ATTACHMENT
1 Napa County Agreement No. _______
City of Napa Agreement No. _______
AMENDMENT No. 1
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR WATER QUALITY MONITORING OF
THE HENNESSEY AND MILLIKEN WATERSHEDS
This Amendment No. 1
(this “Amendment”)
to Napa County Agreement No. 200194B and City
of Napa Agreement No. C2019-369, Memorandum of Understanding for water quality monitoring of the
Hennessey and Milliken Watersheds (the
“MOU”) is
dated for reference purposes only
this _____day of
___________,
2022
by
and
between
the
City
of
Napa,
a
California
charter
city
("CITY"),
and
Napa
County,
a
political
subdivision
of
the
State
of
California
(“COUNTY”).
CITY
and
COUNTY
may
be
identified
as
“a
Party,”
or
collectively,
as
“the
Parties”.
The
Parties
each
constitute
a
public
agency
as
defined in California Government Code Section 6500.
Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall
have the meaning ascribed to such terms in the MOU.
RECITALS
WHEREAS
,
residents
of
the
COUNTY
live
in
the
Hennessey
and
Milliken
Watersheds
(collectively “Watersheds”); and
WHEREAS
,
the CITY provides municipal water service to over 80,000 residents, including the
entirety of the CITY, as well as
portions of the incorporated County; and the CITY obtains water supply
to serve its municipal water service customers from the surface water flows across the Watersheds located
in the unincorporated area of the COUNTY, which are captured in CITY reservoirs
at Lake Hennessey
and Milliken Lake; and
WHEREAS,
the
CITY
and
COUNTY
share
the
vision
of
protecting
water
quality
within
the
Watersheds, especially those that contribute to drinking water sources throughout Napa County; and
WHEREAS
, t
he Parties
entered into the MOU on November 19, 2019.
WHEREAS,
the Study has been completed resulting in set-up and initial calibration of watershed
models for the Watersheds along with a Hydrology and Water Quality Monitoring Plan (“Plan”) and a
Model Documentation
Report; and
WHEREAS
,
t
he Parties wish to continue to implement recommendations from the Plan, which
calls forwater quality sampling and analysis.
WHEREAS
, from the start of the program, the Parties recognized it requires multiple water years,
depending on the amount of precipitation, to establish trends in runoff water quality; and Page
1 of
7 ATTACHMENT
1 WHEREAS,
the Parties desire to coordinate and share the costs of sampling and analysis as set
forth in this MOU; and
WHEREAS,
t
he Parties
now wish to amend the
MOU
in order to set forth necessary cooperative
procedures
and protocols for the administration and implementation of sampling and analysis
recommendations in
the Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE,
CITY and COUNTY
agree
as follows:
1. Unless otherwise specified, all subsequent references to the
MOU
are deemed to mean the
original
MOU
as modified by any amendments preceding this Amendment, if any. This
Amendment incorporates the
MOU
by reference, except and only to the extent that any terms or
conditions of the
MOU
are specifically modified by this Amendment. All terms and conditions in
the
MOU
that are not specifically modified by this Amendment remain in full force and effect.
2. Section 1 is amended to read in full as follows:
1. TERM; TERMINATION FOR CAUSE. The
effective date of this
MOU shall commence
on
July 1, 2022
and shall terminate on June 30, 2025 unless extended by an amendment to
this MOU
in accordance with Section 17. This
MOU may be terminated by: (1) mutual
agreement of the Parties; (2) by the non-defaulting Party in the event the defaulting Party fails to
cure a breach under Sections 2 or 3 of this MOU within thirty (30) days of receiving
written notice, or (3) in accordance with Section 10 of this MOU.
3. Section 6 (a) Attorney Work Product and
Confidentiality is amended to read in full as follows:(a) Information and communications that are otherwise protected under the attorney-clientprivilege,
attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable privileges or protections maybe exchanged
–
whether in written, oral, electronic, or any other form
–
among or between theParties and/or any
Consultant(s) retained in connection with the purposes described in thisMOU, without in any way
waiving or compromising such privilege or doctrines. Suchinformation and communication includes, but is not limited to, Revised or SupplementalMonitoring and Analysis Plans,
Documentation of Updates to the Model, laboratory analyticaldata, correspondence, reports, analyses, strategies, proposals, conversations, interviews, mentalimpressions, deliberations, and legal
memoranda (collectively, “Plan Information”). PlanInformation exchanged between or among the
Parties and/or any Consultant(s) retained inconnection with the purposes described in this MOU, and
Plan Information that has beenexchanged, is privileged
from disclosure to other third parties as a
result of attorney-clientprivilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable
privilege or protections.The sharing of Plan Information among or between the Parties and/or any
Consultant(s) retainedin connection with the purposes of this MOU is based on the Parties’
understanding that suchprivileges apply when government entities share common interests. This
understanding isbased, in part, on the common interest doctrine recognized in such
cases as
Seahaus
La JollaOwners Assn. v. Superior Court
(2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 754;
OXY Resources California
LLC v.Superior Court
(2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 874;
Armenta v. Superior Court
(2002) 101
Page
2 of
7 ATTACHMENT 1
Cal.App.4th 525;
STI Outdoor v. Superior Court
(2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 334; and
Raytheon Co.
v. Superior Court
(1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 683. In the absence of such a common interest privilege, the Parties would not communicate Plan implementation information and analysis to each other.
4. All references to Exhibit “A” in the MOU shall mean Exhibit “A-1”, attached to this Amendmentand incorporated herein by reference.
5. All references in the MOU to the County’s Director of Public Works are replaced with the County’s Director of Planning, Building, and Environmental Services.
6. Except as provided in paragraphs 1-4 above, the terms and provisions of the MOU shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF
, this Amendment No. 1 to the MOU was executed by the parties hereto as of the last date of execution below.
CITY OF NAPA,
a California charter city:
(Signature)
Philip Brun, Utilities Director
(Type name and title)
COUNTERSIGNED:
(Signature)
Joy Riesenberg, City Auditor
(Type name and title)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
(Signature)
Michael W. Barrett, City Attorney
NAPA COUNTY,
a political subdivision of the
State of California
:
(Signature)
Ryan Gregory, Chair of the Board
(Type name and title)
ATTEST:
(Signature)
Neha Hoskins, Clerk of the Board
(Type name and title)
APPROVED BY THE BOARD:
(Date)
(Deputy Clerk of the Board)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
(Signature)
Chris R.Y. Apallas, Deputy County Counsel
Doc. No. 80600
ATTACHMENT 1
EXHIBIT “A-1”
PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK:
The following generally describes the scope of work that may be performed by the Parties to implement the Hydrology and Water Quality Monitoring Plan recommendations using their own labor and agreed upon consultants, contractors and laboratories retained by one or both Parties.
Expected outcomes from this MOU include the following:
Establish new or enhance existing water quality monitoring sites within the Hennessey and Milliken watersheds.
Measure water quality parameters in the field, collect water samples, and perform laboratory analyses that meet US EPA and Environmental laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) certification standards at an agreed upon frequency using said sites.
Develop an appropriate database and repository to organize and store collected data. Perform preliminary data analyses.
Perform appropriate public outreach to landowners, stakeholders, and the community.
Incorporate water quality data into WARMF model.
Complete training sessions for City and County staff to run WARMF model, input data, and run scenarios.
Specific tasks are presented as follows:
Task 1: Watershed Monitoring Site Development
The Hydrology and Water Quality Monitoring Plan (“Plan”) identified existing locations where watershed monitoring is being performed. It also recommended a number of new sites be developed. The Parties have previously agreed on a program of monitoring sites to be sampled consistent with the Plan that can be utilized to collect the water quality data described in Task 2. Parties agree to continue sampling at these established monitoring sites unless the necessity to revise monitoring sites presents itself at which time revisions to monitoring sites will be made upon mutual agreement of the Parties. Such development may include, but is not limited to, securing legal and physical access, purchase and placement of monitoring equipment, and construction of site improvements. Any changes in the number or location of monitoring sites shall be subject to the contracting and appropriation limits described in the Agreement and approved by both the COUNTY Director of Planning, Building and Environmental Services and CITY Utilities Director. All work performed by City and County staff at 50/50 effort.
Task 2 – Data Collection and Laboratory Analyses
The Plan recommended monitoring a number of water quality constituents at various frequencies for routine and storm related events. The Parties have jointly agreed on the initial parameters, frequency, and
ATTACHMENT 1
locations for such monitoring. Over the term of this MOU, the Parties may agree to change the parameters, frequency, and locations of monitoring in response to the results of prior monitoring and analyses. The parameters include analyses that can be performed in the field and others that will require use of a laboratory. Laboratory work performed in-house by CITY’s laboratory or by a mutually agreed upon outside laboratory retained by CITY will be reimbursed by COUNTY for half of the costs of direct labor, materials, equipment, supplies, and services in accordance with Section 2 of this MOU. The City and County will each contribute the labor for field sampling.
Monitoring parameters include those listed in the table below. Any changes in the number or range of sampling constituents shall be subject to the contracting and appropriation limits described in the Agreement and approved by both the COUNTY Director of Planning, Building and Environmental Services and CITY Utilities Director.
Budget for water quality analyses are based on the parameters and costs as defined in Table 1.
Table 1 Cost of ELAP-Certified Laboratory Analyses as of June 2022 Description
Turn
Around
Time
(TAT)
Quantity
Per Unit
Total Cost
625.1 Semivolatiles (ML)
Standard
1@
$ 505.80
$ 505.80
Ammonia as Nitrogen (NH3-N)
Standard
1@
$ 45.90
$ 45.90
Calcium, Total, ICPMS-CM Analysis
Standard
1@
$ 37.80
$ 37.80
Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen
Demand
Standard
1@
$ 72.90
$ 72.90
Chloride, by Ion Chromatography
Chlorophyll
Standard
1@
$ 49.50
$ 49.50
Chlorophyll
Standard
1@
$ 156.60
$ 156.60
Digestion for ICP-MS
Standard
1@
$ 28.80
$ 28.80
Dissolved Organic Carbon(DOC)
Standard
1@
$ 82.80
$ 82.80
EPA547-Glyphosate
Standard
1@
$ 193.00
$ 193.00
Electrical Conductance
Standard
1@
$ 34.20
$ 34.20
Hardness,Titration
Standard
1@
$ 38.70
$ 38.70
Lab Filtration for DOC
Standard
1@
$ 29.70
$ 29.70
Lab Filtration for Nutrients Analysis
Standard
1@
$ 29.70
$ 29.70
Nitrate + Nitrite as N (N03+N02-N)
Standard
1@
$ 49.50
$ 49.50
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (TKN)
Standard
1@
$ 72.90
$ 72.90
OC Pesticides by 625.1
Standard
1@
$ 214.20
$ 214.20
OC Pesticides by 625.1 Extended
Standard
1@
$ 214.20
$ 214.20
Phosphate as P, Ortho
Standard
1@
$ 40.50
$ 40.50
Solid, Volatile, Suspended (VSS)
Standard
1@
$ 49.50
$ 49.50
Solid, Volatile, Suspended (VSS)
Standard
1@
$ 49.50
$ 49.50
ATTACHMENT 1
Solids, Total Suspended (TSS)
Standard
1@
$ 38.70
$ 38.70
Soluble Kjeldahl Nitroge
Standard
1@
$ 72.90
$ 72.90
Sulfate, Total
Standard
1@
$ 49.50
$ 49.50
Total Alkalinity
Standard
1@
$ 38.70
$ 38.70
Total Coliform and
E.Coli
Standard
1@
$ 63.00
$ 63.00
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
Standard
1@
$ 54.00
$ 54.00
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Standard
1@
$ 82.80
$ 82.80
Total Phosphorus as P
Standard
1@
$ 60.30
$ 60.30
Total Phosphorus as P, Dissolved
Standard
1@
$ 60.30
$ 60.30
Turbidity
Standard
1@
$ 34.20
$ 34.20
Total:
$ 2,574.00
Optional analyses at up to 5 sites
PFAS by EPA 537.1
Standard
1@
$ 524.00
$ 524.00
PFAS by EPA 537.1
Standard
1@
$ 524.00
$ 524.00
Total:
$ 1,048.00
There are currently 21 identified sampling sites in the two watersheds. A mid-winter storm results in all 21 sites flowing and able to be monitored. During the early and late season sampling events, available sites range from 7-15 sites. In 2022, for example a total of 141 samples were analyzed (114 in Hennessey and 27 in Milliken watersheds) from the early season storm in late October through late May.
The current budget supports ongoing monitoring at this level. The budgeted cost of sampling and analyses is $370,000.
Task 3: Database Development and Analyses
The Parties will jointly decide on location to store and secure collected water quality information. The watershed model developed as part of the Study may be used for trial analysis of collected information.
A shapefile of analytical data entered into the WARMF model will be created such that it can be viewed on County and City GIS platforms. The use of GIS is recognized as beneficial to facilitate spatial understanding of data similarities and anomalies.
Task 4 – Public and Stakeholder Outreach
The Parties shall jointly participate in reaching out to the public, landowners, and other stakeholders.
The Parties shall jointly agree on information to be released. All work performed by City and County staff at 50/50 effort.
ATTACHMENT 1
Task 5 – Update to WARMF Model and staff training
Task 5 is a professional services contract executed between County of Napa PBES and Systech. The efforts will be managed jointly and 50% of costs reimbursed by City of Napa. The County Contract with Systech Water Resources includes scope of work to Update the WARMF Database and hold a training workshop at an estimated cost of $30,000, and includes $6,000 contingency for technical support associated with use of the WARMF model. The Parties shall jointly coordinate staff representatives of County and City to attend a hands-on workshop by Systech to learn how to install and open the model, view model inputs and outputs, update the model, create scenarios and run the WARMF model. The base model shall be write-protected by year so as to ensure integrity of model parameters and held by the hired party, Systech.
S
CHEDULE
It is anticipated that sampling, data collection, and analysis may continue for an indefinite period. It is also anticipated that several years of data must be available for the model to be sufficiently calibrated and reliable and for any interpretation of the data to be reflective of water quality trends or conditions.
BUDGET
Tasks 1, 3, and 4 are performed by City and County staff. Task 2 and Task 5 require budget expenditures for implementation.
Table 2 Budget Expenditures for Tasks 1-5
Description
Total Budget Expenditures
Task 1
:Watershed Monitoring Site Development
50% each City/County staff labor
$0
Task 2:
Data Collection and Laboratory Analyses
$370,000
Task 3:
Database Development and Analyses
50% each City/County staff labor
$0
Task 4:
Public and Stakeholder Outreach
50% each City/County staff labor
$0
Task 5:
Update to WARMF Model and Staff
Training
$30,000
TOTAL:
$400,000
City of Napa 50% contribution
$200,000
County of Napa 50% contribution
$200,000