Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Lower Green River Corridor Plan Request for Proposals:

Transcription

1 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Lower Green River Corridor Plan Request for Proposals: The King County Flood District (District) is seeking proposals from firms to prepare a programmatic EIS for a Lower Green River Corridor Plan (LGRCP), including scoping, analysis, EIS web site, and public outreach. The selected firm will prepare an EIS under SEPA for adverse impacts likely to result from the Lower Green River Corridor Plan and from early-action projects implemented under that plan. The EIS will be both a programmatic and a projectspecific document. Additionally, the District desires to secure programmatic permits for work resulting from the Lower Green River Corridor Plan and is seeking firms with expertise in developing performance standards and success in obtaining approval from resource agencies of programmatic permits. The selected firm will report to the District s project manager and will be required to work collaboratively with the District s service provider, King County Water and Land Resources Division, River s Section. The selected firm must demonstrate experience working with diverse stakeholders including, elected officials, tribes, resource agencies, and business interests. The selected firm must demonstrate the highest degree of objectivity and integrity in balancing multiple objectives including public safety, environmental protection, recreation, tribal treaty rights, economic development, agriculture, and social equity. The estimated fee for this contract will not exceed $1 million. Overview The District is embarking on corridor planning for approximately 21 river miles of the Lower Green River, from approximately the City of Auburn, through Kent, to the cities of Tukwila and Renton. Unincorporated King County is also within the study area. The Lower Green River includes existing flood control facilities in ownership by multiple jurisdictions. Commercial,

2 residential, industrial, recreational, open space, and agricultural uses border the river. The Muckleshoot Tribe has identified river water temperature, lack of shade, degradation and lack of juvenile rearing habitat, as significant risks to fish populations that are protected by the Endangered Species Act. Water Resource Inventory Area 9 is responsible for planning related to improving salmon habitat in the Lower Green River. The US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) owns some flood facilities within the corridor and operates the Howard Hanson Dam that has impacts on the Lower Green River. Also, the Corps inspects locally owned levees and determines eligibility for these levees in the federal PL program which is a funding source for levee repairs in the event of flood damage. I. SCHEDULE AND SUBMITTAL PROCESS FOR CONSULTANT SELECTION The selection process is outlined below. The District intends to maintain this schedule and requests the same of firms interested in submitting a response to this solicitation. The District does, however, reserve the right to modify the schedule as circumstances warrant. Description/Task Date (Time) Advertisement for Consultant Services December 15, 2016 Last Day to Ask Questions January 9, 2017 NOON Proposals Due January 26, 2017 NOON Short-List and Notify Consultants February 9, 2017 Consultant Team Interviews February 13-17, 2017 Consultant Selection February 27, 2017 Execute Contract March 13, 2017 Qualified firms must be available to provide assistance beginning March 15, The initial period of performance of any contract resulting from this solicitation is expected to be two years. 2

3 Submittal Process All questions must be submitted in writing to the District s Executive Director by January 9, 2017, 12:00 p.m. noon in order to allow adequate time for preparation of a response. Questions are to be posted on District s website to be available to all prospective bidders. Questions received after this deadline may not be considered. Communication with the District regarding this procurement shall be directed to Michelle Clark, michelle.clark@kingcounty.gov Communication with District or County officials other than those listed herein will cause the firm involved to be disqualified from submitting under this solicitation. The District is requiring both electronic and hard copy submittals for this solicitation. Electronic submittals must be delivered through to Melani.Pedroza@kingcounty.gov Six hard copy submittals must be provided and delivered to the District Clerk. Melani Pedroza, Deputy Clerk of the District 12 th Floor King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA It is the responsibility of the submitter to ensure timely delivery of submittals. The submittal shall include the Request for Qualifications title, and due date and time in the subject line of the submittal . The District will use the time stamp on the submittal to determine timeliness. Submitters are responsible for ensuring timely delivery of submittals. The District is not responsible for submitters technical difficulties in submitting electronically. Late submittals will not be evaluated. 3

4 Submittal shall meet the following requirements: Submittals shall be formatted in searchable.pdf format. The.pdf or document submitted will be entitled with the submitting company name and RFQ name only (e.g. Firm X_LGR Programmatic EIS ) if multiple submittal documents use 1 of x format. The body of the submittal, shall be limited to 20 letter-sized ( 8.5 x 11 ) pages of content. In the event that the body of the submittal exceeds the page limitation, excess pages will not be considered. After removal of the excess pages, the submittal may further be rejected as unacceptable or uncompetitive if the District concludes that it would not have reasonable chance for award or is outside the competitive range. The following required items are not included in the page count limitation: i. Letter of Interest. Include a 1 page, single sided Letter of Interest. Include the name, phone number, address, and mailing address of the point of contact for this RFP. ii. An Appendix, which shall include the following: Organizational Chart showing project manager, lead staff, and supporting staff showing reporting relationships and the name and role for each person to be assigned to the Programmatic EIS, including public outreach, and technical consultants. Resume for all professional and technical staff. Each resume shall be limited to (1) single-sided, letter- sized page. Name and Title Brief description of the key person s role on the project and how that role relates to the project detailed in the Scope of Work. Proposed position on the project Employment history, years of experience, education and professional licensure(s) Representative list of past or current projects performed by the individuals who will provide the requested services, including the client contact and the contract value for the representative work. 4

5 iii. Provide a list of all proposed subconsultants describing for each subconsultant their role, expertise, and individuals within the subcontractor firm, to be assigned to each task. II. EVALUATION CRITERIA The evaluation criteria will be used to score the submittals and are listed in relative order of importance. All criteria are important, however, and submitters should provide equal attention to thoroughly responding to each criterion. In responding to the evaluation criteria, submittals should be organized so that the submitter s qualifications are clearly illustrated in each of the categories, using the submittal requirements for each criterion. The evaluation will be given the following relative weights: Proposal 100 Points Interview 100 Points Total 200 Points The District may seek clarifications and/or ask for additional information or a revised proposal. Responses to such requests may be considered in evaluating the proposal. The District will conduct interviews with a short-list of proposers in the competitive range following evaluation of the proposals. The Interview will consist of a 1-hour question and answer meeting. Proposers will not be given questions to prepare for in advance of the interviews. A. Specialized Experience and Technical Competence of Key Individuals 40 Points 1. The firm s and assigned individual s specialized experience, qualifications, and technical competence as related to the scope of work. Personnel descriptions should include the following: a) Identify the project manager and key point of contact between the District and the EIS team; b) Identify who will be the EIS lead; c) Identify key personnel for each subject matter area in your response such as ecologist, engineers, planners, and technical experts; 5

6 d) Identify senior-level staff with relevant experience with programmatic EIS on complex capital infrastructure; e) Describe the team s expertise in SEPA and NEPA regulations/requirements and the strategy associated with maximizing the legal defensibility of the documents; f) Describe the team s experience with the development of adaptive resource management plans and processes; g) Describe the team s successful experience with the development of complicated, performance based programmatic agreements; h) Describe the team s successful experience with multi-objective plans and associated programmatic impacts analysis; i) Describe the team s successful experience with scoping processes involving multiple stakeholder interests for controversial projects; j) Describe the team s experience with public outreach related to scoping, draft and final EIS comments; k) Describe the team s experience with flood risk reduction projects, habitat, treaty rights, endangered species act, recreation, agriculture, and economic development. l) Describe the team s experience in developing performance standards. m) Describe the team s success in obtaining programmatic permit approvals. 2. Relevant project experience and examples of work demonstrating similar scope. 3. Examples that demonstrate clear communication skills conveying complex ideas and plans 4. Successful experience with the development of reader friendly reports and environmental documents on complex plans and projects including public presentations and writing samples. 5. Demonstrated ability to be successful working collaboratively with various stakeholders and project partners. B. Proposal Approach 40 points 1. The firm s demonstrated understanding of the District s needs. 2. The firm s demonstrated understanding of the Lower Green River Corridor Plan and relationship to the EIS. 6

7 3. The firm s approach to developing alternatives for the EIS. 4. The firm s approach to developing performance standards. 5. The firm s approach to obtaining programmatic permit approvals. 6. The firm s ability to present a clear and easy to follow process to engage with stakeholders including resource agencies, tribes, businesses, elected officials, and the public through the scoping process and to work with the District and King County Water and Land Resources Division integrating the Corridor Plan with the Programmatic EIS. 7. The firm s ability to describe the content and form of deliverables such as scoping notice, alternatives description, analysis of impacts, draft and final EIS. 8. Project schedule. 9. Project risks and plan to mitigate risk. C. Proposal Cost and Schedule 20 points 1. The proposed budget, costs, and allocation of time by task. 2. Proposal schedule with milestones, public meetings, deliverables. 3. The hourly billable rates for all proposed personnel. 4. Allocation of time to tasks within proposal that reflect an understanding of challenges and level of effort needed to achieve success. 5. The firm and individual s past record of performing the required services on schedule and budget. III. DISTRICT NEEDS A. Background The Lower Green River Corridor Plan (LGRCP) is a follow-up plan to the Interim System-wide Improvement Framework (SWIF) submitted to the United State Army Corps of Engineers for acceptance in February The Interim SWIF was written to maintain eligibility for flood damage repairs under the federal PL Program. The Interim SWIF did not address multiple objectives. 7

8 The LGRCP will establish a long range, 30 to 50 year vision for management and improvements along the Lower Green River. The LGRCP will be based upon clearly defined policy and performance goals and objectives developed in partnership with stakeholders represented in two supporting committees: An Advisory Committee appointed by the District comprised of elected officials, stakeholders, and senior agency heads, and a Technical Working Group comprised of representatives from permit agencies and the Muckleshoot Tribe. B. Jurisdictional Background The King County Flood Control District is a special purpose district responsible for policy and oversight for flood protection projects and programs in King County. The District is the lead agency responsible for SEPA compliance and for developing the Lower Green River Corridor Plan. The King County Water and Lands Resources Division carries out the approved flood protection projects and programs under an inter-local agreement with the District. Local jurisdictions on this section of the Green River include unincorporated King County, Tukwila, Renton, Kent, and Auburn. These jurisdictions are responsible for land use planning under the Growth Management Act and maintain and enforce development codes, Shoreline Master Programs, and critical area ordinances that regulate activities and protect natural resources in the river corridor. State agencies with regulatory involvement in the Corridor Plan include the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), which is responsible for implementing the Clean Water Act and overseeing local administration of the Shoreline Master Program. The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife is responsible for freshwater fish and habitat and administers Hydraulic Project Approvals under authority from the state hydraulic code. Federal agencies with jurisdiction include the US Army Corps of Engineers which administers P.L and is responsible for Section 404 permits for work in waters of the U.S. and Section 408 permits for work on their levees. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act for 8

9 anadromous fish (US Fish and Wildlife Service would also be involved if other ESA listed species become an issue.) Although they do not have direct regulatory authority, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe has treaty fishing rights in the Green River; the Corps of Engineers must ascertain before issuing a project approval that the project has no more than a de minimis impact on treaty fishing rights. Other interested parties include WRIA-9 and the State of Washington Puget Sound Partnership. C. Programmatic EIS Intent The intent of the Lower Green River Corridor Plan (LGRCP) Programmatic SEPA EIS is to: Establish a shared vision and goals for the river corridor related to flood risk reduction, habitat, recreation, agriculture, and other values that may be developed in open collaboration with stakeholders; Develop a coordinated set of performance and development guidelines and standards to implement the goals; Identify alternatives for capital improvements that together can help achieve the plan s vision and goals; Institute programmatic agreements or batched permitting processes to aid in efficient regulatory review of planned improvements. By developing the LGRCP through a programmatic SEPA process and review the District can: Build understanding among public and private stakeholders of the need for improvements, define attributes of potential capital projects, and identify systemwide effects of those projects, and Facilitate subsequent implementation of capital projects by involving regulatory agencies and local jurisdictions at the planning level to establish agreement on the processes and a programmatic set of performance standards for achieving regulatory compliance and approval. The LGRCP will draw on technical work already completed by King County Water and Land Resources Division on behalf of the District including but not limited to the Interim SWIF, which addresses long-range issues associated with flooding and flood protection. 9

10 When complete, the LGRCP will be formally adopted by the King County Flood Control District. The LGRCP is also expected to lead to programmatic agreements with other agencies with regulatory authority or jurisdiction over flood risk reduction improvements or measures. These agreements would describe the process to be followed during development of capital projects, including the standards to be met in order to comply with regulatory requirements and receive needed approvals. The advantages of programmatic agreements are significant to the District in terms of facilitating an expedited and cost effective approach to permitting and implementation actions along the river corridor. D. Scoping Task To build understanding of the issues, needs, and opportunities in the corridor, the District will use expanded scoping (WAC ) as a means to more meaningfully involve other agencies, jurisdictions, tribes, and stakeholders. E. Lower Russell Road Project Inclusion in EIS The District would like to move the Lower Russell Road levee setback project forward through the EIS process by incorporating a project-level review within the programmatic SEPA EIS, which will be a subject for discussion with partners and stakeholders during the scoping and environmental process. Advancing this project supports its urgency to comply with PL and the Interim SWIF and would also allow it to illustrate the alternatives and performance standards developed in the integrated LGRCP and EIS. 10

11 IV. CONSULTANT SCOPE OF WORK 1. Scoping EIS a. Prepare scoping notices, publish notices, write public involvement materials, arrange logistics for scoping meeting(s), and facilitate scoping meeting(s) for the District. b. Assembly, summary, and evaluation of scoping comments and preparation of a Draft Scoping Report for submittal to the District. c. Prepare a Final Scoping Report at the direction of the District. 2. EIS Development a. Prepare a preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), final DEIS, and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Include Lower Russell Road levee setback project. b. Define the Proposed Action to be evaluated in the EIS and between three and five alternatives. c. The consultant will facilitate the discussion and conduct an alternatives analysis consistent with SEPA and any other applicable laws. d. The final decision for the alternatives will be made by the District. e. The scope of the EIS will be finalized upon completion of scoping. f. Prepare reader friendly Draft and Final River Corridor Plan EIS including: Goals and objectives Performance standards Adaptive management procedures Programmatic agreements Responses to comments received 11

12 3. Impact Analysis a. Impact analysis will include direct, indirect, and cumulative effects with associated technical analysis including but not limited to evaluation of capital projects. b. As appropriate and in consultation with the District, the Consultant will incorporate studies and regulatory findings previously prepared by King County for the SWIF and capital projects in the study area. 4. Performance standards and programmatic permits a. Recommend and analyze performance standards to serve as guidelines for the development of capital projects in consultation with the District and resource agencies. b. Recommend an approach for obtaining programmatic approval of permits for capital projects that meet the performance standards. 5. Record Keeping a. Under the direction of the District, the Consultant will develop a protocol for maintaining an EIS administrative record consistent with the scope of the resulting contract Consultant, and will maintain an ongoing administrative record during the EIS development. 6. Technical Support a. Establish and host a joint public website to provide information, post comments during the scoping and draft EIS public comment periods, and identify milestones. The website will also be expected to provide the capability for an online scoping meeting. b. Arrange facilities and logistics and document a minimum of two (2) public scoping meetings (one may be on-line meeting) and arrange facilities for, facilitate, and document a minimum of two (2) public hearings on the DEIS. 12

13 c. Prepare the Scoping Report, EIS outline, technical documents reference list, EIS strategy summary, preliminary DEIS, DEIS, response to comments, and FEIS. d. Consultant will be responsible for all copying, document preparation, and document mailing. Assume production and distribution of one hundred (100) paper copies and twohundred (200) electronic copies each of the Scoping Report, DEIS, and FEIS. e. Provide technical support for up to four public meetings, throughout the EIS approval process. f. Provide and implement a Public Participation Plan to facilitate the public review of status, meetings, studies, and other pertinent information throughout the EIS process. 6. Schedule and Execution a. The Consultant must be prepared to start work immediately upon Notice to Proceed. c. The project development schedule anticipates that completion of the EIS process, including the Consultant s work, will have the following milestones; however, the schedule may be adjusted in response to the District s timeframes and requirements. Consultant Notice to Proceed Issuance of the Notice of Intent SEPA Determination of Significance/Scoping Notice Scoping Scoping public meeting and On-line scoping meeting Deliver consolidated Scoping comments as Scoping Report to the District Release Scoping Report to Public Deliver Preliminary Draft EIS to the District Deliver Alternatives Analysis to the District Release DEIS for Public Public DEIS comment period. Draft EIS public comment meeting. Deliver consolidated comments and responses to the District Deliver draft Final EIS to the District Release Final EIS 13