HomeMy WebLinkAboutC-8053-1 -PSA for OC Pesticide TMDL - Mitigation Work Plan Evaluation and RecommendationsM
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH ANCHOR QEA, LLC FOR
v OC PESTICIDE TMDL - MITIGATION WORK PLAN EVALUATION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and
entered into as of this 28th day of April, 2016 ("Effective Date"), by and between the
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a California municipal corporation and charter city
("City"), and ANCHOR QEA, LLC, a Washington limited liability company ("Consultant"),
whose address is 27201 Puerta Real, Suite 350, Mission Viejo, California 92691, and is
made with reference to the following:
RECITALS
A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws
of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being
conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City.
B. City desires to engage Consultant to provide an evaluation of the City's draft
work plan for a Regional Water Quality Control Board pesticide Total Maximum
Daily Load ("TMDL") ("Project").
C. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and
knowledge to provide the professional services described in this Agreement.
D. City has solicited and received a proposal from Consultant, has reviewed the
previous experience and evaluated the expertise of Consultant, and desires to
retain Consultant to render professional services under the terms and conditions
set forth in this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned
parties as follows:
lisomilA:7i'
The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date, and shall
terminate on March 30, 2018, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein.
2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED
Consultant shall diligently perform all the services described in the Scope of
Services attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference ("Services"
or "Work"). City may elect to delete certain Services within the Scope of Services at its
sole discretion.
3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE
3.1 Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this
Agreement and Consultant shall perform the Services in accordance with the schedule
included in Exhibit A. In the absence of a specific schedule, the Services shall be
performed to completion in a diligent and timely manner. The failure by Consultant to
strictly adhere to the schedule set forth in Exhibit A, if any, or perform the Services in a
diligent and timely manner may result in termination of this Agreement by City.
3.2 Notwithstanding the foregoing, Consultant shall not be responsible for
delays due to causes beyond Consultant's reasonable control. However, in the case of
any such delay in the Services to be provided for the Project, each party hereby agrees
to provide notice within two (2) calendar days of the occurrence causing the delay to the
other party so that all delays can be addressed.
3.3 Consultant shall submit all requests for extensions of time for performance
in writing to the Project Administrator as defined herein not later than ten (10) calendar
days after the start of the condition that purportedly causes a delay. The Project
Administrator shall review all such requests and may grant reasonable time extensions
for unforeseeable delays that are beyond Consultant's control.
3.4 For all time periods not specifically set forth herein, Consultant shall
respond in the most expedient and appropriate manner under the circumstances, by
hand -delivery or mail.
4. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT
4.1 City shall pay Consultant for the Services on a time and expense not -to -
exceed basis in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the Schedule of
Billing Rates attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference.
Consultant's compensation for all Work performed in accordance with this Agreement,
including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, shall not exceed Fifty
Thousand Dollars and 001100 ($50,000.00), without prior written authorization from
City. No billing rate changes shall be made during the term of this Agreement without
the prior written approval of City.
4.2 Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City describing the Work
performed the preceding month. Consultant's bills shall include the name of the person
who performed the Work, a brief description of the Services performed and/or the
specific task in the Scope of Services to which it relates, the date the Services were
performed, the number of hours spent on all Work billed on an hourly basis, and a
description of any reimbursable expenditures. City shall pay Consultant no later than
thirty (30) calendar days after approval of the monthly invoice by City staff.
4.3 City shall reimburse Consultant only for those costs or expenses
specifically identified in Exhibit B to this Agreement or specifically approved in writing in
advance by City.
Anchor QEA, LLC Page 2
4.4 Consultant shall not receive any compensation for Extra Work performed
without the prior written authorization of City. As used herein, "Extra Work" means any
Work that is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the
Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services and which the parties did
not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement.
Compensation for any authorized Extra Work shall be paid in accordance with the
Schedule of Billing Rates as set forth in Exhibit B.
5. PROJECT MANAGER
5.1 Consultant shall designate a Project Manager, who shall coordinate all
phases of the Project. This Project Manager shall be available to City at all reasonable
times during the Agreement term. Consultant has designated Shelly Anghera, Ph.D. to
be its Project Manager. Consultant shall not remove or reassign the Project Manager or
any personnel listed in Exhibit A or assign any new or replacement personnel to the
Project without the prior written consent of City. City's approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld with respect to the removal or assignment of non -key personnel.
5.2 Consultant, at the sole discretion of City, shall remove from the Project
any of its personnel assigned to the performance of Services upon written request of
City. Consultant warrants that it will continuously furnish the necessary personnel to
complete the Project on a timely basis as contemplated by this Agreement.
5.3 If Consultant is performing inspection services for City, the Project
Manager and any other assigned staff shall be equipped with a cellular phone to
communicate with City staff. The Project Manager's cellular phone number shall be
provided to City.
6. ADMINISTRATION
This Agreement will be administered by the Public Works Department. City's
Public Works Director or designee shall be the Project Administrator and shall have the
authority to act for City under this Agreement. The Project Administrator shall represent
City in all matters pertaining to the Services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement.
7. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES
To assist Consultant in the execution of its responsibilities under this Agreement,
City agrees to provide access to and upon request of Consultant, one copy of all
existing relevant information on file at City. City will provide all such materials in a
timely manner so as not to cause delays in Consultant's Work schedule.
8. STANDARD OF CARE
8.1 All of the Services shall be performed by Consultant or under Consultant's
supervision. Consultant represents that it possesses the professional and technical
personnel required to perform the Services required by this Agreement, and that it will
perform all Services in a manner commensurate with community professional standards
Anchor QEA, LLC Page 3
and with the ordinary degree of skill and care that would be used by other reasonably
competent practitioners of the same discipline under similar circumstances. All
Services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not
employed by City. By delivery of completed Work, Consultant certifies that the Work
conforms to the requirements of this Agreement, all applicable federal, state and local
laws, and legally recognized professional standards.
8.2 Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has, shall obtain, and
shall keep in full force and effect during the term hereof, at its sole cost and expense, all
licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatsoever nature that is
legally required of Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant shall maintain a City
of Newport Beach business license during the term of this Agreement.
8.3 Consultant shall not be responsible for delay, nor shall Consultant be
responsible for damages or be in default or deemed to be in default by reason of strikes,
lockouts, accidents, acts of God, or the failure of City to furnish timely information or to
approve or disapprove Consultant's Work promptly, or delay or faulty performance by
City, contractors, or governmental agencies.
9. HOLD HARMLESS
9.1 To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, defend
and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents,
volunteers and employees (collectively, the "Indemnified Parties') from and against any
and all claims (including, without limitation, claims for bodily injury, death or damage to
property), demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses,
judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including, without limitation,
attorneys' fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever
(individually, a Claim; collectively, "Claims"), which may arise from or in any manner
relate (directly or indirectly) to any breach of the terms and conditions of this
Agreement, any Work performed or Services provided under this Agreement including,
without limitation, defects in workmanship or materials or Consultant's presence or
activities conducted on the Project (including the negligent, reckless, and/or willful acts,
errors and/or omissions of Consultant, its principals, officers, agents, employees,
vendors, suppliers, consultants, subcontractors, anyone employed directly or indirectly
by any of them or for whose acts they may be liable, or any or all of them).
9.2 Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall be construed to
require Consultant to indemnify the Indemnified Parties from any Claim arising from the
sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Parties. Nothing in this
indemnity shall be construed as authorizing any award of attorneys' fees in any action
on or to enforce the terms of this Agreement. This indemnity shall apply to all claims
and liability regardless of whether any insurance policies are applicable. The policy
limits do not act as a limitation upon the amount of indemnification to be provided by
Consultant.
Anchor QEA, LLC Page 4
10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
It is understood that City retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis
and Consultant is not an agent or employee of City. The manner and means of
conducting the Work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are
limited by statute, rule or regulation and the expressed terms of this Agreement. No
civil service status or other right of employment shall accrue to Consultant or its
employees. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute approval for
Consultant or any of Consultant's employees or agents, to be the agents or employees
of City. Consultant shall have the responsibility for and control over the means of
performing the Work, provided that Consultant is in compliance with the terms of this
Agreement. Anything in this Agreement that may appear to give City the right to direct
Consultant as to the details of the performance of the Work or to exercise a measure of
control over Consultant shall mean only that Consultant shall follow the desires of City
with respect to the results of the Services.
11. COOPERATION
Consultant agrees to work closely and cooperate fully with City's designated
Project Administrator and any other agencies that may have jurisdiction or interest in the
Work to be performed. City agrees to cooperate with the Consultant on the Project.
12. CITY POLICY
Consultant shall discuss and review all matters relating to policy and Project
direction with City's Project Administrator in advance of all critical decision points in
order to ensure the Project proceeds in a manner consistent with City goals and
policies.
13. PROGRESS
Consultant is responsible for keeping the Project Administrator informed on a
regular basis regarding the status and progress of the Project, activities performed and
planned, and any meetings that have been scheduled or are desired.
14. INSURANCE
Without limiting Consultant's indemnification of City, and prior to commencement
of Work, Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own expense during the
term of this Agreement or for other periods as specified in this Agreement, policies of
insurance of the type, amounts, terms and conditions described in the Insurance
Requirements attached hereto as Exhibit C, and incorporated herein by reference.
15. PROHIBITION AGAINST ASSIGNMENTS AND TRANSFERS
Except as specifically authorized under this Agreement, the Services to be
provided under this Agreement shall not be assigned, transferred contracted or
subcontracted out without the prior written approval of City. Any of the following shall
Anchor QEA, LLC Page 5
be construed as an assignment: The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of
any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any
general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or cotenant if Consultant is a
partnership or joint -venture or syndicate or co -tenancy, which shall result in changing
the control of Consultant. Control means fifty percent (50%) or more of the voting
power or twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the assets of the corporation, partnership
or joint -venture.
16. SUBCONTRACTING
The subcontractors authorized by City, if any, to perform Work on this Project are
identified in Exhibit A. Consultant shall be fully responsible to City for all acts and
omissions of any subcontractor. Nothing in this Agreement shall create any contractual
relationship between City and any subcontractor nor shall it create any obligation on the
part of City to pay or to see to the payment of any monies due to any such
subcontractor other than as otherwise required by law. City is an intended beneficiary
of any Work performed by the subcontractor for purposes of establishing a duty of care
between the subcontractor and City. Except as specifically authorized herein, the
Services to be provided under this Agreement shall not be otherwise assigned,
transferred, contracted or subcontracted out without the prior written approval of City.
17. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
17.1 Each and every report, draft, map, record, plan, document and other
writing produced, including but not limited to, websites, blogs, social media accounts
and applications (hereinafter "Documents"), prepared or caused to be prepared by
Consultant, its officers, employees, agents and subcontractors, in the course of
implementing this Agreement, shall become the exclusive property of City, and City
shall have the sole right to use such materials in its. discretion without further
compensation to Consultant or any other party. Additionally, all material posted in
cyberspace by Consultant, its officers, employees, agents and subcontractors, in the
course of implementing this Agreement, shall become the exclusive property of City,
and City shall have the sole right to use such materials in its discretion without further
compensation to Consultant or any other party. Consultant shall, at Consultant's
expense, provide such Documents, including all logins and password information to City
upon prior written request.
17.2 Documents, including drawings and specifications, prepared by
Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are not intended or represented to be suitable
for reuse by City or others on any other project. Any use of completed Documents for
other projects and any use of incomplete Documents without specific written
authorization from Consultant will be at City's sole risk and without liability to
Consultant. Further, any and all liability arising out of changes made to Consultant's
deliverables under this Agreement by City or persons other than Consultant is waived
against Consultant, and City assumes full responsibility for such changes unless City
has given Consultant prior notice and has received from Consultant written consent for
such changes.
Anchor QEA, LLC Page 6
17.3 All written documents shall be transmitted to City in formats compatible
with Microsoft Office and/or viewable with Adobe Acrobat.
18. CONFIDENTIALITY
All Documents, including drafts, preliminary drawings or plans, notes and
communications that result from the Services in this Agreement, shall be kept
confidential unless City expressly authorizes in writing the release of information.
19. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDEMNITY
Consultant shall defend and indemnify City, its agents, officers, representatives
and employees against any and all liability, including costs, for infringement or alleged
infringement of any United States' letters patent, trademark, or copyright, including
costs, contained in Consultant's Documents provided under this Agreement.
20. RECORDS
Consultant shall keep records and invoices in connection with the Services to be
performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate
records with respect to the costs incurred under this Agreement and any Services,
expenditures and disbursements charged to City, for a minimum period of three (3)
years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to
Consultant under this Agreement. All such records and invoices shall be clearly
identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of City to examine, audit and make
transcripts or copies of such records and invoices during regular business hours.
Consultant shall allow inspection of all Work, data, Documents, proceedings and
activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final
payment to Consultant under this Agreement.
21. WITHHOLDINGS
City may withhold payment to Consultant of any disputed sums until satisfaction
of the dispute with respect to such payment. Such withholding shall not be deemed to
constitute a failure to pay according to the terms of this Agreement. Consultant shall
not discontinue Work as a result of such withholding. Consultant shall have an
immediate right to appeal to the City Manager or designee with respect to such disputed
sums. Consultant shall be entitled to receive interest on any withheld sums at the rate of
return that City earned on its investments during the time period, from the date of
withholding of any amounts found to have been improperly withheld.
22. ERRORS AND OMISSIONS
In the event of errors or omissions that are due to the negligence or professional
inexperience of Consultant which result in expense to City greater than what would
have resulted if there were not errors or omissions in the Work accomplished by
Consultant, the additional design, construction and/or restoration expense shall be
Anchor QEA, LLC Page 7
borne by Consultant. Nothing in this Section is intended to limit City's rights under the
law or any other sections of this Agreement.
23. CITY'S RIGHT TO EMPLOY OTHER CONSULTANTS
City reserves the right to employ other Consultants in connection with the
Project.
24. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
24.1 Consultant or its employees may be subject to the provisions of the
California Political Reform Act of 1974 (the "Act"), which (1) requires such persons to
disclose any financial interest that may foreseeably be materially affected by the Work
performed under this Agreement, and (2) prohibits such persons from making, or
participating in making, decisions that will foreseeably financially affect such interest.
24.2 If subject to the Act, Consultant shall conform to all requirements of the
Act. Failure to do so constitutes a material breach and is grounds for immediate
termination of this Agreement by City. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless
City for any and all claims for damages resulting from Consultant's violation of this
Section.
25. NOTICES
25.1 All notices, demands, requests or approvals, including any change in
mailing address, to be given under the terms of this Agreement shall be given in writing,
and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally, or on the third
business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first-
class mail, addressed as hereinafter provided.
25.2 All notices, demands, requests or approvals from Consultant to City shall
be addressed to City at:
Attn: David A. Webb, Public Works Director
Public Works Department
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
PO Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658
25.3 All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Consultant shall
be addressed to Consultant at:
Attn: Shelly Anghera, Ph.D.
Anchor QEA, LLC
27201 Puerta Real, Suite 350
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Anchor QEA, LLC Page 8
al�@iWc1111,K
Unless a shorter time is specified elsewhere in this Agreement, before making its
final request for payment under this Agreement, Consultant shall submit to City, in
writing, all claims for compensation under or arising out of this Agreement.
Consultant's acceptance of the final payment shall constitute a waiver of all claims for
compensation under or arising out of this Agreement except those previously made in
writing and identified by Consultant in writing as unsettled at the time of its final request
for payment. Consultant and City expressly agree that in addition to any claims filing
requirements set forth in the Agreement, Consultant shall be required to file any claim
Consultant may have against City in strict conformance with the Government Claims Act
(Government Code sections 900 et seq.).
27. TERMINATION
27.1 In the event that either party fails or refuses to perform any of the
provisions of this Agreement at the time and in the manner required, that party shall be
deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured
within a period of two (2) calendar days, or if more than two (2) calendar days are
reasonably required to cure the default and the defaulting party fails to give adequate
assurance of due performance within two (2) calendar days after receipt of written
notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure
such default, and thereafter diligently take steps to cure the default, the non -defaulting
party may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the defaulting party written
notice thereof.
27.2 Notwithstanding the above provisions, City shall have the right, at its sole
and absolute discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement at any time by
giving no less than seven (7) calendar days' prior written notice to Consultant. In the
event of termination under this Section, City shall pay Consultant for Services
satisfactorily performed and costs incurred up to the effective date of termination for
which Consultant has not been previously paid. On the effective date of termination,
Consultant shall deliver to City all reports, Documents and other information developed
or accumulated in the performance of this Agreement, whether in draft or final form.
28. STANDARD PROVISIONS
28.1 Recitals. City and Consultant acknowledge that the above Recitals are
true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference into this Agreement.
28.2 Compliance with all Laws. Consultant shall, at its own cost and expense,
comply with all statutes, ordinances, regulations and requirements of all governmental
entities, including federal, state, county or municipal, whether now in force or hereinafter
enacted. In addition, all Work prepared by Consultant shall conform to applicable City,
county, state and federal laws, rules, regulations and permit requirements and be
subject to approval of the Project Administrator and City.
Anchor QEA, LLC Page 9
28.3 Waiver. A waiver by either party of any breach, of any term, covenant or
condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent
breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition contained herein, whether
of the same or a different character.
28.4 Integrated Contract. This Agreement represents the full and complete
understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all
preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged
herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions
herein.
28.5 Conflicts or Inconsistencies. In the event there are any conflicts or
inconsistencies between this Agreement and the Scope of Services or any other
attachments attached hereto, the terms of this Agreement shall govern.
28.6 Interpretation. The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in
accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or
against either party by reason of the authorship of the Agreement or any other rule of
construction which might otherwise apply.
28.7 Amendments. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a
written document executed by both Consultant and City and approved as to form by the
City Attorney.
28.8 Severability. If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid,
illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining
provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.
28.9 Controlling Law and Venue. The laws of the State of California shall
govern this Agreement and all matters relating to it and any action brought relating to
this Agreement shall be adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of
Orange, State of California.
28.10 Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an equal
opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee
or applicant for employment because race, religious creed, color, national origin,
ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sex, sexual orientation,
age or any other impermissible basis under law.
28.11 No Attorneys' Fees. In the event of any dispute or legal action arising
under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall not be entitled to attorneys' fees.
28.12 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two (2) or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall
constitute one (1) and the same instrument.
[SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]
Anchor QEA, LLC Page 10
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be
executed on the dates written below.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATT RNEY6S OFFICE
Date:
By: -,Q—
Aaron C. Harp (AM a%j 24 lu
City Attorney
ATTEST: J�
Date: 6�
By: vvW" Ji PJww,
Leilani I. Brown
City Clerk
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
a California municipal corporation
nate� - ! 1 GG
By: /)o A. /
David A. Webb
Public Works Director
CONSULTANT: Anchor QEA, LLC,
Washington limited liability company
Date:
Signed in Counterpart
By:
Steve Cappellino
Partner
Date:
Signed in Counterpart
RV -
Shelly Anghera. Ph.D.
Partner
[END OF SIGNATURES]
Attachments: Exhibit A — Scope of Services
Exhibit B — Schedule of Billing Rates
Exhibit C — Insurance Requirements
Page 11
Anchor QEA, LLC
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be
executed on the dates written below.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATT RNEY'S OFFICE
Date:
By:
Aaron C. Harp (Am a+I2aliu
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Date:
M
Leilani I. Brown
City Clerk
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
a California municipal corporation
By:
David A. Webb
Public Works Director
CONSULTANT: Anchor QEA, LLC, e
Washington limited liability company
Date:�s I (�
By:�_�
Steve Cappellino
Partner
Nartner
[END OF SIGNATURES]
Attachments: Exhibit A — Scope of Services
Exhibit B — Schedule of Billing Rates
Exhibit C — Insurance Requirements
Anchor QEA, LLC Page 11
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Anchor QEA, LLC Page A-1
G-
ANCHOR
OEA
Suite 350
Misson Viejo, California 92691
Phone 949.347 2780
February 24, 2016
Bob Stein, Ph.D.
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
Re: Scope of Work and Cost Estimate to Revise the Draft Work Plan for Organochlorine
Compound Total Maximum Daily Loads for San Diego Creek and Upper and Lower
Newport Bay
Dear Dr. Stein:
Anchor QEA, LLC, is pleased to provide this scope of work and cost estimate to revise the
Draft Work Plan for organochlorine compound (OC) Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
for San Diego Creek and Upper and Lower Newport Bay. I reviewed the Draft Work Plan,
the original TMDL developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2002, and the
revised TMDL developed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB;
Resolution No. R8-2011-0037). I believe the entire work plan must be rewritten and
reorganized to provide a strategic, programmatic approach to TMDL compliance. The Draft
Work Plan confuses the audience with errors and inappropriate expectations and does not
meet the minimum requirements outlined in Resolution No. R8-2011-0037. A revised Work
Plan is necessary to set accurate expectations, to motivate engagement of the working group,
and provide strategic path for the TMDL implementation process. A complete revision of the
work plan is necessary because of the following:
• The Draft Work Plan does not clearly address the required elements described in the
Resolution and the intended nature of the adaptive management TMDL process;
• The current approach leads the group down an unknown path of data collection
scenarios and contains data collection methods that are not consistent with or
relevant to demonstrating TMDL compliance; and
www.anchorqea.com
Dr. Bob Stein, City of Newport Beach
February 24, 2016
• The Work Plan has defensive language that may result in closing off productive
communication and collaborative opportunities with the RWQCB.
The remainder of this letter details each of these concerns.
The Draft Work Plan does not address the required elements and the intended nature of the
adaptive management TMDL process. The Draft Work Plan does not address the
implementation activities outlined in the TMDL, and it does not address the recommended
actions by the Independent Advisory Panel. This TMDL is unique in that it allows for
adaptive management and reconsideration of numeric targets. Usually, anti -backsliding laws
prevent any relaxation in water quality objectives once included in a Basin Plan Amendment
and relevant permits. Instead, this TMDL allows the dischargers an opportunity to use sound
science to justify modifications to compliance methods (e.g., numeric targets and waste load
allocations), provides flexibility in the implementation actions, and allows for cost-saving
adjustments in monitoring programs. However, to be provided the flexibility of an adaptive
management TMDL, the work plan must provide a "comprehensive, watershed plan for BMP
implementation, monitoring, special investigations and other actions that will assure
compliance with the OCs TMDLs' (Resolution No. R8-2011-0037). In addition, the work
plan must address recommendations from the Independent Advisory Panel for the
development of alternative compliance methods. Finally, Phase I Implementation Tasks 2, 3,
5, and 6 from the revised TMDL "must be considered in work plan development and
implementation" (Resolution No. R8-2011-0037). I do not believe that the current Work
Plan meets any of these requirements.
The current approach leads the group down an unknown path of data collection scenarios
and contains data collection methods that are not consistent with or relevant to
demonstrating TMDL compliance. The approach applied in the Draft Work Plan focuses on
non -targeted, non-strategic monitoring activities that may or may not inform the Conceptual
Site Model. A more practical, targeted, and scientifically based approach would be to
summarize all available data and then determine if further data are required to develop a
draft Conceptual Site Model. The only data collection required at this time is to support
compliance monitoring. The Draft Work Plan proposes compliance monitoring using the
State's Sediment Quality Objectives (SQO). However, SQOs are not listed as approved
metrics for demonstrating compliance; instead, the TMDL metrics are numeric targets for
Dr. Bob Stein, City of Newport Beach
February 24, 2016
Page 3
sediment, water and tissue. Consequently, the collection of data using the SO -0
methodologies is not consistent with demonstrating TMDL compliance in the TMDL. Use of
the SQOs as metrics for evaluating compliance must be negotiated with the RWQCB before
implementation, and the endpoints used to define compliance must be clarified.
The Work Plan has defensive language that may result in closing off productive
communication and collaborative opportunities with the RWQCB. Throughout the Draft
Work Plan, the text suggests that TMDLs are unjustified and that the collection of additional
data through non -targeted monitoring will result in TMDL compliance. That simply will not
happen. The TMDL is already in effect, and only demonstrating compliance with all
numeric targets in sediment, water, fish tissue, and bird egg tissues will relax the need for
reductions in pollutant loadings. Current fish tissue and bird egg tissue data show levels of
OC pesticides (specifically polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs) and DDTs) above the numeric
criteria. No matter how many sediment samples are collected, this will not change the fact
that water quality objectives are not being met and the beneficial uses continue to be
impaired. Delisting is considered infeasible for sediment -related compounds; any discussion
of delisting sediment -based pollutants in this watershed leads the working group in the
wrong direction. The only changes to the 303(d) list will be the addition of new pollutants
and with that more controls.
The water quality objectives must be met within 4 years (i.e., by December 31, 2020), and
the Work Plan still has not been approved by the RWQCB. Based on my review, I do not
expect the RWQCB to approve this Work Plan. Without an approved Work Plan, all
dischargers will be required to complete each implementation task individually and meet the
current numeric targets and waste load allocations. There is an opportunity here to adjust the
direction, develop risk based compliance targets, and receive credit for pollution controls
that are already in place. Anchor QEA has been down this path through other similar
TMDLs, we understand the effort that is needed and the efficiencies gained when the
discharger runs the program rather than being directed by the RWQCB. We are eager to
help the City of Newport Beach negotiate a path with the RWQCB and lead the stakeholders
through an environmentally and economically responsible process to restore water quality
and maintain beneficial uses in the watershed.
Dr. Bob Stein, City of Newport Beach
February 24,2016
SCOPE OF WORK
For a time and materials budget not to exceed $50,000, Anchor QEA will revise the Work
Plan as outlined in the recommended approach, keeping as much of the introduction as
possible. To most efficiently execute the revised Work Plan, I recommend meeting with the
Irvine Company to gain acceptance of the proposed approach. An annotated outline will be
developed and shared with the RWQCB for concurrence. Once approved, a revised draft
work plan will be prepared. Anchor QEA will support the City of Newport Beach in sharing
the revised work plan with the other stakeholders.
Budget Assumptions
The following assumptions were made when compiling this scope of work:
• One in-person meeting with the Irvine Company.
• Irvine Company consulting team will assist in the development of the work plan.
• An annotated outline of the proposed work plan will be drafted.
• One in-person meeting with the RWQCB.
• A draft work plan will be developed based on the annotated outline.
• One in-person meeting with workgroup members to share the revised draft work
plan.
• Responding to comments from the workgroup and developing a final work plan is
beyond the $50,000 budget. Additional budget can be estimated after comments are
received.
Dr. Bob Stein, City of Newport Beach
February 24, 2016
I appreciate the opportunity to provide this scope of work and cost estimate for completing
this work. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (714) 296-9018.
Sincerely,
'& (4,�'�u iit I
Shelly Anghera, Ph.D.
Principal Scientist
Anchor QEA, LLC
Attachment
Recommended Approach for the new Work Plan
General comments for Draft Work Plan
Shelly Anghera, Ph.D., Resume
RECOMMENDED APPROACH IN A NEW WORK PLAN
Task 1: Develop a Cooperative Compliance Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Question: Is there a clear regulatory framework for determining TMDL compliance?
Assessment steps include the following:
1. Gain regulatory acceptance on approaches to demonstrate compliance, including acceptance of
SQO policy based tools and risk assessment framework.
2. Develop a risk-based compliance process. This effort directly addresses recommendations from
the IAP:
- IAP Recommendation 1: Development of management thresholds for bioaccumulative
compounds such as OCs should be approached through a structured risk assessment process.
- IAP Recommendation 2: Sediment water, and tissue targets should be derived as part of an
integrated modeling approach that incorporates specific endpoints and information about
the entire foodweb.
3. Develop a Contaminated Sediment Management Plan (CSMP). This TMDL requires numeric
targets in sediment be achieved, and like others of this kind, it assumes dredging will be
required to be compliant. It is recommended that a CSMP be developed that outlines the risk-
based process for sediment remediation programs. These documents have been developed for
multiple areas in Los Angeles County. It sets the Regional Water Quality Control Board's
(RWQCB's) expectations on effectiveness of sediment remediation programs and gains approval
on a more strategic watershed -based approaches. This document may be written later in the
process, but this effort will include Implementation Task 6 in Resolution No. R8-2011-0037:
- Implementation Task 6: Evaluate the feasibility and mechanisms to fund future dredging
operations within the San Diego Creek, Upper and Lower Newport Bay
Question: How should the compliance monitoring program be designed?
Assessment steps include the following:
1. Determine how compliance be determined, e.g., through 1) SQO assessment tools, 2) numeric
targets, or 3) meeting waste load allocations. This determination will be based on negotiations
with the RWQCB regarding Task lc.
2. Develop cost sharing agreements with all parties. Seethe Greater Harbor Regional Monitoring
Coalition's CCMRP as an example. This effort directly addresses Implementation Task 2 and 3 in
the Resolution.
- Implementation Task 2: Develop proposed agriculture BMP and monitoring program to
assess and control OC discharges. Once the CSM or other quantitative methods have
confirmed the source linkage to the impairment, and BMPs are developed, then the
monitoring plan can be developed to assess the effectiveness of the BMP.
- Implementation Task 3: Develop proposed monitoring program to assess OCs inputs from
open spaces. Once the CSM has confirmed the source linkage to the impairment, and BMPs
are developed, then the monitoring plan can be developed to assess the effectiveness of the
BMP.
Question: What other data collection programs are ongoing that may offer efficiencies?
Assessment steps include the following:
1. Develop a programmatic Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). This effort is optional but is
recommended if stakeholders plan to develop a site-specific model; also will ensure data
standards are upheld and comparable if there are different monitoring programs from which
data are being evaluated. The QAPP will ensure all data collection programs are consistent,
standardized, and will eliminate dueling datasets, which allows forgreater data sharing ease and
completeness. See the Greater Harbor Regional Monitoring Coalition's Programmatic QAPP as
an example.
Task 2: Confirm Impairment Using Existing Data Representing Current
Conditions and the SQO Assessment Tools
Question: Do current data support the implantation of controls for organochlorine compound (OC)
pesticides as defined in the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)? Confirm impairment exists with
available data that reflect current conditions.
Assessment steps include the following:
1. Develop a database of all available and relevant data. This data summary review will allow
efforts to support recommendations from the Independent Advisory Panel (IAP):
- IAP Recommendation 8: Available trend data on tissue levels in the watershed should be
examined to determine if the data can be interpreted equally well from different
perspectives. Tracking of trends should be expanded by including one or more
representative resident marine or estuarine fish in routine monitoring programs.
2. Determine if numeric targets are exceeded. If yes, are other risk-based human health and
wildlife thresholds exceeded?
3. Use Sediment Quality Objectives (SQO) assessment tools to evaluate sediment condition.
- SQO direct effects assessment: Evaluate available data.
- SOO indirect effects assessment: Run SQO indirect effects to determine if there is an
impairment that can be linked to sediment from the site. —Does this model suggest
impairment? Would additional data allow a more accurate assessment? Is there a pattern
where more recent data suggest less impairment than older data?
Task 3: Develop Conceptual Site Model for OC Pesticides in Watershed
Question: Are the sources and receptors of the contaminants defined and understood? Develop a
Conceptual Site Model (CSM) and confirm major sources, sinks, and receptors and pathways for
contaminants of potential concern in the watershed.
Assessment steps include the following:
1. Develop a CSM. The CSM will directly address Implementation Task 5 in Resolution No. R8-
2011-0037 and recommendations from the IAP:
- Implementation Task 5: Evaluate sources of OCs; develop and implement BMPs. Once the
source has been linked to the impairment then an effective BMP can be designed.
- IAP Recommendation 2: Sediment water, and tissue targets should be derived as part of an
integrated modeling approach that incorporates specific endpoints and information about
the entire foodweb.
- IAP Recommendation 9: Sediment mass balance models should be developed for each
contaminant. This task should be included in the TMDL implementation work plan
- IAP Recommendation 10: Potential unidentified sources of pollutants that could become
important as contaminant levels decline should be investigated.
Question: Are there any data gaps in the CSM that need to evaluate unknown contaminant pathways
which would prevent the identification and/or effectiveness of management alternatives? Is the linkage
defined and understood? Are all the sources identified?
Assessment steps include the following:
1. Perform data gaps analysis to determine most critical information gaps.
Task 4: Develop Risk Assessment Framework
Questions: Since the TMDL allows for the development water quality objectives that are risk based, can
an alternative risk-based water quality objective be developed that is protective of beneficial uses?
Assessment steps include the following:
1. Review to directly address recommendations from the IAP:
- IAP Recommendation 3: The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment's (OEHHA)
fish tissue targets related to human health should be reviewed and a decision made as to
which targets (Fish Consumption Guidelines (FCGs) or Advisory Tissue Levels (ATLs)) are most
appropriate for use in the OCs TMDLs. Anchor QEA has already developed a white paper that
articulates the advantages of using ATLs over FCGs from a technical perspective. However, if
the SQO for indirect effects are used in the evaluation of compliance, this metric will be
dependent on assumptions used in the State Policy for the calculation of fish consumption
risk to humans (i.e,. assumptions such as risk level, consumption rate, etc.).
- IAP Recommendation 4: Development of appropriate and protective wildlife criteria should
build on the efforts underway by the Biological Technical Assistance Group (STAG) to develop
and refine TRVs based on the best available current science.
- IAP Recommendation 5: Protective prey tissue levels (targets) should be selected and/or
calculated for three species of wildlife bird species: the clapper rail, least tern, and osprey.
- IAP Recommendation 6: A thorough review of the literature on contaminant effects,
thresholds, and screening values relevant to these three bird species of concern in Newport
Bay should be undertaken.
- IAP Recommendation 7: Current science does not yet permit setting reliable targets for
toxaphene to the extent possible for other contaminants; it is likely that any sediment
control measures used to address DDT issues in the Newport Bay Watershed would also be
effective for toxaphene.
COMMENTS ON CURRENT APPROACH APPLIED IN DRAFT WORK PLAN
• IAP recommendations are not directly addressed through the planned efforts. Significant effort
and investment has been made to bring these experts together. The RWQCB is willing to have
them weigh in on applicability of appropriate targets and management approaches. Providing
this group the needed information will have immense impacts on the feasibility of management
alternatives.
• The tasks identified within the Basin Plan Amendment are not directly addressed or not
addressed at all. Fulfilling the minimum expectations of the RWQCB will open communication
and cooperation. The RWQCB has specific obligations to meet the Clean Water Act; organizing
the Work Plan to show that efforts are responsive to the Basin Plan Amendment is crucial to
stakeholder groups that are advocating more restrictive management actions.
• The approach seems to be focused on what data can be collected (the actual tools) rather than
focusing on how compliance will be demonstrated. The SQO policy provides assessment tools
and technical guidance that RWQCB staff may use to help understand sediment -related
impairments to benthic infauna (direct effects) and human risk from fish consumption (indirect
effects; currently under development). It seems the more meaningful approach would be to
understand impairments caused by sediment (to both benthic and fish tissue), water (fish
tissue), and fish tissue (to both human and wildlife).
Current Task 1: Construct a Conceptual Site Model and Risk Assessment
Framework that Will Guide Any Needed Technical Assessments with Available
Data from Past and Ongoing Current Studies to Determine Whether Evidence of
Current Problems Exist
Comment on Approach: Because the TMDL is already adopted, the confirmation of water quality
impairments is not needed unless it is believed that the environment has substantially changed or that
the targets do not reflect current state water quality criteria. An evaluation of TMDL numeric targets
confirms the targets are relevant to other similar TMDLs (Marina del Rey, Dominguez Channel and
Greater Harbor Waters, Calleguas, etc.). However, the Dominguez Channel and Greater Harbor Waters
TMDL allows compliance to be demonstrated through the SQO policy. In addition, dredging of Lower
Newport Bay removed contaminated sediments from portions of the harbor. Therefore, it is justified to
reassess available sediment, water, and tissue quality data that reflects current conditions. Sufficient
data are available to evaluate sediment quality using the SQO direct and indirect assessment tools
without collecting new data. To use the SQO indirect effect tool, as part of this approach it might be
beneficial to complete a CSM to determine appropriate fish species to be used in the tool.
Task 2: Design and Implement a TMDL-related Monitoring Plan that Will Fill Key
Data Gaps
Comment on Approach: A more appropriate process would be to develop the minimal monitoring
program required in the TMDL. This task is designed to assess compliance. The TMDL requires
monitoring program and any identified data gaps need to be collected in a program that is specifically
designed to meet those particular objectives. Monitoring programs should not define where and what
data gaps exist, rather the review of existing data should define the data needs after CSM development.
Any programs conducted by the RWQCB or SCCWRP may provide supplemental data or an opportunity
for efficiencies where similar objectives may exist.
Task 3: Evaluate Best Management Practices (BMPs) in Regard to Current
Technologies and the Development of BMP Approaches
Comment on Approach: BMPs have been implemented throughout the region for other TMDLs, MS4,
and stormwater related programs. The working group should document those BMPs and evaluate how
effective those BMPs are for OC pesticides and sediment load reductions. The group should review
ongoing monitoring programs that area already approved and document which ones sufficiently meet
the task recommendations in the Basin Plan Amendment. The working group should also develop a
reporting process so those programs satisfy the requirements of this program as well. After the CSM is
complete and the major sources of OC pesticides are understood, then BMP effectiveness at cutting off
linkage or reducing inputs can be assessed. Site- or BMP -specific monitoring programs can be
developed when it is determined to be necessary in the implementation plan. It is likely the dischargers
are implementing many pollution control measures, but the current approach does not provide a
mechanism to demonstrate that.
Task 4: Evaluate and Revise (as needed) 303(d) Listings, Risk-based Assessment
Thresholds, and TMDL Targets
Comment on Approach: The 303(d) list identifies waterbodies where a TMDL is needed. Newport Bay
already has a TMDL; therefore, the only outcome is adding new compounds to the 303(d) list. The
delisting process is not applicable with use of the SQO policy assessment tools. Furthermore, Newport
Bay is not clean enough to consider delisting as an option. The use of alternative numeric targets is a
technical issue that requires significant justification, hence the need for a Work Plan.
Shelly Anghera, Ph.D.
Partner, Principal Scientist
Dr. Shelly Anghera is a principal scientist with more than 18 years of
Education
experience conducting field and laboratory studies related to marine
Ph.D., Environmental Health
eco -toxicology and sediment quality characterization. She has focused on
sciences, University of California,
Los Angeles,2004
providing specialized environmental services for the Ports of Long Beach
shortcomings and worked closely with the Ports, other stakeholders, and
and Los Angeles (Ports) for the past 12 years. Her expertise centers on
B.S., Aquatic Biology, University of
field study design, sediment characterization, water and sediment testing
California, Santa Barbara, 1995
and analysis, implementation strategies for Total Maximum Daily Load
requirements. Efforts include identification of contaminant sources and
(TMDL) compliance, and California's Sediment Quality Objectives (SQOs)
establishment linkages of pollutants to current impairments in order to
application. Dr. Anghera's projects often focus on the integration of
develop effective remedial actions. Our team is working closely with the
multiple lines of evidence to determine water and sediment quality in
Ports to develop responsible management solutions, based on sound
marine systems. Recent projects include sediment management, TMDL
science, to be considered at the TMDL reopener in 2018.
support, water quality monitoring, and sediment and water quality
characterization within the Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor in support of
the Water Resource Action Plan (WRAP).
Project Experience
Total Maximum Daily Loo
Dr. Anghera is leading the development of a comprehensive strategy and
Support
program to support the Ports for implementation and compliance with
Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles
the Greater Harbor Waters Toxics TMDLs. Anchor QEA identified scientific
San Pedro Bay, California
shortcomings and worked closely with the Ports, other stakeholders, and
the regulators to provide the information needed to assess current
conditions and develop implementation actions to address compliance
requirements. Efforts include identification of contaminant sources and
establishment linkages of pollutants to current impairments in order to
develop effective remedial actions. Our team is working closely with the
Ports to develop responsible management solutions, based on sound
science, to be considered at the TMDL reopener in 2018.
Contaminated Sediment
Management Plans
City of Long Beach, Los Angeles
County Department of Public Works,
and City of Los Angeles
Southern California
California State Sediment
Quality Objectives
Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach
San Pedro Bay, California
Dr. Anghera led the development of three complimentary Contaminated
Sediment Management Plans (CSMPs) forthe long-term management of
legacy contaminants in marine sediments to ensure management actions
are ecologically beneficial and logistically and economically feasible. The
CSMPs detail a process to identify, prioritize, and manage chemically
impacted sediments, where necessary, to protect and improve water
quality. The CSMPs use a risk-based approach to assess impacts due to
chemically mediated effects as a means for determining the magnitude
and extent of possible cleanup actions.
Dr. Anghera developed a series of reports and comment documents
to determine implications of the State's Phase 1 (Direct Effect) SQOs
and the pending Phase II (Indirect Effects) SQOs. Dr. Anghera
continues to attend and present findings at the Technical Advisory
Committee meetings, on behalf of the Ports, to evaluate approaches
for applying the SQO tools to long-term monitoring programs and
TMDL compliance programs.
Shelly Anghera, Ph.D.
Project Experience
Greater Harbor Waters Toxics Dr. Anghera serves as the principal -in -charge of this program. The
TMDL Compliance Monitoring Greater Harbor Waters Toxics TMDL requires the Responsible Parties
Gateway Watershed Management of the Greater Harbor Waters to conduct compliance monitoring to
Authority determine compliance with the TMDL targets. Dr. Anghera led the
San Pedro Bay, California program design and strategic planning to gain consensus from the
14 separate stakeholders. The program includes receiving water
quality monitoring during wet and dry weather, fish tissue sampling,
and sediment quality sampling.
Water Resource Action Plan Dr. Anghera developed the sediment management component of
Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles the WRAP for each of the Ports. Efforts included reviewing,
San Pedro Bay, California summarizing, and presenting all available sediment data.
Summarizing regulatory compliance standards was coupled with
identifying priority management areas to bring the Ports into
compliance. Project elements included developing sampling plans,
collecting water, sediment, and soil samples throughout the harbor,
analyzing data, reporting, presenting findings to stakeholders on
behalf of the Ports, and representing the Ports at regulatory
meetings.
Rhine Channel Remediation
Dr. Anghera led all sediment and water quality investigations
and Lower Newport Bay
conducted by Anchor QEA during the Rhine Channel sediment
Dredging Projects
remediation and Lower Newport Bay dredging projects. The projects
City of Newport Beach
included developing and negotiating a cost-effective and
Newport Beach, California
environmentally responsible monitoring program with the Regional
Water Quality Control Board, which allowed these projects to
proceed for more than 1 year without a single delay due to sediment
resuspension. Her work included all agency negotiations and work
plan development.
Copper TMDL Assistance
Dr. Anghera has been assisting the City of Newport Beach in
City of Newport Beach
preparing for impending copper boat paint regulations.
Newport Beach, California
Copper -based antifouling paints, used to protect underwater boat
hulls by reducing the growth of marine organisms, have been
identified as the largest source of copper contaminants in local
boating harbors, including Upper and Lower Newport Bay.
Boat -bottom cleaning and normal leaching activities have resulted in
the release of copper into the water and sediments. Dr. Anghera's
assistance has included conducting technical presentations for City
staff to advise them of potential management strategies.
On -Call Sediment and Water
Dr. Anghera is the lead principal scientist and principal in charge for
Quality Environmental Services
the Ports'Sedimentand Water Quality contracts for the last 10years.
Contract
Services include, but are not limited to, dredged material
Ports oflong Beach and LosAngeles
assessments, water quality monitoring, stormwater services, marine
San Pedro Bay, California
biological surveys, sediment quality evaluations, Clean Water Act
compliance requirements (i.e., NPDES permits, TMDL), sediment
management, and environmental permitting.
Shelly Anghera, Ph.D.
Project Experience
Municipal Co -permittees Urban Dr. Anghera was the principal scientist fora contract with the County
Runoff Monitoring Program of San Diego from 2008 to 2009. She was responsible for client
relations, internal resource and logistics management, senior -level
County of San Diego and review of data interpretation and reporting in annual reports, and
Co -permittees administration of task orders. She was responsible for the study
San Diego, California, design of ABLM program for the 2010 to 2013 field effort. She
advised co -permittees in the State's development of SQOs and
co-authored SQO data interpretation of Bight'08 program.
Selected Recent Presentations
Invited speaker. Strategies forAchieving Compliance with Sediment Based TMDLs. 2015. Orange County
Stormwater Division, Orange County, California.
Invited speaker: Where do we put this stuff? Figuring out new sediment disposal options for the Los Angeles
Region. 2015. California Marine and Navigation Affairs Committee, San Francisco, California.
Running Out of Options: Regional Sediment Management Solutions in Southern California. 2015. Battelle
Contaminated Sediments Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Invited speaker: Sediment Remediation Strategies for Design and Implementation. 2015. Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works, Engineering Division, Alhabra, California.
Invited speaker: Total Maximum Daily Loads: What are they are they and how can they impact coastal harbors?
2013. California Marine and Navigation Affairs Committee, Monterey Bay, California.
Invited speaker: What Happens When All the Port Fills Are Full?. Newapproaches to sediment management in
SoCal Bight. 2013. Western Dredgers Association, Long Beach, California.
Invited Instructor: Total Maximum Daily Loads: What are they are they and how can they impact ports? 2013.
Ports COPRI, Seattle, Washington.
Fish Tissue Targets for PCB TMDLs: What is the Real Risk? An Example from the Greater Los Angeles and Long
Beach Harbor Waters TMDL. 2013. Battelle Contaminated Sediment Conference, Dallas, Texas.
Understanding Measures of Water Quality. Choosing the Appropriate Method and Permit Compliance
Implications. 2012. Western Dredgers Association, Homer, Alaska. Winner of Best Paper.
The Decision to Remediate Sediments to Meet TMDLs: Prioritizing Impacts, Benefits, and Fiscal Responsibilities.
2011. Battelle Contaminated Sediment Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana.
EXHIBIT B
SCHEDULE OF BILLING RATES
Anchor QEA, LLC Page B-1
Anchor QEA, L.L.C.
2016 CLIENT BILLING RATES
Professional Level Hourlv Rates
Principal.....................................................................................................................................
$241
SeniorManager..........................................................................................................................
$214
Manager......................................................................................................................................
$198
SeniorStaff.................................................................................................................................$173
Staff3.........................................................................................................................................$152
Staff2.........................................................................................................................................$137
Staff1.........................................................................................................................................$115
SeniorCAD' Designer...............................................................................................................$121
CADDesigner............................................................................................................................$101
Technician..................................................................................................................................$101
TechnicalEditor.........................................................................................................................$103
ProjectCoordinator......................................................................................................................$98
Annual escalation rate of 3% will be applied effective January I"
of each year.
Special Hourly Rates
Nationalexpert consultant..........................................................................................................$393
All work by a testifying expert........................................................1.5
times professional level rate
EXPENSE BILLING RATES
Expense Rates
Computer Modeling (per hour)...............................................................................................$10.00
Graphic Plots (varies with plot size)...................................................................................... $3-6/sf
Mileage (per mile)..................................................................................... Current Federal Standard
' CAD= Computer Aided Design
EXHIBIT C
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS — PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1. Provision of Insurance. Without limiting Consultant's indemnification of City, and
prior to commencement of Work, Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at
its own expense during the term of this Agreement, policies of insurance of the
type and amounts described below and in a form satisfactory to City. Consultant
agrees to provide insurance in accordance with requirements set forth here. If
Consultant uses existing coverage to comply and that coverage does not meet
these requirements, Consultant agrees to amend, supplement or endorse the
existing coverage.
2. Acceptable Insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance
company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact
business of insurance in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders'
Rating of A- (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger) in
accordance with the latest edition of Best's Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise
approved by the City's Risk Manager.
3. Coverage Requirements.
A. Workers' Compensation Insurance. Consultant shall maintain Workers'
Compensation Insurance, statutory limits, and Employer's Liability
Insurance with limits of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000) each
accident for bodily injury by accident and each employee for bodily injury
by disease in accordance with the laws of the State of California, Section
3700 of the Labor Code.
Consultant shall submit to City, along with the certificate of insurance, a
Waiver of Subrogation endorsement in favor of City, its officers, agents,
employees and volunteers.
B. General Liability Insurance. Consultant shall maintain commercial general
liability insurance, and if necessary umbrella liability insurance, with
coverage at least as broad as provided by Insurance Services Office form
CG 00 01, in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per
occurrence, two million dollars ($2,000,000) general aggregate. The
policy shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, personal and
advertising injury, and liability assumed under an insured contract
(including the tort liability of another assumed in a business contract).
C. Automobile Liability Insurance. Consultant shall maintain automobile
insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01
covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of Consultant
arising out of or in connection with Work to be performed under this
Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non -owned or rented
vehicles, in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000)
combined single limit each accident.
Anchor QEA, LLC Page C-1
D. Professional Liability (Errors & Omissions) Insurance. Consultant shall
maintain professional liability insurance that covers the Services to be
performed in connection with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of
one million dollars ($1,000,000) per claim and two million dollars
($2,000,000) in the aggregate. Any policy inception date, continuity date,
or retroactive date must be before the Effective Date of this Agreement
and Consultant agrees to maintain continuous coverage through a period
no less than three years after completion of the Services required by this
Agreement.
4. Other Insurance Reguirements. The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to
contain, the following provisions:
A. Waiver of Subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured
pursuant to this Agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation
against City, its elected or appointed officers, agents, officials, employees
and volunteers or shall specifically allow Consultant or others providing
insurance evidence in compliance with these requirements to waive their
right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of
recovery against City, and shall require similar written express waivers
from each of its subconsultants.
B. Additional Insured Status. All liability policies including general liability,
excess liability, pollution liability, and automobile liability, if required, but
not including professional liability, shall provide or be endorsed to provide
that City and its officers, officials, employees, and agents shall be included
as insureds under such policies.
C. Primary and Non Contributory. All liability coverage shall apply on a
primary basis and shall not require contribution from any insurance or self-
insurance maintained by City.
D. Notice of Cancellation. All policies shall provide City with thirty (30)
calendar days notice of cancellation (except for nonpayment for which ten
(10) calendar days notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each
required coverage.
5. Additional Agreements Between the Parties. The parties hereby agree to the
following:
A. Evidence of Insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance
to City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with
a waiver of subrogation endorsement for workers' compensation and other
endorsements as specified herein for each coverage. Insurance
certificates and endorsement must be approved by City's Risk Manager
prior to commencement of performance. Current certification of insurance
shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this
Agreement. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of
all required insurance policies, at any time.
Anchor QEA, LLC Page C-2
B. City's Right to Revise Requirements. City reserves the right at any time
during the term of the Agreement to change the amounts and types of
insurance required by giving Consultant sixty (60) calendar days advance
written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial
additional cost to Consultant, City and Consultant may renegotiate
Consultant's compensation.
C. Enforcement of Agreement Provisions. Consultant acknowledges and
agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of City to inform
Consultant of non-compliance with any requirement imposes no additional
obligations on City nor does it waive any rights hereunder.
D. Requirements not Limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features
or limits contained in this Section are not intended as a limitation on
coverage, limits or other requirements, or a waiver of any coverage
normally provided by any insurance. Specific reference to a given
coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a
given issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive,
or to the exclusion of other coverage, or a waiver of any type. If the
Consultant maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the
City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for higher limits maintained
by the Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the
specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to
the City.
E. Self-insured Retentions. Any self-insured retentions must be declared to
and approved by City. City reserves the right to require that self-insured
retentions be eliminated, lowered, or replaced by a deductible. Self-
insurance will not be considered to comply with these requirements unless
approved by City.
F. City Remedies for Non -Compliance. If Consultant or any subconsultant
fails to provide and maintain insurance as required herein, then City shall
have the right but not the obligation, to purchase such insurance, to
terminate this Agreement, or to suspend Consultant's right to proceed until
proper evidence of insurance is provided. Any amounts paid by City shall,
at City's sole option, be deducted from amounts payable to Consultant or
reimbursed by Consultant upon demand.
G. Timely Notice of Claims. Contractor shall give City prompt and timely
notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from
Contractor's performance under this Contract, and that involve or may
involve coverage under any of the required liability policies. City assumes
no obligation or liability by such notice, but has the right (but not the duty)
to monitor the handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to
involve City.
H. Consultant's Insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its
own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own
Anchor QEA, LLC Page C-3
judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of
the Work.
Anchor QEA, LLC Page C-4
CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE
CHECKLIST
City of Newport Beach
This checklist is comprised of requirements as outlined by the City of Newport Beach. *
Date Received: 1/7/16 Dept./Contact Received From: Raymund
Date Completed: 1/7/16 Sent to: Raymund By: Chris/Alicia
Company/Person required to have certificate: Anchor QEA
Type of contract: Public Works
I. GENERAL LIABILITY
EFFECTIVE/EXPIRATION DATE: 10/10/15 to 10/10/16
A.
INSURANCE COMPANY: Travelers Indemnity Company of America
B.
AM BEST RATING (A-: VII or greater): A++; XV
AM BEST RATING (A-: VII or greater) A++; XV
C.
ADMITTED Company (Must be California Admitted):
ADMITTED COMPANY (Must be California Admitted):
Is Company admitted in California?
❑ Yes ® No
D.
LIMITS (Must be $11M or greater): What is limit provided?
1,000,00012,000,000
E.
ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT—please attach
® Yes ❑ No
F.
PRODUCTS AND COMPLETED OPERATIONS (Must
include): Is it included? (completed Operations status does
F.
not apply to Waste Haulers or Recreation)
® Yes ❑ No
G.
ADDITIONAL INSURED FOR PRODUCTS AND
❑ Yes ❑ No
G.
COMPLETED OPERATIONS ENDORSEMENT (completed
® Yes ❑ No
H.
Operations status does not apply to Waste Haulers)
® Yes ❑ No
H.
ADDITIONAL INSURED WORDING TO INCLUDE (The City
its officers, officials, employees and volunteers): Is it
included?
® Yes ❑ No
I.
PRIMARY & NON-CONTRIBUTORY WORDING (Must be
included): Is it included?
® Yes ❑ No
J.
CAUTION! (Confirm that loss or liability of the named insured
is not limited solely by their negligence) Does endorsement
include "solely by negligence' wording?
❑ Yes ®No
K.
ELECTED SCMAF COVERAGE (RECREATION ONLY):
® N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No
L.
NOTICE OF CANCELLATION:
❑ N/A ® Yes ❑ No
II. AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY
EFFECTIVE/EXPIRATION DATE: 10/10/15 to 10/10/16
A.
INSURANCE COMPANY: Travelers Indemnity Company of America
B.
AM BEST RATING (A-: VII or greater) A++; XV
C.
ADMITTED COMPANY (Must be California Admitted):
Is Company admitted in California?
❑ Yes ® No
D.
LIMITS - If Employees (Must be $1 M min. BI & PD and $500,000
UM, $2M min for Waste Haulers): What is limits provided? 1,000,000
E
LIMITS Waiver of Auto Insurance / Proof of coverage (if individual)
(What is limits provided?) N/A
F.
PRIMARY & NON-CONTRIBUTORY WORDING (For Waste
Haulers only): ® N/A
❑ Yes ❑ No
G.
HIRED AND NON -OWNED AUTO ONLY: ❑ N/A
® Yes ❑ No
H.
NOTICE OF CANCELLATION: 0 N/A
® Yes ❑ No
III. WORKERS' COMPENSATION
EFFECTIVE/EXPIRATION DATE: 10/10/15 to 10/10/16
A.
INSURANCE COMPANY: Travelers Indemnity Company of America
B.
AM BEST RATING (A-: VII or greater): A++; XV
C.
ADMITTED Company (Must be California Admitted):
❑ Yes
® No
D.
WORKERS' COMPENSATION LIMIT: Statutory
® Yes
❑ No
E.
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY LIMIT (Must be $1M or greater)
1,000,000
F.
WAIVER OF SUBROGATION (To include): Is it included?
® Yes
❑ No
G.
SIGNED WORKERS' COMPENSATION EXEMPTION FORM:
® N/A ❑ Yes
❑ No
H.
NOTICE OF CANCELLATION:
❑ N/A ® Yes
❑ No
ADDITIONAL COVERAGE'S THAT MAYBE REQUIRED
IV. PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY
❑ N/A ® Yes ❑ No
V POLLUTION LIABILITY
❑ N/A ® Yes ❑ No
V BUILDERS RISK
® N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No
1/7/16
Agent of Alliant Insurance Services Date
Broker of record for the City of Newport Beach
RISK MANAGEMENT APPROVAL REQUIRED (Non -admitted carrier rated less than
Self Insured Retention or Deductible greater than $ ) ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No
Reason for Risk Management approval/exception/waiver:
Risk Management approved Non -Admitted status of GL Auto & Workers Comp carriers on 4/20/15.
Approved:
Risk Management
* Subject to the terms of the contract.
Date