RFP 14028-0-2025-BG.pdf

CITY OF MADISON

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

RFP #: 14028-0-2025-BG

Title: Starkweather Creek and Olbrich Gardens Watershed Models Calibration and Flood Mitigation Modeling

City Agency: Engineering Division

Due Date: Wednesday, June 11th, 2025 2:00 PM Central Time

Our Madison – Inclusive, Innovative, & Thriving

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS RFP 14028-0-2025-BG

RFP 14028.docx Page i

1 OPPORTUNITY AND WELCOME

Thank you for your interest in bidding on a City of Madison (City) contract opportunity. The City’s mission is to provide the highest quality service for the common good of our residents and visitors.

The City of Madison Engineering Division is seeking proposals from firms or teams (Consultant) for advanced watershed modeling and planning services for Starkweather Creek and Olbrich Gardens Watershed Models Calibration and Flood Mitigation Moldeling.

Thank you for considering this opportunity to work with the City and further our mission!

Background The City of Madison, like many communities, has seen a recent increase in extreme flood events. This increase has occurred most notably in Madison since 2016, when a large and intense rain event in late July caused extensive flooding of public and private property on Madison’s west side. Large events in July 2017 and June 2018 caused similar flooding, again largely focused on Madison’s west side.

On August 20, 2018, Dane County experienced an unusual precipitation event that caused flooding in excess of that seen in any of the prior events mentioned. Rain gages monitoring that event registered between 3-4” of precipitation on Madison’s east side and 8-10” of precipitation on its west side over (approximately) a 12-hr period. Many of Madison’s west side neighborhoods experienced flash flooding, resulting in millions of dollars in property damage.

In response to the damage incurred due to recent extreme rainfall events, as well as the likely increasing frequency of such events due to global climate change, the Madison Common Council authorized the City of Madison Engineering Division (City Engineering) to develop watershed models and plans for watersheds of greatest concern in the Madison area. Specific watershed information is included in Exhibits 1a-1b.

Summary of Services Requested This Request for Proposals (RFP) is intended to solicit information from interested firms including qualifications of project team and key personnel, project understanding and potential challenges, previous related project experience, level of effort, and schedule of services. City of Madison Engineering staff will use submitted RFP responses to select the Consultant to complete the watershed modeling and planning work.

The City of Madison Engineering Division is developing actionable mitigation measures in each watershed to meet the City’s goals of reducing damages associated with flooding events, prioritizing for flood mitigation projects and providing enough guidance to budget for the construction of projects identified in the watershed plans. Phase 1 is for model development and analysis of existing conditions.

Phase 2 is anticipated to cover conceptual development of flood mitigation solutions and detailed modeling of preferred mitigation measures, providing cost-benefit information and design feasibility analyses. Phase 3 is anticipated to cover final modeling, mitigation alternative refinement, and report documentation.

The City has a set of five (5) XPSWMM models of the Starkweather Creek and Olbrich Gardens Watersheds Study Area constructed by others under a previous contract. However, these models have not achieve a satisfactory level of calibration. Additional work is needed to bring these models up to the standards needed to meet the City’s Watershed Study Program objectives. The selected Consultant will review the existing models, identify and resolve model instabilities or errors, and calibrate the models using monitoring data provided by the City. The Consultant will then evaluate existing stormwater flooding conditions and develop a set of mitigation solutions in accordance with the City’s Watershed Study Program and Scope of work described herein.

The City requests that work on the Olbrich Gardens sub-watershed be prioritized ahead of the remaining sub-watersheds in the study area. Additional details regarding this requirement are provided in the scope of work in Section 5.

The City has budgeted $250,000-$300,000 for the scope of work described.

https://www.cityofmadison.com/vision-awards

RFP 14028.docx Page ii

Project Area The watersheds included in this RFP process are listed below. Additional specific watershed information is found in:

Exhibit 1: Starkweather Creek and Olbrich Gardens

It is expected that the CONSULTANT will complete site investigations to become familiar with the watershed.

2 IMPORTANT INFORMATION

DEADLINE FOR PROPOSALS: Wednesday, June 11th, 2025 at 2:00 PM Central Time.

The City will not accept late proposals. Any changes to the deadlines will be posted as an addendum on the bid distribution websites listed below. See Section 3.1 for instructions for using these websites.

RFP NAME: Starkweather Creek and Olbrich Gardens Watershed Models Calibration and Flood

Mitigation Modeling

DEADLINE FOR

QUESTIONS:

The deadline for questions is Friday, May 23rd, 2025 at 2:00 PM Central Time. Questions and/or inquiries must be submitted by email.

CITY’S ANSWERS

POSTED BY:

The City’s answers to your questions will be posted as an addendum by Wednesday, May 28th, 2025. You must check the bid distribution websites for any addendums.

DUE DATE FOR

PROPOSALS:

Wednesday, June 11th, 2025 2:00 PM Central Time

BID DISTRIBUTION

WEBSITES:

https://vendornet.wi.gov/Bids.aspx https://www.demandstar.com/

CONTACT

INFORMATION:

Brittany Garcia Purchasing Services 210 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Room 407 City-County Building Madison, WI 53703-3346

Phone: (608) 608-243-0529 Email: bids@cityofmadison.com https://vendornet.wi.gov/Bids.aspx https://www.demandstar.com/app/agencies/wisconsin/city-of-madison-purchasing-services/procurement-opportunities/573ff565-ce2b-4c75-86ec-401cd5abf736/ mailto:bids@cityofmadison.com

RFP 14028.docx Page iii

Table of Contents

1 OPPORTUNITY AND WELCOME .................................................................................................... i Background .......................................................................................................................... i Summary of Services Requested ........................................................................................ i Project Area ........................................................................................................................ ii

2 IMPORTANT INFORMATION .......................................................................................................... ii

3 HOW TO FIND RFP DOCUMENTS AND CONTACT THE CITY OF MADISON

Official Bid Distribution Websites – IMPORTANT Contact Information

4 OUR PURCHASING VALUES

Local Preference Purchasing Policy Equity in Contracting Equitable Hiring & Affirmative Action Plan Limitations on Nuclear Weapons Producers Sweatfree Purchasing

5 SCOPE OF WORK AND REQUIRED INFORMATION

Scope of Work Anticipated Project Timeline Basis for Selection Required Information and Content of Proposals

6 HOW TO SUBMIT YOUR PROPOSAL

Proposal Checklist Submit your Proposal by the Deadline Format Questions Addendum (Changes or Clarifications to this RFP) Multiple Proposals Changing or Withdrawing your Proposal Correcting Errors in your Proposal after the Due Date No Exceptions from Bidders

You are Responsible for all of your Costs in Making a Proposal Public Records and Trade Secrets

7 RULES FOR THE SELECTION PROCESS

8 LEGAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

Sample Contract Affirmative Action Requirements for Contractors Insurance

Appendix A: Sample Contract

Form A: Price Proposal and Signature Affidavit

Form B: References

Form C: Vendor Profile

Cover Letter

Exhibit 1: Watershed Specific Information

Exhibit 2: Data provided by City of Madison

RFP 14028.docx Page iv

Exhibit 3: City of Madison Modeling Guidance

Exhibit 4: Final Report Outline and Deliverables Format XPSWMM models and Geodata available by FTP link

3 HOW TO FIND RFP DOCUMENTS AND CONTACT THE CITY OF MADISON

Official Bid Distribution Websites – IMPORTANT

The City of Madison posts all requests for proposals (RFPs), addendums, updates, awards, and announcements on two websites: VendorNet and DemandStar. Both sites are free to register for City of Madison bids.

These two websites are the only places to get the official RFP and updates to the RFP.

Updates and addendums will only be posted on these websites. It is your responsibility to check the websites for updates and “addendums.” An addendum is a document that answers questions from bidders. It could make important changes to the RFP. If the addendum requires a response, and you fail to respond to it, you could be disqualified.

State of Wisconsin VendorNet System

State of Wisconsin and local government bid network. Registration is free. Search for City of Madison in the Agency search field.

VendorNet link https://vendornet.wi.gov/Bids.aspx

DemandStar by Onvia National bid network. Free subscription is available. Sign up for the free “Basic Plan” and select Wisconsin Association for Public Procurement (WAPP) as the agency to access City of Madison RFPs.

DemandStar link https://www.demandstar.com/app/agencies/wisconsin/city-of-madison-purchasing-services/procurement-opportunities/573ff565-ce2b-4c75- 86ec-401cd5abf736/

Register on DemandStar www.demandstar.com/app/registration

Contact Information

City of Madison Purchasing Contact (Buyer)

Brittany Garcia City of Madison Engineering Division 210 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Room 407 City-County Building Madison, WI 53703-3346

PH: (608) 608-243-0529

bids@cityofmadison.com

Questions about Affirmative Action Plans

Contract Compliance, Department of Civil Rights 210 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Room 523 City-County Building Madison, WI 53703

PH: (608) 266-4910

dcr@cityofmadison.com

Email note Some email to the City gets lost in “spam.”

If you send the City an email and you do not hear back within 3 days, please call the Buyer at (608) 608-243-0529.

https://vendornet.wi.gov/Bids.aspx https://www.demandstar.com/app/agencies/wisconsin/city-of-madison-purchasing-services/procurement-opportunities/573ff565-ce2b-4c75-86ec-401cd5abf736/ https://www.demandstar.com/app/agencies/wisconsin/city-of-madison-purchasing-services/procurement-opportunities/573ff565-ce2b-4c75-86ec-401cd5abf736/ https://www.demandstar.com/app/agencies/wisconsin/city-of-madison-purchasing-services/procurement-opportunities/573ff565-ce2b-4c75-86ec-401cd5abf736/ https://www.demandstar.com/app/registration mailto:dcr@cityofmadison.com

4 OUR PURCHASING VALUES

Local Preference Purchasing Policy

The City of Madison gives preference to local vendors and suppliers. You must be registered with the City as a local vendor by the RFP due date to get preference points. Learn more and register at the City of Madison website: www.cityofmadison.com/finance/purchasing/local-businesses/register-business/

If you are a local vendor, be sure to complete the Local Vendor section on Form C.

Equity in Contracting

The mission of the City of Madison is to provide the highest quality service for the common good of our residents and visitors. The City’s values include

• Equity - fairness, justice and equal outcomes for all, and

• Shared prosperity - where all are able to achieve economic success and social mobility.

It is our goal to spend money equitably among businesses owned by women, people of color, and small businesses. Our contractors should reflect shared dedication to equity in their work and employment practices, and we invite you to become part of this mission!

Equitable Hiring & Affirmative Action Plan

Affirmative Action Plan The City of Madison values diversity in hiring and contracting. We expect our contractors to do the same. Contractors with 15 or more employees and more than $50,000 in annual contracts with the City (each calendar year) must submit an Affirmative Action Plan.

Information about the Affirmative Action Plan and how to comply is found here:

https://www.cityofmadison.com/civil-rights/contract-compliance/affirmative-action-plan/vendors-suppliers

Or call the Affirmative Action Division at (608) 266-4910.

See Section 13. B. of the Sample Contract for Affirmative Action Plan requirements.

Job Openings in Dane County You must notify the City of openings for jobs in Dane County, Wisconsin if you have 15 or more employees. You must agree to interview candidates that we refer to you through our Referrals and Interviews for Sustainable Employment (RaISE) program. Information is here:

http://www.cityofmadison.com/civil-rights/programs/referrals-and-interviews-for-sustainable-employment-raise-program

The job posting requirement is found in Section 13 A. of the Sample Contract.

Limitations on Nuclear Weapons Producers

It is the City’s policy not to make purchases from companies that produce nuclear weapons, or their subsidiaries. See Common Council Resolution 79719 for more information.

Sweatfree Purchasing

It is the City’s policy not to purchase apparel (clothes made from textiles, shoes, footwear) from vendors who source their materials from sweatshops, where labor practices are inconsistent with international standards of human rights. See Madison General Ordinances Section 4.25 (https://library.municode.com/wi/madison/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COORMAWIVOICH1-- 10_CH4FI_4.25PRITAP) for more information.

https://www.cityofmadison.com/finance/purchasing/local-businesses/register-business/ https://www.cityofmadison.com/vision-awards https://www.cityofmadison.com/civil-rights/contract-compliance/affirmative-action-plan/vendors-suppliers http://www.cityofmadison.com/civil-rights/programs/referrals-and-interviews-for-sustainable-employment-raise-program http://www.cityofmadison.com/civil-rights/programs/referrals-and-interviews-for-sustainable-employment-raise-program https://madison.legistar.com/ViewReport.ashx?M=R&N=Text&GID=205&ID=5490426&GUID=A7280DE2-DFCB-40F2-8200-E9C3EA95902B&Title=Legislation+Text https://library.municode.com/wi/madison/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COORMAWIVOICH1--10_CH4FI_4.25PRITAP https://library.municode.com/wi/madison/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COORMAWIVOICH1--10_CH4FI_4.25PRITAP

5 SCOPE OF WORK AND REQUIRED INFORMATION

Scope of Work The Starkweather Creek and Olbrich Gardens Watershed Study Area is the largest watershed study area in the City of Madison (Exhibit 1b). The City already has five (5) existing 1D/2D computer models covering the containing the entire study area built in XPSWMM 2020.2 by others. The CONSULTANT will evaluate the models and find the most effective way to develop flood inundation mapping for the entire study area in accordance with the City’s Watershed Study Program. Whether utilizing the existing models or developing a new model or multiple models. It is the City’s desire to develop and maintain 2D flood mapping at grid dimension of approximately 10-15 ft. Documentation of issues known to the City with the existing models and configuration are provided in Exhibit 1c to this RFP. This information may not be comprehensive of all errors or deficiencies in the modeling.

Specific tasks for this RFP have been identified below, along with the required deliverables per task. All cost estimates shall refer to the specific task number or sub-task component as outlined in the Cost Proposal document, included with the RFP.

Consultants are encouraged to review in detail the preferred scope of work described herein and may propose deviations or alternative approaches that, in their professional judgment, will better achieve the project objectives. Any such deviations or alternatives must be clearly documented and justified within the proposal. The City will review all proposed deviations during the selection process, and, if accepted, they will be incorporated into the final contract scope of services.

To address the City’s desire for expedited analysis and project development in the Olbrich Gardens sub-watershed, the CONSULTANT shall treat Olbrich Gardens as a priority work package within this contract.

All modeling, calibration, analysis, and reporting tasks for Olbrich Gardens shall be completed and delivered to the City prior to commencing equivalent tasks for the remaining sub-watersheds within the Starkweather Creek Study Area. This approach is intended to allow the City to advance project development and potential implementation in Olbrich Gardens ahead of the broader study area.

For each task in Phases 1 and 2, the CONSULTANT shall first complete all work for the Olbrich Gardens sub-watershed and submit deliverables and then move on to subsequent tasks for the sub-watershed. All other sub-watersheds in the study area shall progress through the study tasks together.

Please note, the Scope of Services outlined below is distinct to the Starkweather Creek and Olbrich Gardens Watershed Study. It is the responsibility of the CONSULTANT to read and understand differences in the Scope of Services from past RFP issuances.

PHASE 1 Existing Conditions

TASK 1 Review Existing Watershed Models The City will provide the consultant with all five (5) existing models within the study area. Additionally, available GIS supporting data used in constructing the models will be provided including storm pipes, storm structures, and subbasin areas.

The methodology for establishing boundary conditions between the models have not yet been established and will need to be determined by the CONSULTANT (except for the outlet boundary to Lake Monona).

The CONSULTANT shall describe how they will incorporate appropriate boundary conditions and inflow hydrographs, as well as, how the watershed-wide inundation mapping will be created.

All work described in this task shall be completed for the Olbrich Gardens sub-watershed as a first priority.

1.1 CONSULTANT shall first review the existing model(s) for the Olbrich Gardens sub-watershed, meet with the City and discuss findings and a modeling approach. The consultant then may proceed to Task 2 within the Olbrich Gardens sub-watershed only and proceed with work under Task 1 for the remaining sub-watersheds.

1.2 CONSULTANT will review the existing set of five (5) XP-SWMM 1D/2D watershed models provided by the City for the Starkweather Creek watershed. The review shall include, but not be limited to, assessment of model construction, identification of errors, consistency with the City’s most recent modeling guidance documentation, and evaluation of model stability.

1.1 CONSULTANT will systematically identify and document model construction errors, including but not limited to:

• Incorrect or missing connectivity between model elements

• Data entry errors (e.g., invert elevations, pipe sizes, structure attributes)

• Incomplete or inconsistent representation of physical features, particularly bridges or other 1D/2D connections

• Issues with model geometry or network configuration

1.2 CONSULTANT will evaluate model stability for each of the five models, identifying sources of instability such as excessive continuity errors or convergence issues.

1.3 CONSULTANT will document all identified stability issues and model construction errors and propose corrective actions. All corrections and modifications shall be documented in a summary memorandum, including rationale for changes.

1.4 CONSULTANT will propose and develop a methodology for establishing appropriate boundary conditions to ensure proper linkage between the models during calibration and design storm simulations.

The proposed methodology shall consider the following:

• Accuracy, consistency, and stability of model results near the boundary.

• Justification of boundary condition selection (e.g., flow, stage, rating curve)

• Available data sources

• Procedures for updating and linking models at shared boundaries for various design storms under existing and proposed conditions

• Recommendations for any additional data collection or analysis needed to support boundary condition development

• The Lake Monona boundary condition for design storm analysis shall be 1 ft over the Summer Target Maximum, established by the WI DNR operating order. (Unless otherwise directed by the project manager prior to the modeling of design storms).

• The Lake Monona boundary condition for calibration storms shall be set based on Lake Monona gage location maintained by USGS (USGS 05429000), unless otherwise agreed to by the city.

TASK 1 Deliverables:

1) Meeting with City Staff to discuss review findings of the Olbrich Gardens sub-watershed model and recommendations for model improvement.

2) For all sub-watersheds, a technical memorandum summarizing:

1. Model construction errors, stability issues, and any recommended corrective actions to be taken.

2. Proposed methodology for upstream and downstream boundary conditions, including supporting documentation and recommendations

3) Meeting with City staff to review findings and proposed approach for all sub-watersheds

TASK 2 Develop and Calibrate Existing Conditions Models CONSULTANT will conduct hydrologic and hydraulic modeling as described in this project using Innovyze’s/Autodesk’s XP-SWMM 1D and 2D software. The version of the software will be explicitly agreed to in writing by the City prior to beginning model calibration. The modeling version shall not change after the model is determined by the City to be calibrated.

CONSULTANT will also use ArcGIS as-needed for the project; where the City is on a different version of ArcGIS than the CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT will save files to version the City is in. City is currently utilizing ArcGIS v10.8.

All work described in this task shall be completed for the Olbrich Gardens sub-watershed as a first priority.

2.1 CONSULTANT shall implement watershed model modifications to improve model stability and connectivity identified in TASK 1. This may include constructing new models if CONSULTANT determines that is the preferred approach.

2.2 The CONSULTANT shall develop and submit Non-calibrated Olbrich Gardens model input and output for City review and acceptance prior to commencing equivalent work for the remaining sub-watersheds

Once the City has accepted the Olbrich Gardens Non-calibrated model work on the Olbrich Gardens sub-watershed may progress to TASK 3 for the Olbrich Gardens sub-watershed only, unless otherwise agreed to by the City.

2.3 A Modeling Guidance document has been created for the Watershed Studies to provide for consistency in modeling among watersheds. It is understood this document will evolve as modeling tools and data change. The CONSULTANT will coordinate with City and other Consultants to update the Modeling Guidance document where appropriate for these watershed studies (see Exhibit 3).

Coordination may be done via email or phone.

The Modeling Guidance document will be updated and maintained to reflect group decisions on the modeling source documents, naming conventions, standardized coordinate systems, modeling input parameters, and other factors to maximize the consistency among the models being developed for all watersheds.

The Modeling Guidance document will include documentation of modeling parameters and agreed-upon changes to parameters with a log of dates, The Modeling Guidance document will include documentation of all other agreed-upon changes by the City and CONSULTANT.

The City will have final veto authority over any and all changes to the Modeling Guidance document.

2.4 For the purpose of this contract, the level of effort required shall be reflected in the assumptions made within the Modeling Guidance document, dated May 8, 2025 and provided with this RFP. Any further assumptions or changes to the Modeling Guidance document that will result in a measurable increase in the level of effort will be consulted with the City and adjustments to the contract cost will be determined prior to proceeding.

2.5 If the CONSULTANT considers the level of effort outlined in the Modeling Guidance to be insufficient to meet the City’s flood mitigation goals (as outlined in the Modeling Guidance document) in some or all of the proposed model area, they are encouraged to address that in their response to this RFP.

2.6 If the CONSULTANT considers the level of effort outlined in the Modeling Guidance to be sufficient to meet the City’s flood mitigation goals, but would recommend increased level of effort in some or all parts of the model to meet a different standard, they are encouraged to scope the proposal to the level of effort outlined in the Modeling Guidance document. Discussion of the increased level of effort, and its associated costs, should be included with this submittal as an Additional Task or Service in the Attachments/Appendices section of the CONSULTANT’s response to this RFP (see Section 5.3 of this

RFP).

2.7 Exhibit 1 identifies areas of concern and known areas of flooding. Additional model detail is anticipated for the identified areas. The level of detail is dependent upon the specific area.

CONSULTANT TO PROVIDE AN APPROACH AND SCOPE FOR THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF

DETAIL BASED ON THEIR PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT.

2.8 Applicable portions of the private conveyance system may be included; the expectation is that private systems and private properties will be analyzed to the extent necessary to build and calibrate the models. This effort is not intended to result in solutions to solve flooding on private property but it may be necessary in order to accurately build and calibrate the model. If additional work beyond the assumptions are required on a case by case basis, that should be noted and provided to the City for consideration of additional compensation.

2.9 Following the review and refinement of the existing conditions model, the CONSULTANT will calibrate the model with available data.

2.10 The City of Madison monitored key locations within the watershed in accordance with the joint USGS-City of Madison monitoring plan for the watershed. Monitoring began in the Spring of 2020 and continued until Fall of 2021. Monitoring data will be provided to the CONSULTANT in spreadsheet format for the locations within the watershed.

2.11 CONSULTANT will review the calibration data and identify suitable calibration events based on rainfall measurements and collected monitoring data. A total of six (6) locations had water level or flow monitoring equipment installed during the monitoring period. CONSULTANT shall attempt to identify calibration storms with high quality data at all locations. The final number of locations considered for use in calibration shall be based on the actual number of locations successfully monitored by the USGS with qualifying rain events.

2.12 Calibration will consider applicable rainfall data collected and damage information from August 20, 2018 storm if available. It will also consider anecdotal information collected during PIM #1 or Focus Groups, debris line surveys, or other pertinent information provided by the City or the public.

2.13 CONSULTANT will complete field verification, site visits, and evaluations as necessary to verify the existing conditions model.

2.14 Calibration will be attempted for no more than three (3) 2020-2021-monitored storm events. The three (3) events will be selected by City and CONSULTANT(s). If suitable events cannot be identified, CONSULTANT and City will agree on revised schedule for both monitoring and remainder of modeling.

2.15 For purposes of this project, the model will be considered to be calibrated if the overall average model bias for water surface elevations is within +/- 5% with reasonable effort made to minimize the largest absolute error while at the same time balancing that effort with the relative importance of the model results at each monitoring site location. The largest absolute error at each monitored location is defined as +/- 25%. It is understood that there may be some circumstances where calibration at this level cannot be accomplished. If calibration cannot be accomplished, CONSULTANT and the City will discuss and decide on an acceptable course of action.

2.16 CONSULTANT will apply calibration parameters determined for the study area to the Olbrich Gardens model. Based on the anticipated sequence of work the calibration adjustment for Olbrich will take place after completion of work on TASK 3.

2.17 CONSULTANT will participate in one (1) meeting (virtual or in person) with City staff to discuss the calibration methodology prior to creation of the existing conditions model. This may be done in conjunction with the monthly progress meetings. Calibration parameters will be discussed and agreed upon prior to proceeding with following tasks.

2.18 CONSULTANT will complete field verification, site visits, and evaluations as necessary to complete and verify the existing conditions model.

TASK 2 Deliverables:

1) Non-Calibrated Existing Conditions Model input files

a. Olbrich Gardens

b. Other sub-watersheds

2) Non-Calibrated Existing Conditions Model output files

a. Olbrich Gardens

b. Other sub-watersheds

3) GIS shapefiles and feature classes including (if revised from what city provided in TASK 1):

a. Subbasins

b. Flow paths

c. Modeled conveyance network (pipes, structures, greenways, etc)

4) Tables and graphs to illustrate calibration

5) Calibrated Existing Conditions Model Input

6) Calibrated Existing Conditions Model Output

7) Calibration Memo describing calibrations and pre-and post-calibrated parameters

TASK 3 Evaluate Olbrich Gardens Sub-watershed Preliminary Storm Sewer Sizing The City has developed preliminary storm sewer sizing for several proposed areas within the Olbrich Gardens sub-watershed to as part of near-term street reconstruction projects. The City would like to understand the performance of the proposed improvements ahead of the remaining watershed study.

3.1 CONSULTANT shall execute the Non-calibrated Olbrich Gardens model for the 1-, 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 100-, 200-, and 500-yr, 24hr storm events.

3.2 CONSULTANT shall input City’s preliminary pipe sizing into the un-calibrated Olbrich Gardens Watershed Model and execute the model for the storm events listed in Section 3.1.

3.3 CONSULTANT shall evaluate the performance of the City’s preliminary storm sewer pipe sizing against the City’s flood mitigation targets.

3.4 CONSULTANT shall prepare maps of the Existing Conditions and Proposed Conditions maximum extent flood inundation for the 1-, 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 100-, 200-, and 500-yr, 24 hour storm events and meet with the City to discuss the findings of the analysis. At this point the consultant should pause and meet with the City to determine if/where additional pipe sizing or mitigations solutions should be evaluated should be investigated.

3.5 If the City determines the preliminary pipe sizing is insufficient, CONSULTANT shall provide recommendations for alternative pipe sizing or configurations, or detention.

TASK 3 Deliverables

1) Non-calibrated existing conditions Olbrich Gardens sub-watershed model.

2) Non-calibrated proposed conditions Olbrich Gardens sub-watershed model.

3) Color figures showing maximum extent of flooding in the Olbrich Gardens sub-watershed under existing conditions.

4) Meeting to discuss findings of analysis of City’s preliminary storm sewer pipe sizing.

5) Color Figures showing proposed pipe sizing, or other flood mitigation measures, if the City’s pipe sizing is determined to be insufficient.

TASK 4 Execute Existing Conditions Models

4.1 CONSULTANT will run the calibrated model for the 1-, 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 100-, 200-, and 500-yr, 24-hr design events using the MSE4 rainfall distribution and the rainfall depths provided by the City in the Modeling Guidance document.

4.2 CONSULTANT shall also run one long-duration (>24-hr) event as described in the Modeling Guidance document for the existing conditions model.

4.3 CONSULTANT will review model results with City Engineering staff. This meeting shall be face-to-face and may be done in conjunction with the monthly progress meetings.

4.4 The City will provide information on the preferred symbology for inundation depth mapping.

4.5 CONSULTANT will prepare a Draft Watershed Existing Conditions Report and provide draft documents for City staff review. The City has developed an outline for the report and will provide it to the CONSULTANT. The report shall include the following:

1) Introduction

2) Description of existing conditions.

3) Current land uses and assumptions

4) Land use maps

5) Soils maps

6) Major storm infrastructure networks

7) Calibration methodology, approach, and results

8) Maximum extent of flooding figures / inundation mapping under the 1-, 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 100-, 200-, and 500-yr, 24-hr design events

9) Modeling Guidance documentation (if revised for any reason).

10) Compiled feedback from Focus Groups and PIMs #1 and #2.

TASK 4 Deliverables:

1) Color figures showing the maximum extent of flooding during each storm event. The figures shall be color coded to show depth of flooding (typical ranges utilized are: 0.01’-0.25’, 0.25’-0.5’, 0.5’- 1.0’, and greater than 1’).

2) Table noting the flooding depth for up to 25 locations for each design storm. Locations will be determined through coordination with City staff.

3) Table and figure showing structures flooded during the 100-yr storm event.

4) Table and figure showing streets not meeting 10-year goal.

5) Draft report for existing conditions.

6) Model files and documentation.

7) GIS files generated for model development. All files shall be delivered to the City on an external hard drive.

TASK 5 Public Engagement 2 (Present Existing Conditions Results and Get Feedback from Stakeholders) The first Public Information Meeting (PIM #1) for the study area has already been held. CONSULTANT will not be responsible for additional outreach prior to PIM#2

5.1 CONSULTANT will provide information materials and three (3) staff people to help conduct Public Information Meeting #2 (PIM #2). The purpose of PIM #2 is to present the existing conditions modeling results and ask for public feedback regarding the results.

5.2 PIM #2 will be held following the calibration of the existing conditions model. City has prepared a PIM #2 template that will be provided. CONSULTANT will create supplemental materials including in the PowerPoint presentation and a map showing the project area. CONSULTANT shall provide draft PowerPoint presentation to the City and work with City staff to finalize the presentation.

5.3 CONSULTANT will provide one (1) staff person and facilitate up to ten (10) focus group or stakeholder meetings, as authorized and organized by the City, with affected residents or neighborhoods.

The purpose of the meetings will be to gather additional information and gain input regarding flooding impacts in specific locations.

5.4 The City will identify the group(s) for each meeting, arrange for a suitable location, and notify residents of the meeting. CONSULTANT will provide the materials created for PIM #2 as well as 11x17” figures of each focus group/stakeholder’s area of interest.

5.5 CONSULTANT will conduct the listening session and document the citizen comments.

TASK 5 Deliverables:

1) Public feedback from implemented public outreach and engagement plan

2) PIM #2 presentation in PowerPoint format.

3) Other PIM#2 presentation materials as necessary.

4) 11”x17” focus group area figures.

5) Compile feedback and responses to questions from PIM#2 and focus groups and provide report to the City. This report shall include an executive summary that can be posted to the City website.

6) Specific focus group deliverables include:

o Bulleted summary of information provided by focus group attendees o Point shapefile/feature class showing locations that were visited during focus group o If reasonable, August 2018 flood extent sketch for each focus group o

PHASE 2 Develop Recommended Flood Mitigation Solutions

CONSULTANT shall not move on to Phase 2 without express direction by the City. All comments and changes as identified by the City in Phase 1 and any respective modeling, calibration and draft report modifications shall be addressed prior to starting the mitigation alternative analysis.

TASK 6 Evaluate Flood Mitigation Alternatives

6.1 Peak Flow Control

For purposes of this watershed study, Peak Flow Control (PFC) is considered any stormwater control measure that can store or convey water but is not intended to infiltrate water. These types of stormwater control measures could be referred to as Grey Infrastructure.

This Task has subtasks. First, the Consultant will identify possible causes of flooding in Task 6.1.1.

Then, in Task 6.1.2, the Consultant will identify potential locations for solutions. Task 6.1.3 will combine Tasks 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 to develop and evaluation solutions to mitigate the potential causes.

6.1.1 Identify Causes of Flooding

The objective of this subtask is to identify the major causes of flooding, but not necessarily solve them. This will:

• Guide later sections of this scope

• Provide big picture causes such that if the solutions presented in the final report cannot be implemented, then other options targeting the issue can be developed at a later date

General causes include but are not limited to:

• Undersized surface storage – insufficient above-ground storage capacity (ponds, etc)

• Insufficient surface-to-underground conveyance capacity – insufficient inlet/pond discharge/etc. capacity to allow water to exit the above-ground system and enter the below-ground system

• Restrictions in underground system – undersized trunk line conveyance

• High tailwater at discharge point

Use the inundation maps and flooding locations table generated in TASK 4, Deliverables 1 and 2 in the Scope of Work to identify problem flooding areas throughout the watershed.

Using professional judgement and drainage network properties (including but not limited to contributing area and existing storm infrastructure), identify locations where flooding occurs and the identified reason(s) for flooding throughout the watershed for the 10-yr, 25-yr, and 100-yr, 24-hour MSE4 storm events. It is understood that locations may vary in meeting the City’s Goals based on the storm event.

The Consultant should use the City of Madison Flood Mitigation Goals in the Modeling Guidance Document to guide selection of the locations.

Prior to finalizing the selection of locations, the CONSULANT should meet with City staff to review locations and discuss the identified reasons for flooding.

Deliverables for this step shall include:

1) Color map of watershed with selected locations clearly identified for each storm event.

2) For each selected point, a brief description of why that point was selected for further study.

6.1.2 Develop Solutions for PFC

The City’s preferred approach to developing a set up flood mitigation solutions is provided below. If the CONSULTANT prefers an alternate approach it shall be documented in writing and approved by the City prior to proceeding.

Step 1: Create a Model with All Potential Peak Flow Control Infrastructure.

This step creates a theoretical scenario to understand what the outcome would be if all available Peak Flow Control Infrastructure (PFCI) were implemented.

The first part of Step 1 will be to meet with City staff for a brainstorming session.

Consultants should be prepared with high-level, idyllic solutions to solve flooding. For example, a solution that could solve flooding would be to install 6’ x 10’ box culverts under every street in a watershed. Although this could solve flooding, it may not be feasible for a particular watershed. During this meeting, high-level, idyllic solutions will be discussed and guidance will be given to the consultant on which to further evaluate.

Using the information from the meeting, maximize a PFCI in each watershed. These solutions may “oversolve” the flooding; this is okay for this step as it will be refined in subsequent steps.

Solutions offered shall not make conditions worse downstream (worse is defined as increased peak water surface elevations), unless the upstream solution is paired with a downstream solution that mitigates the worsened condition.

For this step, assume solutions may not increase peak flows to a downstream municipality.

A solution may solve flooding at multiple locations or there may be a solution for each identified location.

This model will be called the Maximum PFCI Model. Run the model for the 10-yr, 25-yr, 100-yr and 500-yr, 24-hour MSE4 storm events. Note: solutions do not need to be provided for the 500-year, 24-hour event. The purpose of the model run is to understand the effect the solutions have on that storm.

Deliverables for this step shall include:

1) A spreadsheet or list for each PFCI that includes rough sizing/dimensions where applicable (approximate storage volume required, increase in pipe size, diversion pipe size, etc.).

2) Color figures showing the maximum extent of flooding during each storm event.

The figures shall be color coded to show depth of flooding (typical ranges utilized are: 0.01’-0.25’, 0.25’-0.5’, 0.5’-1.0’, and greater than 1’).

3) Table noting the flooding depth for the locations identified during Task 4 for each design storm.

4) Table and figure showing structures flooded and removed during the 100-yr storm event.

5) Model files and documentation.

6) GIS files generated for model development. All files shall be delivered to the City on an external hard drive.

At this point, Consultants will pause on proposed tasks while City conducts internal meetings with City agencies including, but not limited to, the Parks, Forestry and Streets Departments and the Office of the Mayor. Consultants are not expected to attend these meetings.

Step 2: Develop PFC Solutions Model Using the information identified in Task 6.1.1and the information the City collects during its internal meetings, develop “feasible” solutions to solve the identified causes of flooding. Solutions could include:

• Above-ground detention basins

• Additional inlets

• Underground storage

• Enlarged greenways and pipes

• Pumping

• Locations to purchase property that is repeatedly flooded

• Other solutions the consultant deems sound

It is expected that one (1) holistic set of solutions will be developed for the watershed.

The consultant shall develop conceptual solutions to meet the goals of the watershed studies as outlined in the Modeling Guidance. The holistic set of solutions should include conceptual solutions to meet all City Goals in all areas of the watershed unless a location(s) is explicitly discussed with City staff and removed from the solutions set.

Conceptual solutions should consider:

• Utility conflicts (using available data)

• Topographic relief (if pumps are required to get stormwater runoff to/from PFCI)

• Downstream flood impacts

• Environmental concerns (using available data including CARPC info, wetland indicators, etc)

• Permitting concerns

This model will be called the PFC Solutions Model. Run the model for the 2-yr, 5-yr, 10-yr, 25-yr, 100-yr and 500-yr, 24-hour MSE4 storm events. The purpose of the model run is to understand the effect the solutions have on each incremental storm event.

Develop conceptual (30%) cost estimates for each proposed PFCI included in the PFC Solutions Model.

Deliverables for this step shall include:

1) A spreadsheet or list for each PFCI that includes rough sizing/dimensions where applicable (approximate storage volume required, increase in pipe size, diversion pipe size, etc.).

2) Conceptual (30%) drawings (1 per PFCI) showing (if applicable):

a. The footprint and inlet/outlet information for storage or greenway modifications

b. Tie-in and required changes (increased size, decreased size, abandonment, etc) to existing storm sewer system

c. Locations of additional inlets

d. Location of pump station, pump station footprint, and inlet/outlet pipes

e. Locations of properties to be purchased

f. Utility conflicts from existing available GIS data

g. Known wetlands/FEMA floodplains/environmental areas of concern

3) Conceptual (30%) cost estimates utilizing unit costs provided by the City for items identified by the Consultant.

4) Color figures showing the maximum extent of flooding during each storm event.

The figures shall be color coded to show depth of flooding (typical ranges utilized are: 0.01’-0.25’, 0.25’-0.5’, 0.5’-1.0’, and greater than 1’).

5) Table noting the flooding depth for the 25 locations identified during TASK 4.

6) Table and figure showing number of structures flooded and removed from flooding during the 100-year event.

7) Figure showing streets meeting and still not meeting goal during the 10-year storm event.

8) Model files and documentation.

9) GIS files generated for model development. All files shall be delivered to the City on an external hard drive.

6.1.3 Assess the 500-yr Storm and Potential Upgrades

The purpose of this subtask is to further understand where it may be practical to purchase property and/or where PFCI could be maximized to achieve additional flood control benefits. In some cases this may not be practical or feasible, therefore solution is considered partially theoretical.

Using the model from Task 6.1.2, Step 2 (PFC Solutions Model) as a base, increase the capacity of all conveyance, storage, and/or pumps in the model to relieve as much flooding as possible for the 500-yr event while staying within the ownership boundaries of the PFC devices. For example, if a PFCI is going to be proposed for an open lot owned by the City of Madison, maximize the PFCI on the land owned by the City but do not go outside those boundaries. This model is called the Upsized PFC Solutions Model.

The solutions may involve increase infrastructure upstream and/or downstream of the solutions identified in Task 6.1.2, Step 2, as long the solution stays within the ownership boundaries.

Run the PFC Solutions Model from Task 6.1.2, Step 2 for the 500-yr event. Compare the results from this model to the results of the Upsized PFC Solutions Model run for the 500-yr storm.

As part of the comparison, identify the location and number of buildings that are no longer inundated with the upsized PFCI. For purposes of this analysis, inundation will be identified as water touching a structure.

Prepare a conceptual (30%) cost estimate for upsized PFCI identified in Task 6.1.2.

Deliverables

1) Comparison of infrastructure costs between the PFC Solutions Model and the Upsized PFC Solutions Model for the 500-yr event

2) Count of buildings inundated in PFC Solutions Model compared to the Upsized PFC Solutions Model during the 500-yr event

3) Model files and documentation

6.2 Draft Watershed Proposed Solutions Report:

CONSULTANT will provide a draft document for the proposed mitigation alternatives to be reviewed by the City.

The report shall include the following:

1) Overview and description of the modeling approach and selection of solution locations.

2) Proposed solutions for deficiencies.

3) Maximum extent of flooding/inundation maps comparing existing and proposed alternatives.

4) Critical elevations in areas where structural flooding is occurring for the 500-year flood extent.

a. Critical elevations for structures will be based on available data provided by the City and/or from field survey work conducted by the survey firm under City contract.

TASK 6 Deliverables

1) Color figures showing the maximum extent of flooding during each storm event for each alternative. The figures shall be color coded to show depth of flooding (typical ranges utilized are:

0.01’- 0.25’, 0.25’-0.5’, 0.5’-1.0’, and greater than 1.0’).

2) Table noting the flooding depth for up to 25 locations identified during Task 4 for each design storm.

3) Table and figure showing number of structures flooded and removed from flooding during the 100-year event.

4) Figure showing streets meeting and still not meeting goal during the 10-year storm event.

5) Draft Watershed Proposed Solutions Report.

TASK 7 Public Engagement 3 (Present Mitigation Alternatives)

7.1 CONSULTANT will provide information materials and three (3) staff people to help conduct Public Information Meeting #3 (PIM #3). The purpose of PIM #3 is to present the proposed conditions selected alternative scenario and solicit public feedback.

7.2 PIM #3 will be held after the completion of the proposed conditions modeling. CONSULTANT will create materials including a PowerPoint presentation and a map showing the project area.

CONSULTANT shall provide draft PowerPoint presentation to the City and work with City staff to finalize the presentation.

7.3 If authorized by the City, additional public informational meeting may be required based on feedback from the City, policy makers or the public. Additional meetings are not budgeted under the initial contract.

A contract amendment for additional meetings will be executed by the City if additional meetings are requested.

TASK 7 Deliverables:

1) Public feedback from implemented public outreach and engagement plan.

2) PIM#3 Presentation in PowerPoint format.

3) Other PIM#3 presentation materials as necessary.

4) Compile feedback and responses to questions from PIM#3 and provide report to the City. This report shall include an executive summary that can be posted to the City website.

PHASE 3 FINAL REPORT

CONSULTANT shall not move on to Phase 3 without express direction by the City. All comments and changes as identified by the City in both Phase 1 and Phase 2 and the respective modeling, alternative analysis and draft report shall be addressed prior to final preparation of the final deliverables in Task 8.

TASK 8 Prepare Detailed Written Report and Deliver Model CONSULTANT will prepare a detailed Watershed Report that includes the existing conditions report, modeling results, maximum extent of flooding/inundation maps, and proposed mitigation alternatives, as detailed in TASK 4 and TASK 6.

The report shall also include an executive summary that identifies and prioritizes the recommended improvements and, if necessary, identifies improvements that would need to be…