HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.con.163.20192017-11-13 btf
Contract Information
Contract Number
Project Name
Contractor
Budget Line Item 002.02.95301.82000
Procurement Method:
Type:
Contract Start Date
Contract End Date
Contract Type
Retainage
If this is a new contractor, please request they complete and submit to Finance a New Vendor Request Form.
Contact Information:
Department
County Representative Cindy Houben County Representative
Phone (970) 920-5097
Provide a brief description of the contract:
Contract Value Summary:
$ 49,860.00
$ -
$ -
$ 49,860.00
NOTE: Clerks Office will keep original documents in compliance with Colorado State Archives retainage
Community Development
Debris flow risk assessment services in post-wildfire areas.
Original Contract Amount
Previous Change Order/Amendment Amount
This Change order/Amendment amount
New Contract Total
No
Pitkin County Post-Wildfire Debris Flow Risk Assessment
Wright Water Engineers, Inc.
$ -
Additional Budget Line
Item(s)
(Please fully allocate New Contract Total)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Informal
Services/Maintenance
5/8/2019
10/31/2019
New Contract
163.2019
Pitkin County
Procurement Cover Sheet
Please complete the Contract Cover Sheet when the contract/task order is complete and fully executed.
Return all Contract Cover Sheets and Contracts/Change Orders/Amendments/Task Orders to Procurement
Contract #: 163.2019 Rev. 2018.10.10 btf
Budget Line Item #: 002.02.95301.82000
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
INFORMAL PROCUREMENT MEMORANDUM
TO: File
FROM: Catherine Christoff, Planning Engineer
RE: Informal Procurement under $50,000
DATE: May 8, 2019
Description of Project: With our close proximity to recent wildfires, and our changing climate,
Pitkin County has become more concerned with the potential for mud and debris flow events,
especially in a post-wildfire scenario. Within the County there are a number of known
watersheds that are prone to debris flow events. The County has coordinated with communities
in our watershed to identify several key watersheds. As part of this project each of these
watersheds shall be mapped, analyzed for their potential post wildfire debris flow hazard, and the
potential debris flow volume shall be quantified. Once these watersheds have been analyzed, the
few watersheds that are most concerning shall be analyzed for potential mitigation strategies that
could be implemented by the County and the adjacent communities. The project will include one
public presentation to our Board of County Commissioners, summarizing the project results.
The selected firm has borken down the project into a number of tasks, which break the project
into three components.
The first compenent includes a review of literature and discussions with stakeholders,
identification of quatification methods with input from the USGS and USFS, watershed
delineation, application of USGS regression equations, and application of HEC-HMS. Once
these tasks have been completed they shall be reviewed with County staff proir to the first
payment of $20,000 to the consultant.
The second compenent will include identification fo mitigation strategies for a handfull of
watersheds, and the application of HEC-HMS to identified larger watersheds. Once these tasks
have been completed they shall be reviewed with County staff proir to the a payment of $15,000
to the consultant.
The final compenent of the project will include the preparation of a report summarizing the
consultant's findings and presenting these findings to the BOCC. Once these tasks have been
accomplished a final payment of $15,000 will be paid to the consultant.
Budgeted Amount: $50,000.00
On project list approved by BOCC: Choose an item.
Contractors Contacted: Matt Webster, SGM, Roger Phil, Golder Associates, and Andrew Earles,
Wright Water Engineers
Contract #: 163.2019 Rev. 2018.10.10 btf
Budget Line Item #: 002.02.95301.82000
Proposals Received:
Vendor Name Proposal Amount Timeline Other Information
Matt Webster, SGM $50,000.00 Complete by October
2019
Not as much directly
relavent experience,
would have to use
people outside of
SGM.
Roger Phil, Golder
Associates
$30,000.00 Not specifically
identified.
Gave a rough
estimate, and
identfied additional
costs as much as
$20k per basin.
Andrew Earles,
Wright Water
Engineers
$49,860.00 Complete by October
2019
Very complete, and
thorough proposal
outlining specific
deliverables and
ability to analyze
many basins
Firms chosen: Wright Water Engineers, WWE outlined extensive experince in post-wildfre
hydrologic and debris flow assessment, both in-state and in California. The proposal also
outlined the firm's ability to do extensive analysis of different watersheds within the given
budget, with a real understanding of the critical hazard areas within Pitkin County. They will
also be able to suggest mitigation strategies for a small handful of watersheds.
COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE:
________________________________________________
!#DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE#! Date
May-14-2019
Cindy Houben
Community Development Director
Contract # 163.2019 Revision: 2018-06-13 btf
Budget Line Item # 002.02.95301.82000
1
PITKIN COUNTY CONTRACT FOR PROVISION OF SERVICES
THIS CONTRACT, made May 8, 2019 by and between the Board of County Commissioners of
Pitkin County, Colorado, 530 E. Main St., Suite #302, Aspen, CO 81611, (hereinafter called the
“County”) and Wright Water Engineers, Inc., 2490 West 26th Ave., Denver, CO 80211 (hereinafter
called the “Contractor”) to perform the following work: Pitkin County Post-wildfire Debris Flow
Risk Assessment (“Project”).
I. Term of Contract: The term of this Contract is from May 8, 2019 to October 31, 2019.
At the expiration of the initial term, the contract may be extended for an additional term
of one (1) year by the express written consent of both parties.
II. Contractor’s Obligations. Contractor shall perform the work described in the Proposal
dated April 9, 2019 and included as Attachment A to this Contract.
III. Compensation and Expenses, Invoicing, Payment and Offset. The County shall
compensate Contractor for its services in accordance with the Project Budget and
Schedule set out in Paragraph II. It is expressly understood and agreed that in no event
will the total compensation and reimbursement to be paid hereunder exceed the sum of
Forty-Nine Thousand Eight-Hundred Sixty dollars and zero cents ($49,860.00) for all
services rendered. By contract or amendment, the County and Contractor may
reallocate the budget among project tasks if the total budget amount remains
unchanged. Contractor shall invoice for the project monthly based on hours worked,
with payment expected within thirty (30) days of invoice. Any payment by the County
may be offset by any amount the Contractor owes the County for any reason.
A. Payment shall be released as follows:
1. Initial payment not to exceed $20,000 only after the following tasks have been
acceptably completed:
Review of literature and discussions with stakeholders, identification of
quantifiable methods with input from the USGS and USFS, watershed
delineation, application of USGS regression equations, and application of HEC-
HMS.
2. Secondary payment not to exceed $15,000 only after the following tasks have
been acceptably completed:
Contract # 163.2019 Revision: 2018-06-13 btf
Budget Line Item # 002.02.95301.82000
2
Identification for mitigation strategies for watersheds delineated in Phase I, and
the application of HEC-HMS methodologies to identified, larger watersheds.
3. Final payment not to exceed $14,860 shall occur only after acceptable
completion of Phases I & II and upon submission of a final, comprehensive
report to evidence the findings of the Contractor’s study. Phase III completion
shall also include, at minimum, one presentation to the Board of County
Commissioners.
IV. County’s Exclusive Ownership of Work Product. Drawings, specifications,
guidelines and other documents prepared by Contractor in connection with this
Contract shall be the property of the County. However, Contractor shall have the right
to utilize such documents in the course of its marketing, professional presentations, and
for other business purposes. Contractor assigns to County the copyrights to all work
prepared, developed, or created pursuant to this Contract, including the right to: 1)
reproduce the work; 2) prepare derivative works; 3) distribute copies to the public; 4)
perform the works publicly; and 5) to display the work publicly. Contractor shall have
right to use materials produced in the course of this Contract for marketing purposes
and professional presentations, articles, speeches and other business purposes.
V. Pitkin County’s Obligations. Pitkin County shall administer this Contract through
a County Representative. Catherine Christoff, Planning Engineer will manage the
project as the County’s Representative. In the event that Catherine Christoff is not
available, Cindy Houben, Community Development Director shall assume the County
Representative’s duties. The services provided and products delivered by the
Contractor under this Contract will be subject to review by the County’s
Representatives, or a designee, for compliance with Contractor’s obligations prior to
final payment.
VI. Termination Prior to Expiration of Contract Term. The County has the right to
terminate this Contract, with or without cause, by giving written notice to the
Contractor of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. Such notice
shall be given at least ten (10) days before the effective date of such termination. In
such event all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies and reports prepared by
the Contractor pursuant to this Contract shall become the County’s property. Contractor
shall be entitled to receive compensation in accordance with the Contract for any
satisfactory work completed pursuant to the terms of this Contract prior to the date of
termination. Notwithstanding the above, Contractor shall not be relieved of liability to
the County for damages sustained by the County by virtue of any breach of the Contract
by the Contractor.
VII. Independent Contractor Status.
A. The parties to this Contract intend that the relationship between them contemplated
by the Contract is that of independent contractor. Contractor, and any agent,
Contract # 163.2019 Revision: 2018-06-13 btf
Budget Line Item # 002.02.95301.82000
3
employee, or servant of Contractor shall not be deemed to be an employee, agent,
or servant of Pitkin County.
B. Contractor is not required to offer his services exclusively to Pitkin County under
this Contract. Contractor may choose to work for other individuals or entities
during the term of this Contract, provided that the basic services and deliverable
products required under this Contract are submitted in the manner and on the
schedule defined under this Contract.
C. Contractor warrants that all work produced will conform to all applicable industry
standard of care, skill and diligence in the performance of Contractor’s obligations
under this Contract.
D. Contractor shall not attempt to oversee or supervise the work or actions of any
Pitkin County employee, servant or agent in the course of completing work under
this Contract.
E. Contractor is not entitled to any Workers’ Compensation benefits through Pitkin
County and is responsible for payment of any federal, state, FICA and other income
taxes.
VIII. Assignability. This Contract is not assignable by either party. Any use of
subcontractors by the Contractor for performance of this Contract must be accepted in
writing by the County.
IX. Severability. In the event that any provision of this Contract shall be held to be invalid
or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Contract shall remain valid and
binding upon the parties hereto.
X. Integration and Modification.
A. This Contract represents the entire and integrated Contract between the County and
the Contractor and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or contract,
either written or oral. This Contract may be amended only by written contract
signed by both the County and the Contractor.
B. The County may, from time to time, request changes in the scope of services of the
Contractor to be performed hereunder. Such changes, including the increase or
decrease in the amount of the Contractor’s compensation, which are mutually
agreed upon between the County and the Contractor, shall be in writing and upon
execution shall become part of this Contract.
XI. Indemnity.
A. The Contractor agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and, not excluding the County's
right to participate, defend the County, its subsidiary, parent, associated and/or
affiliated entities, successors, or assigns, its elected officials, trustees, employees,
agents, volunteers, and any jurisdiction or agency issuing permits for any work
included in the project, hereinafter referred to as indemnitee, from all suits and
claims, including attorney's fees and cost of litigation, actions, loss, damage,
Contract # 163.2019 Revision: 2018-06-13 btf
Budget Line Item # 002.02.95301.82000
4
expense, cost or claims of any character or any nature arising out of the work done
in fulfillment of the terms of this Contract or on account of any act, claim or amount
arising or recovered under workers' compensation law or arising out of the failure
of the Contractor to conform to any statutes, ordinances, regulation, law or court
decree. It is agreed that the Contractor will be responsible for primary loss
investigation, defense and judgment costs where this Contract of indemnity applies.
In consideration of the award of this Contract, the Contractor agrees to waive all
rights of subrogation against the County its subsidiary, parent, associated and/or
affiliated entities, successors, or assigns, its elected officials, trustees, employees,
agents, and volunteers for losses arising from the work performed by the Contractor
for the County.
B. The Contractor further shall investigate, process, respond to, adjust, provide
defense for and defend, pay or settle all claims, demands, or lawsuits related hereto
at its sole expense and shall bear all other costs and expenses related thereto, even
if the claim, demand or lawsuit is groundless, false or fraudulent.
XII. Insurance. Contractor and subcontractors shall procure and maintain until all of their
obligations have been discharged, including any warranty periods under this Contract
are satisfied, insurance against claims for injury to persons or damage to property which
may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the
Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.
The insurance requirements herein are minimum requirements for this Contract and in
no way limit the indemnity covenants contained in this Contract. The policies shall
include, or be endorsed to include, the following provision: On insurance policies
where the County is named as an additional insured, the County shall be an additional
insured to the full limits of liability purchased by the Contractor even if those limits of
liability are in excess of those required by this Contract.
The County in no way warrants that the minimum limits contained herein are sufficient
to protect the Contractor from liabilities that might arise out of the performance of the
work under this Contract by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees, or
subcontractors. The Contractor shall assess its own risks and if it deems appropriate
and/or prudent, maintain higher limits and/or broader coverages. The Contractor is not
relieved of any liability or other obligations assumed or pursuant to the Contract by
reason of its failure to obtain or maintain insurance in sufficient amounts, duration, or
types. Commercial General Liability Completed Operations coverage must be kept in
effect for up to three (3) years after completion of the project.
A. Coverage and Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall provide coverage with limits
of liability requirements provided that the coverage is written on a “following form”
basis.
1) Statutory Workers’ Compensation: Colorado statutory minimums
a. Policy shall contain a waiver of subrogation against the County.
Contract # 163.2019 Revision: 2018-06-13 btf
Budget Line Item # 002.02.95301.82000
5
b. This requirement shall not apply when a contractor or subcontractor
is exempt under Colorado Workers’ Compensation Act AND when
such contractor or subcontractor executes the appropriate sole
proprietor waiver form.
Minimum Limits:
Coverage A (Workers’ Compensation) Statutory
Coverage B (Employers Liability)
$ 500,000
$ 500,000
$ 500,000
2) Commercial General Liability – ISO 1CG 0001 form or equivalent.
(With County named as an additional insured)
Minimum Limits:
General Aggregate $ 2,000,000
Products/Completed Operations Aggregate $ 2,000,000
Each Occurrence Limit $ 1,000,000
Personal/Advertising Injury $ 1,000,000
Fire Damage (Any One Fire) $ 50,000
Medical Payments (Any One Person) $ 5,000
Coverage to include:
Premises and Operations
Explosions, Collapse and Underground Hazards
Personal / Advertising Injury
Products / Completed Operations
Liability assumed under an Insured Contract (including defense costs assumed under
contract)
Independent Contractors
Designated Construction Project(s) General Aggregate Limit, ISO CG 2503 (1997
Edition or equivalent)
Additional Insured—Owners, Lessees or Contractors Endorsement, ISO Form 2010
(2004 Edition or equivalent)
Additional Insured—Owners, Lessees or Contractors Endorsement, ISO CG 2037
(2004 Edition or equivalent)
The policy shall be endorsed to include the following additional insured language
on the Additional Insured Endorsements specified above: “County, its subsidiary,
parent, associated and/or affiliated entities, successors, or assigns, its elected
officials, trustees, employees, agents, and volunteers named as an additional insured
with respect to liability and defense of suits arising out of the activities performed
by, or on behalf of the Contractor, including completed operations”.
Contract # 163.2019 Revision: 2018-06-13 btf
Budget Line Item # 002.02.95301.82000
6
3) Auto Liability: Bodily injury and property damage for any owned,
hired and non-owned vehicles used in the performance of this Contract.
Minimum Limits: Statutory
Coverage Bodily/Property Damage (Each Accident)
$ 1,000,000
4) Special Coverages (check as appropriate and insert amount):
a. ☐ Performance Bond $
b. ☐ Professional Errors and Omissions
c. ☐ Aircraft Liability
d. ☐ Owner’s Protective
e. ☐ Builder’s Risk
f. ☐ Boiler and Machinery
g. ☐ Loss of Use Insurance
h. ☐ Pollution Liability
i. ☐ Crime, including Employee Dishonesty Coverage, or Fidelity
Bond
B. Proof of Insurance:
1) Each insurance policy required by the insurance provisions of this
Contract shall provide the required coverage and shall not be suspended,
voided or canceled except after thirty (30) days prior written notice has been
given to the County, except when cancellation is for non -payment of
premium, then ten (10) days prior notice may be given. Such notice shall
be emailed directly to Procurement@pitkincounty.com. If the insurance
carrier will not provide the required notice, the Consultant/Contractor and
or its insurance broker shall notify the County of any cancellation, or
reduction in coverage or limits of any insurance within seven (7) days of
receipt of insurers’ notification to that effect. Simultaneously with the
Certificates of Insurance, the Contractor shall file with the Project Lead a
certified statement as to claims pending against the required coverages,
reserves established on account of such claims, defense costs expended and
amounts remaining on policy limits.
2) In addition, these Certificates of Insurance shall contain the following
clauses:
a. The contractor’s insurance shall be primary and non-contributory with
any insurance or self-insurance purchased by the County.
b. The insurance companies issuing the policy or policies hereunder shall
have no recourse against the County of Pitkin for payment of any
premiums or for assessments under any form of policy.
c. Any and all deductibles or self-insured retentions in the above-
described insurance policies shall be assumed by and be for the
amount of, and at the sole expense of the Contractor.
Contract # 163.2019 Revision: 2018-06-13 btf
Budget Line Item # 002.02.95301.82000
7
d. Location of operations shall be: “all operations and locations at which
work for the referenced Project is being done.”
3) Certificates of Insurance for all renewal policies shall be delivered to
the County’s Representative at least fifteen (15) days prior to a policy’s
expiration date except for any policy expiring on the expiration date of this
Contract or thereafter.
4) The County reserves the right to request and receive a copy of any
policy and any policy endorsement at any time during the term of this
Contract.
XIII. Exemptions and Preferences. All purchases of construction or building or any other
materials for this Contract shall not include Federal Excise Taxes or Colorado State or
local sales or use taxes. Pitkin County is exempt from such taxes under registration
numbers 98-02624 and 84-78000-5k.
XIV. Records. The Contractor shall maintain comprehensive, complete and accurate
books, records, and documents concerning its performance relating to this Contract for
a period of three (3) years after final payment under the Contract and the County shall
have the right within the three (3) year period to inspect and audit these books, records
and documents, upon demand, in a reasonable manner and at reasonable times, for the
purpose of determining, by accepted accounting and auditing standards, compliance
with all provisions of the Contract and applicable law.
XV. Contract Made in Colorado. The parties agree that this Contract was made in
accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and shall be so construed. Venue is
agreed to be exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado.
XVI. Attorney’s Fees. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the
provisions of this Contract, the substantially prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs
and reasonable attorney’s fees.
XVII. Governmental Immunity. Contractor agrees and understands that Pitkin County is
relying on and does not waive, by any provision of this Contract, the monetary
limitations or terms (presently $150,000 per person and $600,000 per occurrence) or
any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental
Immunity Act, 24-10-101, et seq., C.R.S., as from time to time amended, or otherwise
available to Pitkin County or any of its officers, agents or employees. Further, nothing
in this Contract shall be construed or interpreted to require or provide for indemnification
of the Contractor by the County for any injury to any person or any property damage
whatsoever which is caused by the negligence or other misconduct of the County or its
agent or employees.
Contract # 163.2019 Revision: 2018-06-13 btf
Budget Line Item # 002.02.95301.82000
8
XVIII. Current Year Obligations. The parties acknowledge and agree that any payments
provided for hereunder or requirements for future appropriations shall constitute only
currently budgeted expenditures of Pitkin County. Pitkin County’s obligations under
this Contract are subject to Pitkin County’s annual right to budget and appropriate the
sums necessary to provide the services set forth herein. No provisions of the Contract
shall constitute a mandatory charge or requirement in any ensuing fiscal year beyond
the then current fiscal year of Pitkin County. No provision of the Contract shall be
construed or interpreted as creating a multiple-fiscal year direct or indirect debt or other
financial obligation of Pitkin County within the meaning of any constitutional or
statutory debt limitation. This Contract shall not directly or indirectly obligate Pitkin
County to make any payments beyond those appropriated for Pitkin County’s then
current fiscal year. No provisions of this Contract shall be construed to pledge or create
a lien on any class or source of Pitkin County’s moneys, nor shall any provision of this
Contract restrict the future issuance of Pitkin County’s bonds or any obligations
payable from any class or source of Pitkin County’s money.
XIX. Notice. Any notice required or permitted under this Agreement shall be in writing
and shall be provided by electronic delivery to the e-mail addresses set forth below and
by one of the following methods 1) hand-delivery or 2) registered or certified mail,
postage pre-paid to the mailing addresses set forth below. Each party by notice sent
under this paragraph may change the address to which future notices should be sent.
Electronic delivery of notices shall be considered delivered upon receipt of
confirmation of delivery on the part of the sender. Nothing contained herein shall be
construed to preclude personal service of any notice in the manner prescribed for
personal service of a summons or other legal process.
To Pitkin County:
Catherine Christoff
530 E. Main St., Suite #205
Aspen, CO 81611
Email: catherine.christoff@pitkincounty.com
with copies to:
Pitkin County Attorney’s Office
530 E. Main St., Suite #301
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Email: Attorney@pitkincounty.com
To Contractor:
Wright Water Engineers, Inc.
2490 West 26th Ave.
Denver, CO 80211
Phone: (303) 480-1700
Email: aearles@wrightwater.com
XX. Public Contracts for Services and Public Contracts with Natural Persons. In
conformance with the provisions of C.R.S. §§ 8-17.5-101, et seq., as amended and
C.R.S. §§ 24-76.5-101, et seq., as amended:
Contract # 163.2019 Revision: 2018-06-13 btf
Budget Line Item # 002.02.95301.82000
9
A. PUBLIC CONTRACTS FOR SERVICES. §§8-17.5-101, et seq. C.R.S.
[Not applicable to agreements relating to the offer, issuance, or sale of securities,
investment advisory services or fund management services, sponsored projects,
intergovernmental agreements, or information technology services or products and
services] Contractor certifies, warrants, and agrees that it does not knowingly employ
or contract with an illegal alien who will perform work under this Contract and will
confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for
employment in the United States to perform work under this Contract, through
participation in the E-Verify Program established under Pub. L. 104-208 or the State
verification program established pursuant to §8-17.5-102(5)(c), C.R.S., Contractor
shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this
Contract or enter into a contract with a Subcontractor that fails to certify to Contractor
that the Subcontractor shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to
perform work under this Contract. Contractor (i) shall not use E-Verify Program or
State program procedures to undertake pre-employment screening of job applicants
while this Contract is being performed, (ii) shall notify the Subcontractor and the
contracting State agency within 3 days if Contractor has actual knowledge that a
Subcontractor is employing or contracting with an illegal alien for work under this
Contract, (iii) shall terminate the subcontract if a Subcontractor does not stop
employing or contracting with the illegal alien within 3 days of receiving the notice,
and (iv) shall comply with reasonable requests made in the course of an investigation,
undertaken pursuant to §8-17.5-102(5), C.R.S., by the Colorado Department of Labor
and Employment. If Contractor participates in the State program, Contractor shall
deliver to the contracting State agency, Institution of Higher Education or political
subdivision, a written, notarized affirmation, affirming that Contractor has examined
the legal work status of such employee, and shall comply with all of the other
requirements of the State program. If Contractor fails to comply with any requirement
of this provision or §§8-17.5-101 et seq., C.R.S., the contracting State agency,
institution of higher education or political subdivision may terminate this Contract for
breach and, if so terminated, Contractor shall be liable for damages.
B. PUBLIC CONTRACTS WITH NATURAL PERSONS. §§24-76.5-101, et seq.,
C.R.S.
Contractor, if a natural person 18 years of age or older, hereby swears and affirms under
penalty of perjury that he or she (i) is a citizen or otherwise lawfully present in the
United States pursuant to federal law, (ii) shall comply with the provisions of §§24-
76.5-101 et seq., C.R.S., and (iii) has produced one form of identification required by
§24-76.5-103, C.R.S. prior to the Effective Date of this Contract.
Contract # 163.2019 Revision: 2018-06-13 btf
Budget Line Item # 002.02.95301.82000
10
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Contract as of the date first set out herein
above.
WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS, Inc.
________________________________________________
!#VENDOR SIGNATURE#! Date
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
_________________________________________________
!#DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE#! Date
May-14-2019
Community Development Director
Cindy Houben
May-14-2019
Andrew Earles
Vice President of Water Resources
GLENWOOD SPRINGS DURANGO
(970) 945-7755 TEL (970) 945-9210 FAX (970) 259-7411 TEL (970) 259-8758 FAX
Wright Water Engineers, Inc.
2490 West 26th Ave., Suite 100A www.wrightwater.com
Denver, Colorado 80211 e-mail: aearles@wrightwater.com
(303) 480-1700 TEL
(303) 480-1020 FAX
April 9, 2019
Via Email: catherine.christoff@pitkincounty.com
Catherine Christoff, P.E.
Pitkin County
Community Development
530 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Qualifications and Proposed Approach to Proactive Planning Evaluation of Pitkin County
Watersheds with Post-wildfire Debris Flow Risk
Dear Catherine:
Wright Water Engineers, Inc. (WWE) appreciates the opportunity to provide you with our
qualifications and ideas on project approach for a proactive planning evaluation of key Pitkin
County watersheds with post-wildfire debris flow risk. With the increasing frequency of wildfires
in the western United States and more severe cycles of drought and flooding, planning for debris
flow hazards before a wildfire actually occurs will help community development officials,
emergency responders, and citizens be prepared for the inevitable hazards that come from post-
wildfire runoff and sediment transport. We are very excited that you have obtained a grant to
conduct an initial evaluation of these types of hazards in Pitkin County, and we think that our
experience in post-fire debris flow risk and mitigation assessment makes us an ideal firm to help
conduct this work for Pitkin County.
This letter highlights WWE’s experience with post-fire debris flow assessments and outlines a
proposed approach to achieving your objectives to map key watersheds, analyze their potential
post-wildfire debris flow hazards, calculate anticipated post-fire debris flow volumes and rates,
and identify conceptual mitigation strategies that could be implemented by the County and the
adjacent communities. We appreciated the opportunity to meet with you in early April to discuss
the scope of this effort, and we think that we can conduct the desired hydrologic and debris flow
hazard analyses for each of the 13 watersheds you have identified, along with conceptual
mitigation strategies for three to five of the most critical areas.
WWE Qualifications
WWE has been working on post-wildfire hydrologic and debris flow assessments for three
decades, and I personally have worked on post-fire debris flow assessments for nearly 20 years.
The first wildfire that I worked on was the Cerro Grande Wildfire in New Mexico, which was a
high stakes assignment since there was significant risk of post-fire debris flows and flooding to
affect facilities that stored radioactive materials including plutonium and to mobilize legacy
contaminants in the canyons running through Los Alamos National Laboratory. I also worked on
similar assessments for the Missionary Ridge Wildfire in Durango, the Fourmile Canyon Wildfire
Catherine Christoff, P.E.
Pitkin County
April 9, 2019
Page 2
in Boulder, and the Waldo Canyon and Black Forest Wildfires near Colorado Springs. All of these
assessments involved characterizing debris flow hazards and identifying mitigation measures to
protect people and property.
Recently, I led projects that included pre-burn assessments of post-wildfire risks as a part of a
hydrology study for the Fall River and Big Thompson River watersheds near Estes Park and a mud
and debris flow study for the City of Aspen that included evaluation of several wildfire scenarios
for watersheds draining into the city. Currently I am doing work on the Thomas Fire and Montecito
debris flows in Santa Barbara, California, and the Woolsey Wildfire in Ventura and Los Angeles
counties. I have attached a cut-sheet that describes some of these projects, and I would be glad to
provide additional information and/or references for these projects if desired. I have also attached
resumes for myself and Scott Schreiber, P.E. and Drake Ludwig, E.I. of our Glenwood Springs
office, who would assist me on this assignment.
Approach
Over the past 20 years, the state of the practice of evaluating post-wildfire debris flow risks has
evolved, and there are many new tools that have been developed by the United States Geological
Survey (USGS), the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the United States Forest
Service (USFS). These tools enable rapid assessment of post-fire debris flow rates, volumes, and
probabilities based on watershed and wildfire characteristics. Many of these methods can be
implemented in a Geographic Information System (GIS) that allows for evaluation of broad
geographic areas in an efficient manner.
Of the 13 watersheds on the preliminary list of areas of concern, 11 are less than one square mile
in area. These watersheds are prime candidates for producing debris flows. Our approach for
evaluating these watersheds will include the following tasks:
1. Review of literature and discussions with the County and stakeholders to identify the
threshold event (often 0.25 inches in 15 minutes) and minor event (2- or 5-year) for
analysis.
2. Meetings or phone interviews with USGS and USFS to identify most appropriate
quantification methods for Pitkin County.
3. Watershed delineation information on basin characteristics (soils, topography,
vegetation, etc.) in GIS.
4. Application of USGS regression equations to calculate debris flow probabilities and
volumes. We are aware of regression equations that have been developed in New
Mexico and California and regression equations that have been applied near Rocky
Mountain National Park. These equations are typically sensitive to regional climate and
geology. As a part of Task 2, we will reach out to USGS and USFS to determine the
most appropriate methods to apply in Pitkin County. The selected equations will be
Catherine Christoff, P.E.
Pitkin County
April 9, 2019
Page 3
applied in GIS for moderate and severe burn scenarios for the threshold and minor
events.
5. Application of HEC-HMS to calculate post-fire peak flows for moderate and severe
burn scenarios for the threshold, minor, and major (100-year) storm events. We will
use NRCS guidance and our past experience to help select appropriate curve numbers
to represent burned conditions.
6. For three to five of these smaller watersheds, identified based on preliminary results,
WWE will identify conceptual mitigation strategies to reduce risk of damage to
property and life in the event of a debris flow following a severe burn. The final number
of watersheds evaluated for conceptual mitigation will depend on the level of effort to
develop the estimates of peak rates and volumes. Those that are not evaluated for
mitigation during this phase can be studied in greater detail in a subsequent phase of
the project.
For the larger watersheds, Dry Woody Creek and Arbaney Gulch, the post-fire risk is more related
to flooding than to high-sediment-concentration mud or debris flows. Our approach to these
watersheds will be to apply HEC-HMS to estimate peak flow rates for a minor (5- or 10-year
event) and the 100-year event, based on moderate and severe burn scenarios. These post-fire peak
flow estimates can be used to compare the minor event peak flow to unburned 100-year peak flow
estimates and would form the basis for delineating a post-fire 100-year floodplain in the vicinity
of populated areas and/or key infrastructure. Hydraulic analyses and floodplain delineation are not
included in this scope of work but could be conducted in a future phase based on the peak flow
estimates that will come out of this phase.
In terms of meetings, WWE envisions a kickoff meeting with you and the stakeholder group to
review and refine the approach. We also would like to meet once we have generated preliminary
results to identify areas for conceptual mitigation design and to discuss the presentation to the
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). Finally, we would provide a Power Point
presentation to the BOCC. WWE will complete this work over the summer of 2019 and will
present results to the BOCC by the end of October 2019.
To provide an idea of how we expect to accomplish this work, I have attached a draft budget
worksheet and schedule. This of course will be refined based on input from you and the stakeholder
group.
Catherine Christoff, P.E.
Pitkin County
April 9, 2019
Page 4
WWE appreciates the opportunity to provide this statement of qualifications and approach. We
would be glad to meet with you to discuss refinements to the scope, and we hope that we will be
able to assist Pitkin County with this work.
Sincerely,
WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS, INC.
By ______________________________
Andrew Earles, Ph.D., P.E., CPESC
Vice President of Water Resources
Attachments
WWE Post-fire Cut Sheet
Resumes for Dr. Andrew Earles, P.E., CPESC, Scott Schreiber, P.E. and Drake Ludwig, E.I.
Draft Budget Worksheet and Schedule
WWE 2019 Standard Hourly Rate Schedule
cc: Scott Schreiber, P.E., WWE GWS
Z:\Project Files\GO\991-999\991-999.056\Engineering\Pitkin County\Wildfires\Pitkin County Wildfire Proposal.docx
Wright Water
Engineers
Post-fire Hydrology Studies and Erosion Control
Representative Experience
Wright Water Engineers
2490 W. 26th Ave.
Ste. 100A
Denver, CO 80211
www.wrightwater.com
Phone: 303-480-1700
Fax: 303-480-1020
E-mail:
aearles@wrightwater.com
Post-fire Hydrology
Studies and Erosion
Control Representative
Services
Hydrologic modeling
Drainage and flood
control evaluation
Channel stabilization
and erosion control
Watershed assessment
Hydraulic design
Revegetation plans
Debris flow monitoring
BMP development
Fourmile Canyon Fire, Boulder County, Colorado
In September 2010, the Fourmile Canyon wildfire burned approximately 6,200
acres of forest and 168 structures in the foothills west of Boulder, Colorado. In
the post-fire condition, the steep terrain, with average slopes exceeding 30
percent over more than half the burned area, posed a greatly increased risk of
flooding and debris flows. WWE was
contacted by Boulder County to
evaluate the post-fire runoff from
three major drainages for a range of
storm events.
Findings from the HEC-HMS
modeling analysis were used for
emergency preparedness
planning. WWE was also tasked with
evaluating the projected post-fire
hydrologic recovery of the watershed,
and planning measures to reduce the
impact from debris flows. HEC-HMS model results were used to project runoff rates
from the steep terrain burned in the Fourmile Fire.
Missionary Ridge Wildfire near Durango, Colorado
The Missionary Ridge Wildfire of 2002
burned over 70,000 acres near Durango,
Colorado. The fire resulted in considerable
risk to public health, safety and welfare due
to increased runoff and sediment and debris
flow potential just upstream of the Lemon
Reservoir dam and spillway.
To protect against debris flows, heavy sedi-
ment loading, and potentially, failure, the
Florida Water Conservancy District (FWCD)
hired WWE to design rehabilitation
measures. The rehabilitation was designed
with an unprecedented quantity and
complexity of measures and monitoring
including log erosion barriers, check dams,
detention basins, debris racks, revegetation,
a bypass channel and FWCD staff training.
When 2.47 inches of rain fell over 13 hours
on September 9, 2003, the runoff, sediment
and debris from the Knight Canyon
watershed were substantially less than from
other comparably sized, nearby watersheds
that had not received such extensive
treatment. Five debris racks were installed
along major drainage paths, and as of
October 2003, had trapped nearly 200 cubic
yards of debris. While typical sediment yield
rates following wildfires range from 9 to 49
tons/acre/year, the soil loss rates for the
Knight drainage was significantly lower,
ranging from 7 to 14 tons/acre/year.
A newly installed debris rack.
A FWCD manager stands in front of a debris rack
after several minor storm events.
The Missionary Ridge Fire in 2002.
WWE Staff
Senior level
engineers,
hydrologists,
scientists, biologists,
chemists, and
geologists
Professional
Engineers (P.E.s)
Certified Professionals
in Erosion and
Sediment Control
(CPESCs)
Certified Floodplain
Managers (CFMs)
Ph.D.s
Leadership in Energy
and Environmental
Design (LEED)
Accredited
Professionals
Wright Water
Engineers
Post-fire Hydrology Studies and Erosion Control,
continued
Wright Water Engineers
Denver
303-480-1700
Glenwood Springs
970-945-7755
Durango
970-259-7411
Chapin No. 5 Fire, Mesa Verde National Park
WWE evaluated the post-fire hydrologic recovery of the Santa Susana Field
Laboratory (SSFL), located in the Simi Hills north of Los Angeles. The SSFL is
a 2,700-acre property dominated by hilly topography and dense chaparral/scrub
vegetation, part of which burned during the Topanga Fire in 2005.
Post-fire erosion at the site was of particular concern because the site has
historical environmental contamination from rocket engine research conducted
there. The proximity of the site to a major metropolitan area added to the
importance of understanding the potential hydrologic impacts from the fire.
WWE collaborated with Geosyntec
Consultants, Inc. to evaluate the
anticipated hydrologic recovery of the
watershed following the fire. Field
research was conducted regarding soil
hydrophobicity and a literature review
was compiled to address questions
regarding post-fire soil-water repellency,
hydrology and erosion and sediment
yield.
Cerro Grande Wildfire, Los Alamos, New Mexico
In May 2000, a controlled burn at Bandelier National Monument in New Mexico
escaped its boundaries and started the Cerro Grande Wildfire. The fire burned
extensive parts of watersheds above the Los Alamos National Laboratory
(LANL). LANL is the site of nuclear testing facilities and known environmental
contamination. An understanding of the changes in hydrology associated with
the Cerro Grande Wildfire was of great importance for the safety of the
laboratory, downstream communities and the Rio Grande.
WWE worked as a part of the LANL
modeling team to quickly assess changes
in hydrology, hydraulics, floodplain extents
and sediment transport following the fire.
WWE used the HEC-RAS model for
hydrologic analysis, relying heavily on
Geographic Information System (GIS) data
for input. The model for the extensive
network of canyons encompassed more
than 20 square miles of watershed and
allowed WWE to identify best management
practices (BMPs) to control runoff and
debris flows from future rainfall events. Dramatic erosion problems began at LANL after the
Cerro Grande Wildfire.
The Santa Susana Field Laboratory
Topanga Fire, Santa Susana Field Laboratory near Los Angeles
The National Park Service at Mesa Verde National Park (MVNP) retained WWE
in 1996 to serve as forest hydrologist following the Chapin No. 5 Fire. MVNP is
the location of over 4,000 sensitive archaeological ruins left by Ancestral Pueblo
people. WWE trained two dozen archeologists in the fundamentals of flood
ecology and erosion control engineering to help protect these sites.
Andrew Earles, Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE, CPESC
Senior Principal
April 2019 Page 1 of 2
Experience Overview
Andrew serves as project engineer, project manager and principal-in-
charge of multiple projects with focus on natural hazards, stormwater
management, hydrology, hydraulics, flood risk management, and
emergency action plans.
Post-Fire and Hazard Hydrology
Los Alamos National Laboratory Post-Cerro Grande Wildfire
Investigation. Performed field investigations and hydrologic and
hydraulic modeling to assess risks of flooding damage to nuclear
facilities and other infrastructure and sediment/actinide transport.
Large-scale application of HEC-Geo-RAS. Worked as a member of
a research team including scientists from the laboratory and
researchers from the USDA Agricultural Research Service.
Research has led to several publications including peer-reviewed
paper in Journal of American Water Resources Association.
Missionary Ridge Wildfire Assessment of Risk and Protection
of Lemon Dam, Durango, Colorado. Worked with Florida Water
Conservancy District to assess risk and identify protective
measures for the Lemon Dam spillway following the Missionary
Ridge Wildfire. Recommended structural and watershed-based
measures to minimize potential for damage to the spillway from
debris flow events following the wildfire and assisted with
preparation of grant applications for implementation funding.
Mitigation measures proved extremely effective, preventing damage
to the spillway, even during an event with 1-hour rainfall intensities
in excess of 100-year event. The project received a nonpoint source
excellence award from the State of Colorado.
Santa Susana Wildfire Recovery Assessment, Ventura County,
California. Worked as a part of Geosyntec’s consulting team for
assessment of recovery of burned areas on Santa Susana field
laboratory site following the Topanga Wildfire. Served in project
management and peer review roles for data and reports related to
assessment of hydrophobicity, infiltration testing, monitoring of
vegetative success, and other metrics of wildfire recovery. Work
was conducted as a sub-consultant for Geosyntec, consultant to
Boeing.
Fourmile Wildfire Hydrologic and Debris Flow Risk
Assessment. Prepared wildfire assessment of flooding and debris
flow risk following 2010 Fourmile Canyon fire in Boulder County,
Colorado. Led consultant’s team responsible for developing
projections of debris flow potential for a range of storm events
anticipated to occur in the summer of 2010. Provided decision
makers with risk-based projections and participated in public
meetings to emphasize damage potential from runoff events in the
burned area. This project involved coordination with multiple
agencies including USGS, USFS, UDFCD and others.
Relevant
Credentials/Specialties
Registered Professional
Engineer
20 Years Consulting
Experience
Hydrologic Data Analysis
and Modeling
Flood Hazard
Assessments
Hydrology & Hydraulics
Post-fire Hazard Planning
& Mitigation
Education
• Ph.D. Civil Engineering,
University of Virginia, 1999
• M.S., Civil Engineering,
University of Virginia, 1996
• B.S., Civil Engineering,
Stanford, 1994
Registrations/Affiliations
• Registered Professional
Engineer
o Colorado #37237
o Louisiana #31306
o Arkansas #12329
o Hawaii #14235
o Iowa #21024
o Indiana #11400136
o Nebraska #16541
o So. Dakota #13431
o Wyoming #16160
• Certified Professional in
Erosion and Sediment
Control
• Diplomate of Water
Resources Engineering
• Past Chairman ASCE/EWRI
Urban Water Resources
Research Council
• Member of ASCE, EWRI,
American Water Resources
Association (AWRA)
Andrew Earles, Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE, CPESC
Senior Engineer
April 2019 Page 2 of 2
Estes Park Hydrology, Town of Estes Park. Project Manager on hydrology study of Fall River, Upper Big
Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek and Dry Gulch for the Town of Estes Park, Colorado. Led
development of a HEC-HMS model to generate flood flows for various rainfall events including sub-basin
parameters for a high-burn intensity scenario, peak flow projections for post-wildfire scenarios, and peak flow
data and rainfall data to examine the magnitude of snowmelt versus rainfall/runoff and combinations or rain
or snow. WWE used HEC-GeoHMS to provide information on sub-basins and routing parameters from large
watersheds with dozens to hundreds of sub-basins.
Aspen Stormwater and Mudflow. Project Manager for stormwater consulting for the City of Aspen since
2008. Worked with City to develop Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP) as lead author on many
chapters and peer-reviewer on overall plan. Also led a multi-disciplinary team of consultants to update
mudflow mapping and the process and criteria for development activities in mudflow-affected areas.
Bulkey Road Alluvial Fan. WWE has been involved since 2010 in analysis of the Bulkley Road Alluvial Fan
off of Maroon Creek Road in Pitkin County. Andrew Earles has played a key role as a member of the project
team assembled by the owner to develop plans to build a house on the property. WWE’s primary role in the
project has been as a peer reviewer on mud and debris flow issues, and we have worked closely with Tetra
Tech’s Breckenridge office on this project. WWE has reviewed FLO-2D modeling, provided input on
mitigation strategies, and provided input on potential risks to the subject’s property and others on the alluvial
fan. WWE has provided testimony on multiple occasions in hearings in Pitkin County related to this project.
Buttermilk Debris Flow. Hired by Aspen Skiing Company to serve as an expert on a mud and debris flow
issue at the Buttermilk Ski Area. The mud flow in question happened in the spring of 2011, a year with heavy
snow pack, and was proceeded by rainfall within several days of when the mudslide was known to occur.
WWE performed hydrologic analysis of the factors that contributed to the debris flow and provided testimony
in Pitkin County Court.
Jones Gulch Debris Flow Potential Assessment, Keystone, Colorado. Performed debris flow potential
assessment and conceptual mitigation design for protection of development proposed along Jones Gulch in
Keystone, Colorado. Worked with the Colorado Geological Survey and Summit County to determine
applicable debris flow criteria and design parameters. Assessment included evaluation of burned watershed
scenario due to susceptibility of forest to wildfire in wake of pine beetle infestation.
City of Boulder Rainfall/Runoff Analysis. Project Manager for assignment to evaluate rainfall and runoff
characteristics of September 2013 flood in Boulder, Colorado. Evaluated 5-minute, gauge-corrected radar
data to characterize rainfall intensity and return periods for watersheds in Boulder. Evaluated stream gauge
data and post-event floodplain mapping to assess runoff. Developed report to explain how measured rainfall
resulted in observed flooding for major drainageways in and near City.
UDFCD 2015 Climate Change White Paper. Project Manager and lead author for development of white
paper on “Planning for Variability & Uncertainty: Climate Change and the Urban Drainage System.”
Reviewed and synthesized existing climate projections for Front Range and assessed potential
vulnerabilities of urban drainage system. Identified policies and criteria that promote resilience and adaptive
management practices used by UDFCD. Presented findings at UDFCD 2015 Annual Conference. Peer
review by retired UDFCD program managers, State Climatologist and CU researcher.
City of Colorado Springs Stormwater Management Assessment. Worked as consultant to the City of
Colorado Springs for its 2009-2012 stormwater management assessment. Provided expertise on volume
reduction methods, hydrology, hydraulics, floodplain preservation and other topics aimed at improving the
management of stormwater quantity and quality in Colorado Springs. As a part of this project, performed a
detailed review of many criteria manuals, including the Arapahoe County and City of Centennial stormwater
management manuals.
Woodland Park Drainage Criteria Manual. Worked with City Engineer and Director of Public works to
adapt stormwater criteria developed as a part of the Colorado Springs Stormwater Management Assessment
to smaller town/mountainous setting. Project involved geomorphic assessment of selected streams in
Woodland Park working with Colorado State University.
Scott D. Schreiber, P.E.
Senior Project Engineer
April 2019 Page 1 of 2
Experience Overview
Scott is a water resource engineer with 12 years of experience in water resource
engineering evaluating watershed hydrology and hydraulics. As part of evaluating
and enhancing watershed health he has experience in evaluating overall basin
hydrology, channel hydraulics, floodplain implications, stream restoration,
stormwater management design, groundwater studies, LOMR submittals, LID and
LEED designs, and drainage infrastructure design. Scott is proficient with HEC-
RAS, SWMM, Civil 3D, RiverCAD, StormCAD CUHP, and HY-8. Below is a list of
projects that include various water resource engineering aspects applicable to this
project.
Hydrology
Fish Creek Hydrology Evaluation. Following the 2013 floods in
Colorado, many municipalities sought to evaluate the storm event
that occurred in this area as well as plan for future events by re-
evaluating watershed hydrology. As part of this effort, Scott led the
hydrologic evaluation of Fish Creek in Estes Park, which sustained
the most intense rainfall of the 2013 flood. Scott evaluated high water
marks and performed other research to classify the storm event that
occurred. Using this information, as well as modeling the entire
watershed hydrology through the use of HEC-HMS, a new 100-year
design storm was developed, which was 3 times greater than what it
was before. The HEC-HMS evaluated the entire 15.9-square-mile
drainage basin through the use of GIS, which helped with the large
amount of data and utilized automated modeling tools. This
evaluation will allow the community to be prepared when planning for
future projects.
Witter Gulch Drainageway Evaluation. Following the 2013 floods,
Witter Gulch was impacted by heavy flooding due to undersized
culverts and crossings. Many sections of the road where impassible
and many residences were cut off from emergency services. This
study developed entirely new watershed hydrology for the Witter
Gulch basin. This effort was completed through the use of automated
GIS tools and HEC-HMS. The basin hydrology was calibrated with
the use of available stream gages downstream of the project area
and modified based on a drainage area discharge relationship. The
study also developed a complete HEC-RAS model of the gulch and
all the crossings to evaluate the need to increase the size of
conveyance elements. Full master plan-level costs were also
developed to lay the groundwork for a capital improvement plan.
Smith Ranch Hydrologic Evaluation. As part of a large
development in Silverthorne, Colorado, Scott served as the water
resource engineer in creating a drainage master plan for the
development. The master plan consisted of delineating existing and
proposed drainages basins for the planned development and then
evaluating hydrology through the use of Colorado Urban Hydrograph
Program (CUHP) and EPA’s Storm Water Management Model
(SWMM). The hydrology evaluation was then used by WWE to size
detention ponds as well as stormwater infrastructure throughout the
development for the existing and future phased work. WWE was also
responsible for developing the stormwater management plan for the
site.
Relevant
Credentials/Specialties
Registered Professional
Engineer
12 Years Consulting
Experience
Watershed Health
Basin Hydrology
Stream Restoration
Channel Stability
Fish Habitat and Spawning
Area Design
Floodplain Analysis
Hydrology & Hydraulics
Corridor Planning Studies
Stormwater Modeling
Education
• M.E., Water Resource
Engineering and Management,
2010
Georgia Institute of Technology
(Georgia Tech)
• B.S., Civil Engineering, 2005
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University (Virginia
Tech)
Registrations/Affiliations
• Registered Professional
Engineer in Colorado #46577
• Glenwood Springs River
Commission
• CWCB Colorado Roundtable
Next Steps Committee
• Denver Trout Unlimited
President, 2015-2019
• U.S. Ski & Snowboard Team
Advisory Board, 2013-Present
• Eagle Scout, 2001
Scott D. Schreiber, P.E.
Project Manager
April 2019 Page 2 of 2
Multiple Dam Breach Analyses. As part of many projects recently completed, Scott has helped to lead
dam breach analyses to understand areas of inundation during theoretical breaches. Development of the
dam breach analyses was performed by determining basin hydrology through the use of many tools including
stream gage analysis, HEC-HMS, Arc Hydro, and USGS StreamStats. Scott conducted dam breach
inundation analyses of reservoirs for the preparation of Emergency Action Plans (document that lays out
emergency response in case of a dam failure). Most of the dam breach peak flows, depths, times of arrival,
and other factors were determined with empirical calculations and HEC-HMS and HEC-RAS models. The
inundation areas were assessed with potential risks and hazard levels determined.
Mud Flow Analysis. Scott has helped to support mud flow analyses throughout the Rocky Mountain Region
as required by development code to ensure the proposed project is not likely to be impacted or cause
adverse effects to a downgradient property. The mud flow analyses have been completed through the use
of various tools from Flo-2D to HEC-HMS and then standard bulking factors were used with StreamStats.
The evaluation for the potential of mud or debris flows was then used to develop mitigation measures with
civil and structural engineers to reduce the likelihood of impacts to personal health and safety.
Development Hydrology. As part of any development process, the hydrology and associated hydraulics
must be evaluated. Many times, treatment techniques must be employed to treat for water quality while also
reducing post-development runoff peaks to pre-development rates. Scott has used numerous tools such as
HEC-HMS, CUHP, and rational equations to develop pre and post hydrology at a proposed development.
He then designed treatment techniques to meet development code in the area.
Regional Stream Stewardship and Recovery Handbook. Coauthor of handbook to provide critical
stewardship information to landowners living on streamside properties. The handbook provides a toolbox of
techniques a homeowner can use to be a good river steward, along with circumstances that require outside
help. The handbook was sponsored by the Lefthand Watershed Oversight Group, the Big Thompson
Watershed Coalition, The Little Thompson Watershed Restoration Coalition, and the St. Vrain Creek
Coalition.
South St. Vrain Stream Restoration at Hall Ranch, Boulder County, Colorado. Served as project
manager and stream restoration engineer for the 3.2-mile study of the South St Vrain Creek following the
2013 flood. Developed stream restoration designs that incorporated flood mitigation measures to reduce the
impact of future flooding, provide public safety, protect public and private infrastructure, maintain or re-
establish floodplain connectivity, and restore the creek channel and surrounding areas to stable, resilient,
and ecologically-rich habitats. A broad range of public, private, and non-profit stakeholders were engaged
to foster a consensus-driven and technically sound, resilient solution. This work was the basis for project
funding and implementation.
Garmisch Street Master Planning. Evaluating hydrology, hydraulics, and potential improvements to
surface and subsurface conveyance improvements along the Garmisch Street corridor in the City of Aspen.
Using existing hydrologic and hydraulic models that W WE developed for the city as a part of WWE’s 2014
Detention Analysis and WWE’s recently completed mud and debris flow analysis to support Colorado Urban
Hydrograph (CUHP)/Stormwater Management Model (SWMM) and FLO-2D models. Developed
construction drawings and documents for Mail Trail drainage in August and currently evaluating the 10-year
event in the piped conveyance network and 100-year surface flows using FLO-2D.
Mesa County Drainage Improvements. Served as Project Manager for a storm sewer design for a
nuisance drainage issue located at a school bus stop in a residential area. Work consisted of developing
hydrology for a residential area based on existing conditions and evaluating design ideas in a tight corridor
with little vertical elevation change between inlet and discharge locations.
Colorado Springs, Colorado, Drainage Criteria Manual. Developed Impervious Reduction Factor
spreadsheet for the city’s urban drainage criteria manual to account for innovative engineering techniques.
Drake Ludwig, E.I.
Engineering Professional III
April 2019 Page 1 of 1
Experience Overview
Drake is a water resources engineer with 5 years of professional experience
in planning, modeling, and design. He has worked on numerous hydrology
studies and planning projects including post-wildfire and debris flow
analyses. Drake also has extensive experience permitting, designing, and
constructing stream stabilization and restoration projects utilizing both
conventional and natural channel principles. Drake is proficient in hydrologic
as well as 1D and 2D hydraulic modeling. He has extensive experience
using ArcGIS, HEC-HMS, HEC-RAS, EPA-SWMM, and AutoCAD Civil 3D to develop complex
watershed models and detailed stream designs.
Wildfire Hydrology and Debris Flow
California Post-wildfire Hydrology and Debris Flow Analyses.
Drake is currently studying the post-wildfire risks associated with the
Thomas and Woolsey Wildfires in Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Los
Angeles Counties, California. He is analyzing post-fire debris flows
through two-dimensional hydraulic modeling and utilizing GIS mapping
to compare the heightened risk to that of pre-burn conditions.
Complimentary to the risk assessment, Drake has also worked to
identify potential mitigation measures to minimize debris flow risk to
downstream communities.
Monument Creek Watershed Restoration Master Plan. As a
component of the Monument Creek Watershed Restoration Master
Plan, Drake completed extensive analyses for 237 square miles of
watershed hydrology and 100 miles of hydraulic modeling in Colorado
Springs, Colorado. The Restoration Master Plan provides a framework
from which local jurisdictions can identify and execute cost-effective
projects that promote a resilient watershed following the Waldo
Canyon and Black Forest Fires. The hydraulic and hydrologic analyses
included both pre- and post-burn conditions to both recognize the
effects and resulting hazards of the fire and identify restoration
opportunities throughout watershed.
Over 250 potential projects were identified and ranked to compose a
prioritized list of actionable projects within the Monument Creek
watershed. The planning process integrated technical and socio-
economic evaluations as well as stakeholder and community input to
provide a holistic Restoration Plan complete with general stewardship
recommendations, cost estimates, conceptual design information, and
plan mapbooks that illustrate project locations and extents as well as
updated floodplain extents throughout the watershed, reflecting the
post-fire condition.
Cottonwood Creek Drainage Basin Planning Study. Drake
conducted an in-depth analysis of existing, future, and planned
hydrology within the Cottonwood Creek watershed in Colorado
Springs, Colorado. Utilizing a complex hydrologic model, current and
future watershed conditions were assessed to evaluate the effects of
development and stormwater improvements throughout the
watershed. Drake also evaluated several improvement scenarios to
quantify the benefits and costs of each alternative.
Relevant
Credentials/Specialties
5 years of Experience
Natural Channel Design
Stream Restoration and
Stabilization
Construction Oversight
Hydrologic Modeling
1D and 2D Hydraulic
Modeling
Post-wildfire and Debris
Flow Analysis
Watershed Planning and
Stormwater Management
Floodplain and Stream
Corridor Mapping
Education
• B.S., Environmental
Engineering, 2015 Colorado
State University
Training/Certifications
• Colorado Engineer Intern
Earles Schreiber Ludwig Admin
$212 $189 $116 $91
Task 1. Literature 2 4 $888
Task 2. Phone Interviews 2 4 $888
Task 3. Watershed Delineation and Parameters 2 4 40 $5,820
Task 4. USGS Regression Equations 2 4 40 $5,820
Task 5. HEC-HMS - Small Watersheds 2 4 40 $5,820
Task 6. Mitigation Concepts 8 8 40 $7,848
Task 7. HEC-HMS - Large Watersheds 2 8 40 $6,576
Task 8. Report 8 10 40 8 $8,954
Task 9. Meetings 8 6 4 $3,294
Task 10. BOCC Presentation 8 4 $2,452
Sub-total Hours 44 48 252 8 352
Sub-total Costs $9,328 $9,072 $29,232 $728 $48,360
$1,500
$49,860
Task Sub-totals
DRAFT Scope of Work & Estimated Budget
Pitkin County Proactive Post-fire Watershed Assessment
Direct Costs (mileage, copies, phone, etc.)
Total
Tasks
WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS, INC.
2019 SCHEDULE OF HOURLY RATES
PERSONNEL RATE PER HOUR
SENIOR PRINCIPAL/CONSULTANT $212
SENIOR PROJECT ENGINEER/CONSULTANT $189
SENIOR ENGINEER/SCIENTIST CONSULTANT $167
ENGINEERING/SCIENTIST PROFESSIONAL I $157
ENGINEERING SPECIALIST/CONSULTANT $143
ENGINEERING/SCIENTIST PROFESSIONAL II $127
ENGINEERING DESIGNER/PROFESSIONAL III $116
ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN I $103
ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN II $91
ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN III $88
ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN IV $72
ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN V $65
♦ Automobile at 60 cents per mile
♦ Four-wheel drive/Pick-up truck vehicle
at 70 cents per mile
♦ AutoCAD computer at 15 dollars per
hour.
♦ GIS computer at 20 dollars per hour.
♦ Info water® at 20 dollars per hour.
♦ Civil 3D at 25 dollars per hour.
Seven and one-half percent (7.5%) will be added to all reimbursable expenses to cover
administration for special consultants, independent laboratory tests, direct printing costs,
telephone, supplies, lodging and subsistence, all in-house computer, auto, postage, fax, and
travel.
TERMS OF PAYMENT: It is agreed that this account will be billed on a monthly basis. Unless
otherwise approved by the Company, payment is due upon receipt of invoice. Mail payment to the
main office of the Company at 2490 West 26th Avenue, Suite 100A, Denver, Colorado 80211. If
payment is not received, client agrees to pay interest at the rate of 1.5 percent per month on the
outstanding balance. This does not constitute a credit arrangement, and in no case, shall the minimum
payment be less than 33 percent of the amount billed. If account is placed with an attorney for
collection, client agrees to pay court costs and reasonable attorney fees. The liability of Wright Water
Engineers, Inc. for losses or damages arising out of the errors, omissions, or negligence of Wright
Water Engineers, Inc. while providing professional services shall be limited to the total fee due
Wright Water Engineers, Inc. pursuant to this agreement.