMATE 15 2.3 INPUTS OF LARGE WOODY DEBRIS 15 2.4 PROTECTING WILDLIFE HABITAT 18 2.5 PROTECTION FROM DISTURBANCE 21 3 Conclusions 25 4 References 27 Tables Table 1. Buffer width recommendations for general water quality protection and maintenance of natural water temperatures 6 Table 2. Buffer width recommendations for sediment removal 8 Table 3. Buffer width recommendations for nutrient removal 11 Table 4. Buffer width recommendations for toxic pollutant removal 14 Table 5. Buffer width recommendations for providing large woody debris inputs 17 Table 6. Buffer width recommendations for providing wildlife habitat 19 Table 7. Buffer width recommendations for protecting wetlands from disturbance 23 Figures Figure 1. Edmonds and Shellabarger Marsh Vicinity Map 2 5.2.b Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Study Buffer Width Evaluation June 27, 2018 ii Acronyms City City of Edmonds FEMAT Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team LWD large woody debris Marsh Edmonds Marsh TSS total suspended solids 5.2.b Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Study Buffer Width Evaluation June 27, 2018 1 1 Introduction The Edmonds Marsh (Marsh) is a tidally influenced1 wetland occupying approximately 23 ac in the heart of Edmonds, Washington (Figure 1); it is the remnant of a once much larger (40-ac) estuarine wetland along the shores of Puget Sound Sea- Run Consulting et al. (2007). The western portion of the Marsh supports saltmarsh plants; it is brackish in winter months, when the tide gate downstream of the Marsh typically is closed, and saline in spring and summer months, when the tide gate typically is open (Sea-Run Consulting et al. 2007). The eastern portion of the Marsh is a predominantly freshwater system fed by two tributary creeks—Willow Creek and Shellabarger Creek. The drainage basin of Willow Creek is approximately 393 ac in size, and encompasses residential land to the south and east of Edmonds Marsh (Shannon & Wilson 2015). The drainage basin of Shellabarger Creek is approximately 378 ac in size, and encompasses residential and commercial land to the north, east, and south of Edmonds Marsh. Edmonds Marsh provides valuable habitat to birds and other wildlife, in addition to conveying a large quantity of storm- and surface water. This report is intended to help the City of Edmonds (City) better understand existing ecological conditions of the Marsh and its buffer areas. Specifically, the report presents findings of a literature review whose purpose was to identify the widths of buffer zones that allow them to provide the following ecological functions:  Improving water quality (removing sediment, nutrients, and toxic substances)  Protecting habitat and maintaining habitat connectivity  Maintaining an appropriate microclimate for Marsh species  Providing inputs of large woody debris (LWD) to support Marsh functioning  Preventing disturbance by human activity It also describes the ways in which wetland and riparian buffers are able to provide the five functions listed above. In combination with a site-specific evaluation of existing Marsh buffers (separate companion report), this information can help guide recommendations for habitat improvements within the buffer zones of Edmonds Marsh and the nearby Shellabarger Marsh. 1 The Marsh is tidally influenced when the tide gate downstream of the marsh is open, typically in spring and summer months from April through September (Sea-Run Consulting et al. 2007). 5.2.b Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) 5.2.b Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) Edmonds MarshHarbor SquareUnocal SiteWillow CreekFishHatcheryEdmondsCity ParkEdmondsMarinaEdmondsWastewaterTreatmentPlantBurlington Northern Santa Fe RailwayMarinaBeachParkR e s ide n ti a lDayton St.2nd Ave. S.City ofEdmondsParcelShellabargerMarsh¬«104Figure 1. Edmonds and Shellabarger Marsh VicinityMapPrepared by mikey, 6/1/2018; W:\Projects\Edmonds Marsh\Data\GIS\Maps and Analyses\Buffer_Zone_Evaluation\Fig 1_6862_Edmonds and Shellabarger Marsh Vicinity Map.mxd±0 0.05 0.1Miles0 400 800FeetParcelLLCenvironmental Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User CommunityContent may not reflect National Geographic's current map policy. Sources: National Geographic, Esri, DeLorme, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS,NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp., Snohomish County[5.2.bPacket Pg. 90Attachment: Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 (Marsh Study Update from 5.2.b Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Study Buffer Width Evaluation June 27, 2018 3 The information in this report was gathered by reviewing scientific literature and guidance documents on wetland and riparian buffers,2 with a priority on studies of the Pacific Northwest and western United States. Most of the relevant information was found in reports that compiled, thoroughly reviewed, and summarized a substantial subset of the available scientific literature and regulatory guidance. A few studies were included in more than one larger review. 2 Information on riparian buffers, buffers along streams and rivers, is considered to be applicable to Edmonds Marsh, particularly since Willow and Shellabarger creeks enter the Marsh within its buffer zones. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) 5.2.b Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Study Buffer Width Evaluation June 27, 2018 5 2 Ecological Functions Provided by Wetland Buffers As described in the following subsections, wetland buffers can improve water quality, maintain microclimate conditions for plants and animals, provide inputs of LWD, offer wildlife habitat, and reduce the impact of anthropogenic activities. The functioning of a buffer zone varies with its size, shape, slope, soils, vegetation, and characteristics of its watershed (Sheldon et al. 2005). The multiple ecological functions that buffer zones provide are interrelated. 2.1 WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS Wetland buffers can improve water quality by removing sediment, nutrients, and toxic pollutants from surface water inputs (e.g., stormwater runoff), and by moderating water temperatures. In general, the most effective water quality benefits are realized when buffers are wide, gently sloping, and densely vegetated, primarily because these characteristics lengthen the time it takes surface water to flow from the outer edge of the buffer zone to the wetland (Castelle et al. 1992; McMillan 2000; Sheldon et al. 2005). The shade provided by effective wetland buffers helps maintain cool and consistent water temperatures, fluctuations of which can cause fish eggs to die and invertebrate populations to decline, among other adverse effects (Brennan et al. 2009; Christensen 2000). Additionally, higher water temperatures can accelerate algae growth, increase concentrations of dissolved nutrients, and decrease the solubility of oxygen, in turn creating an oxygen-poor aquatic environment ((Johnson et al. 2000; Castelle et al. 1992; McMillan 2000; Karr and Schlosser 1977). To protect general water quality and maintain natural water temperatures, a buffer width of approximately 50 to 100 ft was consistently recommended in the literature (Table 1). In one case, however (Brennan et al. 2009), a buffer width of 358 ft (109 m) was recommended. This width represents the average of buffer widths provided in multiple studies that achieved what the author considered “at least 80 percent effectiveness.”3 3 One of the studies included in Brennan et al. (2009) reported a width of 1,969 ft (600 m), which achieved 99% sediment and pollutant removal efficiency (and provided “excellent” wildlife value). 5.2.b Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Study Buffer Width Evaluation June 27, 2018 6 Table 1. Buffer width recommendations for general water quality protection and maintenance of natural water temperatures Buffer Width for Level of Ecological Functioning Notes Reference High Low ≥100 ft buffers <50 ft wide not recommended for temperature moderation A review of buffer effectiveness studies in Washington and other states, as well as a field study of buffers in King and Snohomish counties (Washington). Authors conclude that buffers ≥100 ft wide are generally needed to prevent adverse water quality impacts; review focuses on wetlands. Castelle et al. (1992) 66–98 ft for moderation of water temperature nr A review of studies in Washington and other states focused on wetlands; however, the studies reviewed regarding the ability of buffers to moderate water temperatures were conducted on stream systems Castelle et al. (1994) ≥49–98 ft (15–30 m) for maintaining general buffer functions, including water quality 98 ft (30 m) for shading and maintenance of natural water temperatures <33 ft (10m) A literature review examining effective width of stream buffers based on studies in western Washington and in other states and countries with temperate, humid climates. Authors note consistency of buffer width recommendations despite wide geographic range of study sites. Johnson and Ryba (1992) ~26–148 ft (8–45 m) nr A review of studies throughout the United States. Desbonnet et al. (1994) ≥49–98 ft (15–30 m) for general water quality improvement and maintaining natural water temperatures < 49-98 ft (15-30 m) considered to be ineffective for water quality improvement Master’s thesis reviewing studies in Washington and other states; the studies reviewed regarding the ability of buffers to moderate water temperatures were conducted in stream systems. McMillan (2000) 358 ft (109 m) for water quality benefits 79 ft (24 m) for shade nr A review of studies in Washington and other states with the goal of protecting and providing marine riparian functions along Puget Sound shorelines. Buffer widths in “High” column at left represent the average of all literature reviewed on widths that are ≥80% “effective” in removing sediment and other pollutants. Brennan et al. (2009) ≥ 100 ft for effective shading and maintaining natural water temperatures nr A review of studies in Washington, Oregon, California, and elsewhere on riparian buffers for rivers and streams. Widths of 72–150 ft provided shade sufficient to maintain background water temperatures; however, a minimum width of 100 ft was recommended. Christensen (2000) Note: All buffer widths are shown in feet; metric equivalents are included only for data originally reported in metric units. nr – not reported 5.2.b Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 (Marsh Study Update from FINAL Edmonds Marsh Study Buffer Width Evaluation June 27, 2018 7 2.1.1 Sediment removal Variables that contribute to the sediment removal efficiency of wetland buffers and riparian areas include the width of the buffer area, the velocity of the surface water flowing through the buffer, vegetation type and density, presence of LWD, and the roughness of the ground surface within the buffer4 (Sheldon et al. 2005; Desbonnet et al. 1994; Polyakov et al. 2005). Buffers provide the highest water quality function when flow occurs as sheet flow and shallow groundwater (Castelle et al. 1992; McMillan 2000), regimes that require the buffer to resist channelization. In slowing flow rate and providing obstructions to trap particulate material, vegetation and LWD not only help resist channelization (Castelle et al. 1992; Sheldon et al. 2005) but they also allow the settling of sediment and its adsorbed pollutants. Some of the runoff moving slowly through the buffer as sheet flow can seep into the ground, where roots in the buffer zone provide further filtration. As shown in Table 2, buffers 30 to 100 ft wide were most commonly reported as being able to remove the majority of sediment loads. The greatest benefit in sediment removal occurred at the outer edges of the buffer zone, with less incremental improvement as buffer width increases (McMillan 2000). Only slight increases in removal efficiency with increasing buffer width were reported for buffers wider than 82 ft (25 m) (Desbonnet et al. 1994). Larger buffer widths were required to increase removal when the slope was greater than 5%, to achieve higher removal rates (up to 95%), and when removing very small particles such as clays (McMillan 2000; Sheldon et al. 2005). 4 Roughness of the ground surface is the friction or resistance that the buffer surface provides against water flow; it is affected by the presence, amount, and characteristics of downed material; LWD; and vegetation. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Study Buffer Width Evaluation June 27, 2018 8 Table 2. Buffer width recommendations for sediment removal Buffer Width for Level of Ecological Functioninga Notes Reference High Quality Low Quality 50–80 ft nr A review of buffer effectiveness studies in Washington and other states, and a field study of buffers in King and Snohomish counties (Washington); 80-ft buffer width removed 92% of sediment in one study cited in reference. Castelle et al. (1992) ~16–49 ft (5–15 m) for grass buffer to remove all but fine sediment when slope is ≤ 5% ~82–98 ft (25–30 m) capable of sediment reduction by ≥ 7 5% ~197–328 ft (60–100 m) needed for 50% sediment reduction when slope is > 5% nr Master’s thesis reviewing studies in Washington and other states. McMillan (2000) 80–200 ft generally able to remove 75–95% of sediment load nr Wetlands in Washington State Vol. 1, including a literature review of wetland buffer functions. Range in “High” column at left based on five of the eight studies summarized in this reference. Sheldon et al. (2005) 15–30 ft expected to remove “much of the sediment, depending on site conditions” 30–100 ft “will remove pollutants more consistently” nr A review of “several hundred scientific studies and analyses of buffer performance” in Washington and other states to help determine buffer width recommendations. McElfish et al. (2008) ≥ 33–200 ft (10–61 m) nr A review of studies in Washington and other states. Castelle et al. (1994) ≥ 82 ft (25 m) for ≥ 80% sediment removalb ≥ 197 ft (60 m) for ≥ 80% TSS removal nr A review of studies in Washington and other states with the goal of protecting and providing marine riparian functions along Puget Sound shorelines. Functional curves (FEMAT curves) plotting “the relationship between the effectiveness of a mature forest buffer at providing an ecosystem function at various buffer widths” were used to derive recommendations in “High” column at left. Brennan et al. (2009) 100 ft nr A review of studies in Washington, Oregon, California, and elsewhere on riparian buffers for rivers and streams. In most studies reviewed, width of 100–300 ft effectively protected receiving waters from sediment inputs; however, a minimum width of 100 ft was recommended to remove the majority of sediment load. Christensen (2000) 5.2.b Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 (Marsh Study Update from FINAL Edmonds Marsh Study Buffer Width Evaluation June 27, 2018 9 Buffer Width for Level of Ecological Functioninga Notes Reference High Quality Low Quality 98–125 ft (30–38 m) nr A literature review examining effective width of stream buffers based on studies in western Washington and in other states and countries with temperate, humid climates. Authors note consistency of buffer width recommendations despite wide geographic range of study sites. Range in “High” column at left based on range for sediment removal most frequently recommended in the literature reviewed. The 125-ft recommendation was for a sediment removal efficiency of 75%. Johnson and Ryba (1992) ~82 ft (25 m) expected to achieve 80% sediment reduction nr A review of studies throughout the US; buffer effectiveness (primarily grass) modeled by fitting curves to available data on buffer-induced water quality improvements. Studies on forested buffers showed high sediment removal values. Desbonnet et al. (1994) ~33 ft (10 m) with 9% slope for vegetated buffers (primarily applicable to grass buffers) nr A review of studies from the East Coast, the Midwest, southern states, and some European countries examining sediment removal ability of riparian buffer zones, vegetated filter strips, and grassed waterways. Regression models developed from available data were used to recommend optimal buffer width for sediment removal. Primary reliance on studies of grassed buffers/waterways or vegetated filter strips. Liu et al. (2008) 15-ft buffer reduced TSS by 66% nr Effectiveness of vegetated filter strips in agricultural settings on the East Coast. Magette et al. (1989) a All buffer widths are shown in feet; metric equivalents are included only for data originally reported in metric units. b This buffer width recommendation originated from the study by Desbonnet et al. (1994). FEMAT – Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior) nr – not reported TSS – total suspended solids (includes bacteria, algae, and other solids, not only suspended sediment) 5.2.b Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 (Marsh Study Update from FINAL Edmonds Marsh Study Buffer Width Evaluation June 27, 2018 10 Wider buffers are necessary when adjacent land is in high-intensity use or characterized by steep slopes (McElfish et al. 2008). Sediment removal efficiency decreases as buffer slope increases (McMillan 2000), as reflected in Table 2. As the buffer slope increases, water velocity increases and the length of time water spends in contact with the buffer decreases; therefore, the buffer has less opportunity to remove sediments. In addition, channels are more likely to form in buffer zones as water velocity increases. A buffer’s ability to remove sediment decreases over time and with more runoff events because the buffer becomes saturated with removed sediments (Sheldon et al. 2005; Magette et al. 1989). The vegetation and other structures (e.g., LWD) within buffer areas slow the flow of water and help to hold soil in place. By thus reducing the potential for soil erosion, minimizing the development of channelized flow paths, preventing entrainment of solids in runoff, and allowing for more water infiltration into subsurface soils, buffers help maintain bank integrity and provide “stability to streams” (Castelle et al. 1992; McMillan 2000; Christensen 2000). 2.1.2 Nutrient removal Nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus occur naturally in soluble (bioavailable) forms and insoluble (non-bioavailable) forms. During the process of eutrophication, excess bioavailable nutrients can cause rapid increases in plant growth (e.g., algae blooms), the eventual decomposition of which can decrease dissolved oxygen concentrations in aquatic systems. Insufficient dissolved oxygen, in turn, can cause plants and animals to die (McMillan 2000; Karr and Schlosser 1977). Increased water temperatures can also contribute to eutrophication by causing insoluble nutrients bound to sediment to dissolve into the water column and become bioavailable (Karr and Schlosser 1977). In helping to shade streams and wetlands, vegetated buffers reduce solar heating of water and help control input of nutrients to aquatic systems. Although many of the nutrient removal studies reviewed were conducted in agricultural areas or used grassy filter strips, Edmonds Marsh buffers would be expected to provide some of the same functionality. Overall, nutrients bound to sediments are removed more quickly (i.e., within a shorter buffer width) than dissolved nutrients, whose removal requires longer residence times (Sheldon et al. 2005). As with sediment removal, nutrient removal is enhanced when the buffer contains shallow slopes, is densely vegetated, and otherwise provides conditions in which water is in contact with fine roots in the surface layers of the soil. As shown in Table 3, buffer widths of 100 ft or less provide at least partial nutrient removal. The variability in the recommended widths has been attributed to a number of factors, including differences in site-specific study setting (field vs. experimental plots), nutrient loading rate, and buffer zone soil and vegetation (Sheldon et al. 2005). 5.2.b Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Study Buffer Width Evaluation June 27, 2018 11 Table 3. Buffer width recommendations for nutrient removal Buffer Width for Level of Ecological Functioninga High Low Notes Reference ≥ 20 ft (6 m) for nitrogen removal ≥ 13 ft (4 m) for phosphorus removalb nr Master’s thesis reviewing studies in Washington and other states. McMillan (2000) 12.5–860 ft 75 ft (23 m) A review of buffer effectiveness studies in Washington and other states, and a field study of buffers in King and Snohomish counties (Washington). In one study, a buffer 75 ft wide was inadequate for nutrient removal from residential development runoff. Range in “High” column at left represents the range of buffer widths recommended in studies cited in this reference. Castelle et al. (1992) 15–66 ft (4.6–20 m) for 47–99% removal of nitrogen load 13–279 ft (4–85 m) for 50–90% removal of phosphorus loadb, c nr Wetlands in Washington State Vol. 1, including a literature review of wetland buffer functions. The 279-ft value reported in “High” column at left is buffer width for 80% total phosphorus removal. Sheldon et al. (2005) 100 ft nr A review of studies in Washington, Oregon, California, and elsewhere focused on riparian buffers for rivers and streams. Widths of 33–200 ft adequately removed nutrients; however, 100-ft minimum was recommended. Christensen (2000) 13-141 ft (4-43 m)b nr A literature review examining effective width of stream buffers in western Washington and in other states and countries with temperate, humid climates. Authors note consistency of buffer width recommendations despite wide geographic range of study sites. Johnson and Ryba (1992) 30 ft (9.2 m) 15 ft (4.6 m) did not reduce total nitrogen loads but; reduced total phosphorus load by 27% Effectiveness of vegetated filter strips in agricultural settings on the East Coast. Magette et al. (1989) 5.2.b Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 (Marsh Study Update from FINAL Edmonds Marsh Study Buffer Width Evaluation June 27, 2018 12 Buffer Width for Level of Ecological Functioninga High Low Notes Reference ~197 ft (60 m) expected to remove 80% of nitrogen ~279 ft (85 m) expected to remove 80% of phosphorus nr A review of studies throughout the US. Buffer effectiveness modeled by fitting curves to available data on water quality improvements. Desbonnet et al. (1994) 15–30 ft expected to remove “much” of the nutrient load, “depending on site conditions” 30–100 ft “will remove pollutants more consistently” nr A review of “several hundred scientific studies and analyses of buffer performance” in Washington and other states to help determine buffer width recommendations. McElfish et al. (2008) a All buffer widths are shown in feet; metric equivalents are included only for data originally reported in metric units. b The minimum recommended buffer width of 13 ft provided in these 3 studies originated from a study by Doyle et al. (1977). c The recommended buffer width of 279 ft provided in this study originated from the Desbonnet et al. (1994) study, which is also cited in this table. nr – not reported 5.2.b Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 (Marsh Study Update from FINAL Edmonds Marsh Study Buffer Width Evaluation June 27, 2018 13 2.1.3 Toxic pollutant removal Toxic pollutants include bacteria, metals, and pesticides (McMillan 2000). Buffers can help remove toxics from water via several processes, including through the removal of sediments (to which toxic pollutants like metals are often adhered), adsorption, chemical precipitation, photochemical oxidation, biodegradation, and plant uptake (McMillan 2000; Sheldon et al. 2005). Buffer width recommendations for removal of toxic pollutants are noted in Table 4. Specific width recommendations generally were found only for fecal coliform bacteria and other microorganisms, although one study from the southeastern US recommended buffer widths for the removal of pesticide residues. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Study Buffer Width Evaluation June 27, 2018 14 Table 4. Buffer width recommendations for toxic pollutant removal Buffer Width for Level of Ecological Functioninga Notes Reference High Low ≥115 ft (35 m) to remove microorganisms sufficient for primary contact recreational use < 115 ft (35m) A review of studies in Washington state, in one of which Young et al. (1980) buffer width of ~115 ft was necessary to reduce total coliform levels to “acceptable levels.” McMillan (2000) 98-ft grass buffer reduces fecal coliform by 60%b nr A review of buffer effectiveness studies in Washington and other states, and a field study of buffers in King and Snohomish counties (Washington). Two studies examined fecal coliform removal in buffers. Value in “High” column at left is from one study cited in reference. Castelle et al. (1992) 12.5–98+ ft for fecal coliform removal (98 ft reduced fecal coliform by 60%)b ~49 ft for pesticide residue removal nr Wetlands in Washington State Vol. 1, including a literature review of wetland buffer functions. Width range reported in “High” column as left is based on two of the three studies summarized; the third (Young et al. 1980) is included separately above. Width for pesticide residue removal is from a study in the southeastern US. Sheldon et al. (2005) ~75–300 ft (23–92 m) to reduce fecal coliforms < 33ft (10 m) A literature review examining effective width of stream buffers based on studies in western Washington and in other states and countries with temperate, humid climates. Authors note consistency of buffer width recommendations despite wide geographic range of study sites. Range in “High” column at left is based on two studies. Johnson and Ryba (1992) a All buffer widths are shown in feet; metric equivalents are included only for data originally reported in metric units. b The information provided in both of these studies indicating that a 98-ft grass buffer reduces fecal coliform by 60% originated from a study by Grismer (1981). nr – not reported 5.2.b Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 (Marsh Study Update from FINAL Edmonds Marsh Study Buffer Width Evaluation June 27, 2018 15 2.2 MAINTAINING AN APPROPRIATE MICROCLIMATE Microclimates can be defined as small areas created by vegetation and other habitat structures (e.g., large rocks or pieces of LWD) that help regulate the temperature of air, soil, and water; the moisture content of air, soil, and or sediment; and degree of exposure to wind. Buffers can produce valuable microclimates in a wetland environment. For example, buffer vegetation can reduce the extreme temperatures of peak summer and winter seasons, which benefits species whose tolerance for temperature or moisture fluctuation is narrow (Brennan et al. 2009). Air and soil temperature and humidity can also be moderated by the shading and wind-blocking functions of buffer vegetation and other habitat structures (Christensen 2000). These protections support semi-aquatic species by creating consistent, habitable temperatures as well as physical shelter (Christensen 2000). Specific buffer width recommendations found with respect to microclimate were related to providing shade and maintaining natural water temperatures. These recommendations are summarized in Table 1. 2.3 INPUTS OF LARGE WOODY DEBRIS LWD is the term commonly used to describe large pieces of dead wood present in a natural area. Generally, LWD can include standing snags (as when a tree or portion of a tree dies but remains standing) and pieces that have fallen or otherwise remain on the ground (such as a large log laying on the ground, or a trunk remaining where a large tree was felled). LWD provides complex habitat features for invertebrates and wildlife, and can also serve as “nurse logs,” providing habitat for native plants (Sheldon et al. 2005). Insects and other invertebrates feed off the detritus produced by LWD, and many species live within or beneath pieces of LWD (Sheldon et al. 2005; Brennan et al. 2009). Avian species utilize both standing snags and fallen wood for roosting, nesting, and foraging (Sheldon et al. 2005; Bottorff 2009). LWD also provides refuge and denning habitat for many native mammal species (Bottorff 2009), and the species richness (diversity) of small mammals in wetlands of the Puget Sound region was found to be closely related to the quantity of LWD within the buffer areas (Sheldon et al. 2005). LWD provides important habitat structure and cover for fish, and in streams it contributes to the formation of pool habitat (Sheldon et al. 2005; Christensen 2000; Gurnell et al. 2002). LWD also provides organic matter inputs to streams and other water bodies (Christensen 2000). In buffer zones, LWD helps to maintain water temperature, trap sediment, and control bank erosion (as discussed in Section 2.1) (Sheldon et al. 2005; Brennan et al. 2009). LWD is also able to moderate soil temperatures and moisture conditions (Brennan et al. 2009). 5.2.b Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Study Buffer Width Evaluation June 27, 2018 16 As shown in Table 5, a buffer width of 100 to 200 ft is typically recommended for provision of LWD to adjacent aquatic systems. Most of the research on this topic has been conducted on stream and river systems. Factors affecting the variability in the buffer width recommendations include the types of vegetation growing in the buffer, the heights of mature trees present, and the slope of the buffer zone (Brennan et al. 2009). 5.2.b Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Study Buffer Width Evaluation June 27, 2018 17 Table 5. Buffer width recommendations for providing large woody debris inputs Buffer Width for Level of Ecological Functioning Notes Reference High Low 56-125 ft (17-38 m) (based on literature review findings) ≥131 ft (40 m) (based on FEMAT curve model) nr A review of studies in Washington and other states with the goal of protecting and providing marine riparian functions along Puget Sound shorelines. Minimum buffer widths of 147-164 ft (45-50 m) are recommended in individual studies. Functional curves (FEMAT curves) plotting “the relationship between the effectiveness of mature forest buffers at providing an ecosystem function at various buffer widths” were used to derive recommendations in “High” column at left; values represent minimum width for ≥80% ”effectiveness” at providing LWD. Brennan et al. (2009) 100-180 ft (based on literature review findings) ≥150 ft (based on recommendations of Christensen (2000)) nr A review of studies in Washington, Oregon, California, and elsewhere focused on riparian buffers for rivers and streams. Although widths of 100-180 ft provided 80-90% of the LWD in the stream and river systems studied, author recommended a minimum width of 150 ft. Christensen (2000) 102 ft (31 m) nr A literature review examining effective width of stream buffers based on studies in western Washington and in other states and countries with temperate, humid climates. Authors note consistency of buffer width recommendations despite wide geographic range of study sites. Value in “High” column at left is for recruitment of woody debris in one study cited in the literature review. Johnson and Ryba (1992) 105-250 ft nr Buffer widths for streams near logging areas in Washington. Instream LWD (and small woody debris) levels that approximate natural conditions require a buffer width of ~105-250 ft (equivalent to one “300 year site potential tree height” (SPTH300), which, in western Washington, is approximately 105-250 ft). Pollock and Kennard (1998) 33-200 ft nr A review of the best available science. Range in “High” column at left is based on multiple studies. The Watershed Company (2007) Note: All buffer widths are shown in feet; metric equivalents are included only for data originally reported in metric units. FEMAT – Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce and Interior) LWD – large woody debris nr – not reported 5.2.b Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 (Marsh Study Update from FINAL Edmonds Marsh Study Buffer Width Evaluation June 27, 2018 18 2.4 PROTECTING WILDLIFE HABITAT There are many ways in which buffer zones protect the quality of their interior aquatic habitats (e.g., providing water quality improvements, shade, and LWD inputs, and reducing disturbance to wildlife from upland anthropogenic activities). In addition, wetland and riparian buffers themselves are important transitional habitat areas, providing important connections between aquatic wetland and upland terrestrial habitats (Semlitsch and Jensen 2001; McMillan 2000). The number of species tends to increase in such transitional, or edge, habitat as its inherent diversity can support both terrestrial and aquatic needs of semi-aquatic species. Semi-aquatic species like frogs, turtles, many species of invertebrates, and even some mammals (like mink and otters) rely on both terrestrial and aquatic habitats. For example, multiple studies have shown that salamanders spent 86 to 99% of the year in upland habitats, after breeding in the wetland (Semlitsch and Jensen 2001). And while many frog species depend on a wetland environment for part of their life cycle, upland habitat is critical for feeing and nesting (Semlitsch and Bodie 2003). Mammals and birds also use wetland and riparian buffer habitats for foraging, access to water sources, nesting/denning, and rearing young (Castelle et al. 1992). Urbanization creates isolated habitat patches and breaks connections between upland and wetland habitats. In an urban setting, wetland and riparian buffers provide protected travel corridors for invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and avian species as they move through a developed urban landscape (Castelle et al. 1992). Vegetation quality and composition play an important role in the ability of a buffer to provide habitat and travel corridors. A grass buffer may filter pollutants from stormwater, but may not provide habitat structure or refuge for many species (Desbonnet et al. 1994). A diverse native plant population, vegetation within different layers (e.g., overstory tree canopy, sub-canopy shrubbery and young trees, and herbaceous groundcover), and LWD (both on the ground and as standing snags) all contribute to high-quality buffer habitat for many species native to the Pacific Northwest (McMillan 2000; Desbonnet et al. 1994; Sheldon et al. 2005). The species using a particular buffer is determined by site-specific vegetation and other conditions As noted in Table 6, literature-based recommendations for buffer width to support habitat vary greatly. This variability is due to several factors, including the specific habitat needs and life histories of the species using the buffer habitat, the type of vegetation within the buffer, the presence of other habitat structures like LWD, and the land uses around the wetland and its buffer zone (McMillan 2000; McElfish et al. 2008). 5.2.b Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Study Buffer Width Evaluation June 27, 2018 19 Table 6. Buffer width recommendations for providing wildlife habitat Specific Habitat- related Function Buffer Width for Level of Ecological Functioning Notes Reference High Low General wildlife habitat 100–328 ft (30 -100 m) nr Master’s thesis reviewing studies performed in Washington and other states. Travel corridor value based on one study cited in the reference. Mammal habitat value provided in the “High” column at left is based on the furthest extent of mink home range, which was determined to be 590 ft (180 m), although mink spent most of their time in the forested areas within 328 ft (100 m) of the water. Amphibian habitat buffer widths are also recommended as “two to three tree heights”. McMillan (2000) Bird habitat 328 ft (100 m) 50 ft (15 m) Amphibian habitat 328 ft (100 m) 100 ft (30 m) Mammal habitat 590 ft (180 m) nr Travel corridor 490 ft (150 m) nr General wildlife habitat 150–300 ft 75-150 ft Wetlands in Washington State Vol. 1, including a literature review of wetland buffer functions. Review summarizes many studies presenting various ranges based on specific species and habitat functions. Sheldon et al. (2005) General wildlife habitat 300 ft 200 ft Value in “High” column at left is from Appendix C (“Buffer Needs of Wetland Wildlife”) to provide “important wildlife functions” for wetlands in a western Washington urban setting. Castelle et al. (1992) Bird habitat 200 ft 50 ft In one study reviewed, increasing width corresponded to increasing bird species diversity at buffers widths greater than 50 ft. Small mammal habitat 305 ft (93 m) 220 ft (67 m) A literature review examining effective width of stream buffers based on studies in western Washington and in other states and countries with temperate, humid climates. Johnson and Ryba (1992) Large mammal habitat nr 330 ft (100 m) Minimum buffer width based on a literature review. Bird habitat 655 ft (200 m) 250 ft (75 m) Bird habitat ranges based on literature review; range can vary with breeding season. Salmonid habitat nr 100 ft (30 m) Minimum buffer width based on a literature review. Benthic habitat ≥100 ft (30 m) nr Value in “High” column at left necessary to support benthic communities similar to those in undisturbed stream habitats. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 (Marsh Study Update from FINAL Edmonds Marsh Study Buffer Width Evaluation June 27, 2018 20 Specific Habitat- related Function Buffer Width for Level of Ecological Functioning Notes Reference High Low Travel corridor 100 ft (30 m) 50 ft (15 m) A review of studies throughout the US; buffer effectiveness modeled by fitting curves to available data on wildlife habitat. Buffers of 50 ft or, in certain circumstances even less, were reported to provide some habitat for temporary activities. Desbonnet et al. (1994) General wildlife habitat 650 ft (200 m) 50 ft (15 m) Ranges determined by literature review. Bird habitat 650 ft (200 m) 50 ft (15 m) Ranges determined by literature review. General wildlife habitat > 660 ft nr A literature review, in which 660 ft “protected some wildlife habitat functions,” widths being highly dependent on species present. Brennan et al. (2009) Small mammal habitat 230 ft (70 m) 100 ft (30 m) Literature review of stream- riparian buffers May (2003) Bird habitat 410 ft (125 m) 165 ft (50 m) Amphibian and reptile habitat 950 ft (290 m) 520 ft (159 m) Literature review focused on determining core terrestrial habitat widths of wetland amphibians and reptiles from across the U.S. After habitat was determined an additional 50ft buffer was added to protect habitat from edge effects. Semlitsch and Bodie (2003) Turtle habitat 240 ft (73 m) nr Literature review focused on determining core terrestrial habitat widths of wetland salamanders and turtles from across the U.S. After habitat was determined an additional 50ft buffer was added to protect habitat from edge effects. Semlitsch and Jensen (2001) Salamander habitat 540 ft (164 m) nr nr – not reported 5.2.b Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 (Marsh Study Update from FINAL Edmonds Marsh Study Buffer Width Evaluation June 27, 2018 21 The buffer width necessary to support different animal species depends on the species present, their respective life histories, and their sensitivity to disturbance. Specific habitat needs of various bird species (from Castelle et al. 1994; Castelle et al. 1992) known to be present in Edmonds Marsh provided below illustrate the difficulty of establishing a minimum buffer width that satisfies habitat needs of all species:  Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) – For blackbirds nesting with a wetland, the only foraging sites assumed to be useful are those within 656 feet of the wetland.  Lesser Scaup (Aythya affinis) – The nesting habitat of highest value for Lesser Scaup is assumed to occur within a 164-ft zone surrounding permanently flooded, intermittently exposed, and semi-permanent wooded wetlands with 30 to 75% canopy cover of herbaceous vegetation. Most Lesser Scaup can be found nesting within 33 ft of the water’s edge.  Gadwall (Mareca strepera) – Gadwalls typically nest in the tallest, densest, herbaceous or shrubby suitable vegetation available. In several studies of gadwall, the average distance from nest site to water was less than 150 ft.  Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) – Great Blue Herons can generally tolerate human habitation and activities about 328 ft from a foraging area, although approaching humans have been noted to flush them at distances of 200 ft. They also generally tolerate occasional, slow moving vehicular traffic about 164 feet from a foraging area. A general rule about the value of vegetated buffers to wildlife, however, is "bigger is better, and some is better than none" (Desbonnet et al. 1994). 2.5 PROTECTION FROM DISTURBANCE Wetland buffers surrounding urbanized wetlands serve the important role of reducing the disturbance to wildlife caused by surrounding land uses and daily human activity. Human disturbances include noise and light pollution, startling/flushing wildlife, physical damage to vegetation and other habitat structures, dumping of refuse, and introduction of invasive species and pets that prey on native species (Castelle et al. 1992; Sheldon et al. 2005; McMillan 2000). Buffers create a physical barrier between human activity and interior wetland habitats. The ability of a buffer to protect a wetland from intrusion increases with increased width, plant density, and slope, as people and domesticated animals are typically deterred from traversing large, densely vegetated, or steep areas. Buffers under 50 ft are easily degraded by human intrusion; in King and Snohomish counties, human impact (i.e., disturbance of nesting ground and foraging area, noise pollution, and the dumping of refuse) affected 95% of buffers narrower than 50 ft but only 35% of buffers wider than 50 ft (Appendix A ofCastelle et al. 1992). These impacts can reduce 5.2.b Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Study Buffer Width Evaluation June 27, 2018 22 the overall buffer width over time as humans and domesticated animals continue encroaching on the buffer. Noise in urban areas has been shown to create stress, cause hypertension, mask auditory signals, and disrupt wildlife sleeping, feeding and breeding (McMillan 2000; Sheldon et al. 2005). The degree of disruption varies, depending, for example, on sensitivity to certain frequencies and the experience of an individual animal (Sheldon et al. 2005). As shown in Table 7, the buffer width recommended to protect wetlands from disturbance ranges from 20 ft to more than 300 ft. In one study, a 20-ft, well-vegetated evergreen buffer reduced noise by approximate 4–6 decibels (Castelle et al. 1992).5 In another, a heavily forested buffer 100 ft wide was recommended to reduce commercial noise to background levels (Castelle et al. 1994). 5 While this difference would likely not be very noticeable to humans (a decibel level of 10 is described as being barely audible), “a loss of 3 to 4.5 decibels(A) corresponds to approximately tripling the distance between the source of noise and the receptor” (Castelle et al. 1992) 5.2.b Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Study Buffer Width Evaluation June 27, 2018 23 Table 7. Buffer width recommendations for protecting wetlands from disturbance Specific Habitat-related Function Buffer Width for Level of Ecological Functioning Notes Reference High Low Protection from general human disturbance 150 ft < 50 ft General human disturbance includes trampling, dumping of debris, etc.; recommendations are based on a field study in King and Snohomish counties. Castelle et al. (1992) Protection of birds from general human disturbance ≥ 200–300 ft nr Minimum distance needed to prevent disturbance to (flushing of) Great Blue Heron and waterfowl, according to Appendix C of reference). Protection from noise pollution nr 20 ft Value at left based on one study cited in reference. Protection of birds from general human disturbance 46–164 ft (14–50 m) to screen birds from directly observing humans 328 ft (100 m) to prevent disturbance of nesting Great Blue Herons nr Wetlands in Washington State Vol. 1, including a literature review of wetland buffer functions. Sheldon et al. (2005) Protection from noise pollution nr 105 ft Width to reduce noise from commercial areas to background levels, per one study cited in reference. Buffer contained dense forest vegetation. McMillan (2000) Protection from general human disturbance 100–150 ft ≤ 50 ft Study of wetlands in New Jersey, based on three classifications of buffer (salt, fresh, and hardwood); widths in columns at left are recommended for wetlands near industrial, commercial, and/or high-density residential land uses. Shisler et al. (1987) nr – not reported 5.2.b Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 (Marsh Study Update from FINAL Edmonds Marsh Study Buffer Width Evaluation June 27, 2018 24 Semlitsch and Bodie (2003) propose a three-zone buffer system:  A primary terrestrial zone immediately adjacent to the aquatic wetland habitat that “is restricted from use and designed to buffer the core aquatic habitat and protect water resources”  A secondary terrestrial zone (no access restrictions specified) encompassing the primary terrestrial zone and extending beyond it to include core terrestrial habitat for selected semi-aquatic species (e.g., amphibians or small mammals)  A tertiary terrestrial zone (no access restrictions specified) beyond the secondary zone intended to buffer the first two zones from surrounding land use activities. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Study Buffer Width Evaluation June 27, 2018 25 3 Conclusions The minimum buffer width recommended in the literature varies with the ecological function of primary concern. For a relatively high level of water quality improvement (e.g., shade to maintain natural water temperature, removal of sediment, at least partial removal of nutrients), the literature generally supports a buffer width of 100 ft. For delivery of LWD to adjacent aquatic systems, a buffer width of 100 to 200 ft is typically recommended. Buffer width recommendations to support habitat and minimize disturbance vary greatly, depending upon the habitat needs and life histories of the species using the buffer and wetland habitat, the type of vegetation within the buffer, the presence of other habitat structures like LWD, land uses around the wetland and its buffer zone, and other factors. When determining appropriate buffer widths for the provision of suitable habitat and prevention of disturbance, it is generally recommended that primary consideration be given to species known to use a specific buffer area or are otherwise of concern at that location. Perhaps one of the most useful buffer width recommendation identified in this review was the following: “with regard to value of vegetated buffers to wildlife, bigger is better and some is better than none" (Desbonnet et al. 1994). In many developed urban areas, wetland buffers wide enough for full ecosystem function are unlikely to remain in place, or even to be available for restoration. However, smaller buffers still provide ecological value, and opportunities are usually available to enhance their quality, if not quantity. The site-specific evaluation of existing Marsh buffers (separate companion report) deals further with this topic. In addition to the ecological functions discussed in this review, buffers surrounding aquatic systems provide protection against predicted sea level rise, because undeveloped shoreline/buffer zones can accept some inundation increases before infrastructure is affected and must be relocated. Furthermore, prior to the actual occurrence of any predicted sea level rise, “soft shore protection” (e.g., placement of log cribs or other types of LWD, gravel, or additional sand along beaches; installation of native vegetation tolerant of wet site conditions) (Gianou 2014) can be installed within buffer zones (and have the opportunity to reach maturity), making the shoreline more resilient to wave energy and erosion. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) 5.2.b Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Study Buffer Width Evaluation June 27, 2018 27 4 References Bottorff J. 2009. Snags, coarse woody debris, and wildlife. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Brennan J, Culverwell H, Granger P. 2009. Protection of marine riparian functions in Puget Sound, Washington. Washington Sea Grant, Seattle, WA. Castelle AJ, Conolly C, Emers M, Metz ED, Meyer S, Witter M, Mauermann S, Erickson T, Cooke SS. 1992. Wetland buffers: use and effectiveness. Pub. No. 92- 10. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Castelle AJ, Johnson AW, Conolly C. 1994. Wetland and stream buffer size requirements - a review. J Environ Qual 23:878-882. Christensen D. 2000. Protection of riparian ecosystems: A review of best available science Jefferson County Environmental Health Division. Desbonnet A, Pogue P, Lee V, Wolff N. 1994. Vegetated buffers in the coastal zone. A summary review and bibliography. Coastal Resources Center, Rhode Island Sea Grant, University of Rhode Island. Doyle RC, Stanton GD, Wolf DC. 1977. Effectiveness of forest and grass buffer strips in improving the water quality of manure-polluted runoff. ASAE Paper No. 77- 2501. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI. Gianou K. 2014. Soft shoreline stabilization. Shoreline master program planning and implementation guidance. Publication no. 14-06-009. Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Grismer ME. 1981. Evaluating dairy waste management systems influence on fecal coliform concentration in runoff. Masters. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. Gurnell AM, Piegay H, Swanson FJ, Gregory SV. 2002. Large wood and fluvial processes. Freshw Biol 47:601-619. Johnson AW, Ryba DM. 1992. A literature review of recommended buffer widths to maintain various functions of stream riparian areas. King County Surface Water Management Division, Washington. Johnson P, Mock DL, Teachout EJ, McMillan AK. 2000. Washington state wetland mitigation evaluation study, phase 1: Compliance. Washington Department of Ecology, Lacey, WA. Karr JR, Schlosser IJ. 1977. Impact of nearstream vegetation and stream morphology on water quality and stream biota. Envrionmental Research Laboratory. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Study Buffer Width Evaluation June 27, 2018 28 Liu X, Zhang X, Zhang M. 2008. Major factors influencing the efficacy of vegetated buffers on sediment trapping: a reviews and analysis. J Environ Qual 37:1667- 1674. Magette WL, Brinsfield RB, Palmer RE, Wood JD. 1989. Nutrient and sediment removal by vegetated filter strips. Amer Assoc Agricul and Bio Engin 32(2):663- 667. May CW. 2003. Stream-riparian ecosystems in the Puget Sound lowland eco-region. A review of best available science. Watershed Ecology, LLC. McElfish JM, Jr, Kihslinger RL, Nichols S. 2008. Setting buffer sizes for wetlands. Natl Wetlands Newsl 30(2):6-17. McMillan A. 2000. The science of wetland buffers and its implication for the management of wetlands. Masters. Environmental Studies, Evergreen State College, 123 pp. Pollock MM, Kennard PM. 1998. A low-risk strategy for preserving riparian buffers needed to protect and restore salmonid habitat in forested wetlands of Washington state. 10,000 Years Institute Bainbridge Island, WA. Polyakov V, Fares A, Ryder MH. 2005. Precision riparian buffers for the control of nonpoint source pollutant loading into surface water: A review. Environ Rev 13:129-144. Sea-Run Consulting, Tetra Tech Inc., Reid Middleton Inc., Pentec. 2007. Shoreline master program update. Shoreline inventory & characterization. Prepared for City of Edmonds, Washington. Semlitsch RD, Bodie JR. 2003. Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian habitats for amphibians and reptiles. Conserv Biol 17(5):1219-1228. Semlitsch RD, Jensen JB. 2001. Core habitat, not buffer zone. Natl Wetlands Newsl 23(4):5-6, 11. Shannon & Wilson. 2015. Final feasibility study, Willow Creek daylighting, Edmonds, Washington. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Seattle, WA. Sheldon D, Hruby T, Johnson P, Harper K, McMillan A, Granger T, Stanley S, Stockdale E. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State. Volume 1: A synthesis of the science. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Shisler JK, Jordan RA, Wargo RN. 1987. Coastal wetland buffer delineation. New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, New Brunswick, New Jersey. The Watershed Company. 2007. Best available science report. Use of best available science in Skagit County critical areas ordinance (wetlands and fish & wildlife habitat conservation areas). Final. Prepared for Skagit County Department of Planning and Community Development. The Watershed Company, Kirkland, WA. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Study Buffer Width Evaluation June 27, 2018 29 Young RA, Huntrods T, Anderson W. 1980. Effectiveness of vegetated buffer strips in controlling pollution from feedlot runoff. J Environ Qual 9(3):483-487. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Attachment B Final Buffer Functions Review_with fig_6-27-18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) EVALUATION OF EDMONDS MARSH AND SHELLABARGER MARSH BUFFER ZONES Prepared for Edmonds City Council 121 - 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA June 1, 2018 Prepared by: 200 West Mercer Street, Suite 401  Seattle, Washington  98119 5.2.c Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Attachment C_Final Buffer Eval Rpt_6-1-18 with photolog (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) 5.2.c Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Attachment C_Final Buffer Eval Rpt_6-1-18 with photolog (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds and Shellabarger Marsh Buffer Zones June 1, 2018 i Table of Contents Table of Contents i Figures i 1 Introduction 1 2 Current Conditions within the Edmonds Marsh and Shellabarger Marsh Buffer Zones 7 2.1 EDMONDS MARSH NORTHERN BUFFER ZONE – ALONG HARBOR SQUARE PROPERTY 7 2.2 EDMONDS MARSH EASTERN BUFFER ZONE – ALONG STATE ROUTE 104 11 2.3 EDMONDS MARSH SOUTHERN BUFFER ZONE – AT WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY 12 2.4 EDMONDS MARSH SOUTHWEST BUFFER ZONE – ALONG UNOCAL PROPERTY 13 2.5 EDMONDS MARSH NORTHWEST BUFFER ZONE – ALONG BNSF RAILWAY LINE 14 2.6 SHELLABARGER MARSH BUFFER ZONES 14 3 Habitat Enhancement Recommendations by Zone 17 3.1 EDMONDS MARSH NORTHERN BUFFER ZONE – ALONG HARBOR SQUARE PROPERTY 17 3.2 EDMONDS MARSH EASTERN BUFFER ZONE – ALONG SR 104 18 3.3 EDMONDS MARSH SOUTHERN BUFFER ZONE – AT WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY 19 3.4 EDMONDS MARSH SOUTHWEST BUFFER ZONE – ALONG UNOCAL PROPERTY 20 3.5 EDMONDS MARSH NORTHWEST BUFFER ZONE – ALONG BNSF RAILWAY LINE 20 3.6 SHELLABARGER MARSH BUFFER ZONES 20 4 Conclusion 23 5 References 25 Figures Figure 1. Edmonds and Shellabarger Marsh vicinity map 2 Figure 2. Stormwater and surface water features and buffer zone boundaries 5 Figure 3. Edmonds Marsh and Shellabarger Marsh buffer zone gradients 9 5.2.c Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Attachment C_Final Buffer Eval Rpt_6-1-18 with photolog (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) 5.2.c Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Attachment C_Final Buffer Eval Rpt_6-1-18 with photolog (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds and Shellabarger Marsh Buffer Zones June 1, 2018 1 1 Introduction The Edmonds Marsh (Marsh) is a tidally influenced1 wetland occupying approximately 23 ac in the heart of Edmonds, Washington (Figure 1); it is the remnant of a once much larger (40-ac) estuarine wetland along the shores of Puget Sound (Sea- Run Consulting et al. 2007). The western portion of the Marsh supports saltmarsh plants; it is brackish in winter months, when the downstream tide gate typically is closed, and saline in spring and summer months, when the tide gate is typically open (Sea-Run Consulting et al. 2007). The eastern portion of the Marsh is a predominantly freshwater system fed by two tributary creeks—Willow Creek and Shellabarger Creek. The drainage basin of Willow Creek is approximately 393 ac in size, and encompasses residential land to the south and east of Edmonds Marsh (Shannon & Wilson 2015). The drainage basin of Shellabarger Creek is approximately 378 ac in size, and encompasses residential and commercial land to the north, east, and south of Edmonds Marsh. Including the two creeks, the Edmonds Marsh drainage basin is approximately 900 ac. The Marsh is connected to Puget Sound via Willow Creek, which currently flows out of the Marsh into an approximately 2,200-ft-long system of ditches, pipes, culverts, and flood gate infrastructure prior to discharging via a submerged outfall into the sound. The City of Edmonds (City) plans to daylight Willow Creek, a project that will improve hydraulic and habitat connectivity between the Marsh and Puget Sound. Edmonds Marsh is home to over 200 bird species. While fish are not currently known to use the Marsh, coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii), sculpins, and threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) were observed in Willow Creek in 1995 (Sea-Run Consulting et al. 2007). One of the goals of the Willow Creek daylighting project is to promote the use of the Marsh and its tributary creeks by juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Shellabarger Marsh (also known as Shellabarger Marsh), an approximately 5-ac freshwater wetland located on the east side of State Route (SR) 104, was once part of Edmonds Marsh(Sea-Run Consulting et al. 2007). Although highway construction divided the original Edmonds Marsh, the two marshes remain hydraulically connected by two culverts beneath SR 104 (Sea-Run Consulting et al. 2007). 1 The Marsh is tidally influenced when the tide gate downstream of the marsh is open, typically in spring and summer months from April through September (Sea-Run Consulting et al. 2007). 5.2.c Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Attachment C_Final Buffer Eval Rpt_6-1-18 with photolog (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) Edmonds MarshHarbor SquareUnocal SiteWillow CreekFishHatcheryEdmondsCity ParkEdmondsMarinaEdmondsWastewaterTreatmentPlantBurlington Northern Santa Fe RailwayMarinaBeachParkR e s ide n ti a lDayton St.2nd Ave. S.City ofEdmondsParcelShellabargerMarsh¬«104Figure 1. Edmonds and Shellabarger Marsh VicinityMapPrepared by mikey, 6/1/2018; W:\Projects\Edmonds Marsh\Data\GIS\Maps and Analyses\Buffer_Zone_Evaluation\Fig 1_6862_Edmonds and Shellabarger Marsh Vicinity Map.mxd±0 0.05 0.1Miles0 400 800FeetParcelLLCenvironmental Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User CommunityContent may not reflect National Geographic's current map policy. Sources: National Geographic, Esri, DeLorme, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS,NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp., Snohomish County[5.2.cPacket Pg. 124Attachment: Attachment C_Final Buffer Eval Rpt_6-1-18 with photolog (Marsh Study Update from FINAL Edmonds and Shellabarger Marsh Buffer Zones June 1, 2018 3 Under the City’s current Shoreline Master Program (SMP) regulations, the buffers for Edmonds Marsh and Shellabarger Marsh are 110 ft wide with an additional 15-ft building setback. For the purposes of this document, “buffer zone” refers to the 125-ft- wide area extending from the outer edge of the marsh boundaries (as shown on Figure 2). The term “buffer zone” is used for this entire area, regardless of the land cover and land use within the zone (i.e., it is used to account for both vegetated and non- vegetated, developed portions of the buffer zones). The purpose of this document is to provide:  An initial evaluation of the current conditions of the buffer zones surrounding Edmonds Marsh and Shellabarger Marsh  A preliminary assessment of the ability of the buffer zones to provide a range of ecological functions  Initial recommendations for improving the ecological functioning of the vegetated portions of the buffer zones This evaluation is based on observations made during a qualitative site reconnaissance conducted on April 23, 2018, as well as information provided in a companion document identifying buffer zone widths that best support ecosystem functions. Section 2 summarizes of current conditions within the buffer zones, and Section 3 recommends possible habitat enhancements. This initial evaluation of current conditions within the Edmonds Marsh and Shellabarger Marsh buffer zones, as well as the preliminary assessment of their ability to provide ecological functions, will be further developed after completion of a year- long baseline monitoring study to be initiated in summer 2018. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Attachment C_Final Buffer Eval Rpt_6-1-18 with photolog (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) Puget SoundEdmonds MarshHarbor SquareUnocal SiteWillow CreekFishHatcheryEdmondsCity ParkEdmondsMarinaEdmondsWastewaterTreatmentPlantBurlington Northern Santa Fe RailwayMarinaBeachParkR e s i d e nti a lDayton St.2nd Ave. S.City ofEdmondsParcelShellabargerMarshShellabargerCreekWillowCreekW illow C reekCity of EdmondsVault and Tide GateWillow CreekOutfall InletWillow CreekOutfallWSDOTEdmonds WayOutfall¬«104Prepared by mikey, 6/1/2018; W:\Projects\Edmonds Marsh\Data\GIS\Maps and Analyses\Buffer_Zone_Evaluation\Fig 2_6850_Stormwater and site features.mxd±0 0.05 0.1Miles0 250 500Feet Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User CommunityContent may not reflect National Geographic's current map policy. Sources: National Geographic, Esri, DeLorme, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS,NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp., Snohomish County, City of EdmondsLLCenvironmentalFigure 2. Stormwater and surface waterfeatures and buffer zone boundariesStorm structureStorm culvertStorm lineStorm ditch/creekShellabarger Marsh w/ 125-ft bufferEdmonds Marsh w/ 125-ft bufferParcelCity of Edmonds boundary5.2.cPacket Pg. 126Attachment: Attachment C_Final Buffer Eval Rpt_6-1-18 with photolog (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds and Shellabarger Marsh Buffer Zones June 1, 2018 7 2 Current Conditions within the Edmonds Marsh and Shellabarger Marsh Buffer Zones The current conditions of the Edmonds Marsh and Shellabarger Marsh buffer zones were evaluated during a qualitative site reconnaissance conducted on April 23, 2018, photographs of which are included in Appendix A. Information on land ownership, stormwater infrastructure, and topography provided by the City were also used in the assessment. The following subsections describe conditions within the different buffer zones of Edmonds Marsh and Shellabarger Marsh, and an initial assessment of their existing and potential ecological functions. The main functions of interest are related to water quality and wildlife habitat. A buffer zone provides maximum water quality improvements (e.g., removal of sediment, nutrients and toxic substances) when water flowing through it is dispersed, moving slowly, and not channelized. Vegetated portions of the buffer zones can intercept precipitation and allow it to infiltrate, which reduces the quantity of stormwater discharging directly into the marshes. However, most of the stormwater flowing into Edmonds Marsh and Shellabarger Marsh does so through pipes and outfalls and via Willow and Shellabarger creeks (Figure 2) (Sea-Run Consulting et al. 2007; Shannon & Wilson 2015), limiting the ability of the buffer zones to provide water quality benefits.2 In such developed urban watersheds, upstream source control and water quality improvement efforts (e.g., rain gardens, stormwater treatment systems) may be needed as the primary means of improving water quality. Where there are opportunities for the buffer zones to provide water quality improvements, they are described in Section 3. 2.1 EDMONDS MARSH NORTHERN BUFFER ZONE – ALONG HARBOR SQUARE PROPERTY The area referred to here as the northern buffer zone of Edmonds Marsh begins at the edge of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad right-of-way and extends eastward to SR 104, following the northern, curved boundary of the Marsh, as shown on Figure 2. Owned by the Port of Edmonds, this area contains buildings, paved areas, and recreational facilities (e.g., tennis courts and a paved trail) associated with the Harbor Square property. The gradient of the vegetated portion of the northern buffer zone is relatively steep (greater than 20% in some areas) as the topography transitions quickly from the developed upland area to the Marsh (Figure 3). 2 No obvious areas of sheet flow migration to either Shellabarger Marsh or Edmond’s Marsh were observed during the site reconnaissance, but the weather conditions were dry that day. Visiting the marshes and their buffer zones during a heavy rain event would reveal more about the ability of the buffer zones to handle and potentially treat incoming stormwater surface flows. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Attachment C_Final Buffer Eval Rpt_6-1-18 with photolog (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) Edmonds MarshHarbor SquareUnocal SiteWillow CreekFishHatcheryEdmondsCity ParkEdmondsMarinaEdmondsWastewaterTreatmentPlantMarinaBeachParkBurlington Northern Santa Fe RailwayR e sid ent i al2nd Ave. S.City ofEdmondsParcelShellabargerMarsh¬«104Prepared by mikey, 6/1/2018; W:\Projects\Edmonds Marsh\Data\GIS\Maps and Analyses\Buffer_Zone_Evaluation\Fig 3_6864_Edmonds Marsh and Shellabarger Marsh buffer zone gradients.mxd±0 0.05 0.1Miles0 200 400FeetContent may not reflect National Geographic's current map policy. Sources: National Geographic, Esri, DeLorme, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS,NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp., Snohomish County, City of Edmonds. Slope based on 2017 LiDAR groundraster.LLCenvironmentalFigure 3: Edmonds Marsh and ShellabargerMarsh buffer zone gradientsStorm structureStorm culvertStorm lineStorm ditch/creekShellabarger Marsh w/ 125-ft bufferEdmonds Marsh w/ 125-ft bufferParcelCity of Edmonds boundaryLiDAR ground slope(Percent)≤ 5> 5 and ≤ 10> 10 and ≤ 20> 205.2.cPacket Pg. 128Attachment: Attachment C_Final Buffer Eval Rpt_6-1-18 with photolog (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds and Shellabarger Marsh Buffer Zones June 1, 2018 11 Vegetation in the northern buffer zone consists of both native and non-native species, with a relatively dense tree canopy ringing the eastern two-thirds of this buffer zone (Photo 1 in Appendix A). The understory includes a variety of native shrubs, many of which appear to have been planted relatively recently (Photo 2 in Appendix A). Native species observed in the northern buffer zone canopy (overstory vegetation layer) include Pacific willow (Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra), Scouler’s willow (Salix scouleriana), red alder (Alnus rubra), and paper birch (Betula papyrifera). Native species observed in the understory include western red cedar (Thuja plicata) seedlings, common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), red-flowering currant (Ribes sanguineum), red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus), mock orange (Philadelphus sp.), Oregon grape (Mahonia nervosa), twinberry (Lonicera involucrata), cascara (Rhamnus purshiana), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), lady fern(Arthyrium filix-femina), osoberry (Oemleria cerasiformis), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), vine maple (Acer circinatum), and salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis). The diversity of native plants in the understory of the northern buffer zone has been enhanced by recent restoration efforts. Ornamental plantings are also present in the northern buffer zone, particularly along the northern side of the paved pedestrian path, as are areas of invasive species including reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). Stormwater enters Edmonds Marsh from the Harbor Square property and Dayton Street via two stormwater outfalls (Figure 2). After exiting the outfall, the stormwater flows through small drainage ditches (approximately 20 to 30 ft long) located near the lowest portion of the northern buffer zone (nearest the Marsh perimeter). The water then flows into patches of cattail (Typha latifolia) and other emergent vegetation at the Marsh perimeter (Photo 3 in Appendix A). Wildlife observed from the northern buffer zone included Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia) using the buffer area; a rabbit, a Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias), and flock of Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) (foraging on the mudflats) within the Marsh interior; and a Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) flying overhead. 2.2 EDMONDS MARSH EASTERN BUFFER ZONE – ALONG STATE ROUTE 104 The eastern buffer zone of Edmonds Marsh is largely occupied by SR 104 (Figure 2 and Photo 5 in Appendix A), with a relatively dense strip of established shrubs and trees between the highway and the Marsh. Quite narrow in the northern portion of the eastern buffer zone, this strip consists of a canopy of red alder and a single Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) with an understory of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), and Pacific willow. Near the location where Shellabarger Creek passes via the double culverts from Shellabarger Marsh to Edmonds Marsh (Figure 2), cattails extend from the Marsh all the way to the sidewalk along the highway. The invasive species bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamara), 5.2.c Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Attachment C_Final Buffer Eval Rpt_6-1-18 with photolog (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds and Shellabarger Marsh Buffer Zones June 1, 2018 12 Himalayan blackberry, and reed canarygrass are also present in this area. A small clump of native black gooseberry (Ribes divaricatum) and a small quantity of salmonberry were also observed. The strip of trees and shrubs is wider south of the Shellabarger Creek culverts, and widens further moving south toward the Willow Creek Fish Hatchery). The forest here consists of a mix of native trees including red alder, water birch, Douglas fir, bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla). Some of the alder trees in this area are dying, providing standing snag habitat for birds, insects, and other wildlife (Photo 6 in Appendix A). The understory in this southern portion of the eastern buffer zone has a significant quantity of Himalayan blackberry, as well as bigleaf maple saplings and ivy. Traffic noise made it difficult to detect bird vocalizations within this buffer zone. A drainage ditch within a grassy area just to the north of the eastern buffer zone running adjacent and parallel to SR 104 (Photo 4 of Appendix A and Figure 2) carries stormwater from the highway, Dayton Street, and other areas to the north. Dense vegetation (primarily cattails) was observed within the ditch. Ultimately, this ditch flows into the eastern buffer zone and then joins Shellabarger Creek near the location where the creek flows into Edmonds Marsh. The gradient of the eastern buffer zone in the vicinity of the drainage ditch is generally 10% or less (Figure 3). 2.3 EDMONDS MARSH SOUTHERN BUFFER ZONE – AT WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY The southern buffer zone, which includes the portion of the buffer located on the Willow Creek Fish Hatchery property, is owned by the City. Two small structures (Photo 8 of Appendix A shows one of the buildings) and a fish rearing pond are located on the property, which is operated by Sound Salmon Solutions. The gradient of the southern buffer zone ranges from ≤5% to greater than 20%; the slope becomes less steep moving south to north (toward the Marsh) within this zone (Figure 3). This buffer zone contains relatively high-quality forested upland and wetland habitat, and also appears to be heavily used by birds. The western branch of Willow Creek flows south to north through the hatchery property, and the eastern branch of Willow Creek flows south to north just beyond its eastern boundary (Figure 2). The creek carries surface water from its 393-ac basin to the Marsh; however, there are no storm drain outfalls that discharge within the southern buffer zone itself. The canopy within the buffer zone contains a mix of native tree species, including red alder, bigleaf maple, Douglas fir, western red cedar, and western hemlock (see Photo 7 of Appendix A). The understory contains a variety of native shrub and ground cover species, including salmonberry, ososberry, red-osier dogwood, red-flowering currant, vine maple, western red cedar seedlings and saplings, red elderberry, stink currant (Ribes bracteosum), lady fern, fringecup (Tellima grandiflora), youth on age (Tolmiea menziesii), lily-of-the-valley (Convallaria majalis), western bleeding heart (Dicentra 5.2.c Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Attachment C_Final Buffer Eval Rpt_6-1-18 with photolog (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds and Shellabarger Marsh Buffer Zones June 1, 2018 13 formosa), and a good number of skunk cabbages (Lysichitum americanum) beneath the tree canopy along Willow Creek (Photo 9 of Appendix A). Invasive species were also observed within the southern buffer zone, for the most in sparse and non-dominant patches. The most commonly observed invasive shrub species was Himalayan blackberry, which was found throughout the zone. A few patches of English ivy (Hendra helix) and a few scattered seedlings of English holly (Ilex aquifolium) were observed, as were reed canarygrass and Herb Robert (Geranium robertianum) along the trails. In addition to a diverse mix of native plants, the southern buffer zone also contains a relatively large amount of large woody debris (LWD), both standing and on the ground. This feature no doubt contributed to observed woodpecker and sapsucker activity. During the site reconnaissance, a downy woodpecker (Pecoides pubescens) was heard, and a pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) was seen. In addition, an abundance of woodpecker holes were observed in standing snags (Photo 10 of Appendix A), and sapsucker holes were observed in downed wood. Other bird species observed in the southern buffer zone include MacGillivray’s Warbler (Geothlypis tolmiei), Pine Siskin (Spinus pinus), Anna’s Hummingbird (Calypte anna), Spotted Towee (Pipilo maculatus), kinglets (Regulidae family), American Robin (Turdus migratorius), Bewick’s Wren (Thryomanes bewickii), chickadees (Poecile sp.), and song sparrow (Melospiza melodia). Near where the western branch of Willow Creek enters the emergent portion of Edmonds Marsh, a song sparrow was observed carrying nesting material, indicating that the southern buffer zone also provides nesting habitat as well as foraging habitat. During the site reconnaissance, the interior of Edmonds Marsh was also accessed by following Willow Creek beyond the forested buffer zone and into the emergent portion of the Marsh. Near the transition from the forested wetland to the emergent area, a very dense monoculture of bittersweet nightshade was observed. This patch appears to have been established for some time, as several layers of dead vines were observed beneath this year’s growth. The plant is beginning to climb the sparse, scrubby red alders growing in this area. The nightshade patch ends farther out in the Marsh, as cattail become the dominant species. 2.4 EDMONDS MARSH SOUTHWEST BUFFER ZONE – ALONG UNOCAL PROPERTY The southwest buffer zone of Edmonds Marsh includes the area from the western boundary of the Willow Creek Fish Hatchery northwest to the BNSF railway line (Figure 2). This buffer zone is located on the Unocal Property, which is owned by Chevron. The gradient of the eastern portion of this zone is relatively gentle (generally 10% or less); slope increases moving westward into the filled and developed portion of the Unocal site (Figure 3). Although access to this buffer zone was restricted, it was surveyed to the extent possible from the western portion of the Willow Creek Fish Hatchery property, the Point Edwards Community Trail, a lookout point within the 5.2.c Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Attachment C_Final Buffer Eval Rpt_6-1-18 with photolog (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds and Shellabarger Marsh Buffer Zones June 1, 2018 14 Point Edwards neighborhood (see Photo 11 of Appendix A), and the interior of the Marsh. The eastern portion of this buffer zone contains forested upland and forested wetland habitat (Shannon & Wilson 2015) whose quality appears similar to that of the forested areas on the hatchery property. Tree species observed within the southwest buffer zone include bigleaf maple, red alder, Douglas fir, and western red cedar. A portion of this buffer zone (the northwest side, near the BNSF railway line) contains a stormwater detention pond associated with the Unocal site. Pine trees and salmonberry were also observed growing on the berm that separates the stormwater pond from the Marsh (see Photo 12 of Appendix A). Stormwater is reportedly pumped out of the pond into Willow Creek periodically (Shannon & Wilson 2015). 2.5 EDMONDS MARSH NORTHWEST BUFFER ZONE – ALONG BNSF RAILWAY LINE Access to the northwest buffer zone was also restricted as this area lies within the BNSF railway right-of-way. This buffer zone is unvegetated and restoration opportunities do not appear to be feasible given current land uses and access restrictions. However, riparian plantings of approximately 0.5 ac are planned as part of the Willow Creek Daylighting project for the portion of the Willow Creek channel adjacent to the southwest of the northwest buffer zone (Shannon & Wilson 2015). There are no stormwater outfalls located in the northwest buffer zone. 2.6 SHELLABARGER MARSH BUFFER ZONES Shellabarger Marsh is surrounded primarily by residential development, both single- family homes as well as apartment and condominium buildings (Figure 1). The western side of Shellabarger Marsh is bordered by SR 104. The City’s wastewater treatment plant is located to the north of Shellabarger Marsh, but most of the built facility is beyond the northern buffer zone (Figure 1). The gradient of the Shellabarger Marsh buffer zones is variable (Figure 3), but is ≤10%) over much of the area. The northern buffer zone is located on an undeveloped parcel of land owned by the City and vegetative cover in this area is relatively dense, with both native and non- native plants, except for an unpaved east-west access path between 2nd Avenue S and SR 104 and a small park containing outdoor exercise equipment. The native species here appear to have been planted (along the perimeter of the access path) and to have seeded in naturally (in areas closer to the marsh). Native species present include red alder, Scouler’s willow, Pacific willow, osoberry, evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum), and sword fern. Non-native species in the northern buffer zone include cherry laurel (Prunus laurocerasus), English holly, and English ivy, the latter growing not only on the ground but also climbing some of the trees. The western buffer zone of Shellabarger Marsh is largely occupied by SR 104, with a narrow strip of mostly non-native vegetation growing between the marsh and the road (Photo 13 of Appendix A). The vegetation here is a mix of cattails, reed 5.2.c Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Attachment C_Final Buffer Eval Rpt_6-1-18 with photolog (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds and Shellabarger Marsh Buffer Zones June 1, 2018 15 canarygrass, other grass species, and Himalayan blackberry. Pacific willow is also present toward the southern end of the western buffer zone, and to the east of the Edmonds Park Apartments and associated parking lot. In this same general vicinity, where the double culverts pass under SR 104 (Figure 2), a large dense patch of bittersweet nightshade is present, mixed with Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass (Photo 14 of Appendix A). Moving south from this area Himalayan blackberry is dominant beneath a canopy of Pacific willow. The southern buffer zone of Shellabarger Marsh was surveyed from the Edmonds Park Apartments parking lot, which is located within the southern buffer zone. Native vegetation in this area includes Pacific willow, which dominates the canopy, as well as stinging nettle, curly dock (Rumex crispus), and common horsetail (Equisetum arvense). Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass, both non-native invasive plants, appeared to dominate the understory. English ivy was also present in this area and climbing some of the Pacific willow trees. Immediately adjacent to the parking lot were a few western red cedar, as well as a variety of ornamental plantings. The eastern buffer zone of Shellabarger Marsh was surveyed as much as possible from the 2nd Avenue S street end. Second Avenue S itself is located within the eastern buffer zone, as are many residential buildings, both single-family and multi-family. A few ornamental willow trees grow in this portion of the buffer zone, along with Scouler’s willow, and red alder, and a thicket of Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass. Channelized surface water flow transverses a portion of the eastern buffer zone, adjacent to a large condominium building (Figure 2). Wildlife observed while surveying the Shellabarger Marsh buffer areas included Marsh Wren (Cistothorus palustris) and Red-winged Blackbird, which were heard vocalizing from the marsh interior, as well as American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Song Sparrow, and Black-capped Chickadee, which were seen within the buffer areas. Traffic noise in this area, particularly immediately adjacent to SR 104, interfered with the ability to hear bird vocalizations. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Attachment C_Final Buffer Eval Rpt_6-1-18 with photolog (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) 5.2.c Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Attachment C_Final Buffer Eval Rpt_6-1-18 with photolog (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds and Shellabarger Marsh Buffer Zones June 1, 2018 17 3 Habitat Enhancement Recommendations by Zone In most cases, the vegetated portions of the Edmonds Marsh and Shellabarger Marsh buffer zones are narrower than the widths recommended in the literature (as discussed in the companion review document) for providing the following ecological functions:  Improving water quality (removing sediment, nutrients, and toxic substances)  Protecting habitat and maintaining habitat connectivity  Maintaining an appropriate microclimate for Marsh species  Providing inputs of LWD to support Marsh functioning  Preventing disturbance by human activity However, the buffer zones still provide ecological value, and their functions can likely be improved through restoration and enhancement activities. The following subsections provide buffer zone-specific recommendations for habitat enhancements that could be implemented within the existing vegetated areas of the buffer zones. 3.1 EDMONDS MARSH NORTHERN BUFFER ZONE – ALONG HARBOR SQUARE PROPERTY Although only a portion of the Edmonds Marsh northern buffer zone is vegetated, the existing vegetation appears to be of high quality in terms of native species diversity, and provides a visual screen between human activity and the Marsh interior. Habitat restoration efforts already conducted in this zone have certainly contributed to its diverse mix of native plants. As the young plants recently installed in the understory continue to grow, they will provide a denser buffer between the pedestrian path and the Marsh; they will also provide a source of conifer trees to grow and replace the overstory alder and willow as they naturally decline over time. If the vegetated portion of the northern buffer zone were ever to be widened, it would likely further reduce disturbance to wildlife using the Marsh. In general, the most effective water quality benefits are realized when buffers are wide, gently sloping, and densely vegetated, primarily because these characteristics lengthen the time it takes surface water to flow from the outer edge of the buffer zone to the wetland Widening the flow paths of the two drainage ditches within the northern buffer zone, and planting additional native emergent plants (e.g., slough sedge [Carex obnupta], other native wetland plants that tolerate partial shade) between the storm drain outfalls and the Marsh may also boost the ability of this area to provide water quality improvements. An additional recommendation for the northern buffer zone is to further evaluate areas where stormwater may be flowing through the buffer zone as sheet flow. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Attachment C_Final Buffer Eval Rpt_6-1-18 with photolog (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds and Shellabarger Marsh Buffer Zones June 1, 2018 18 Very little LWD was observed within the northern buffer zone. LWD provides valuable habitat for a variety of different species and contributes to the maintenance of microclimate conditions. Manual placement of LWD in the forested portion of this buffer zone, up to and including the Marsh edge, could boost the area’s habitat and microclimate functions. LWD installation in the northern buffer zone could occur concurrently with the Willow Creek Daylighting project, if LWD were already being transported to the area and distributed with heavy machinery. The forested buffer and edge of the Marsh are relatively accessible in this zone given the proximity of the Harbor Square parking lot and the paved pedestrian walkway. LWD in this buffer zone could also provide more of a screen between the Marsh and the developed upland areas. 3.2 EDMONDS MARSH EASTERN BUFFER ZONE – ALONG SR 104 The southern portion of the eastern buffer zone (the area between the hatchery property and the highway) would benefit from removal of Himalayan blackberry and other invasive species, and from the installation of native shrubs and groundcover plants in the understory. Native tree species tolerant of shade and moisture (such as Oregon ash [Fraxinus latifolia] or western hemlock) could also be installed to help replace the declining alder in this area. If habitat restoration efforts are to be conducted within the hatchery property, they could perhaps be extended into the eastern buffer zone. In the middle portion of the eastern buffer zone, where buffer vegetation grows in a very narrow strip along the highway, the current recommendation is to leave the existing thicket of Himalayan blackberry. While this plant is invasive and generally not desirable in natural areas, it provides an effective barrier to people and domesticated animals, as well as food, nesting sites, and shelter for birds and small mammals (USFS 2018). Himalayan blackberry is also hearty, even in a harsh environment like that found along the SR 104 corridor.3 Invasive species control efforts in this area could be focused on removing Scotch broom before it spreads to other areas. The drainage ditch north of and extending into the eastern buffer zone presents a possible opportunity for enhancing stormwater quality functions, if stormwater continues to be conveyed through the ditch after the Dayton Street Pump Station has been constructed. The drainage ditch is adjacent and parallel to SR 104, and carries stormwater from the highway, Dayton Street, and other areas to the north (Figure 2). As the gradient in at least a portion of this area is relatively low (generally ≤10% as shown on Figure 3), the ditch is filled with cattails (which are known to help filter sediments and other stormwater pollutants), and as stormwater flows via the ditch for 3 Eventually, restoration efforts could focus on replacing the Himalayan blackberry with native roses or additional black gooseberry plants, which would also be expected to provide a good barrier to disturbance, etc. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Attachment C_Final Buffer Eval Rpt_6-1-18 with photolog (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds and Shellabarger Marsh Buffer Zones June 1, 2018 19 approximately 600 ft prior to entering Shellabarger Creek, this drainage feature may represent an area where stormwater quality function is currently being provided. If stormwater could be better dispersed within the grassy area and buffer zone, rather than simply flowing through the ditch, further enhancement of water quality might be possible. 3.3 EDMONDS MARSH SOUTHERN BUFFER ZONE – AT WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY The primary recommendation for the southern buffer zone is to protect and maintain the relatively high-quality habitat already present. This zone contains dense native vegetation in the canopy, understory, and groundcover layers, as well as a relatively large quantity of LWD—all features noted as being important for providing habitat to a range of wildlife species (McMillan 2000). Indeed, an array of native bird species were observed to be using the southern buffer zone. The diversity of native plants present in this zone appears to be largely “natural,” meaning that for the most part, the plants here appear not to have been planted by people, but rather to reflect a remaining intact forest still dominated by native plants. As such, this community may provide a good example on which to base planting schemes for restoration efforts elsewhere in the buffer zones of Edmonds Marsh and Shellabarger Marsh. This area may also be able to provide native, local planting stock for such restoration efforts, if seeds or cuttings could be harvested conservatively and propagated for out-planting. Invasive species growing in the southern buffer zone should be monitored and controlled to protect the integrity of the existing high-quality habitat. However, it is also recommended that such activities be conducted with care, and that any vegetation removal efforts be conducted outside of the breeding season. A few relatively isolated patches of English ivy were observed during the site reconnaissance; these should be controlled before they begin to spread or climb nearby trees. The large patch of bittersweet nightshade observed within the Marsh should also be monitored to prevent its spread into the buffer zone and riparian corridors of Willow Creek. Ultimately, this patch may need to be controlled. Consultation with other municipalities that have dealt with similar infestations of bittersweet nightshade in wetlands may be helpful in determining a control approach. Finally, while a relatively large quantity of LWD was observed within the southern buffer zone, little to no LWD was observed within the Willow Creek channels (Photo 9 of Appendix A). The placement of LWD within the creek channels, or natural recruitment of LWD in the event that streamside trees should fall, would provide beneficial habitat complexity within the stream. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Attachment C_Final Buffer Eval Rpt_6-1-18 with photolog (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds and Shellabarger Marsh Buffer Zones June 1, 2018 20 3.4 EDMONDS MARSH SOUTHWEST BUFFER ZONE – ALONG UNOCAL PROPERTY The primary recommendation for the southwest buffer zone currently is to conduct a more thorough evaluation of existing conditions. Additional surveys may possible during a baseline study of the Marsh to be initiated in summer 2018, either by evaluating additional portions of the southwest buffer zone from the Marsh interior, or by obtaining Chevron’s permission for direct access to the property. Physical access appears to be feasible from the hatchery property, if such permission were to be granted. Much of this buffer zone appears to contain habitat similar to the southern buffer zone. If so, it would represent a relatively high-quality and contiguous forested buffer habitat. 3.5 EDMONDS MARSH NORTHWEST BUFFER ZONE – ALONG BNSF RAILWAY LINE There are currently no recommendations for habitat enhancements in the northwest buffer zone, as this zone is completely developed and as access is generally restricted by BNSF. Approximately 0.5 ac of riparian plantings will be installed along the portion of the Willow Creek channel adjacent to the southwest of the northwest buffer zone as part of the Willow Creek Daylighting project (Shannon & Wilson 2015). 3.6 SHELLABARGER MARSH BUFFER ZONES Habitat enhancement possibilities are currently relatively limited in the eastern and western buffer zones of Shellabarger Marsh given the presence of large, multi-family residential developments and SR 104. However, water quality enhancements might be possible with improvements to vegetation and flow conditions in the area where channelized surface water now flows out of a culvert and through a portion of the eastern buffer zone (adjacent to a large condominium building) prior to entering Shellabarger Marsh (Figure 2). s. In addition, the City has recently been offered the opportunity to purchase the parcel of land immediately adjacent to the south of its undeveloped parcel within the northern buffer zone of Shellabarger Marsh (VanLoveren et al. 2018). The parcel for sale is undeveloped, covers approximately 0.67 ac, and includes portions of Shellabarger Marsh and its eastern buffer zone (Figure 1). There are also opportunities within the northern buffer zone, which is located on land owned by the City that is primarily already vegetated with trees and shrubs (both native and non-native species). Vegetation enhancement in the northern buffer zone could include removal of non-native (including cherry laurel, English holly, and English ivy), and installation of native shrubs, groundcover plants, and shade tolerant trees. As some of the red alder trees in this area are in decline, providing a source of seedlings that will ultimately grow to replace them would be important to ensuring forest succession. Vegetation enhancement opportunities were also identified within the southern buffer zone of Shellabarger Marsh. A portion of this zone (between the apartment buildings 5.2.c Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Attachment C_Final Buffer Eval Rpt_6-1-18 with photolog (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds and Shellabarger Marsh Buffer Zones June 1, 2018 21 and SR 104) contains a small patch of forested wetland. While Pacific willow are dominant in the canopy, the understory is dominated by a mix of non-native plants (Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, and some English ivy). Removing invasive plants and installing native shrubs and understory trees in this area would improve the quality of the habitat. Restoration efforts in the vegetated portion of the southern buffer zone could be extended south into Edmonds City Park if such activities were acceptable to the residential land owners in this area. Such restoration efforts would encompass a daylighted portion of the Shellabarger Creek channel (Figure 2). 5.2.c Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Attachment C_Final Buffer Eval Rpt_6-1-18 with photolog (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) 5.2.c Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Attachment C_Final Buffer Eval Rpt_6-1-18 with photolog (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds and Shellabarger Marsh Buffer Zones June 1, 2018 23 4 Conclusion This initial evaluation of conditions within the buffer zones Edmonds Marsh and Shellabarger Marsh buffer zones will be further developed after completion of the year-long baseline monitoring study to be initiated in summer 2018. The baseline monitoring study will provide additional information, both qualitative and quantitative, providing insight into the current ecological functions of the marshes and their buffer zones. The baseline monitoring study plan is under development, with the assistance of stakeholder groups such as the Save Our Marsh community group, the Port of Edmonds, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the City. Data to be collected as part of the baseline study include water level and basic water quality parameters (e.g., temperature and salinity), observations of marsh sediment and upland soil characteristics, vegetation surveys, invertebrate and bird surveys, and other wildlife observations. In addition, photo stations will be used to visually document conditions within the marshes and their buffer zones during different seasons of the year. The baseline monitoring data will be used to elaborate the initial ideas for potential habitat restoration and enhancement projects suggested in this document. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Attachment C_Final Buffer Eval Rpt_6-1-18 with photolog (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) 5.2.c Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Attachment C_Final Buffer Eval Rpt_6-1-18 with photolog (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds and Shellabarger Marsh Buffer Zones June 1, 2018 25 5 References McMillan A. 2000. The science of wetland buffers and its implication for the management of wetlands. Masters. Environmental Studies, Evergreen State College, 123 pp. Sea-Run Consulting, Tetra Tech Inc., Reid Middleton Inc., Pentec. 2007. Shoreline master program update. Shoreline inventory & characterization. Prepared for City of Edmonds, Washington. Shannon & Wilson. 2015. Final feasibility study, Willow Creek daylighting, Edmonds, Washington. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Seattle, WA. VanLoveren D, Lloyd B, Belt T. 2018. Personal communication Email to Edmonds, Washington City Council dated May 2, 2018, inviting City of Edmonds to consider purchasing 0.67 acres of undeveloped land near the local wastewater treatment plant. Edmonds, WA. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Attachment C_Final Buffer Eval Rpt_6-1-18 with photolog (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) APPENDIX A. PHOTO LOG 5.2.c Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Attachment C_Final Buffer Eval Rpt_6-1-18 with photolog (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Site-Specific Buffer Evaluation Appendix A. Photo Log p. 1 Photo No.: 1 Date: April 23, 2018 Description: View to the southeast from the boardwalk located near the Harbor Square property. The photo shows the strip of primarily native trees and shrubs along the eastern portion of the northern buffer zone in the background, with emergent and mudflat habitat within the marsh interior in the foreground. Photo No.: 2 Date: April 23, 2018 Description: A close-up view of the vegetated strip located in the eastern portion of the northern buffer zone. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Attachment C_Final Buffer Eval Rpt_6-1-18 with photolog (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Site-Specific Buffer Evaluation Appendix A. Photo Log p. 2 Photo No.: 3 Date: April 23, 2018 Description: View of one of the storm drain outfalls that discharges to Edmonds Marsh within the northern buffer zone. After exiting the outfall, stormwater flows through an unlined ditch into the marsh. Photo No.: 4 Date: April 23, 2018 Description: View to the south from the drainage ditch located adjacent to Highway 104, just north of the eastern buffer zone. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Attachment C_Final Buffer Eval Rpt_6-1-18 with photolog (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Site-Specific Buffer Evaluation Appendix A. Photo Log p. 3 Photo No.: 5 Date: April 23, 2018 Description: View to the south along SR 104 showing the relatively narrow strip of vegetation within the northern portion of the Edmonds Marsh eastern buffer zone. Photo No.: 6 Date: April 23, 2018 Description: View to the west (toward the interior of Edmonds Marsh) from the southern portion of the eastern buffer zone. The photo shows the declining condition of alder trees present in this area, as well as the dense growth of Himalayan blackberry in the understory. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Attachment C_Final Buffer Eval Rpt_6-1-18 with photolog (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Site-Specific Buffer Evaluation Appendix A. Photo Log p. 4 Photo No.: 7 Date: April 23, 2018 Description: View to the northeast from Pine Street showing the entrance to the Willow Creek Fish Hatchery. The background of the photo provides a good representation of the forest conditions within the southern buffer zone. Photo No.: 8 Date: April 23, 2018 Description: View to the north from one of the buildings associated with the hatchery. With the exception of the hatchery buildings, pools, and access road, most of the southern buffer zone is heavily vegetated, as visible in the background of the photo. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Attachment C_Final Buffer Eval Rpt_6-1-18 with photolog (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Site-Specific Buffer Evaluation Appendix A. Photo Log p. 5 Photo No.: 9 Date: April 23, 2018 Description: View to the north from the southern buffer zone, within the Willow Creek Fish Hatchery property. The photo shows Willow Creek flowing toward Edmonds Marsh, and the surrounding forested wetland habitat. Photo No.: 10 Date: April 23, 2018 Description: One of the standing snags with abundant woodpecker holes located in the southern buffer zone. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Attachment C_Final Buffer Eval Rpt_6-1-18 with photolog (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Site-Specific Buffer Evaluation Appendix A. Photo Log p. 6 Photo No.: 11 Date: April 23, 2018 Description: View of the southwest buffer zone, looking north from the lookout at Point Edwards. Photo No.: 12 Date: April 23, 2018 Description: View to the northwest along the Willow Creek channel adjacent to the Unocal stormwater detention pond. Represents conditions within the southwest buffer zone. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Attachment C_Final Buffer Eval Rpt_6-1-18 with photolog (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) FINAL Edmonds Marsh Site-Specific Buffer Evaluation Appendix A. Photo Log p. 7 Photo No.: 13 Date: April 23, 2018 Description: View to the southwest of Shellabarger Marsh western buffer zone, along Highway 104. Photo No.: 14 Date: April 23, 2018 Description: View of the southern end of Shellabarger Marsh western buffer zone. Pacific willow are seen growing in the background, while reed canarygrass, bittersweet nightshade, and Himalayan blackberry are seen in the foreground. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Attachment C_Final Buffer Eval Rpt_6-1-18 with photolog (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) EDMONDS MARSH BASELINE MONITORING PLAN DRAFT Prepared for Edmonds City Council 121 - 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA June 27, 2018 Prepared by: 200 West Mercer Street, Suite 401 s Seattle, Washington s 98119 5.2.d Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) 5.2.d Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 i Table of Contents Table of Contents i Tables ii Figures ii Acronyms iii 1 Introduction 4 2 Baseline Monitoring Program Design and Goals 7 3 Monitoring for Physical Parameters 9 3.1 WATER LEVEL AND WATER QUALITY MONITORING 9 3.1.1 Edmonds Stream Team monitoring 11 3.1.2 Willow Creek daylighting feasibility study water monitoring 13 3.1.3 Edmonds Marsh baseline study monitoring 16 3.2 SOIL AND SEDIMENT OBSERVATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS 19 3.2.1 Methods for upland soil characterization in buffer zones 21 3.2.2 Methods for mudflat sediment characterizations within the Marsh 22 4 Monitoring for Biological Parameters 25 4.1 VEGETATION SURVEYS 25 4.1.1 Marsh vegetation surveys 26 4.1.2 Buffer zone vegetation surveys 27 4.1.3 Large woody debris 32 4.2 INVERTEBRATE SURVEYS 33 4.3 BIRD SURVEYS 35 4.4 OTHER WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS 38 5 Photo Point Monitoring 41 6 Community Involvement 45 7 Data Management 47 8 Summary 48 8 References 51 Appendix A. Field Forms 5.2.d Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 ii Tables Table 3-1. Physical monitoring parameters to be evaluated during the baseline monitoring study 9 Table 3-2. Water level data logger deployment scheme 16 Table 3-3. Analytical methods and sample handling requirements for soil samples 22 Table 4-1. Biological monitoring parameters to be evaluated during the baseline monitoring study 25 Table 4-2. Estimates of percent cover for plant species in each plot 31 Table 4-3. Estimates of mean basal area of individual trees based on DBH 32 Table 4-4. LWD decay class categories 33 Table 4-5. Proposed bird point count monitoring locations 36 Table 5-1. Proposed photo point monitoring locations 41 Table 8-1. Baseline monitoring schedule 49 Figures Figure 1-1. Edmonds and Shellabarger Marshes vicinity map 5 Figure 3-1. Physical monitoring parameter stations 17 Figure 4-1. Biological monitoring parameter locations 28 Figure 4-2. Example transect line and sampling methodology for herb, sapling/shrub, and tree strata 30 Figure 5-1. Proposed photo point monitoring locations 42 5.2.d Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 iii Acronyms ARI Analytical Resources, Inc. ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene constituents Chevron Chevron Corp. City City of Edmonds cPAH carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon DBH diameter at breast height DO dissolved oxygen FS feasibility study HDPE high-density polyethylene LWD large woody debris Marsh Edmonds Marsh NAVD88 North American Vertical Datum of 1988 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service ppt parts per thousand PSEP Puget Sound Estuary Program PVC polyvinyl chloride QA quality assurance QC quality control TOC total organic carbon USACE US Army Corps of Engineers USDA US Department of Agriculture WAC Washington Administrative Code Windward Windward Environmental LLC WQC water quality criteria WQS water quality standards WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation WSS web soil survey 5.2.d Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 4 1 Introduction The Edmonds Marsh (Marsh) is a tidally influenced1 wetland occupying approximately 23 acre in the heart of Edmonds, Washington (Figure 1-1); it is the remnant of a once much larger (40-acre) estuarine wetland along the shores of Puget Sound (Sea-Run Consulting et al. 2007). The western portion of the Marsh supports saltmarsh plants; it is brackish in winter months, when the tide gate downstream of the Marsh typically is closed, and saline in spring and summer months, when the tide gate typically is open. The eastern portion of the Marsh is a predominantly freshwater system fed by two tributary creeks—Willow Creek and Shellabarger Creek. The drainage basin of Willow Creek is approximately 393 acre in size and encompasses residential land to the south and east of the Marsh (Shannon & Wilson 2015). The drainage basin of Shellabarger Creek is approximately 378 acre in size and encompasses residential and commercial land to the north, east, and south of the Marsh. Shellabarger Marsh is a small freshwater marsh located to the east of the Marsh. Shellabarger Marsh was once part of the Marsh, but the two were separated when State Route (SR)-104 was constructed. The two marshes are still hydraulically connected via a pair of culverts running under SR-104 (Sea-Run Consulting et al. 2007). Both the Marsh and Shellabarger Marsh provide valuable habitat to birds and other wildlife, in addition to conveying large quantities of storm- and surface water. 1 The Marsh is tidally influenced when the tide gate downstream of the Marsh is open, typically in spring and summer months (April through September) (Sea-Run Consulting et al. 2007). 5.2.d Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) Edmonds MarshHarbor SquareUnocal SiteWillow CreekFishHatcheryEdmondsCity ParkEdmondsMarinaEdmondsWastewaterTreatmentPlantBurlingtonNorthernSantaFeRailwayMarinaBeachParkResidentialDayton St.2nd Ave. S.City ofEdmondsParcelShellabargerMarsh`_104Figure 1-1. Edmonds and Shellabarger Marshesvicinity mapPrepared by mikey, 6/7/2018; W:\Projects\Edmonds Marsh\Data\GIS\Maps and Analyses\Buffer_Zone_Evaluation\Fig 1_6862_Edmonds and Shellabarger Marsh Vicinity Map.mxdm0 0.05 0.1Miles0400800FeetParcel//&HQYLURQPHQWDO Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User CommunityContent may not reflect National Geographic's current map policy. Sources: National Geographic, Esri, DeLorme, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS,NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp., Snohomish County<5.2.dPacket Pg. 158Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 6 This document described the rationale and methods for conducting a baseline monitoring study (baseline study) of the Marsh, Shellabarger Marsh, and the buffer zones of the two marshes. The development of the baseline study built upon information presented in the Evaluation of Buffer Widths and Ecological Functions: A Review to Support the Edmonds Marsh Study (Windward 2018a), which provided examples of the types of monitoring data that would be useful in helping to evaluate the ecological functions provided by wetland buffer zones. The baseline study was also informed by a preliminary evaluation of the marshes’ buffer zones, as documented in the Evaluation of Edmonds Marsh and Shellabarger Marsh Buffer Zones (Windward 2018b). Finally, valuable input for the baseline study was provided by community stakeholders, including the City of Edmonds (City), the Port of Edmonds, Save Our Marsh, and the Pilchuck Audubon Society. Section 2 of this document further describes the monitoring program and its goals, Section 3 describes monitoring physical parameters, Section 4 describes monitoring biological parameters, Section 5 explains how photo point monitoring will be conducted, Section 6 outlines community involvement strategies, and Section 7 describes how data will be managed. 5.2.d Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 7 2 Baseline Monitoring Program Design and Goals The overarching goals of the baseline study are to quantify and describe current conditions within both marshes in order to establish a baseline against which future changes can be measured, and to provide information about the ecological functions currently being performed by the marshes and their buffer zones. A secondary goal of the baseline study is to select and describe monitoring methods that are easy to implement and easily repeated, so that comparable datasets could be generated in the future. The baseline study will be conducted over the course of one year; data collection events will be performed during each season of the year. Both physical and biological parameters will be monitored in order to provide a baseline against which future changes within the Marsh—generated by projects such as the Willow Creek daylighting, the Dayton Street pump station, vegetation enhancement, and other future land use changes within the Marsh’s drainage basin—can be evaluated. Information gathered through the baseline study will also be used to help develop the 2019 update to the City’s Shoreline Master Program description of the Marsh, to help identify vegetation enhancement opportunities, and to help inform initial preparations for a long-term watershed management study that could be conducted within the Marsh’s watershed. 5.2.d Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) 5.2.d Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 9 3 Monitoring for Physical Parameters Monitoring the physical parameters of a wetland system—including its hydrology (water levels), water quality, and sediment and soil characteristics—helps provide information about how that wetland functions to provide water storage, water quality improvements, substrates suitable to support plant growth, and habitat structure. In addition, a baseline dataset documenting these parameters can be useful in identifying and quantifying future changes to wetland systems. Table 3-1 provides a brief description of the physical monitoring parameters to be included in the baseline study. Additional details regarding the rationale for these parameters’ selection and the specific monitoring methods to be employed are presented in the subsections that follow. Any deviations from the methods proposed will be documented in the baseline monitoring report composed at the end of the monitoring year. Table 3-1. Physical monitoring parameters to be evaluated during the baseline monitoring study Parameter Activity Purpose Water levels measurement of water level in the Marsh and tributary creeks over the course of a year build upon current data to assess Marsh conditions Water quality measurement of temperature, conductivity, and salinity in the Marsh and tributary creeks over the course of a year build upon current data to assess Marsh conditions and buffer zone functions Buffer zone soil characterization • measurements of organic matter content, texture/grain size distribution, pH, and bulk density • qualitative soil characteristic assessments (e.g., soil texture, redox features, color) • assess hydroperiod and redox conditions • characterize buffer zone soils’ ability to perform ecological functions (e.g. water infiltration and suitable growing conditions for native plant species) Marsh sediment characterization • measurements of organic matter content, texture/grain size distribution, and pH • qualitative sediment characteristic assessments (e.g., texture, redox features, color) • establish baseline substrate conditions • provide information about marsh sediment ecological functions (e.g., suitable habitat for benthic invertebrates) Marsh – Edmonds Marsh 3.1 WATER LEVEL AND WATER QUALITY MONITORING Hydrology is one of the main driving forces in wetlands, influencing plant community composition, water quality, soil processes, sediment transport, channel morphology, nutrient cycling, and wetland habitat functions (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007; National Wildlife Refuge System et al. 2018). The specific hydrologic balance between the water flowing into and out of emergent wetland habitats is what separates these systems from upland, terrestrial, and open aquatic habitats (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007). The inundation regime of a wetland also helps determine when it is accessible to certain fish and bird species (National Wildlife Refuge System et al. 2018). 5.2.d Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 10 The baseline monitoring study will gather hydrologic data from within the Marsh and its tributary creeks over the course of one year, using both continuous water level data loggers and manual water level measurements. Since the Willow Creek daylighting project, the Dayton Street pump station, and other future land use changes around the Marsh will undoubtedly influence its hydrologic regime, obtaining measurements of current water level fluctuations will help establish a record of baseline conditions. Surface water temperature, pH, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen (DO) can also affect soil processes and the composition of wetland flora and fauna. Surface water temperature and pH can strongly influence the rates of biological and chemical processes in wetlands (Horner and Raedeke 1989). The amount of DO in surface waters fluctuates with temperature and determines the ability of a wetland to support aquatic organisms. Conductivity and temperature measurements are used to calculate salinity; salinization of wetland surface waters can cause shifts in the composition of plant and invertebrate communities, which can impact food resources within the wetland (Adamus et al. 2001). Water level and water quality data to be collected as part of the baseline monitoring study are intended to build upon and complement data collected to date during other monitoring efforts. Since the fall of 2015, members of the Edmonds Stream Team have collected monthly water data from the Marsh and Willow and Shellabarger Creeks.2 The Edmonds Stream Team consists of students from Edmonds-Woodway High School participating in the Students Saving Salmon club, as well as citizen scientists from the City community (Edmonds Stream Team 2016). One of the team’s goals is to provide baseline water monitoring data from the Marsh, Willow Creek, and Shellabarger Creek prior to the daylighting of Willow Creek. Section 3.1.1 summarizes water quality data collected by the Edmonds Stream Team. Water level, temperature, and conductivity data were also collected from the Marsh and its major water inflow and outflow locations by Shannon & Wilson between 2012 and 2015. These data were gathered as part of the feasibility study (FS) for the Willow Creek daylighting project; results from the Shannon & Wilson study are summarized in Section 3.1.2. The additional data collected as part of the baseline study will expand the temporal and spatial extent of available hydrologic and water quality data for the Marsh and its tributary creeks. Together, these data will provide a robust baseline dataset against which to compare future changes. While some of the water monitoring locations will overlap (i.e., important reference locations [e.g., the Willow Creek/Marsh outlet] providing data that will help interpret data from other areas), data from these reoccupied locations will provide a longer temporal range of information from these 2 Data have also been collected from Shell Creek but are not discussed herein, as Shell Creek is within a separate drainage basin from the Marsh. 5.2.d Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 11 areas. Such data will be useful in assessing current variability in water level and water quality conditions. 3.1.1 Edmonds Stream Team monitoring Monitoring stations located within the Marsh, Shellabarger Marsh, or Willow and Shellabarger Creeks near where the creeks enter or exit the Marsh were as follows: u Three sampling stations along the northern boundary of the Marsh (stations L1, L2, and K1) u Station K2 near the eastern boundary of the Marsh adjacent to SR-104 u Station N1 at the existing Willow Creek outfall adjacent to Admiral Way (to monitor water quality at the downstream inflow/outflow channel of the Marsh [i.e., the Marsh outlet]) u Station J1 at the outflow of Shellabarger Marsh u Station F1 at the lower portion of Shellabarger Creek near where it passes under SR-104 u Station B1 on Willow Creek within the Willow Creek fish hatchery property3 Monthly monitoring for water depth, water temperature, pH, and DO, as well as other general water quality parameters, was conducted between August 2015 and June 2017 using a YSI© Professional Plus water quality meter; a second water quality monitor, a YSI© ProDSS®, was added to the program in December 2016. Water temperatures in the creeks fluctuated seasonally, with average temperatures of 11.5°C (52.8ºF) in the fall, 8.5°C (47.3ºF) in the winter, 12.5°C (54.5ºF) in the spring, and 14.3°C (57.8ºF) in the summer (Edmonds Stream Team 2017). These temperatures were all below the maximum daily water temperature threshold for the support of salmonid spawning, rearing, and migration (i.e., 17.5°C [63.5ºF]). Water temperatures also fluctuated seasonally at the Marsh monitoring locations; average temperatures were 12.2°C (53.9ºF) in the fall, 7.5°C (45.5ºF) in the winter, 13.9°C (57.1ºF) in the spring, and 16.8°C (62.2ºF) in the summer. However, water temperatures at the Willow Creek/Marsh outlet were above the 17.5°C [63.5ºF] water quality threshold in the spring and summer of 2016,4 and temperatures in the northern portion of the Marsh exceeded the threshold in all summer months. The higher temperature within the Marsh outlet was thought to be due, at least in part, to the fact that the reading was taken at the end of a 3 There are additional monitoring stations on Willow and Shellabarger Creeks higher in their drainage basins. Results for these stations are available in the Edmonds Stream Team monitoring reports (Edmonds Stream Team 2016, 2017). 4 A water temperature reading of 68.5ºF was observed at the Willow Creek/Marsh outlet in May 2016; this reading was approximately 10 degrees higher than the water temperature readings taken in Willow and Shellabarger Creeks during the same sampling event (Edmonds Stream Team 2016). In June 2016, the temperature of the water at the Willow Creek/Marsh outlet was 73.2ºF (Edmonds Stream Team 2017). 5.2.d Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 12 low tide cycle when water levels within the Marsh were very low (Edmonds Stream Team 2016). In general, the bulk of the water flowing through the Marsh (between where Shellabarger Creek enters the Marsh at the SR-104 culverts and where Willow Creek exits the Marsh near Admiral Way) had DO concentrations exceeding the 1-day minimum requirement for salmonid spawning, rearing, and migration of 8.0 mg/L (as defined in the Washington Administrative Code [WAC]). The average DO concentration was approximately 9.2 mg/L. DO concentrations in the northern and eastern portions of the Marsh interior, however, were below 8.0 mg/L during all seasons. Average concentrations measured throughout the monitoring period at the Harbor Square culverts ranged from 0.3 mg/L in the spring to 3.4 mg/L in the winter. A DO concentration at or below 2 mg/L is lethal to most aquatic organisms (Edmonds Stream Team 2017). Average concentrations measured throughout the monitoring period along the eastern portion of the Marsh interior mostly ranged from a low of 1.0 mg/L in the fall to a high of 8.9 in the winter; the exception was the eastern portion of the Marsh where Shellabarger Creek enters at the SR-104 culverts, where DO concentrations ranged from 8.2 mg/L in the summer to 10.6 mg/L in the winter. Average DO concentrations in Willow and Shellabarger Creeks were above 8.0 mg/L in all seasons. In general, the pH of water within the Marsh ranged between 6.5 and 8.5, meeting Washington State water quality criteria (WQC) (pH 6.5); however, water was slightly more acidic along the northern boundary of the Marsh than at other locations. The pH of the water within the northern portion of the Marsh interior was below the WQC of 6.5 on numerous occasions. The main flow of water through the Marsh (between the Shellabarger Creek inlet and the Willow Creek/Marsh outlet) had an average pH of 7.3, while the average pH along the northern Marsh edge was 6.5. The average pH of the creeks was 7.7, and all pH measurements within the creeks were between 6.5 and 8.5. Salinity at the Willow Creek/Marsh outlet averaged 0.15 parts per thousand (ppt) in the winter months (between December and early March), a period of time when the tide gate is closed (Edmonds Stream Team 2017). In comparison, salinity measurements at the same location averaged 6.36 ppt in the spring and summer months (between mid-March and mid-October), a period of time when the tide gate is open. The low salinity in the winter and early spring months is attributed to a lack of tidal water inflow when the tide gate is closed, and a greater influx of freshwater from the Marsh’s tributary creeks, which had an average salinity of 0.11 ppt throughout the monitoring period (October 2015 to May 2016) (Edmonds Stream Team 2016). Water samples from the Marsh and the lower creek sites were also submitted for laboratory analysis of dissolved metals; petroleum hydrocarbons; benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene constituents (BTEX); carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (cPAHs); and fecal coliforms. While heavy metals were detected in all 5.2.d Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 13 samples, dissolved metals concentrations were below Washington State WQC for freshwater aquatic life (Edmonds Stream Team 2017, 2016). Petroleum hydrocarbons and BTEX were detected in samples from some of the sampling stations, and some individual cPAHs were detected at concentrations higher than water quality standards (WQS), which are based on human health criteria. Benzo(a)pyrene was the cPAH that was most frequently detected at concentrations above WQS, and most of the exceedances were detected along the northern portion of the Marsh interior (Edmonds Stream Team 2017). Fecal coliform bacteria (i.e., the Washington State primary contact recreation bacteria for freshwater; see WAC 173-201A-200) were detected at more than 100 colonies/100 mL in samples collected from the Willow Creek/Marsh outlet, the Shellabarger Marsh outlet, lower Shellabarger Creek, and the portion of Shellabarger Creek that flows under SR-104 and into the Marsh (Edmonds Stream Team 2016). Fecal coliform counts were higher after rain events (Edmonds Stream Team 2017). The Edmonds Stream Team will continue collecting water quality data in the Marsh and its tributary creeks. 3.1.2 Willow Creek daylighting feasibility study water monitoring As part of the FS for the Willow Creek daylighting project, Shannon & Wilson collected tidal hydrology, water surface elevation, temperature, and salinity data using six data loggers deployed between August 2012 and December 2013 (Shannon & Wilson 2015). Data collection occurred for varying time periods (beginning in September 2012 and December 2013), and end points ranged from March 2013 to July 2015. The data loggers were installed in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes secured to existing structures or driven into sediment and secured with locking caps. The data loggers were installed at various locations. • LTC-1A was installed in Edmonds Marina, near J-Dock, on a pile underneath the weather station. • LTC-1B was installed in the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) manhole at the Willow Creek Outfall inlet. • LTC-2 was installed in Lower Willow Creek, upstream of the outlet from the Chevron Corp. (Chevron) stormwater pond (formerly and hereafter referred to as the Unocal detention basin). • LTC-3A was installed in Shellabarger Marsh northeast of SR-104, near the WSDOT culverts. • LTC-3B was installed in Upper Shellabarger Creek, across from the 3rd Avenue Condominiums parking lot. • LTC-4 was installed in Upper Willow Creek, upstream of the Willow Creek fish hatchery footbridge. Loggers LTC-1A, LTC-1B, LTC-2, and LTC-3A collected water level, temperature, and conductivity information (Shannon & Wilson 2015). Loggers LTC-3B and LTC-4 5.2.d Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 14 collected water level and temperature data. These two loggers were not used to collect conductivity (salinity) information as they were located in known freshwater portions of the streams. Additionally, logger LTC-Barrow was initially installed in Lower Shellabarger Marsh and subsequently moved in Upper Shellabarger Creek (Shannon & Wilson 2015). This logger was used to collect barometric pressure data. LTC-1A in Edmonds Marina collected water level data, which confirmed the tidal elevations and timing collected by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) Seattle, Elliot Bay, gauge (Gauge 9441370); Shannon & Wilson therefore concluded that the NOAA gauge could be used as a reference and source of tidal data (Shannon & Wilson 2015). Water levels ranged from about -4 to 9 ft North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). LTC-1A also collected salinity and water temperature data that Shannon & Wilson concluded were “typical” of Puget Sound seawater. Salinity measurements ranged from approximately 25 to 31 ppt, and temperature ranged from approximately 8 to 9ºC (46 to 48ºF). Water elevation data recorded by logger LTC-2 generally ranged between 6 and 8 to 9 ft (Shannon & Wilson 2015). According to Shannon & Wilson, 6 ft NAVD88 “roughly” corresponds to the bottom of the Lower Willow Creek channel. The maximum observed water level at LTC-2 was 10.4 ft NAVD88 on November 19, 2012. Recorded salinity data at LTC-2 ranged from 0 to 35 ppt, and recorded water temperatures ranged from 0 to 24ºC (32 to 75ºF). Some of the recorded temperatures were above the lethal limit for fish (16ºC or 61ºF). Shannon & Wilson concluded that the high water temperatures were likely caused by shallow flows in the Lower Willow Creek channel, which had little shading. Water levels recorded at LTC-3A were around 10 ft NAVD88 (up to approximately 12 ft NAVD88) and were generally approximately 4 ft higher than those in Lower Willow Creek and the Marsh (Shannon & Wilson 2015). Shannon & Wilson concluded “that the Shellabarger Creek portion of the Marsh is disconnected from the main Marsh, indicating a blockage between the two marshes at the SR-104 culverts or from the dense cattail thickets.” Salinity measurements at LTC-3a were approximately 0 to 1 ppt. Temperature ranged from about 9 to 14ºC (48 to 57 ºF). Water level data recorded at LTC-1B showed tidal influence and water levels ranging from approximately 2 to 12 ft NAVD88 (Shannon & Wilson 2015). A maximum water level of 12.67 ft NAVD88 was recorded on November 28, 2014. This water level was higher than the top of the manhole (11.83 ft NAVD88), indicating that the manhole is overtopped. Shannon & Wilson noted that overtops corresponded with high tides. Salinity levels recorded at LTC-1B fluctuated between approximately 0 and 35 ppt; Shannon & Wilson attributed the fluctuations to the drying out of the logger, not to upstream freshwater inflows. 5.2.d Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 15 Water level data recorded at LTC-3B and LTC-4 indicated that water levels between the two creeks were “fairly consistent” and generally ranged between approximately 17 and 18 ft NAVD88 (Shannon & Wilson 2015). Upper Shellabarger Creek was noted to be more “flashy” due to the logger’s locations in a confined channel and the more urbanized watershed. Peak recorded water levels were 18.9 ft NAVD88 for Upper Shellabarger Creek on October 11, 2014, and 18 ft NAVD88 for Upper Willow Creek on December 11, 2014. Water temperatures at these two locations ranged from 4 to 18ºC (39 to 64 ºF); temperatures in Upper Shellabarger Creek were approximately 2ºC (4 ºF) higher than those in Upper Willow Creek during summer months. In addition to this work, Shannon & Wilson had planned to collect water samples four times in the course of one year and sediment in the summer of 2017 (Shannon & Wilson 2017b). According to the May 2017 sampling results report, water samples were collected, but only in December 2016 and March 2017. Samples were analyzed for temperature, DO, pH, turbidity, conductivity, total suspended solids, total phosphorus, total persulphate nitrogen, chloride, hardness, metals (priority pollutant metals), and fecal coliform. Water samples were collected during the sampling events at seven locations (Shannon & Wilson 2017b): u WC-01 at Marina Beach Park u WC-02 just upstream of the Willow Creek outfall inlet u WC-03 near the northernmost point of the Marsh u WC-04 in the northern branch of Shellabarger Creek, west of SR-104 u WC-05 in the Marsh, near the intersection of Shellabarger and Willow Creeks u WC-06 near the Willow Creek fish hatchery u WC-07 in Shellabarger Creek, east of SR-104 During the December 2016 event, concentrations in sample WC-03 exceeded Washington State WQS for DO and pH, four samples (WC-03, WC-04, WC-05, and WC-07) had concentrations that exceeded WQS for fecal coliform, and concentrations in sample WC-05 exceeded the acute WQS for total lead. During the March 2017 event, concentrations in sample WC-02 exceeded WQS for pH, and five samples (WC-02, WC-04, WC-05, WC-06, and WC-07) had concentrations that exceeded WQS for fecal coliform. According to Shannon & Wilson, the City communicated that there had been “some sewer line failures” in the vicinity of Shellabarger Creek (Shannon & Wilson 2017b). According to this report, Shannon & Wilson had planned additional water quality sampling events for June and September 2017; however, the results of these events were not included in the report. 5.2.d Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 16 3.1.3 Edmonds Marsh baseline study monitoring Water level and water quality within the Marsh and its tributaries will be monitored throughout the year using automated water level data loggers. The loggers will be deployed in areas where water flows into or out of the Marsh and in two locations within the Marsh interior, in order to provide information about how hydrology in the Marsh fluctuates in association with both freshwater and tidally influenced flows. The loggers will also provide data on water temperature, conductivity, and salinity.5 These data will be useful in helping to determine the extent of the tidally influenced portion of the Marsh, examining water temperature fluctuations (an important factor in determining the suitability of aquatic habitat to various organisms), better understanding the influence of storm and surface water flows into the Marsh, and further evaluating existing conditions. Four of the data loggers will be deployed in fixed locations throughout the monitoring year, and one logger will be moved periodically (“roving”) to gather information at a variety of locations. Table 3-2 summarizes the rationale behind the anticipated deployment scheme, and Figure 3-1 shows the approximate locations where the loggers will be placed. Table 3-2. Water level data logger deployment scheme Logger No. Location/Fixed or Roving Rationale 1 at existing outfall of Willow Creek, adjacent to Admiral Way – fixed location Provide reference information about overall water outflow from the Marsh. 2 in primary tidal channel extending north from the Willow Creek channel (where channel is adjacent to the Unocal detention basin) – fixed location Provide reference information about quantity and salinity of water flowing through northwestern portion of the Marsh. 3 within northwestern portion of Marsh interior – fixed location Provide information about water levels within interior Marsh channel and about stormwater influxes from adjacent upland areas. 4 at the southeastern edge of the Marsh interior mudflat area where the zone of saltwater to freshwater transition is understood to be locateda Provide additional information about hydrology and salinity within the transition zone. 5 within Willow Creek channel in or adjacent to Willow Creek fish hatchery property – roving location between area where creek channel runs through riparian forest and area where it flows through more emergent area of Marsh within Shellabarger Creek – roving location between upstream and downstream sides of SR-104 culverts conveying Shellabarger Creek Willow Creek: Provide information about the ability of riparian vegetation to provide cooler water temperatures through shading, as well as information about the differences in water temperature between the riparian forest and more emergent areas. Shellabarger Creek: Provide information about ability of water to flow through culverts, as well as information about fluctuating hydrology in the wetland areas due to “piling up” of water if culverts are unable to convey flows sufficiently. a Shannon & Wilson (2017a) provided a map of the zone of saltwater to freshwater transition in the critical areas report that it prepared for the City. City – City of Edmonds Marsh – Edmonds Marsh SR – State Route 5 Salinity can be calculated using the temperature and conductivity data outputs of the loggers. 5.2.d Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) %L%L%L%L%L%L%L%L%LPuget SoundEdmonds MarshHarbor SquareUnocal SiteWillow CreekFishHatcheryEdmondsCity ParkEdmondsMarinaEdmondsWastewaterTreatmentPlantBurlington Northern Santa Fe RailwayMarinaBeachParkResidentialDayton St.2nd Ave. S.City ofEdmondsParcelShellabargerMarshShellabargerCreekWillowCreekW illo w C reekCity of EdmondsVault and Tide GateWillow CreekOutfall InletWillow CreekOutfallWSDOTEdmonds WayOutfall¬«104Prepared by craigh, 6/7/2018; W:\Projects\Edmonds Marsh\Data\GIS\Maps and Analyses\Monitoring plan\Fig 2_6884_Physical Monitoring Parameter Stations.mxd±0 0.05 0.1Miles0 250 500Feet Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User CommunityContent may not reflect National Geographic's current map policy. Sources: National Geographic, Esri, DeLorme, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS,NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp., Snohomish County, City of Edmonds//&HQYLURQPHQWDOFigure 3-1. Physical monitoring parameterstationsDRAFTStorm structureStorm culvertStorm lineStorm ditch/creekShellabarger Marsh w/ 125-ft bufferEdmonds Marsh w/ 125-ft bufferParcelCity of Edmonds boundarySediment core/benthicinvertebrate sample locationSediment transect lineWater data logger location%LContinuous/permanent location%LRoving location5.2.dPacket Pg. 170Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 18 The loggers will be anchored in place using copper6 pipe anchors or housings. At approximately monthly intervals, the loggers will be retrieved, and the data from each logger will be downloaded. The loggers will then be redeployed. Moorings will be modified for each particular location; typically, a ¾-in. copper pipe will be inserted into the sediment such that the top of each pipe will be level with the sediment surface. The logger will be inserted into the pipe with the sensors up. A camouflage cover will be placed over the instrument. Instantaneous water parameter measurements will also be made at least once during each season at multiple locations within the Marsh’s primary tidal channels and near areas where surface water or stormwater enters the Marsh (particularly if these areas are not represented by the data logger locations). These additional locations will be determined in the field, and a map showing the locations will be provided in the monitoring data report prepared at the end of the baseline monitoring year. A YSI© ProDSS® water quality meter (borrowed from the Edmonds Stream Team) will be used to collect water temperature, pH, conductivity, DO, and turbidity data at these locations.7 Water level data will be collected manually at each location where the water quality readings are taken, using a ruler attached to a wide, flat base (in order to prevent the ruler from sinking below the surface of the substrate). Water quality and level data, as well as information about tidal stage and any precipitation within the 48 hours preceding data collection, will be noted on the water level water/quality data collection form (included in Appendix A). In addition to providing baseline information for the Marsh, water quality data will be used to help determine the quality of habitat available within the Marsh to specific groups of species. For example, water temperature data could be compared to: the optimum water temperature for growth of salmonid fish species (15°C [or 59 °F]), the optimal water temperature for salmonid hatching and survival (approximately 13 to 14°C [55 to 57°F], or water temperatures known to support more diverse aquatic invertebrate communities (20°C [68°F] or less) (Horner and Raedeke 1989). Water quality data will also provide some information about how well the Marsh buffer zones are providing water quality functions. Wetland buffer zones can improve water quality by removing sediment, nutrients, and toxic pollutants from surface water inputs, and by providing shade and shelter that result in more consistent and generally lower water temperatures. Wide, densely vegetated buffer zones with shallow slopes and large woody debris (LWD) are most effective at maintaining and improving water quality. The baseline monitoring study is designed to monitor water flowing into the Marsh from the surrounding buffer zones (via Willow and Shellabarger Creeks). Comparing water quality data from these areas to water quality data collected within the Marsh will allow inferences to be drawn regarding how well 6 Copper will help to retard biofouling on the loggers’ sensors. 7 Salinity data will be calculated using the temperature and conductivity data. 5.2.d Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 19 the buffer zones currently provide water quality functions (e.g., conveying cool water flows into the Marsh). 3.2 SOIL AND SEDIMENT OBSERVATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS Soil from the buffer zones and sediment from within the Marsh’s mudflat areas will be evaluated as part of the baseline study in order to provide a better understanding of the organic matter content, texture/grain size distribution, and pH of these substrates. Understanding the upland soil characteristics of the buffer zone will provide information about the types of vegetation that would be expected to grow well in a given area (which will be useful for any future planting efforts). Such understanding will also provide information about how well water can infiltrate the ground, an important component to determining how well buffer zones can provide stormwater flow control and water quality improvements (Castelle et al. 1992). Measuring the organic matter content and pH of buffer zone soils and Marsh sediments will provide useful information about soil/sediment processes and the bioavailability of nutrients and other ions in these substrates. The quantity of organic matter in soil or sediment influences how well the substrate can absorb, incorporate, and otherwise retain a range of ions, some of which are important plant nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus), but others of which are potentially harmful pollutants (e.g., heavy metals) (Horner and Raedeke 1989). Organic matter content in upland soils also contributes to the water-holding capacity of the soil and to its ability to develop soil structure (which in turn aids in aeration of the soil and its ability to infiltrate water). Therefore, a sufficient quantity of organic matter is important for healthy plant growth (Horner and Raedeke 1989). The organic matter content of soils and sediments is often interrelated to the pH of these substrates. Mineral soils typically have an approximately neutral pH and an organic matter content of less than approximately 20 to 35%; organic soils are generally acidic and have an organic content of greater than 20 to 35% (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007). Mineral soils are generally characterized by high nutrient availability, and organic soils often have low nutrient availability (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007). Decomposition of organic matter in saturated soils and sediments contributes to the development of hydric soil features8 and can also contribute to acidification of the substrate (i.e., when organic acids are released during the breakdown of vegetation in some wetlands systems) (Horner and Raedeke 1989). Upland soils in Western Washington tend to be slightly acidic, due to heavy precipitation (Hart et al. 2013; McCauley et al. 2017). Understanding the grain size distribution of both the upland buffer zone soils and the Marsh sediments will provide useful information about the ability of these substrates 8 Hydric soils are formed under specific conditions relating to saturation, intermittent flooding, or ponding whereby anaerobic conditions (lacking oxygen) develop (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007). 5.2.d Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 20 to allow water infiltration (for upland soils), provide nutrients that support plant growth, and provide suitable habitat for benthic invertebrates and even fish species (in the case of Marsh sediments) (Horner and Raedeke 1989). Grain size analysis determines the content of the substrate divided into the following categories (in order of decreasing particle size): gravel, sand, silt, and clay. The general proportion of each of these grain sizes determines the texture of upland soils. Soils of medium texture (called loams) generally function best in wetland systems, because loams provide suitable conditions for plant growth and allow for sufficient root penetration and water infiltration (Horner and Raedeke 1989; Mitsch and Gosselink 2007). Grain size is also a determining factor in the substrate’s ability to bind nutrients and contaminants, since nutrients and contaminants bind to fine particles (Akhurst et al. 2011; Castro and Reckendorf 1995). Bulk density analyses will be conducted on soils from the buffer zones to provide information about the soils’ level of compaction and capacity to transmit water. These characteristics are important in determining the ability of the soils to allow water to infiltrate and support plant growth. One of the primary purposes of documenting current Marsh sediment characteristics is to establish baseline substrate conditions, which may change after the Willow Creek daylighting project is implemented. Sediments in portions of the Marsh currently dominated by freshwater influences are expected to have different characteristics from those in portions currently dominated by estuarine influences. The top 10 cm (4 in.) of aquatic sediment habitat is also considered to be the biologically active zone, where benthic invertebrates dwell (EPA 2015). Therefore, understanding the characteristics of the top layer of the Marsh sediments will also provide information about habitat quality for these animals, which make up an important component of the food web (i.e., prey for fish, birds and other species). For example, wetland sediments finer than sands tend to support a more abundant and diverse community of aquatic organisms (such as macroinvertebrates) (Horner and Raedeke 1989), and benthic invertebrates are only expected to be observed in sediment layers above those displaying redox features, as below the redox layer, there is not sufficient oxygen to support these organisms. Projects like the daylighting of Willow Creek, the construction of the Dayton Street pump station, and the opening of the tidal gate will influence the hydraulic regime of the Marsh and likely the redox conditions of soils within the Marsh and its buffer zones. Therefore, establishing baseline conditions will help identify and interpret future changes in soil conditions and characteristics. The US Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) web soil survey (WSS) lists Mukilteo muck as the dominant soil type within the Marsh (USDA 2011). Mukilteo muck is typically found in depressions, and its parent material is herbaceous organic material. It is very poorly drained soil with a moderately high to high capacity to transmit water (Ksat is 1.4 to 5 cm/hr [0.57 to 5.2.d Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 21 1.98 in./hr]). This soil is rated as hydric by the NRCS. Minor soil types are also present on the margins of the Marsh, including Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loams and Everett very gravelly sandy loam. Urban land, consisting of level areas where structures and altered soils are present, is also present on the margins. Alderwood-Everett and Everett soil types are found on terraces and outwash plains formed by glacial outwash. These soils drain moderately well and their surface layer is gravelly sandy loam. 3.2.1 Methods for upland soil characterization in buffer zones Upland soil characterization field surveys will be conducted at four locations during the spring and fall monitoring events, to capture variability present during drier and wetter times of the year. One soil characterization location will be placed within each of three buffer zone vegetation survey areas of the Marsh (north, south, and southeast) and one within the Shellabarger Marsh buffer zone vegetation survey area (Figure 4- 1). These locations will be randomly selected but co-located with vegetation monitoring transect lines, described further in Section 4.1. The characterization of soil from these locations will provide additional data about site-specific soil conditions and help interpret additional information provided by the USDA WSS (USDA 2011). Soil characterizations will be performed in the field following USDA and NRCS (2010) methodology. A soil test pit will be dug to a depth of 50 cm (20 in.), and its profile’s layers will be characterized individually. This method will evaluate matrix colors, redox features, redox colors, and soil textures. A Munsell® soil color chart will be used to describe matrix and redox feature colors, and a simple soil texture analysis will be performed to preliminarily identify soil type (e.g., sandy loam, clay loam, or silty clay)9 (Munsell 2017). Additionally, field observations of wetland hydrology— including the presence and depth of surface water, water table, and saturation—will be noted when applicable. A soil corer with a 3-in. diameter will be used to collect a 12-in.-long soil core immediately adjacent to each soil test pit. Each soil core will carefully be removed from the corer and bagged. The soil sample will then be dried and weighed at the end of the field day. Using the known volume and dry weight of the soil sample, its bulk density will be calculated.10 Data will be recorded on the upland soil collection form (included in Appendix A). A step-by-step guide to performing a soil texture analysis in the field is provided in Appendix A. At each soil test pit, an equal volume of soil from a depth of 0 to 50 cm (0 to 20 in.) will be obtained using a stainless steel trowel and homogenized in stainless steel bowls. Large gravel/rocks and debris will be excluded from the homogenized sample to the extent practicable, and the soil will be distributed into sample collection jars 9 The preliminary soil texture analysis performed in the field will be validated by the quantitative grain size analysis performed by the laboratory. 10 Bulk density is the weight of a soil at a specific volume, and it provides an indication of soil compaction. 5.2.d Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 22 (Table 3-3). Samples will be sent to Analytical Resources, Inc. (ARI) in Tukwila, Washington, for quantitative laboratory analysis of grain size, total organic carbon (TOC), and pH per standard methods (Table 3-3). The soil data collected in the field and through laboratory analysis will provide additional information on hydroperiod and redox conditions present at the site, as well as information about how well buffer zone soils are currently performing ecological functions, including water infiltration and creating suitable growing conditions for native plant species. Table 3-3. Analytical methods and sample handling requirements for soil samples Parameter Method Laboratory Container Grain size PSEP (1986) ARI 16-oz. HDPE TOC EPA 9060 ARI 4-oz. amber glass pH EPA 9045D ARI 4-oz. amber glass ARI – Analytical Resources, Inc. ASTM – American Society for Testing and Materials EPA – US Environmental Protection Agency HDPE – high-density polyethylene PSEP – Puget Sound Estuary Program TOC – total organic carbon 3.2.2 Methods for mudflat sediment characterizations within the Marsh Sediment samples will be collected from four locations within the mudflat portion of the Marsh during the fall monitoring event. The sampling locations will be situated along a northwest-southeast-oriented transect line, as shown on Figure 3-1; this orientation is intended to follow a gradient of more estuarine to more freshwater Marsh conditions. The precise location and length of the northwest-southeast-oriented transect line will be determined in the field, guided by the characteristics of the surrounding Marsh vegetation (i.e., salt marsh vegetation and vegetation more likely to be found under freshwater conditions). Once the sampling transect line has been established, it will be divided into four segments of equal length. One sampling location will be placed randomly within each of the four segments, using a random number table. Sediment samples will be collected using a clear 3-in.-diameter Lexan™ core tube. The corer will be driven manually into the Marsh substrate to a depth of at least 15 cm (6 in.) (with a mallet or similar tool if necessary). After the core has been extracted, the outer surface of the core tube will be cleaned so that the sediment can be observed and described. The depth of each distinct sediment layer will be measured, and a Munsell® soil color chart will be used to describe the colors of different sediment layers. Other sediment characteristics (e.g., the presence of organic matter, visible redox features) will also be observed and recorded on the mudflat sediment collection form presented in Appendix A. In addition, sediment samples will be collected from 5.2.d Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 23 the top 10 cm (4 in.)11 of each of the four sediment core locations. Each sample will be transferred to a stainless steel bowl for homogenization with a stainless steel spoon. Samples will then be transferred to laboratory-provided sampling jars: one 8-oz. glass jar for pH and TOC analysis and one 16-oz. high-density polyethylene (HDPE) jar for grain size analysis (Table 3-3). The jars will be stored on ice and submitted to ARI for analysis. 11 The top 10 cm (4 in.) of the sediment is considered to the biologically active zone (EPA 2015). 5.2.d Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) 5.2.d Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 25 4 Monitoring for Biological Parameters Monitoring biological parameters such as vegetation and LWD, invertebrates, birds, and other wildlife will provide valuable information about the habitat functions currently being provided by the Marsh and its buffer zones. Monitoring the established vegetation community and presence of LWD within the Marsh and its buffer zones will provide valuable information about the composition and structure of those communities and will help identify any patches of invasive species in need of control. Invertebrates can be used as ecosystem indicators as well as indicators of available food sources for predators. Monitoring for birds and wildlife will provide further information about ecosystem health and the functioning of buffer zones as potential habitat and food sources. The baseline data gathered during biological monitoring will result in a list of current, documented species using the Marsh. This list will be a tool to help understand the habitat value being provided by the Marsh and its buffer zones and to set restoration goals. Table 4-1 provides a brief description of the biological monitoring parameters to be included in the baseline study. Additional details regarding the rationale for these parameters’ selection and the specific monitoring methods to be employed are presented in the subsections that follow. Any deviations from the methods proposed will be documented in the baseline monitoring report composed at the end of the monitoring year. Table 4-1. Biological monitoring parameters to be evaluated during the baseline monitoring study Parameter Activity Purpose Herbaceous, shrub, and tree vegetation measurement of plant species composition and cover Assess the health and diversity of the plant community and identify patches of invasive species. LWD measurement of large pieces of dead wood present in area Assess habitat features for plants, invertebrates, and wildlife. Invertebrate prey resource production evaluation of macroinvertebrate community composition Assess the diversity and composition of the macroinvertebrate community to determine the prey resource capacity. Bird presence observation of birds throughout Marsh and buffer areas Determine on-site bird use of buffer zones and marsh habitat. Wildlife presence observation of wildlife via trail cameras and incidental encounters during field events Determine use of present buffer zone and Marsh habitat by wildlife. LWD – large woody debris Marsh – Edmonds Marsh 4.1 VEGETATION SURVEYS The ability of a wetland buffer zone to provide habitat and travel corridors is greatly affected by vegetation quality and composition. Vegetation also helps to remove 5.2.d Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 26 sediment and toxic pollutants from a system and to create microclimates (Windward 2018a). A diverse native plant population, successive vegetation, and multi-story vegetation layers are important to providing high-quality buffer zone habitat (McMillan 2000; Desbonnet et al. 1994; Sheldon et al. 2005). In addition, buffer zone vegetation of appropriate shape, size, and landscape context can serve as valuable wildlife travel corridors. The goal of conducting vegetation surveys within the buffer zones of the Marsh is to document community composition and vegetation structure. The baseline vegetation monitoring will provide a snapshot of current conditions in the buffer zones. This information can then be compared to data collected in the future to document changes that have occurred as a result of natural plant growth, decline, and species composition changes, or as a result of human activities such as active habitat restoration efforts. Vegetation monitoring within the buffer zones will also help identify and document any patches of invasive species in need of management. Qualitative vegetation surveys will be conducted within the Marsh interior to document the existing Marsh plant communities. The hydrology and salinity regime of the Marsh are primary factors in determining the types of vegetation growing within the Marsh. Changes in hydrology and salinity regime are anticipated to occur after the Willow Creek daylighting project is implemented (particularly if the existing tide gate is removed and either not replaced or replaced with a configuration that allows more tidal water flow into the Marsh). Therefore, establishing a baseline of existing Marsh vegetation will allow for the evaluation of future changes to the plant communities and the habitat and functions those communities provide. 4.1.1 Marsh vegetation surveys Previous studies have included inventories of vegetation within the Marsh (Western SCP 2017; CH2M 2004). Vegetation surveys conducted within the Marsh as part of the baseline study will build upon those surveys by comparing the existing vegetation inventories to available high-resolution aerial photographs of the Marsh to help identify and outline different vegetation patches.12 Qualitative vegetation surveys will then be performed to ground-truth the findings of this exercise and to further map dominant13 plant species present in different areas of the Marsh. One of the main goals of the Marsh vegetation surveys is to identify the transition zone between salt-tolerant species and species more indicative of freshwater conditions. Another goal is to help document the locations and approximate sizes of any patches of invasive plants that may require control. A GPS unit will be used to record the locations of invasive species and patches of different native plant communities. 12 Aerial photographs to be provided by Google Earth or a similar existing aerial photo source. 13 Dominant species are those that are most abundant in the community or patch. 5.2.d Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 27 The marsh vegetation survey will be conducted during the summer monitoring event, when the sedges, grasses, rushes, and other vegetation within the Marsh are expected to be at peak growth, and when many species are expected to be flowering (thus aiding with plant identification). Additional survey work will be performed during the spring monitoring event, if needed, to help confirm findings from the summer survey.14 All pieces of LWD identified within the Marsh interior during the vegetation surveys will also be inventoried and documented per the methods described in Section 4.1.3. 4.1.2 Buffer zone vegetation surveys Vegetation within the buffer zones will be quantitatively evaluated by establishing vegetation sampling transect lines in the north, south,15 and southeast buffer zones of the Marsh, as shown on Figure 4-1 as areas labeled 1, 2, and 3, respectively. These buffer zones were selected for sampling because they are owned by either the City or other landowners who have granted access for this study. The southwest portion of the Marsh buffer zone is owned by Chevron (the Unocal property), and the northwest portion is owned by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railway. Neither Chevron nor BNSF has granted access for this study. In addition, the majority of the Shellabarger Marsh buffer zones are located on privately owned residential property. Therefore, surveys of the Shellabarger Marsh buffer zones will be limited to the north buffer zone, which lies on property owned by the City. Quantitative vegetation data will be collected from the buffer zones during the summer and spring monitoring events.16 14 Under the projected monitoring schedule, the first survey of the baseline monitoring year will be conducted in the summer. 15 The northern portion of the eastern buffer zone of the Marsh is very narrow and consists primarily of Himalayan blackberry and Scotch broom. The vegetation sampling transect for the eastern buffer zone will therefore be located in the southern portion, where the vegetated portion of the buffer zone widens and becomes more diverse in terms of plant species present. 16 The first field sampling event is scheduled to occur in the summer of 2018, and the last event is scheduled to occur in the spring of 2019. 5.2.d Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) [b[b[b[b[b"T"T"T"T<<<Puget SoundEdmonds MarshHarbor SquareUnocal SiteWillow CreekFish HatcheryEdmondsCity ParkEdmondsMarinaEdmondsWastewaterTreatmentPlantBurlington Northern Santa Fe RailwayMarinaBeachParkResidentialDayton St.2nd Ave. S.City ofEdmondsParcelShellabargerMarshShellabargerCreekWillowCreekW illo w C reekCity of EdmondsVault and Tide GateWillow CreekOutfall InletWillow CreekOutfallWSDOTEdmonds WayOutfall1234¬«104Prepared by craigh, 6/27/2018; W:\Projects\Edmonds Marsh\Data\GIS\Maps and Analyses\Monitoring plan\Fig 3_6885_Biological Monitoring Parameter Stations.mxd±0 0.05 0.1Miles0 250 500Feet Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User CommunityContent may not reflect National Geographic's current map policy. Sources: National Geographic, Esri, DeLorme, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS,NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp., Snohomish County, City of Edmonds//&HQYLURQPHQWDOFigure 4-1. Biological monitoring parameterlocationsDRAFTStorm structureStorm culvertStorm lineStorm ditch/creekShellabarger Marsh w/ 125-ft bufferEdmonds Marsh w/ 125-ft bufferParcelCity of Edmonds boundary<Trail camera location"TInvertebrate fallout trap(example locations)[bBird point countsurvey location (fixed)Sediment core/benthicinvertebrate sample locationSediment transect lineVegetation transects(example locations)Quantitative vegetation survey areaNorthShellabarger MarshSouthSoutheast5.2.dPacket Pg. 181Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 29 Transect lines within the buffer zones will be oriented perpendicular to (i.e., radiating outward from) the Marsh and will extend from the Marsh edge through the vegetated portion of the surrounding buffer zone (up to a distance of approximately 40 m [125 ft]) (Figure 4-1). The ultimate length of each transect line will be recorded on the vegetation monitoring field data sheet (Appendix A). Three transect lines will be established in the north buffer zone,17 two will be established in the southeast buffer zone adjacent to SR-104, and one will be established within the Willow Creek fish hatchery property in the south buffer zone (Figure 4-1 shows example locations of where the transect lines would be located). In addition, one transect line will be established within the north buffer zone of Shellabarger Marsh (area labeled 4 on Figure 4-1). The exact transect line locations within each of the buffer zones to be sampled will be determined in the field using a baseline transect (i.e., a measuring tape will be used to span the extent of the buffer zone in an orientation parallel to the Marsh edge) and a random number table (to determine where exactly along the baseline transect each buffer zone transect should be located). Figure 4-1 shows example transect line locations in order to give a sense of their general layout within the buffer zones. Rebar stakes with brightly colored plastic caps or similar markers will be used to indicate the buffer zone transect lines’ end points in the field so that they may be located again during the spring vegetation monitoring event. A high-accuracy GPS will also be used to record the end points of each buffer zone transect line, and these locations will be mapped in the baseline data report. If deemed necessary, the distance and orientation of landmarks (such as nearby large trees or the corners of structures) will also be recorded in the field notes to help locate transect line markers again. Quantitative vegetation samples will be divided into three vertical stratum classes using three methods to assess the plant community, based on the methods of Horner and Raedeke (1989) and Richardson and Vymazal (2001). Definitions of each stratum are derived from USACE (2010): u Tree stratum – woody plants 7.6 cm (3 in.) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height (but generally more than 2 m [6.6 ft] tall) u Sapling/shrub stratum – woody plants less than 7.6 cm (3 in.) DBH, regardless of height (but generally from 1 to 2 m [3.3 to 6.6 ft] tall) u Herb stratum – all herbaceous (i.e., non-woody) plants, including herbaceous vines, regardless of size (but generally less than 1 m [3.3 ft] tall) Although different sampling methods will be employed for each vegetation stratum, all three sampling methods will be performed along all vegetation transect lines. Figure 4-2 illustrates what the transect lines will look like and how the different 17 Additional transects are planned for the northern and southeastern buffer zones, because the vegetated portions of these zones are fairly narrow, necessitating shorter transects than those used in the other buffer zones. 5.2.d Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 30 vegetation strata will be sampled along the transect lines: square-shaped sampling plots for the herbaceous stratum, the line-intercept method for the sapling/shrub stratum, and the belt-transect method for the tree stratum. The 1-m-wide strip of land on either side of the transect line (see Figure 4-2) can be understood as the transect “belt.” Each of the sampling methods is described further in the following subsections. Figure 4-2. Example transect line and sampling methodology for herb, sapling/shrub, and tree strata Vegetation data collected from the buffer zone transect lines will be recorded on the data sheet provided in Appendix A. Determination of absolute percent cover18 of 18 Absolute percent cover refers to the percent of ground surface that is covered by the aerial portion of a plant species when viewed from above; the sum of these values across all species may be greater than 100%. 5.2.d Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 31 species and wetland indicator status will be performed in the field within the three listed strata, as described further in the following subsections. 4.1.2.1 Herbaceous stratum The Canopy Coverage method will be used to estimate the absolute percent cover of each species in the herbaceous (ground cover) stratum (Horner and Raedeke 1989). Sampling plots measuring 1 m2 will be established at intervals of every 5 m along each transect line (as many as 8 plots per transect when transects are 40 m in length). The sampling plots will be slightly offset from the transect line and within the transect belt, as shown in Figure 4-2. The absolute percent cover of each species identified in the herbaceous stratum within each sampling plot will be estimated and ranked according to coverage class (Table 4-2). In addition, the combined overall percent cover of all herbaceous stratum species will be calculated in order to provide information about the density of the ground cover layer within each transect line location. Table 4-2. Estimates of percent cover for plant species in each plot Coverage Class Estimates of Cover or Abundance of Species per Plot 5 covers more than 75% of plot area 4 covers 50–75% of plot area 3 covers 25–50% of plot area 2 covers 5–25% plot area 1 numerous, but less than 5% total cover X few with sparse cover Source: Richardson and Vymazal (2001) 4.1.2.2 Sapling/shrub stratum The Line-Intercept method will be used to estimate the absolute percent cover of each species in the sapling/shrub stratum. Using this method, each individual shrub or small tree (defined as a tree less than 7.6 cm [3 in.] DBH) that intercepts the transect line will be identified and recorded. In addition, the total length of the transect line covered/intersected by each shrub or small tree will be recorded, as this will provide a measure of the percent cover of that plant. The length of any stretch of bare ground encountered within the transect line will also be recorded. From this data, relative density (total number of individuals of a species/the total number of all individuals) and species percent cover (total intercepted length of all plants of a given species/total intercepted length of all plants) will be calculated for each species. The combined overall percent cover of all sapling/shrub species will also be calculated in order to provide information about the density of the sapling/shrub stratum layer within each transect line location. 5.2.d Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 32 4.1.2.3 Tree stratum The Belt Transect method will be used to estimate the absolute percent cover of the tree stratum (Horner and Raedeke 1989). Using this method, the location and DBH of every large tree (defined as a tree at least 7.6 cm [3 in.] DBH) rooted within 1 m of either side of the transect line (i.e., within the transect belt) will be recorded. The DBH for each tree will be measured using a DBH tape and will be sorted into classes defined in Table 4-3. Table 4-3. Estimates of mean basal area of individual trees based on DBH Class DBH Range (cm) Mean Basal Areaa (cm2) 1 < 10 19.6 2 10–20 177 3 20–30 491 4 30–40 962 5 40–60 1,964 6 60–80 3,849 7 80–100 6,362 Source: Horner and Raedeke (1989) a The cross sectional area of a tree over land at breast height. DBH – diameter at breast height Percent cover for each species will be calculated by dividing the total basal area of all large trees of each species by the total basal area of all large trees identified within the transect belt. In addition, the relative density of each species (total number of individuals of a species/total number of all individuals identified within the transect belt) will be calculated, and the combined overall percent cover of all tree species will be calculated to provide information about the density of the tree stratum layer within each transect belt. To supplement percent cover information for the tree stratum, a spherical densitometer will be used to estimate canopy closure within each of the 1-m2 herbaceous vegetation monitoring plots (Figure 4-2). Two readings with the densitometer will be taken within each plot. 4.1.3 Large woody debris LWD—large pieces of dead wood present in a natural area—provides complex habitat features for invertebrates and wildlife and can provide habitat for native plants (Sheldon et al. 2005; Bottorff 2009). Specifically, invertebrates feed off detritus produced by LWD, and many species live in or under LWD (Sheldon et al. 2005; Brennan et al. 2009). Avian species use LWD for roosting, nesting, and foraging (Sheldon et al. 2005; Bottorff 2009), while native mammal species use LWD for refuge and denning habitat (Bottorff 2009). LWD provides habitat structure and cover for fish and can contribute to the formation of pool habitat in streams (Sheldon et al. 2005; Christensen 2000; Gurnell et al. 2002). LWD can also provide organic matter inputs to 5.2.d Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 33 water bodies (Christensen 2000). Within wetland buffer zones, LWD helps control erosion, trap sediment, and maintain water and soil temperatures and soil moisture conditions (Sheldon et al. 2005; Brennan et al. 2009). Pieces of dead wood greater than 10 cm (4 in.) in diameter and greater than 1 m (3.3 ft) in length are generally considered LDW (Larson et al. 2001). All pieces of dead wood meeting these size criteria that are encountered during quantitative vegetation transect surveys of the buffer zones (within the transect belt, as described further in Section 4.1.2), or during qualitative vegetation mapping surveys of the Marsh interior (described in Section 4.1.1), will be inventoried. The length and circumference of each piece of LWD will be recorded on the data sheet provided in Appendix A. The type (i.e., log, stump, or standing snag), tree species (if identifiable) or tree type (conifer or deciduous, if identifiable), and decay class of each piece of LWD will also be recorded. Decay class categorization can provide information related to the age and habitat value of each piece of LWD. The decay class categories to be used are summarized in Table 4-4. Table 4-4. LWD decay class categories Decay Class Bark Twigs Texture Shape Wood Color I intact Present intact round original color II intact Absent intact round original color III trace Absent smooth, some surface abrasion round original color, darkening IV absent Absent abrasion, some holes and openings round to oval dark V absent Absent vesicular, many holes and openings irregular dark Source: Wooster and Hilton (2004) LWD – large woody debris The location of each piece of LWD will also be recorded on the vegetation survey form (Appendix A). The location of LWD encountered within the vegetation transects will be recorded based on the specific transect and/or monitoring plot in which the individual piece was encountered. If LWD is encountered within a transect but outside of a monitoring plot, the distance along the transect at which it was found will be recorded. For pieces of LWD encountered within the Marsh interior, locations will be marked using a hand-held GPS unit. 4.2 INVERTEBRATE SURVEYS Invertebrates are widely used as indicators of ecosystem health. Many species of invertebrates are sensitive to water quality conditions (e.g., temperature, pH, pollutants), so their absence from field surveys can be an indication of poor water quality (Adamus et al. 2001). Conversely, the presence of some species can indicate 5.2.d Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 34 favorable water quality conditions. Due to the limited migration of benthic invertebrates within sediment, these species can also be used as indicators of localized conditions (Kenney et al. 2009). Apart from being used as water quality indicators, invertebrate populations can lend insight into habitat productivity, as they are a vital part of the wetland food web. Invertebrates also break down organic detritus (through feeding and waste excretion), contributing nutrients to the surrounding environment. Many species also burrow into sediment, which aerates and increases micronutrient recycling rates (Covich et al. 1999). Not all benthic invertebrates act as detritivores; many perform other specific and useful ecosystem services, acting as herbivores, primary producers, and predators. Aquatic invertebrates are significant food sources for wetland organisms such as other predatory invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals (Horner and Raedeke 1989). Many species of birds and fish feed largely on invertebrates. For example, the killdeer, a bird commonly found in the Marsh year-round, feeds primarily on terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates (Edmonds Park and Recreation 2016; The Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2017). Aquatic invertebrates also play an important role as predators, eating prey that falls into the water from the surrounding environment (Horner and Raedeke 1989). The baseline monitoring study will include sampling for invertebrates during the summer and spring monitoring events. Two sampling methods will be employed: fallout traps and sediment cores. Fallout traps will be used, according to methods suggested by Ridolfi and Adolfson (2001), to collect insects from vegetation or air. Four of the vegetation transects (established per the methods described in Section 4.1.2) will be selected for fallout trap sampling: one trap will be placed in the northern buffer zone, one in the southern buffer zone within the Willow Creek fish hatchery property, one in the southeastern buffer zone, and one along the northern buffer zone of Shellabarger Marsh. Figure 4-1 shows the positions of the fallout traps in relation to the vegetation transects. As three vegetation transects will be located within the northern buffer zone, and two within the southeastern buffer zone, the transects selected for fallout trap sampling in these zones will be determined using a random number table. Fallout traps will be placed in emergent vegetation near the transition between the buffer zones and the Marsh edge. At each sampling location, three fallout replicate traps will be placed. Fallout traps will consist of a rectangular plastic tray (approximately 55 × 38 cm [22 × 15 in.]) positioned at the water’s surface and tethered between PVC pipes. Vegetation surrounding the fallout trap locations will be observed and noted on the field data collection sheet (presented in Appendix A). Approximately 4 cm (1.6 in.) of soapy water solution will be placed in the traps to collect the insects. After a deployment period of 24 hours, the water will be sieved (US Standard No. 35), and all insects will be preserved in 85% ethanol (EcoAnalysts 2018). 5.2.d Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 35 Specimens will be preserved in the field for later enumeration and identification to the lowest taxonomic level possible (without formal taxonomic laboratory analysis). Fallout trap specimens will provide information about the relative quantities and types of prey inputs to the Marsh from the buffer zones. To supplement the fallout trap invertebrate survey method, which will primarily sample terrestrial and aerial insects, sediment core samples will be collected from the mudflat habitat of the Marsh interior in order to sample both benthic and water column invertebrates. The sediment core sampling locations and methods described in Section 3.2.2 will also be used for invertebrate sediment core sampling. Co-located sediment and invertebrate data will provide information on baseline sediment habitat conditions. A total of three replicate samples will be collected from undisturbed locations adjacent to each of the four sediment core invertebrate sampling locations.19 Although the sediment sampling locations will be determined in the field, as described in Section 3.2.2, Figure 4-1 shows an example of where the locations (and the transect upon which they will be placed) may be located. To sample each sediment location, the core tube will be advanced into the sediment to a depth of approximately 10 cm (4 in.). The core tube will then be carefully lifted out of the sediment, and the bottom will be capped to retain the core. Invertebrates collected in the sediment cores will be passed through two sizes of sieve (US Standard Nos. 18, and 35) to separate the organisms from sediment and organic matter. Organisms will be preserved in 85% ethanol (EcoAnalysts 2018) for later identification to the lowest taxonomic level possible. Other data collected as part of the baseline study—including water depth and water quality information, vegetation surveys, and sediment observations—will be used to interpret differences among the invertebrate populations observed in different areas (if such differences are noted). EPA’s National Database of Wetland Invertebrate Sensitivities to Enrichment and Hydrologic Alteration provides information on the sensitivity of assemblages of wetland invertebrates, particularly to hydrologic alteration and enrichment (Adamus et al. 2001).20 This database can be used to make qualitative determinations about the relative proportions of sensitive and tolerant species present in the Marsh. The invertebrate surveys will also provide important insight into the food resources available to other wetland fauna such as amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. 4.3 BIRD SURVEYS Bird population monitoring is an efficient way to provide information valuable in evaluating overall habitat quality. In addition, as birds are readily observed, they can 19 These three replicates will be in addition to the sediment samples collected for grain size, TOC, and pH analysis. 20 The National Database of Wetland Invertebrate Sensitivities to Enrichment and Hydrologic Alteration is available from https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/wetland-bioassessment-publications. 5.2.d Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 36 be systematically monitored using non-invasive methods (e.g., not captured to be counted) (Horner and Raedeke 1989). The quantity and quality of vegetation and invertebrate populations within a habitat area play a large role in determining which birds inhabit the area, as these features provide important habitat elements of shelter, nesting sites, and food availability (Conway 2011). Waterbirds have been linked to hydrology and water conditions due to the influence these factors have on the abundance and distribution of waterbirds’ prey (National Wildlife Refuge System et al. 2018). Point count surveys of bird populations may be used to determine the relative abundances of many species in an area, and to determine species habitat relationships (Huff et al. 2000). The species composition can be used as an indicator of habitat fragmentation, land cover alteration, and general human influence (Adamus et al. 2001). Species of birds with specific habitat or food requirements can be used as indicators of habitat health (Conway 2011). As part of the baseline study, bird point count surveys will be conducted once per season at five locations throughout the Marsh and its buffer zones, as described in Table 4-5 and shown on Figure 4-1. Four sampling locations will be placed within the Marsh and its buffer zones, while a fifth location will be located near Shellabarger Marsh. These five locations were selected in order to survey areas of varying habitat type and quality, as well as areas with differing degrees of nearby human use. Areas near the railroad track and SR-104 were excluded from consideration for point count surveys due to the level of noise generated in these areas, which can easily drown out bird song. In addition, to decrease the likelihood of counting the same birds at multiple monitoring locations, each location selected is at least 150 m from any other, based on considerations taken from Huff et al. (2000). Table 4-5. Proposed bird point count monitoring locations Point Count Location Point Count Station Location Habitat Description 1 at the Marsh trail boardwalk lookout south of Harbor Square Athletic Club forested buffer habitat near upland development and human activity 2 within the Marsh interior, near the Willow Creek channel and the Unocal detention basin Marsh and stream 3 within the Marsh interior along Willow Creek and adjacent to the Unocal property; located southeast of location 2 Marsh, stream, and riparian forest 4 within the Willow Creek fish hatchery property upland and riparian forest, stream 5 along 2nd Avenue South adjacent to the northern buffer zone of Shellabarger Marsh developed residential, forested, and scrub-shrub buffer; marsh Marsh – Edmonds Marsh 5.2.d Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 37 Monitoring will begin around sunrise and last the recommended five minutes at each point count location (Huff et al. 2000; Conway 2011). Birds will be counted if seen or heard, either in or on the air or ground/water, within a 50-m (164-ft) radius of the point count location. Bird counts will be classified as seen (interacting with habitat within 50 m), heard (believed to be vocalizing within 50 m), or fly over (seen flying over habitat but not interacting with the habitat within 50 m). As much as possible, notes will also be made regarding the behaviors being displayed by the individual birds recorded during the point count survey (e.g., foraging, begging, singing, calling). Appendix A includes the data collection form and a list of species codes to be used during bird point count surveys. To avoid double-counting birds, certain counting strategies will be employed. For example, if two (previously counted) blackbirds are seen flying into a nearby shrub, and five blackbirds are seen flying out of the same shrub, only three new blackbirds will be counted. Additionally, monitoring will not occur during inclement weather (e.g., heavy rain or wind), as such weather makes it hard to hear or see birds, which may also be taking shelter. The City has a strong community of experienced birders, who frequent the Marsh and its buffer zones to document the bird species present and the behaviors they display. These birders have extensive institutional knowledge and site-specific experience. If birders from the community would like to submit bird survey data or photographs collected outside of the formal point count surveys performed as part of the baseline study, that information will be included in a wildlife observations compendium that will be attached to the baseline monitoring report. Additional information about the compendium, as well as other ideas for community involvement, are provided in Section 6 of this plan. In combination with vegetation and invertebrate surveys, bird surveys can provide information about potential habitat opportunities and the current uses of the Marsh and its buffer zones by present species. In addition, the baseline bird monitoring data could be used to help gage any future changes in the bird community, if similar surveys were to be conducted in the future. If a historical record of bird populations within the Marsh were to be discovered, comparing the baseline bird data to the historical data could provide information about changes in bird populations that have already occurred. While the current habitat functions being provided by the Marsh and its buffer zones can be examined by documenting the bird populations currently using these habitats, it should also be noted that the presence or absence of many bird species, particularly migratory species, is largely controlled by ecological conditions over large geographic areas that extend far beyond the boundaries of the Marsh and its buffers. 5.2.d Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 38 4.4 OTHER WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS Trail cameras (also referred to as game cameras) can be valuable tools for land managers for viewing wildlife and establishing habitat uses without having an observer present on-site and without disturbing wildlife. Animals can be monitored to provide a baseline inventory of species that utilize a specific habitat area or site. Trail cameras provide information that complements data from other sources collected at a site. The cameras are also useful for nocturnal wildlife observations, as most can take relatively high-quality night photos. Trail cameras can provide data on animal movements and range sizes, population sizes, demographics, and diversity. Three trail cameras will be deployed in the Marsh and buffer zones during the baseline monitoring year in order to generate a better inventory of wildlife using these habitats. In particular, the trail cameras are expected to be useful for capturing additional information about mammals using the Marsh and buffer zones. Two of the cameras that will be used (Stealth Cam© Dual Sensor STC-DS4K trail cameras) will not generate any flashing or glowing lights, even when taking night photos. These two cameras will be deployed in relatively open areas where glowing or flashing lights in the evening could disturb people. The other camera (a Bushnell© 20MP Trophy Cam Low Glow, HD Aggressor) will generate a low-level glow when taking night photos. This camera will be deployed in wooded habitat where it is not expected to disturb people when taking nighttime photos. The trail cameras will be established at locations where the cameras will be expected to be most likely to capture wildlife (i.e., near game trail intersections, a water source, or the mudflat portion of the Marsh interior where animal tracks have been regularly observed). Figure 4-1 shows the approximate locations where the trail cameras will be deployed at the beginning of the monitoring year. One of the Stealth Cams© will be placed within the vegetated portion of the northern buffer zone, likely oriented toward the main walking trail or a nearby game trail, if one can be identified. The second Stealth Cam© will be placed within the Marsh interior, likely at the southeastern edge of the mudflat area, oriented toward the mudflat to the northwest, since animal tracks have been observed in this location on several occasions. The low-glow Bushnell© camera will be placed within the Willow Creek fish hatchery property, likely oriented toward one of the Willow Creek channels, or toward a location where a game trail intersects one of the creek channels. The exact trail camera deployment locations and positionings will be determined during the first field monitoring event. Data on the camera locations—including coordinates, orientations, and heights at which cameras are placed—will be recorded in the field notebook and included in the baseline monitoring report. If, after the first month of monitoring, a camera at one or more of the initial locations has not captured any wildlife activity, a new location will be selected for that camera. Cameras will be labelled with Windward Environmental LLC’s (Windward’s) contact information and an explanation of the purpose of the photographic monitoring and 5.2.d Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 39 will be mounted and secured on posts or trees. Efforts will also be made to camouflage the camera locations in order to reduce the risk of tampering or theft. Wildlife photos captured by the trail cameras will be included in the baseline monitoring report. In addition to wildlife captured by the trail cameras, wildlife (i.e., birds, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals) that are incidentally observed by individuals at any time during the seasonal monitoring events will be identified to the species level whenever possible and recorded in the field notebook. Other evidence of wildlife use of the Marsh and buffer zone habitats—such as eggs, scrapes, rubs, scat, or tracks—will also be recorded in the field notebook and photo documented whenever possible. Local field identification guides will be used to help identify tracks, scat, and other evidence of wildlife. Field notes will also be recorded to document the types of activities being conducted by wildlife observed (e.g., foraging, collecting nesting material, etc.) and to document any incidences when wildlife were obviously disturbed by surrounding human activities (e.g., observations of birds being flushed from perches by loud noises, domesticated animals, etc.) Incidental wildlife observations will be summarized in the monitoring report. 5.2.d Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) 5.2.d Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 41 5 Photo Point Monitoring Photo point monitoring consists of repeat photography of an area of interest over a period of time. It is an easy and effective method of monitoring vegetation and ecosystem trends and changes, and it aids in the interpretation of quantitative data. For the baseline monitoring study, 12 photo point monitoring locations will be established throughout the Marsh and buffer zones to visually document baseline habitat conditions and capture seasonal variability in these habitat areas. Table 5-1 and Figure 4-3 present the proposed photo point monitoring locations and the direction(s) in which photos will be taken at each location. The exact locations will be selected and photo orientations will be recorded during the first field monitoring event. GPS coordinates will also be collected for each photo point monitoring location. Table 5-1. Proposed photo point monitoring locations Photo Point Location Photo Point Location Description Photo Direction(s) A northern marsh interior, intertidal mudflat area 360° view B western edge of Marsh NE, E, SE C boardwalk lookout at west end of Marsh trail S, SE, E D main Marsh trail boardwalk lookout at northernmost corner of Marsh SW, S, SE E Marsh trail boardwalk lookout west of Harbor Square Athletic Club SW, S F Marsh trail boardwalk lookout south of Harbor Square Athletic Club S, SE G along SR-104 east of Harbor Square Athletic Club S H along SR-104 on west side of Shellabarger Marsh NE I along Highway 104 at Milepost 25 NW, W, SW J southern Marsh interior, north of Willow Creek fish hatchery 360° view K Willow Creek, near Willow Creek fish hatchery N L Point Edwards overlook off Pine Drive N, NE Marsh – Edmonds Marsh 5.2.d Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) LLLLLLLLLLLLEdmonds MarshShellabargerMarsh`_104ABCDEFGHIJKLPrepared by mikey, 6/7/2018; W:\Projects\Edmonds Marsh\Data\GIS\Maps and Analyses\Monitoring plan\Fig 4_6881_Proposed Photo Point Monitoring Locations.mxdm00.050.1Miles0250500Feet Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User CommunityContent may not reflect National Geographic's current map policy. Sources: National Geographic, Esri, DeLorme, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS,NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp., Snohomish County, City of Edmonds//&HQYLURQPHQWDOFigure 5-1. Proposed photo point monitoring locationsDRAFTLProposed photo point monitoring locationCity of Edmonds boundary5.2.dPacket Pg. 195Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 43 Photo point locations within natural/vegetated areas will be marked with rebar stakes driven into the ground; each stake will have a florescent cap. To make the locations easier to relocate during the subsequent quarterly monitoring events, GPS coordinates and detailed notes (e.g., compass bearing, photo references points such as trees, rocks, structures) will be recorded in the field notes at each location. A map showing exact photo point locations, and a photo point monitoring form (Appendix A) documenting the quarterly monitoring photos taken at each photo point, will be included in the baseline monitoring report. Generally, to eliminate dark shadows and glare, photos will be taken with the sun behind the photographer, when possible, in early morning, in late afternoon, or on slightly overcast days when the sun is less intense. Taking photos when visibility is poor (i.e., during low light, fog, or heavy rain) will be avoided as much as possible. 5.2.d Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) 5.2.d Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 45 6 Community Involvement This monitoring program has a few components (i.e., photo point monitoring and bird and other wildlife observations) that could be used to foster public awareness and espousal by engaging community volunteers to collect data to supplement the data collected during the formal monitoring events. These components will not only allow the public to apply its curiosity and contribute its talents to science and technology, but will also allow citizen scientists to provide information that would not otherwise be available due to time, geographic, or resource constraints. At select photo point locations (i.e., boardwalk lookout locations), a laminated placard will be posted with instructions for community members or citizen scientists who wish to contribute photos to the monitoring program at any time throughout the monitoring period. Instructions will include a sample photo of the area of interest, a description of the photo, photo reference point(s), direction in which the photo(s) should be taken, and photo sharing details. Community observations of birds and other wildlife within the Marsh and its buffer areas could also provide valuable documentation to supplement the bird surveys and incidental wildlife observations made during the formal monitoring events. Notes and photographs submitted by community members for inclusion will be organized into a compendium and attached to the baseline monitoring report. The data collection field forms developed for the baseline monitoring study and provided in Appendix A of this report could also be used by citizen scientists within the community to collect supplemental data for the compendium, if desired. Two avenues will be made available for the public to easily share its photos or data: 1. Social media (e.g., Instagram, Facebook, or Twitter) will provide one quick and simple approach for community members to share information. These sites can be used to share a huge amount of data at little cost; they have the potential to provide spatial, temporal, or scale-related information that would otherwise be unavailable. By using a specific identifier (i.e., hashtag) created for this monitoring plan, community members will be able to add the tag to their social media posts, automatically organizing the photos into one group for easier compilation and review. For example, the hashtag #EMarshMadness could be created specifically to identify this monitoring program. 2. Community members who do not subscribe to social media or who prefer another means for sharing data may submit their photos or other survey data to a dropbox or email account created specifically for this project. Submissions of photos and other survey data collected by citizen scientists will be reviewed weekly for potential inclusion in the compendium that will be attached to the baseline monitoring report. 5.2.d Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) 5.2.d Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 47 7 Data Management All field data will be recorded on field forms (Appendix A) and in a field logbook, which the field supervisor will check for missing information at the end of each field day and amend as necessary. A QC check will be done to ensure that all data have been transferred accurately from the field forms to an electronic database (Microsoft® Excel® or Access®). The field forms and logbook will be scanned and archived in the Windward library. Windward will QC check, organize, and house all data, as well as provide data to the City as necessary. Windward will also help coordinate data collected by citizen scientists; if a submission is selected for inclusion in the compendium to be attached to the baseline monitoring report, Windward will seek permission from the contributor(s). ARI will be required to submit laboratory data in an electronic format. The laboratory project manager will contact the project quality assurance (QA)/QC coordinator prior to data delivery to discuss any specific format requirements. All laboratory-generated data will be imported into a secure project database. A combination of automated scripts and manual checks against laboratory reports will be used to verify the accuracy of the import process. Any data qualifiers or other revisions identified as part of the validation process will be applied to the database prior to exporting data for reporting. Once validation and all QC tasks are complete, data will be exported for distribution as Microsoft® Excel® files. The data export will include sufficient documentation to clearly identify all reported parameters (e.g., QC sample identifiers, analytical methods, units), data reduction processes (e.g., calculated sums), and any data quality issues that may limit the usability of the results. 5.2.d Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 48 8 Summary The year-long baseline monitoring study of the Marsh, Shellabarger Marsh, and the buffer zones surrounding the two marshes aims to quantify and describe the current baseline conditions within these habitat areas. The results of this study will be used to evaluate ecological functions currently being performed by the marshes and buffer zones and to evaluate future changes to the marshes. The monitoring study will also use monitoring methods that are easy to implement and repeat for use in compiling future datasets. Monitoring for physical and biological parameters will occur following the schedule summarized in Table 8-1. The results of the baseline monitoring study will be presented to the City in a data report, which will include a compendium of photos and survey data collected by citizen scientists throughout the year of the study. 5.2.d Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 49 Table 8-1. Baseline monitoring schedule Parameter/Season Season Spring Summer Fall Winter Physical parameters Water Water level X X X X Water quality X X X X Temperature Conductivity Salinity Soil Soil characterization field survey X X Bulk density field measurement X Lab analysis X Grain size Organic matter content Sediment Sediment characterization field survey X Lab analysis X Total organic carbon Grain size pH Biological parameters Vegetation Transect survey X X Herbaceous Sapling/shrub Tree Marsh vegetation survey X X Large woody debris X X Invertebrates Fall out traps X X Sediment cores X X Bird Point counts X X X X Other Trail cameras X X X X Incidental wildlife observations X X X X Temporal Changes Photo point monitoring X X X X 5.2.d Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) 5.2.d Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 51 8 References Adamus P, Danielson TJ, Gonyaw A. 2001. Indicators for monitoring biological integrity of inland, freshwater wetlands: a survey of North American technical literature (1990-2000). EPA843-R-01. Wetlands Division, Office of Water, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Akhurst DJ, Clark MW, Reichelt-Brushett A, Jones GB. 2011. Grain size normalization: a case for post extraction normalization and inclusion of selective extraction procedures. Limnol Oceanogr: Methods 9:215-231. Bottorff J. 2009. Snags, coarse woody debris, and wildlife. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Brennan J, Culverwell H, Granger P. 2009. Protection of marine riparian functions in Puget Sound, Washington. Washington Sea Grant, Seattle, WA. Castelle AJ, Conolly C, Emers M, Metz ED, Meyer S, Witter M, Mauermann S, Erickson T, Cooke SS. 1992. Wetland buffers: use and effectiveness. Pub. No. 92- 10. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Castro J, Reckendorf F. 1995. Effects of sediment on the aquatic environment: potential NRCS actions to improve aquatic habitat - working paper no. 6 [online]. US Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service. Available from: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/technical/?cid =nrcs143_014201. CH2M. 2004. Chapter 3. Affected environment. In: Final environmental impact statement and final Section 4(f) evaluation. Vol 1. CH2M HILL, Bellevue, WA, pp. 3-1 - 3-119. Available from: http://www.edmondswa.gov/government/388-departments/community- services/community-services-projects/1216-edmonds-crossing.html. Christensen D. 2000. Protection of riparian ecosystems: A review of best available science Jefferson County Environmental Health Division. Conway CJ. 2011. Standardized North American marsh bird monitoring protocol. Waterbirds 34(3):319-346. Covich AP, Palmer MA, Crowl TA. 1999. The role of benthic invertebrate species in freshwater ecosystems: zoobenthic species influence energy flows and nutrient cycling. BioScience 49(2):119-127. Desbonnet A, Pogue P, Lee V, Wolff N. 1994. Vegetated buffers in the coastal zone. A summary review and bibliography. Coastal Resources Center, Rhode Island Sea Grant, University of Rhode Island. 5.2.d Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 52 EcoAnalysts. 2018. Sample collection and preservation. [Cited June 4, 2018.] Available from: http://www.ecoanalysts.com/about-us/sample-collection-and- preservation/. Edmonds Park and Recreation. 2016. Birds of Edmonds, Washington. A complete checklist. Edmonds, WA. Edmonds Stream Team. 2016. Edmonds water quality monitoring project. Preliminary report, October 2015 to May 2016. Edmonds, WA. Edmonds Stream Team. 2017. Condition of Edmonds streams for salmon: water quality monitoring and salmon stewardship. Edmonds, WA. EPA. 2015. Determination of the biologically relevant sampling depth for terrestrial and aquatic ecological risk assessments. EPA/600/R-15/176. US Environmental Protection Agency, Ecological Risk Assessment Support Center, Cincinnati, OH. Gurnell AM, Piegay H, Swanson FJ, Gregory SV. 2002. Large wood and fluvial processes. Freshw Biol 47:601-619. Hart JM, Sullivan DM, Anderson NP, Hulting AG, Horneck DA, Christensen NW. 2013. Soil acidity in Oregon: understanding and using concepts for crop production. OSU Extension EM 9061:1-22. Horner RR, Raedeke KJ. 1989. Guide for wetland mitigation project monitoring. Prepared for Washington State Transportation Committee. Washington State Transportation Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Huff MH, Bettinger KA, Ferguson HL, Brown MJ, Altman B. 2000. A habitat-based point-count protocol for terrestrial birds, emphasizing Washington and Oregon. United States Department of Agriculture. Kenney MA, Sutton-Grier AE, Smith RF, Gresens SE. 2009. Benthic macroinvertebrates as indicators of water quality: the intersection of science and policy. Terrest Arthrop Rev 2:99-128. Larson MG, Booth DB, Morley SA. 2001. Effectiveness of large woody debris in stream rehabilitation projects in urban basins. Ecol Eng 18:211-226. McCauley A, Jones C, Olson-Rutz K. 2017. Soil pH and organic matter. Nutr Manag 8:1-16. McMillan A. 2000. The science of wetland buffers and its implication for the management of wetlands. Masters. Environmental Studies, Evergreen State College, 123 pp. Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG. 2007. Wetlands. Fourth ed. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ. Munsell. 2017. Munsell soil-color charts with genuine Munsell® color chips. 2009 year revised. Munsell Color, Grand Rapids, MI. 5.2.d Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 53 National Wildlife Refuge System, USGS, USFWS, Nisqually Indian Tribe. 2018. Tidal marsh monitoring [online]. National Wildlife Refuge System, US Geological Survey, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Nisqually Indian Tribe, Vallejo, CA. Available from: http://www.tidalmarshmonitoring.org/. PSEP. 1986. Recommended protocols for measuring conventional sediment variables in Puget Sound. Prepared for the Puget Sound Estuary Program, US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. Tetra Tech, Seattle, WA. Richardson CJ, Vymazal J. 2001. Sampling macrophytes in wetlands. In: Rader RB, Batzer DP, Wissinger SA, eds, Bioassessment and management of North American freshwater wetlands. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, pp. 297-337. Ridolfi, Adolfson. 2001. Long-term monitoring work plan for habitat restoration sites in Commencement Bay. Prepared for the Commencement Bay Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Trustees. Ridolfi Engineers Inc and Adolfson Associates, Inc, Seattle, WA. Sea-Run Consulting, Tetra Tech Inc., Reid Middleton Inc., Pentec. 2007. Shoreline master program update. Shoreline inventory & characterization. Prepared for City of Edmonds, Washington. Shannon & Wilson. 2015. Final feasibility study, Willow Creek daylighting, Edmonds, Washington. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Seattle, WA. Shannon & Wilson. 2017a. Critical areas report, Edmonds Marsh maintenance activities. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Seattle, WA. Shannon & Wilson. 2017b. Water quality sampling results in support of the Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration Project. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Seattle, WA. Sheldon D, Hruby T, Johnson P, Harper K, McMillan A, Granger T, Stanley S, Stockdale E. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State. Volume 1: A synthesis of the science. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2017. All about birds: Killdeer life history [online]. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. [Cited June, 5 2018.] Available from: https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Killdeer/lifehistory. USACE. 2010. Regional supplement to the Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manual: western mountains, valleys, and coast region (version 2.0). ERDC/EL TR-10-3. US Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS. USDA, NRCS. 2010. Field indicators of hydric soils in the united states. A guide for identifying and delineating hydric soils, Version 7.0, 2010. US Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources Conservation Service, . 5.2.d Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) DRAFT Edmonds Marsh Baseline Monitoring Study June 27, 2018 54 USDA. 2011. Natural Resources Conservation Service soils data interactive map: areas of interest [online]. US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. [Cited 4/8/11.] Available from: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Western SCP. 2017. Topics related to restoration of the Edmonds Marsh. Project reports Ecological restoration ESCI 470, fall 2016. Report No. 17-01. Western Washington University Sustainable Communities Partnership. Windward. 2018a. Evaluation of buffer widths and ecological functions: a review to support the Edmonds Marsh study. Windward Environmental LLC, Seattle, WA. Windward. 2018b. Evaluation of Edmonds Marsh and Shellabarger Marsh buffer zones. Windward Environmental LLC, Seattle, WA. Wooster J, Hilton S. 2004. Large woody debris volumes and accumulation rates in cleaned streams in redwood forests in southern Humboldt County, California. Research note PSW-RN-426. Us Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 5.2.d Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Attachment E Draft Edmonds Marsh Monitoring Plan_with figs_6_27_18 (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) Exhibit B Staff Role Rate Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Senior Advisor 195.00 16 3,120$ 16 3,120$ 16 3,120$ 14 2,730$ 62 12,090$ Project Manager 155.00 40 6,200$ 40 6,200$ 40 6,200$ 20 3,100$ 140 21,700$ Field Lead 110.00/140.00 40 5,600$ 120 13,200$ 24 3,360$ 184 22,160$ GIS Analyst 130.00 20 2,600$ 20 2,600$ 28 3,640$ 68 8,840$ Project Scientist 95.00/120.00 60 7,200$ 116 11,020$ 80 9,600$ 256 27,820$ Editorial Staff 125.00 20 2,500$ -$ 20 2,500$ 40 5,000$ Admininstrative Support 115.00 4 460$ 8 920$ 4 460$ 16 1,840$ Total Labor 200 27,680$ 320 37,060$ 212 28,880$ 34 5,830$ 766 99,450$ Other Direct Costs Field gear Water quality/level data loggers (7) - supplied -$ -$ Barometric pressure loggers (for WQ/water level data loggers) (3) - supplied -$ -$ YSI Professional Plus Multiparameter® water quality meter - supplied -$ -$ Sediment pH/ORP monitor (lump sum) $ 350 1 350$ 350$ Soil/sediment TOC and grain size analysis (per sample) $ 175 12 2,100$ 2,100$ High-precision GPS rental (unit/week) $ 300 1 300$ 300$ Staff gage materials (lump sum) $ 300 1 300$ 300$ Wildlife cameras (3) - supplied -$ -$ Travel Mileage $ 0.530 111.3 59$ 59$ Total ODCs 3,109$ 3,109$ Total Costs 27,680$ 40,169$ 28,880$ 102,559$ Notes and Assumptions:Project scientists will be charged at a rate of $95/hr for field work.The Field Lead will be charged at a rate of $110/hr for field work.Water level data loggers will be deployed continuously for the entire monitoring year. It will take 2 field staff 3 days (working 10 hour days) to collect monitoring data during the second event. It will take 2 field staff 2 days (working 10 hour days) to collect monitoring data during the third event. It will take 2 field staff 1 day (working an 8-hour day) to collect monitoring data during the fourth event. Each deliverable will undergo one round of client review and subsequent revisions. Citizen scientists (volunteers from the community) will help collect bird data (e.g., point count surveys), make additional wildlife observations, and possibly help with additional photos and measurements at the water level gage stations. Windward will help coordinate and oversee these efforts. Vegetation surveys will be conducted in spring and summer and will consist of 6 transects through the riparian/buffer zones up to the marsh edge, with 4 monitoring plots per transect. Vegetation within the marsh will be mapped using high-resolution aerial photos and ground truthing at strategic locations in the field. A high-precision GPS unit will be needed for one week at the beginning of the field effort to establish sampling locations to be visited throughout the monitoring year; the high-precision GPS will be able to produce sufficiently accurate location coordinates and elevation information.A regular hand-held GPS unit will be sufficient for re-occupying sampling locations once they have been established. Seven water quality/level data loggers will be purchased by the City to monitor water levels in the Marsh for extended periods of time throughout the monitoring year (it is likely that 5 will deployed and 2 will serve as spares). Three barometric pressure and temperature loggers, used to help establish the water quality loggers, will also be purchased by the City. The baseline monitoring work plan will be written so that it can also be used for future monitoring events. The study will include Edmonds Marsh and Shellabarger/Stella's Marsh. It will take 2 field staff 5 days (working 10 hour days) to establish baseline monitoring locations, deploy data loggers, and to collect monitoring data during the first event. Field work budget also includes one hour/month per water quality/level data logger for maintenance and calibration (for months when no other data collection is taking place). Windward will be responsible for collecting water level and water quality measurements, redox observations, and vegetation data. Windward will also note any incidental wildlife observations made while in the field, will deploy and maintain the wildlife cameras, and will take photos from the photo stations during each monitoring event. Task 1 : Baseline Environmental Study - Design and Implementation Subtask 1 Subtask 2 Subtask 3 Total Work Plan Development Field Work (4 events)Data Report Subtask 4 Attend City Council and Public Meetings 5.2.e Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Attachment D_Final Marsh Budget (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) Staff Role Rate Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Senior Advisor 195.00 4 780$ 4 780$ 8 1,560$ Project Manager 155.00 20 3,100$ 20 3,100$ 40 6,200$ Field Lead 140.00 GIS Analyst 130.00 30 3,900$ 30 3,900$ Project Scientist 120.00 80 9,600$ 60 7,200$ 140 16,800$ Editorial Staff 125.00 24 3,000$ 16 2,000$ 40 5,000$ Admininstrative Support 115.00 4 460$ 4 460$ 8 920$ Total Labor 132 16,940$ 134 17,440$ 266 34,380$ Other Direct Costs Travel Mileage $ 0.530 35 19$ 35 19$ Total ODCs 19$ Total Costs 16,940$ 17,440$ 34,399$ Assumptions:Budget includes labor for one round of client review and subsequent revisions. The site-specific evaluation will involve one day in the field to ground-truth information about the buffers and surrounding land uses gathered during the mapping exercise. Task 2 : Evaluation of Site-Specific Buffers for Ecological Functions Subtask 1 Subtask 2 TotalPreparation of White Paper Site-specific Evaluation 5.2.e Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Attachment D_Final Marsh Budget (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) Staff Role Rate Hours Cost Senior Advisor 195.00 2 390$ Project Manager 155.00 8 1,240$ Field Lead 140.00 GIS Analyst 130.00 4 520$ Project Scientist 120.00 40 4,800$ Editorial Staff 125.00 8 1,000$ Admininstrative Support 115.00 2 230$ Total Labor 64 8,180$ Assumptions:Most of the information needed to complete this task will be gathered during Tasks 1 and 2.This task will include consultation with the City to ensure deliverables prepared are as needed for the SMP document. Task 3 : 2019 SMP Update Information Total 5.2.e Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Attachment D_Final Marsh Budget (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) Staff Role Rate Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Senior Advisor 195.00 30 5,850$ 12 2,340$ 42 8,190$ Project Manager 155.00 30 4,650$ 40 6,200$ 70 10,850$ Field Lead 140.00 -$ -$ GIS Analyst 130.00 40 5,200$ 20 2,600$ 60 7,800$ Project Scientist 120.00 40 4,800$ 90 10,800$ 130 15,600$ Editorial Staff 125.00 -$ 16 2,000$ 16 2,000$ Admininstrative Support 115.00 2 230$ 2 230$ 4 460$ Total Labor 142 20,730$ 180 24,170$ 322 44,900$ Assumptions:Each deliverable will undergo one round of client review and subsequent revisions. This task will not require the collection of any additional field data.The Tech Memo will include recommendations for monitoring to be conducted after the daylighting project has been implemented. TotalPrepare Tech MemoDevelop HEA or REA ModelTask 4 : Willow Creek Daylighting Impacts Subtask 2Subtask 1 5.2.e Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Attachment D_Final Marsh Budget (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) field hours for baseline analysis initial setup of sampling stations and spring event (water quality, vegetation, soils, invertebrates, bird surveys, incidental wildlife surveys, photo points and game cams)50 field lead plus project scientist summer event (same as spring)30 field lead plus project scientist fall event (water quality, soils, invertebrates, bird surveys, incidental wildlife obs, photo points, game cams)10 project scientist x 2 winter event (water quality, soils, bird surveys, incidental wildlife obs, photo points, game cams)8 project scientist x 2 total 98 times 2 staff maintenance of data loggers (for the year) - maintain once per month, assume 5 hrs/month in months when full field event not scheduled (one hour for each unit)40 assume can be done by one person - field lead Total Field Hours 236 5.2.e Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Attachment D_Final Marsh Budget (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) Task Budget Task 1 102,559$ Task 2 34,399$ Task 3 8,180$ Task 4 44,900$ Task 5 TBD Task 6 TBD Total for Tasks 1-4 190,038$ 5.2.e Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Attachment D_Final Marsh Budget (Marsh Study Update from Windward Environmental) City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/3/2018 Council 2019 Budget Goals Discussion Staff Lead: Maureen Judge Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History The City Council held a budget retreat on Saturday, June 9, 2018. Council roles and responsibilities for the budget were reviewed and discussed. Councilmembers participated in an exercise where they were asked to identify goals they would ask the administration to respond to in preparing the preliminary budget for Council consideration. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative Council President Nelson will facilitate a discussion to begin to identify Council Budget goals and next steps for prioritizing these items for the 2019 Budget. The attached worksheet is an incomplete list of items brought up at the Budget Retreat that Council may consider for this discussion. Attachments: Draft Council Budget Retreat Goals Worksheet 7.3 7.1 Packet Pg. 214 DRAFT Council Budget Retreat Goals Worksheet Categories Subcategories Land Use More focus on development code Art Corridor constructed Create an Historic District for Downtown Edmonds - BD1 Capital investment to address homelessness in Edmonds $ for South County Mayor Homeless Project (hotel in Lynnwood) Protect Neighborhoods Attract additional high-tech businesses North & East Edmonds branding program (street banners) Design and implement the 4th Ave. Cultural Corridor Environment More focus on the environment Restore salmon runs Meet renewable energy goals Single-use plastics reduction Protect the stream corridors in Edmonds Maintain or improve tree canopy in Edmonds Restore the ecological function of the Edmonds Marsh Pedestrian Safety Safer streets for pedestrians & vehicles Street safety projects identified & prioritized High priority short walkways completed Increase pedestrian safety/Admiral Way crosswalk Improve fiscal mgmt/ budget process A new budget process Create a new budget & calendar approved by the Council Reserve fund fully funded Budget fund ordinances reviewed Uncatergorized Art District designation application completed More focus on Diversity Education Add 10 hours per month to Diversity Commisison contract staff Enhance school safety (like armed school resource officer) *Capitol Projects Start 99 improvements Rebuild Waterfront Center parking lot (city fund 100%) Additional off-leash dog park Community/Senior Center Funding Civic Field construction started 7.1.a Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Draft Council Budget Retreat Goals Worksheet 7.3 [Revision 1] (Council 2019 Budget Goals Discussion)