Harris_Environmental_BPM003500_Method_of_Approach.pdf

Harris Environmental Group, Inc.

Attachment 3-A Method Proposal (Method of Approach)

The Offeror shall provide a narrative response to each question that demonstrates their understanding of the Scope of Work requirements and describes your company’s overall method of approach for providing the service stated in this solicitation. If there is a question that is not applicable to the areas of expertise that you are proposing for you may mark it N/A. Responses shall be limited to one (1) page per question.

Do not include marketing materials.

Offeror Shall mark areas of expertise they are proposing to provide services for:

1) Stream Chemistry ✓

2) Lake Chemistry ___

3) Biological and Habitat ✓

4) Streamflow Duration Method (SDAM) ✓

5) Groundwater Sampling ___

6) Fish Tissue ___

Note: Some questions only apply to certain types of samples while others apply to all.

The sample type will be in parenthesis before the question.

Question 1:

Our company selects Project Managers to lead projects based on several key criteria. The first criterion is their experience with the solicited services required for the project. For example, if a task order specified the need to complete Streamflow Duration Assessment Method (SDAM) surveys we would select a Project Manager who has been trained in, conducted, and managed SDAM surveys in the past. If we find that we do not employ a Project Manager who has conducted the specific solicited survey (e.g., SDAM), we then select the Project Manager who has experience managing a project that requires similar skills (e.g., Biological and Habitat surveys). For example, there are skills and protocol that overlap between SDAM and Biological and Habitat surveys, therefore a Project Manager knowledgeable with one survey method will possess the necessary competence and skillset to master the other sampling method. We furthermore ensure that the Project Manager receives training in the specifics of the new protocol, and joins the crew for at least several surveys to provide oversight and become familiar with the details of the process on the ground. The second criterion is the availability of the Project Manager to complete the solicited services. Our company strives to create a work environment that is manageable for our Project Managers, so that they may deliver the best results to our clients.

Question 2:

Harris Environmental Group strives to complete projects in a timely and efficient manner. The first items we investigate upon receiving a solicitation or Task Orders are the deliverables and due dates of deliverables, as well as the period of performance of the contract. If due dates are not present on the solicitation, we contact the client to request them. If we are tasked to set our own timetable, we estimate sufficient time to complete each deliverable (e.g., fieldwork and reporting). We then communicate our work plans to the client to formulate an agreeable timetable and work schedule. We voice any concerns or inquiries well before a budget is produced.

Once we have all of the necessary information, we create a proposed budget, which we negotiate with the client until approved.

During the proposal process we often notice items that require quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) actions such as weekly meetings with the client to discuss project progress, monthly activity reports, or electronic verification of submitted data. If these are not present within a solicitation we often recommend one or several QA/QC actions in our proposals, often in the form of activity reports or meetings with the client. These correspondences with the client aid our company in being accountable to the timetable of the project and the deliverables. If there is an issue or inquiry with the project, we can address and mitigate it early during the project timetable, and ensure that the deliverable completely and precisely meets the client’s expectations. This also allows our company and the client to more closely monitor the scheduled work so it will be completed on time.

During budget negotiations we present an estimated budget that is fair and exact in conveying what will be required to complete the solicited services. Our Project Managers work closely with our accounting team to assess rates, costs, and items needed to complete a given project. We often use previous projects that are similar in scope to serve as a guide to building an accurate budget. Once a project begins, we closely follow our contracted budget through an internal tracking system that shows the number of hours and assets left within the budget. Our accounting team assists our Project Managers by notifying if certain areas of the budget are reaching their limit.

We also conduct post-project cost analyses of our budgets to investigate areas that may have experienced deficits or surpluses, so as to provide more accurate budgets for similar work in the future and to justify our rates.

Prior to submitting all final deliverables, we send a draft or sample to the client so that they have the opportunity provide critique or input before we submit a final version. This consistent communication with the client mitigates any possible confusion or discrepancies in expectations. Open, clear, and frequent communication with the client, extensive QA/QC measures, and close contact with our accounting team ensures that deliverables are on-time, on-budget, and correct with the first submission.

Question 3:

Name of Project: Ambient Stream Water Quality Monitoring – Stream Duration Assessment Method Location of Project: Arizona (statewide) Contract Number: ADEQ19-214896 Contract Amount: $152,080.00 Period of Performance: February 2021 – June 2021 Client: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) Point of Contact: Patti Spindler, Senior Aquatic Ecologist, ADEQ; 602-771-4543; spindler.patti@azdeq.gov Description of Services Performed:

Harris Environmental Group completed Stream Duration Assessment Method (SDAM) surveys at various locations throughout Arizona. We completed 53 SDAM surveys at sites in Arid West and Western Mountain ecosystems. Methods included facultative wetland plant species identification and documentation, and macroinvertebrate collection and identification (in both wet and dry channels) as well as stream morphology and land use characterization.

Fieldwork was conducted by a botanist and a biologist, and oversight was provided by an experienced Project Manager. Post-fieldwork data processing and QA/QC was conducted by the field crew and Project Manager to verify taxonomic identifications of plants and macroinvertebrates, and confirm wetland plant designations and macroinvertebrate perennial indicator status. Data were collected on datasheets in the field and entered into ADEQ’s Survey123 app along with site photos and voucher photos of plants and macroinvertebrates. Voucher specimens of macroinvertebrate taxa were also provided to ADEQ for additional verification.

Challenges of the project included accessing survey sites that were located in remote locations and working though glitches in the Survey123 app to efficiently enter data. We mitigated these challenges through our experience in reaching difficult survey sites and obtaining the proper gear and vehicles to reach each area. We also kept radio and phone contact throughout the day with our field crew as part of company safety protocol, and to provide further guidance and directions if a site was exceptionally difficult to reach. Our meticulous QA/QC protocol involving the verification of data by both field crew members, the Project Manager, and communication with ADEQ helped us mitigate difficulties in data entry. Lastly, we were able to survey and process data in a highly efficient manner, which allowed us to survey additional sites as requested by ADEQ, finish the project over a week before the expected deadline (June 30, 2021) while remaining within budget.

Question 4a:

Harris Environmental Group has conducted Stream Ecosystem Monitoring (SEM; Biological and Habitat), Ambient Stream Chemistry Monitoring (Stream Chemistry), and SDAM Survey projects for ADEQ. Multiple layers of QA/QC were included in the protocols for each type of sampling. SEM and SDAM surveys involved extensive field measurements and qualitative determinations, all of which were discussed and checked by both field crew members on-site, for both completeness and accuracy. These were later reviewed by the Project Manager, who also double-checked the calculations and plant identifications made in the field. After data were entered into the database, they were checked again by another crew member and finally the Project Manager before being submitted. Collected samples were catalogued and tracked using Chain of Custody forms generated through the Arizona Water Quality Database, which were signed and dated by all parties upon delivery. For samples that were temperature sensitive, labs measured the temperature of samples upon delivery and noted this on the forms. To assure data quality in the sample analysis, all samples collected for SEM and Stream Chemistry included a certain percentage of duplicates and blanks (percentage depended on sample type). If duplicates or blanks were not within an acceptable range, the sample was re-processed. If re-processing still yielded unacceptable results (or could not be reprocessed), the data was flagged in the database. Harris Environmental Group staff conducted the QA/QC on the data returned from the labs by meticulously reviewing the lab reports and the data that was automatically imported into the ADEQ database to ensure that the data was correct and consistent, and were marked with all required flags and qualifiers. To ensure the quality of the water chemistry measurements, we calibrated the InSitu SmarTroll instrument for pH and conductivity before each sampling trip, and checked the probe readings against standard solutions upon return. We calibrated the dissolved oxygen sensor on site at each location prior to taking measurements, and checked sensor readings upon return. If post-trip readings were outside of a specified range, we flagged the data collected during that trip. Note that this did not occur at any point in our previous contracts. The turbidimeter was checked for accuracy against a standard before taking each reading, and if the result was outside an acceptable range, the turbidimeter was recalibrated.

SDAM surveys included stream morphology characteristics, wetland plant species identification, and macroinvertebrate identification. Both field crew members (a botanist and a biologist) reviewed and signed off on datasheets prior to leaving each site, and all plant and macroinvertebrate identifications and classifications were subsequently checked in Western Wetland Flora: An Introduction to the Wetland and Aquatic Plants of the Western United States (Chadde 2019) or Trees and Shrubs of California (Stuart and Sawyer 2001), and A Guide to Common Freshwater Invertebrates of North America (Vochell 2002) respectively, by both the field crew and the Project Manager. If a plant identification was ambiguous or unusual, we searched the SEINet database (https://swbiodiversity.org/seinet/) to determine which species had previously been identified at that location.

Additionally, voucher samples of macroinvertebrates were sent to the ADEQ Project Manager to verify identifications. After data and photos were entered into the Survey123 app, they were double-checked by the Project Manager prior to submission. We had weekly (and sometimes more frequent) check-ins and status updates with the ADEQ Project Manager, and each field lead completed an audit on survey methods.

Question 4b:

All project data generated for the aforementioned sampling activities met specific criteria stipulated for each project. Data were consistent and precise, as we had the same crew and Project Manager conducting surveys for the duration of each project, and accuracy of results were provided QA/QC by qualified personnel with minimal guidance from ADEQ. We were informed by ADEQ that the results were sufficient to create representative datasets that could be compared to past data generated for each survey area. Most of the survey areas that were monitored by Harris Environmental Group had not been surveyed in many years, if at all, which helped ADEQ fill in data gaps.

Question 4c:

All (100%) of the project data (for every aforementioned project) was usable data. Zero (0%) percent of the data were rejected.

Question 5a:

Based on past work with ADEQ, Harris Environmental Groups has identified key steps to efficiently mobilize/demobilize for trips. Our first step would be to examine the survey site list and group sites together to sample on weekly trips and map out the most efficient route. We would then determine what equipment is needed for each site, if their survey requirements differed. One crew member would calibrate equipment (if required), prepare Chain of Custody forms and make labels for samples (if required), and organize equipment for loading the day before the trip. Equipment would be cleaned, re-calibrated, and organized at the end of each trip to make preparation for the following trip as efficient as possible. Our office is located in Tucson, AZ near the I-10 freeway, which has proven to be an efficient and strategic location to conduct fieldwork trips throughout Arizona.

Question 6a:

Our previous work on ADEQ contracts required the same data entry protocols as are required in this contract. For example, our SEM and Stream Chemistry contracts required data entry through the Arizona Water Quality Database, as well as providing other forms of data (e.g., site photos, scanned field datasheets) via Google Drive and email to the ADEQ Project Managers. Our SDAM work required data entry through the Survey123 app. Not only did we successfully navigate these systems, we assisted ADEQ with resolving issues and glitches that arose with each method. This included extensive correspondence with ADEQ database managers about both the ADEQ database and the Survey123 app. Data entry would take place immediately upon returning from fieldwork (after a final QA/QC of the datasheets by the Project Manager). Data entry completed immediately post-fieldwork to allow ADEQ personnel to begin their internal QA/QC process as soon as possible.

Question 6b:

We have ensured data quality with our clients through early and frequent communication via meetings, emails, and phone calls and through multiple levels of QA/QC of each datapoint by several (typically three) staff members. We have followed strict guidelines for data collection and data entry within ADEQ contracts, while also catering to requests later in the projects for additional data submission and communication with ADEQ personnel. Typically, our contracts with ADEQ consist of multiple meetings and emails to confirm data quality and correct data submission, as well as mitigate any challenges early in the contract period.

Question 7a:

We have all equipment and expertise necessary to collect, process, incubate, and analyze E. coli samples immediately onsite, without delivering them to a lab. This eliminates the need to transport the samples to the lab within the 8-hour holding time.

Question 7b:

Our standard method for conducting E. coli sampling is to process the samples on site. An inverter that provides AC power from a car battery allows us to run the required equipment. We mix either 18 or 24 hour Colilert (depending on the time of day and the schedule the following day) into the water sample, allow it to dissolve, and pour and seal it into an IDEXX Quanti-Tray/2000 using a IDEXX Quanti-Tray Sealer. We then note on the back of each tray the sample number, site, when it was processed, and which type of Colilert was used, and place it in our portable incubator at 35oC for the required number of hours (18 or 24, depending on the type of Colilert.)

After the incubation period, we use a portable black light to read the E.coli trays and count the number of positive wells, which then allows us to find the Most Probable Number of E. coli in the sample. If we need to read the E.

coli trays during daylight hours while in the field, we create a space dark enough for the positive wells to shine under the black light using a jacket or by crawling under the truck.

If the sampling day includes multiple sites that are close together, we may hold the E. coli samples on ice until the end of the day (as long as the first sample taken can be processed within 8 hours) and process all samples at the same time to maximize efficiency.

Question 8a:

Parameter Equipment (Make/Model) Accuracy Range Resolution

Conductivity InSitu SmarTroll Multiparameter Handheld Instrument

Typical ±0.5% + 1 μS/cm;

±1% max.

0 to 100,000 μS/cm

0.1 µS/cm

Dissolved oxygen InSitu SmarTroll Multiparameter Handheld Instrument

±0.1 mg/L 0 to 8 mg/L 0.01 mg/L ±0.2 mg/L 8 to 20 mg/L ±10% of reading 20 to 50 mg/L pH InSitu SmarTroll Multiparameter Handheld Instrument

±0.1 pH unit (0 to 12 pH

0 to 14 pH units 0.01 pH unit

Temperature (water)

InSitu SmarTroll Multiparameter Handheld Instrument

±0.1° C -5 to 50° C (23 to 122° F)

0.01° C or better

Flow Hach FH950.1 flow meter

±2% of reading ±0.05 ft/s (±0.015 m/s) through the range 0 to 10 ft/s (0 to

3.04 m/s); ±4% of reading from 10 to 16 ft/s.

(3.04 to 4.87 m/s)

0 to +20 ft/s (0 to +6.09 m/s)

0.01 value <100; 0.1 value <1000; 1.0 value ≥1000

Turbidity Hach 2100Q portable turbidimeter

±2% of reading plus stray light from 0 to 1000

NTU

0 to 1000 NTU

(FNU)

0.01 NTU on

lowest range

Question 8b:

Yes, the minimum range, resolution, and accuracy of our multiprobe equipment (see above) will be available when the contract is awarded. A full maintenance and calibration log is also available upon request. We have two InSitu SmarTroll Multiprobes, and we send them each in annually for recommended factory maintenance in addition to the seasonal maintenance we conduct ourselves. We also possess two flow and turbidimeters. Having two sets of equipment allows us to continue fieldwork if there is a problem with a primary piece of equipment, or send out two field crews to different locations if we need to sample many sites in a short timeframe.

Question 9:

Our protocols adhere strictly to the ADEQ Standard Operating Procedure for Surface Water Quality Sampling manual (SOP). Our staff has been trained in this protocol multiple times (2018 and 2019) and all crew leaders have undergone field audits by ADEQ staff.

When we arrive at a site, we first collect water samples in pre-labeled bottles, wearing gloves per ADEQ protocol so as not to risk sample contamination. Sample collection is done first so that the water content is not influenced by personnel wading in the stream and disturbing the substrate. One crew member then uses the InSitu SmarTroll Multiprobe to collect water chemistry parameters while the other crew member measures flow with the Hatch FH

950.1 flow meter. We then measure the bankfull width to determine the length of the reach, after which we walk the length and draw a map, complete with enumerations of the length and location of each run, riffle, and pool (e.g., different types of macroinvertebrate habitat) as well as a number of other parameters. While creating the map we also identify all plant species growing along the reach. We use the map to determine the percentage of the reach that is composed of riffle, run, and pool, and sample benthic algae with a scraper and delimeter or a syringe, depending on the substrate, at this same proportion of habitats (10 locations total). We also collect macroinvertebrates at three riffles within the reach using the kick method and a D-frame net according to ADEQ protocol, and note these locations on the map. Macroinvertebrate species are identified, the sample is preserved in 99% isopropyl alcohol and labeled with a unique site ID, the date, samplers, and other information about the sample itself.

We also measure physical parameters of streams, including substrate composition and embeddedness (via a pebble count), riffle/pool ratio, bankfull and floodprone width, maximum and average depth, entrenchment ratio, width/depth ratio, width of riparian corridor, and floodplain width. We use these values to calculate Rosgen stream type and determine stream quality according to the Pfankuch scale. Both crew members go through the Pfankuch scale questions and must agree on the answer. This is an effective technique for quality control of the qualitative determinations required by this method. We also assess each stream’s proper functioning condition and macroinvertebrate habitat quality according to ADEQ parameters. Our biological evaluation includes canopy, understory and ground cover densities, aquatic macrophyte and algal diversity, terrestrial plant diversity, as well as general site observations and determination of aesthetic quality. Field datasheets are filled out completely and checked by both crew members before leaving the site.

After the initial sampling is finished, we process the samples on site, using the appropriate filtration, preservation, and/or analysis technique required for each sample type. The samples are cataloged and tracked via sample numbers generated by the ADEQ Water Quality Database on Chain of Custody forms. Samples include organic and inorganic nutrients, total and dissolved metals, suspended sediment concentration (SSC), benthic and water column chlorophyll, algae/periphyton, E. coli, and macroinvertebrates. The water quality parameters that we measure are total dissolved oxygen, percent dissolved oxygen, water and air temperature, pH, specific conductivity, total dissolved solids (all measured with an InSitu SmarTroll Multiprobe), and turbidity (measured with a portable turbidimeter). We also collect duplicates and quality control samples (e.g., blanks) when needed.

Question 9a:

Per ADEQ Standard Operating Procedures, there are several conditions under which collecting macroinvertebrates would be inappropriate. We would not collect macroinvertebrates if drought or diversion have reduced flow such that only stagnant water remains or the substrate has recently been deeply scoured (e.g., a flood event that reached bankfull or higher occurring within four weeks prior to sampling). We would also not collect macroinvertebrates if the substrate was more than 50% bedrock or travertine, or from an intermittent or effluent dependent stream unless specifically requested by ADEQ.

Question 9b:

We have multiple biologists with extensive experience conducting macroinvertebrate surveys. Our staff have collected macroinvertebrates using ADEQ protocols for Macroinvertebrate Analysis and Habitat Characterization along the Santa Cruz River within Tucson and Marana, AZ under contract with Pima County Regional Flood Control District over a nine year period (2013-2021), as well as during Stream Ecosystem Monitoring among stream sites throughout Arizona (2018-2019) under contract with ADEQ over a two year period. Additionally, we collected and conducted thorough determination of macroinvertebrate taxa, along with submitting voucher samples, for SDAM surveys during 2021 under contract with ADEQ. Please see descriptions of services and skillsets for each personnel within Attachment 3-B Key Personnel Proposal as part of this proposal.

Question 9c:

Multiple personnel have experience collecting diatom and benthic diatom samples following the ADEQ protocol provided in the SEM Standard Operating Procedure handbook. We have completed this service for Macroinvertebrate Analysis and Habitat Characterization along the Santa Cruz River within Tucson and Marana, AZ under contract with Pima County Regional Flood Control District over a nine year period (2013-2021), as well as during Stream Ecosystem Monitoring among stream sites throughout Arizona under contract with ADEQ over a two year period (2018-2019).

Question 10a & 10b:

Our primary approach to identifying riparian vegetation and its wetland status includes ensuring that an experienced botanist is on the field team, and training our other staff in plant identification. We use reference books such as Western Wetland Flora: An Introduction to the Wetland and Aquatic Plants of the Western United States (Chadde 2019) and Trees and Shrubs of California (Stuart and Sawyer 2001) as well as websites such as SEINet and iNaturalist to confirm identifications and look up species with which we are initially unfamiliar. For data QA/QC, the field crew meticulously documents each species along the reach, with both detail and overview photos, so that identifications can be verified by other botanists on the Harris Environmental Group staff. In rare cases when we cannot determine a species using these methods, we send the photos and habitat description to botany experts with whom we have collaborated in the past, or to ADEQ personnel who may be familiar with aquatic vegetation taxonomy. When we have determined the plant species, we look up its wetland plant status on the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) National Wetland Plant List, which has been both provided by ADEQ and is available online.

To identify macroinvertebrates, we isolate each species in the cells of an ice cube tray and examine them with a handheld lens. We use A Guide to Common Freshwater Invertebrates of North America (Vochell 2002) as a reference to identify each species based on its unique morphology. Our QA/QC procedure for these identifications is extensive. We cross-reference our findings with resources provided by ADEQ (e.g., photos and species descriptions) during training. We also use a GPS-enabled camera with a macro setting to capture detailed photographs of each species, and then collect a voucher specimen. The voucher samples are labeled with a unique site ID and date and stored in bottles with 99% isopropyl alcohol. They are then either examined by an additional Harris Environmental Group staff member with expertise in macroinvertebrate identification or sent to an aquatic biologist who specializes in macroinvertebrates for final verification.

Question 11:

- Describe your approach for collecting representative consumable fish from lakes or streams that could be used to issue a fish consumption advisory?

Non-Applicable

a. What equipment would you use?

Non-Applicable

b. What countermeasures would you employ if you could not collect the required 5 individual fish per species limit needed for an advisory?

Non-Applicable

c. Describe your chain of custody and labeling process.

Non-Applicable

End of Attachment 3-A

Attachment 3-A Method Proposal (Method of Approach)