Addenda 1.pdf

ADDENDA NO. 1 December 23, 2024

RFP # S-Q10054-00012235

Watershed Implementation Plan

This addendum modifies the solicitation document(s) only to the extent indicated herein. All other areas not specifically mentioned or affected by this addendum shall remain in full force. This addendum shall be added as a part of the original solicitation document and shall become part of the work required.

Description of Change(s) and Clarifications:

1. Item #1: Scoring Criteria #3 revision: Only 1 reference is required for each project example.

2. Item #2: Preproposal Minutes are attached.

PROPOSAL DUE DATE AND TIME: January 28, 2025 @ 4:00 PM PT

RECEIPT OF THIS ADDENDUM BY THE BIDDER IS TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED BY ENTERING

THE ADDENDUM NUMBER IN THE APPROPRIATE AREA ON THE BID FORM.

Addendum prepared by: Trisha Schultz, Procurement and Contract Administrator tschultz@urbanfloodsafetyor.gov

URBAN FLOOD SAFETY & WATER QUALITY DISTRICT

mailto:tschultz@urbanfloodsafetyor.gov

Watershed Implementation Plan

Urban Flood Safety & Water Quality District UFSWQD

Pre-proposal Meeting – Minutes

Meeting Date: December 20, 2024

Location: Online MS Teams Meeting

Note: During the meeting, all conversations are considered informal and are not contractually binding unless stated in the contract documents or modified by a written addendum.

1. Introductions (Trisha)

a. Project Sponsor – Carrie Sanneman

b. Project Managers - Amber Ayers, Mackenna Bell

c. Procurement Specialist – Trisha Schultz

d. Firms Present: Attachment 1

2. Contractual Item Highlights (Trisha)

a. How to receive addenda notifications via Q&A in Oregon Buys

b. Dates of Importance:

ACTIVITY DATE

Post RFP December 11, 2024

Pre-Submittal Meeting December 20, 2024 @ 11:00 am

Proposals DUE January 28, 2025 @ 4:00

PM PST

Interviews March 3, 2025

Notice of Intent to Award March 5, 2025

Anticipated Board Approval March 20, 2205

Anticipated Contract Negotiation

March 20, - April 1, 2025

Contract Kickoff April 15, 2025

3. Brief Synopsis of Key Project Elements via Power Point Presentation Attachment 2

4. Questions & Answers

a. Q: The Sample Contract identifies Task Orders; please explain the management of this contract and the budget.

A: The deliverables identified in the RFP are a legal requirement and a staff priority. The District is unsure of what the costs will be and request the proposer to provide their best estimate for the SOW. The District is open to discussion about the best way to structure the contract to meet the SOW during the contract negotiation phase. That may include task orders or other methods.

b. Q: Explain this SOW’s overlap with the Levee-Ready Columbia Program, specifically the mitigation for those project actions and ecological goals of this plan?

A: The District anticipates the Plan will identify a number of opportunities for environmental improvement, some may be used as mitigation, but there are no specific mitigation needs at this time.

c. Q: Articulate set of disciplines.

A: The scope of work touches a number of disciplines and the District anticipates that teams may include: ecology, modeling, engagement, equity, planning, communications, public outreach.

d. Q: Regarding RFP Evaluation Criteria #3. Do we need 2 references for each project example?

And does the prime need to demonstrate previous project work with each sub?

A: Only 1 reference per project is needed, not 2. Previous prime and subconsultant relationship is not required. The prime does not need to be represented in all work examples. All subconsultants must be represented in at least one work example. This will be clarified in an addendum.

e. Q: Describe the interaction between the plan and the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) in the slough. Is hydrodynamic modeling from the TMDL anticipated to be important tool for the effectiveness of this plan? Comment on this plan and the regulatory framework for the

TMDL

A: The District has an implementation plan related to the Mercury TMDL. We would welcome opportunities to overlap and complement that work. TMDL models may provide useful data for the development of this plan or identify constraints and obligations that should be taken into account. The regulatory obligations of other organizations, from TMDLs or otherwise, may provide opportunities for partnership or constraints. For example, the District collaborates with Oregon DEQ during sediment management in order to address DEQ’s clean-up goals alongside our conveyance goals. Or, the District has an agreement with the Port of Portland to provide sufficient flow from Oct-June to support the water quality requirements of their de-icing program. The District does not have an MS4 permit and is not required to develop an implementation plan for the Willamette Temperature TMDL.

f. Q: Does the District have private or public partnerships. If so, are there any limitations on the District?

A: The District currently has public partnerships but not any private partnerships. In the past the District has had a private partnership concerning mitigation of the Elrod slough area; we are open to opportunities and creative ideas.

Participants Email Aaron Poresky APoresky@Geosyntec.com Alejo Kraus-Polk AKraus-Polk@esassoc.com Alex Dupey alexd@migcom.com Alex Staunch - Mosaic Ecology (Unverified) alex@mosaicecology.com Amanda Pebler apebler@wsc-inc.com Amber Ayers aayers@urbanfloodsafetyor.gov Brian Busiek bbusiek@herrerainc.com Brooke Forsythe bforsythe@biohabitats.com Buescher, Alex Alex.Buescher@tetratech.com Carrie Sanneman csanneman@urbanfloodsafetyor.gov Clara Olson COlson@parametrix.com Craig Tyler CTyler@esassoc.com Daniel Malmon danielm@watways.com Daniella Patterson dpatterson@enviroissues.com Darlene Siegel DSiegel@parametrix.com Debra Guenther DebraG@Mithun.com Erica McCormick erica@cascadegis.com Holfus, Corinna CORINNA.HOLFUS@tetratech.com James Way jway@biohabitats.com Jamie Harvie jamie.h@jla.us.com Jennifer Rogers jrogers@wsc-inc.com Joe Rudolph jrudolph@wolfwaterresources.com John Dvorsky johnd@watways.com John Reese Equipment Share (Unverified) john.reese@equipmentshare.com John van Staveren jvs@pacifichabitat.com Josh McNamee jmcnamee@urbanfloodsafetyor.gov Joshua Owens Joshua.Owens@consoreng.com Junjie Chen junjie.chen@wra-ca.com Ken Pirie kpirie@WalkerMacy.com Kevin Coulton KCoulton@esassoc.com Krista Reininga kreininga@BrwnCald.com Kristen Godkin (Unverified) kgodkin@interfluve.com Lauren Huff Lauren.Huff@deainc.com Mackenna Bell mbell@urbanfloodsafetyor.gov McAdoo, Jennifer Jennifer.McAdoo@icf.com Michael Yun, Knot Studio (Unverified) myun@kotstudio.com Mike Zarecor mikez@osbornconsulting.com Munro, David David.Munro@tetratech.com Nicholas McMurtrey Nicholas.McMurtrey@consoreng.com Nick Cook (Otak) (Unverified) nick.cook@otak.com Nick Legg Nick@lichenlandwater.com Poyant, Maggie Maggie.Poyant@icf.com Ryan Nordvik Ryan.Nordvik@arup.com Ted Brown tbrown@biohabitats.com Todd Alsbury talsbury@biohabitats.com Trisha Schultz tschultz@urbanfloodsafetyor.gov

Attachment 1: Attendance mailto:alex@mosaicecology.com mailto:erica@cascadegis.com mailto:john.reese@equipmentshare.com mailto:kgodkin@interfluve.com mailto:myun@kotstudio.com mailto:nick.cook@otak.com

Urban Flood Safety & Water Quality District

Watershed Improvement Plan Pre-Submittal Meeting

UFSWQD

Watershed Improvement Plan

• What: UFSWQD is required by ORS550.260 to create a "Plan for watershed and habitat improvement and landscape resilience"

• Why: The plan is the basis of District's new work to contribute to improved water quality, fish and wildlife habitat and landscape resilience while providing flood safety services.

• When: To be completed within 3-years of when the first board of directors is seated (est. Jan 2), and to renew it every 10 years.

CONTEXT

UFSWQD is new. The drainage districts dissolved on June 30, 2024. This is the first FY staff are operating as the new district.

This is our first watershed plan. It is required by

ORS550.260.

It’s important to demonstrate our commitment to new purposes and provide a strategic approach to future investments.

The GO Bond passed in May 2024 set aside ~$25M for floodplain restoration and resilience projects.

Meaningful engagement of staff, board, partners, and community is important throughout.

DEFINITIONS

Watershed: The Columbia Slough Watershed. The plan will consider dynamics, influences of, and impacts to the entire watershed.

Managed Floodplain: The area within, on, and immediately adjacent to the levee system. This is the action area as defined in ORS550.260.

Watershed health: water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, hydrology, floodplain restoration, and landscape resilience

Flood safety services: reducing the risk of flooding, protecting persons and property from flood risk, improving response to flood emergencies and providing for conveyance of water for flood safety.

Desired Outcomes

• Compliance with ORS 550

• The Plan reflects a deep understanding of watershed built from scientific information and the expertise of community, partners, board, and staff.

• A shared vision for the desired future condition of the watershed in which the flood safety system and watershed health are mutually supportive.

• A broad range of potential solutions and partnership opportunities to improve watershed health and flood safety.

Desired Outcomes

• Planning-level scope and cost estimates for priority solutions.

• Staff, board, partners, and community have accessible and engaging information about results of the planning process.

• Staff, board, partners, and community had multiple points of engagement and had the chance to see how their input was incorporated.

Project Summary

1. Engage Staff, Partners, and Stakeholders

Propose an approach that supports the project workplan and aligns with the District’s Equity Framework. Consider how and when to engage District staff, partners, board, and community.

2. Assess Current Conditions

Summarize the watershed’s condition, assets, deficiencies, and opportunities. Articulate the connection between the flood safety system and watershed health.

3. Develop a Vision

Describe a desired future condition or vision in which the flood safety system and watershed function are mutually supportive. Identify a broad suite of potential solutions.

Project Summary

4. Prioritize Solutions

Develop prioritized list of solutions. Refine proposals for floodplain restoration and resilience projects and riparian enhancement projects.

5. Develop an Implementation Plan

Develop a strategy to implement priority solutions and track progress over time. Identify opportunities for partnerships.

6. Communicate Results

Develop a final report, slideshow presentation, and companion products that are engaging and accessible to a wider audience

Scoping

Preliminary Engagement

Plan

Start of 3-year timeline End of 3-year timeline

Scoping

Plan Development

Comms procurement

Equity & Engagement Board, staff & partner interview

Schedule is tentative, to be refined with consultant team

• April-May 2025:

Kick-off with consulting team

• September 2025:

Equity and engagement strategy

• March 2027: Draft report

• June 2027: Final report and communication products

• September 2027: Final board presentation

Dev’p Equity & Eng’mnt plan

Comms & implementation

Information gathering & watershed characterization

Final products & board approval

Technical analysis, project identification, prioritization

Implement Equity & Engagement Plan

Kick off