PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM …...Total Project Cost (Mar 2016 Prices): $37,376,000 The...
Transcript of PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM …...Total Project Cost (Mar 2016 Prices): $37,376,000 The...
PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION
APPENDIX K
PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE
Sites Proposed for Additional
General Investigation Studies
Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement
This page was intentionally left blank to facilitate double sided copying.
1
Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Nine Sites Proposed for Additional Study
Summary
The recommendations contained in the Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement reflect a proposal for construction authorization at three sites across Puget Sound (Duckabush River Estuary, Nooksack River Delta, and North Fork Skagit River Delta). While the recommended plan includes restoration at these three sites, the National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) Plan is a 36-site master plan intended to restore a more diversified scope or projects to be implemented under various restoration authorities and partners. This 36-site plan reasonably maximizes ecosystem restoration benefits and restores over 8,000 acres across all seven Puget Sound sub-basins. The NER Plan includes 16 river delta sites, 10 coastal inlet sites, 6 barrier embayment sites, and 4 beach sites.
Of the 36 sites included in the NER Plan, 12 will be completed without the Corps involvement, 12 will be recommended for authorization under the Continuing Authorities Program or Puget Sound Adjacent Waters Authority, and 9 sites are recommended for additional General Investigation (GI) study. This appendix includes a brief summary of the nine GI projects recommended for additional study. Project summary sheets for each of the nine sites are enclosed as well as estimated total project costs based on best available information.
The nine sites recommended for additional general investigation studies are:
• Big Beef Creek Estuary • Big Quilcene River • Chambers Bay • Dugualla Bay • Everett Marshland • Lilliwaup River Estuary • Tahuya River Estuary • Snohomish River Estuary • Telegraph Slough
These nine sites are summarized within this appendix.
2
Engineering
As part of future feasibility-level design efforts, the Corps will evaluate existing conceptual designs, existing hydraulic, geotechnical, and civil design studies, as well as available survey and geographical information. The Corps will identify additional data needs and analysis to be conducted in the design phase prior to construction. These tasks are anticipated to include site-specific topographic survey and soils testing as well as detailed hydraulic modeling, structural/seismic analysis, and civil design.
Environmental Analysis & Coordination
The Corps will conduct evaluations and public disclosure under NEPA for the additional GI studies. The nine sites are expected to comply with the Programmatic Biological Opinion for Fish Passage and Restoration Projects, with site-specific analysis and response from the Services. National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 compliance will follow a similar path as the Programmatic Agreement that was developed for the first three sites included in the recommended plan for construction authorization. Clean Water Act Section 401 and Coastal Zone Management Act compliance will occur during the design phase prior to construction.
Real Estate
The lands and damages values for the nine sites identified for further study were developed using a combination of Land Cost Estimates and County Assessor's values. Land Cost Estimates were developed for Chambers Bay, Dugualla Bay, Everett Marshland, Telegraph Slough, and Tahuya River Estuary; these Land Cost Estimates were developed by USACE Appraisers in 2012. The land values for Big Beef Creek Estuary, Big Quilcene River, and Lilliwaup River Estuary were developed using 2011 County Assessor's records. Snohomish River Estuary land values were developed using 2016 County Assessor's records.
Cost Estimate
Each cost estimate for the nine sites was prepared at a level commensurate with the early conceptual level of design detail, which should be considered a budget or class IV estimate. A high level District Quality Control review was performed on each cost estimate; however, an Agency Technical Review has not been completed. The cost estimates for the nine sites were developed at different price levels from 2011-2014. In an effort to normalize the estimates, all costs were brought to FY 2016 dollars by updating the labor rates, equipment rates and material pricing. The scope was assumed to remain the same.
Table 1 presents the estimated project cost for each site in FY 2016 dollars as well as the fully funded cost. The project cost consists of the construction cost plus Real Estate, Planning,
3
Engineering, Design (PED), and Construction Management. The fully funded cost represents the project cost escalated to the mid-point of construction. The study team identified FY2030 as the mid-point of construction for each site.
Preliminary construction schedules for each project were created using durations from the MCACES estimate and logical sequencing of construction features. The study team has not determined the order of construction for the nine sites; thus, all preliminary construction schedules in this appendix have a start date of October 2016. Pre-construction and post-construction activities have not been included in the schedule at this point of design. A more comprehensive project schedule be developed that will identify pre-construction and post-construction activities.
Contingencies were added to the construction costs based on the results of the cost and schedule risk analysis developed for each site. The same contingency was applied to the PED and construction management costs. Real Estate team members developed their own contingencies for Lands and Damages estimates. The cost and schedule risk analyses developed in 2011 to 2014 were updated with the current estimated costs but were not reevaluated. The risk register identifies risks, the cost impact of such risk, and likelihood of occurrence. These projects are at an early conceptual level design so a formal risk analysis was not warranted at this time. Instead, an abbreviated risk analysis was performed that only focused on cost and omitted schedule risks. If any of the nine sites move forward under a GI study, a formal cost and schedule risk analysis will performed to account for construction cost risks, schedule delays, and impact costs.
4
Table 1: Total Project Cost Summary for Nine Sites Identified for Additional General Investigation Studies
Project Cost FY 2016 Dollars Fully Funded FY 2030
Project Site
Construction Estimate
Total Land and Damages
PED & Construction Management Contingency
Project Cost Total Escalation
Fully Funded Total
Big Beef Creek Estuary $ 15,824 $ 200 $ 5,775 58% $ 34,376 37% $ 47,082 Big Quilcene River $ 18,120 $ 1,760 $ 6,613 31% $ 34,600 36% $ 47,179 Chambers Bay $ 130,912 $ 10,577 $ 36,500 66% $ 295,002 36% $ 399,886 Dugualla Bay $ 46,618 $ 6,967 $ 17,014 21% $ 85,355 36% $ 116,072 Everett Marshland $ 183,969 $ ,600 $ 36,500 29% $ 293,905 35% $ 395,655 Lilliwap Creek Estuary $ 17,556 $ 1,120 $ 6,410 36% $ 33,994 37% $ 46,435 Snohomish River Estuary $ 52,092 $ 23,000 $ 19,014 31% $ 123,593 35% $ 166,410 Tahuya River Estuary $ 15,034 $ 1,115 $ 5,486 26% $ 27,305 36% $ 37,262 Telegraph Slough $ 153,194 $ 15,840 $ 36,500 23% $ 253124 35% $ 341,074 Sum Total $ 633,319 $ 68,179 $ 169,812 36% $ ,181,254 35% $ 1,597,056
PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT (PSNERP) SITES FOR ADDITIONAL STUDY
www.pugetsoundnearshore.org
Processes Restored Conditions Improved
IMA
GE
: Was
hin
gto
n S
tate
Dep
artm
ent
of
Eco
log
y (2
006)
• Restoredtidalwetlands,whicharehighlyproductivehabitatsthatsupportbiodiversityandprovideconnectivitybetweenthelandandsea.
• RestoredcoastalembaymentthatprovidesvaluablenurseryhabitatforthreatenedspeciesofjuvenilesalmonsuchasChinook,increasingtheirsurvivalandsupportingpopulationrecoveryinPugetSound.
• Restoredsandandgravelbeachesthatserveasspawninggroundsforforagefish(e.g.,surfsmeltandPacificsandlance),whichareakeyelementofthemarinefoodchain.
• Improvedqualityofthewaterflowingthroughtheestuary.
• Movementofsandandgravelalongshorelines.
• Naturalerosionandaccretionofbeaches.
• Naturalformationoftidalchannelsinestuaries.
• Unrestrictedmovementofsaltwaterthroughtidalchannelsinestuaries.
• Unrestrictedmovementandmigrationoffishandwildlife.
Big Beef Harbor is located at the north end of Hood Canal on the Kitsap Peninsula just north of the town of Seabeck. This small estuary encompasses 27 acres of tidal wetlands, extensive mudflats, and tidal channels that provide habitat for fish, birds, and invertebrates. Historically, a narrow spit extended halfway across the mouth of the estuary, but today Seabeck Highway extends across the entire estuary mouth on a filled causeway with a 100 foot-long-bridge opening to allow for tidal exchange. The causeway and associated fill reduce tidal flows into and out of the estuary and cause increased sedimentation to the adjacent tidal wetlands. The causeway fill, placed over the historical spit, also degraded the beach ecosystem. Proposed restoration actions would reopen the estuary mouth by elevating the roadway onto a longer bridge which would restore tidal flow, sediment transport, and re-create tidal channels.
Big Beef Creek Estuary
Key Design ElementsImage above depicts major project features. See design report for additional details.
Site Summary Statistics
SO
UR
CE
: ES
A (
2011
); (
20)
www.pugetsoundnearshore.org
AreaofRestoredProcess: 30acres
TotalProjectCost (Mar 2016 Prices): $37,376,000
Therestorationproposalwouldremovetheexistinghighwaytoincludeallroadwayfill,armoring,bridgeandpavement.Anew750-foot-longbridgewouldbebuilttospantheentireestuarymouthfromtheright-of-wayonthespittothelowbankatthewestshore.Thenewhighwaybridgewouldbeconstructedimmediatelysouthofthecurrenthighway,whichwouldallowtheroadtoremainopenduringconstructionactivities.Restorationwouldalsoincluderestorationoftidalchannelswithintheestuary.
Little Beef HarborLittle Beef Harbor
Construct new 750-foot bridge
Remove existing bridge
Create and restoreestuary channel
Construct new roadway to align with proposed bridge
Remove causeway fill and pavementRemove rock armor
N
Big Beef Creek Estuary
Ecosystem Output Score: 7.9
PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT (PSNERP) SITES FOR ADDITIONAL STUDY
www.pugetsoundnearshore.org
Processes Restored Conditions Improved
IMA
GE
: Was
hin
gto
n S
tate
Dep
artm
ent
of
Eco
log
y (2
006)
• Restored large river delta that provides valuable nursery habitatfor threatened species of juvenile salmon such as Chinook,increasing their survival and supporting population recovery inPuget Sound.
• Restored intertidal and shallow subtidal areas that are habitatfor recreationally and culturally important shellfi sh such asoysters, mussels, and clams.
• Re-established intertidal and shallow subtidal areas toencourage the growth of kelp and eelgrass, increasing nearshoreproductivity for fi sh, birds and other marine species.
• Improved resiliency of the shoreline to respond to changesin the environment such as sea level change and increasingfrequency of storm events.
• Natural formation of tidal channels in estuaries.
• Unrestricted fl ow of freshwater rivers and streams intoestuaries.
• Unrestricted movement of saltwater through tidal channels inestuaries.
• Accumulation and retention of organic material from plants andaquatic animals.
• Unrestricted movement and migration of fi sh and wildlife.
Quilcene Bay is an arm of Dabob Bay on the west side of Hood Canal that contains productive mud flat and salt marshes. This large and complex ecosystem supports many species of fi sh and wildlife, including threatened Hood Canal summer chum salmon and shellfi sh. Logging, road construction, dredging, and levee construction for fl ood protection have damaged the natural processes that sustain the delta system. The Big Quilcene River restoration will build on other recent restoration efforts in this area by rerouting roads and bridges that impede the flow of water, sediment, and organic materials; restoring tidal channels; and setting back dikes to allow the river to migrate and connect to its historic fl oodplain. The project would improve conditions for migrating adult salmon, shellfi sh, and marine birds.
Big Quilcene River
Key Design ElementsImage above depicts major project features. See design report for additional details.
www.pugetsoundnearshore.org
SO
UR
CE
: PS
NE
RP
(20
11);
US
DA
-NA
IP (
2009
)
The project would restore tidal flow and connectivity to the Big Quilcene River by removing the current blockage associated with Linger Longer Road and construction of an elevated bridge. The channel would be excavated to direct river flows. The dike along on the south side of the river would be partially removed and portions would be reinforced.
Little Quilcene RiverLittle Quilcene RiverLittle Quilcene River
Excavate pilot channel
Install 1,355-foot elevated bridge
Remove 2,200 feet of dike
Reinforce remaining dike at key locations
Removebridge
Remove roadway north of bridge
Remove dike Construct setback dike
N
Big Quilcene River
Big Quilcene River
Big Quilcene RiverR
odgers StreetR
odgers StreetR
odgers Street
Linger Longer Road
Linger Longer Road
Linger Longer Road
101
Big Quilcene River
Site Summary Statistics
Area of Restored Process: 25-76 acres
Total project Cost (Mar 2016 Prices): $37,600,000
EO Score: 0.6
PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT (PSNERP) SITES FOR ADDITIONAL STUDY
www.pugetsoundnearshore.org
Processes Restored Conditions Improved
IMA
GE
: Was
hin
gto
n S
tate
Dep
artm
ent
of
Eco
log
y (2
006)
• Restored tidal wetlands, which are highly productive habitatsthat support biodiversity and provide connectivity between theland and sea.
• Restored coastal embayment that provides valuable nurseryhabitat for threatened species of juvenile salmon such asChinook, increasing their survival and supporting populationrecovery in Puget Sound.
• Improved quality of the water fl owing through the estuary.
• Improved connectivity between nearshore and adjacentuplands.
• Increased area, length, and complexity of shoreline.
• Natural formation of tidal channels in estuaries.
• Unrestricted fl ow of freshwater rivers and streams intoestuaries.
• Unrestricted movement of saltwater through tidal channels inestuaries.
• Accumulation and retention of organic material from plants andaquatic animals.
• Unrestricted movement and migration of fi sh and wildlife.
The Chambers Bay restoration is designed to improve conditions in the Chambers Bay estuary and in the lower reaches of Chambers Creek. This area has a long history of industrial use; the Bay has been repeatedly dredged for navigation, used as a log storage facility, and has received industrial discharges from nearby mills. A major railroad line runs across the estuary mouth and a marina is located in the southern portion of the inlet. The railroad and the Chambers Creek dam block the free fl ow of tidal and fresh water, which have dramatically reduced the quality and health of these habitats for fi sh and wildlife. Restoration will include removal of the dam in the upper estuary; removing culverts to “daylight” two streams; relocating a roadway; extending the railroad trestle to widen the inlet to Puget Sound; and planting native plants in the marsh and riparian area.
Chambers Bay
Key Design Elements Site Summary StatisticsImage above depicts major project features. See design report for additional details.
www.pugetsoundnearshore.org
SO
UR
CE
: ES
A (
2011
); B
ing
Map
s (2
011)
• Area of Restored Process: 91 acres
• Total Project Cost (Mar 2016 Prices): $298, 002,000
• Ecosystem Output Score: 8.5
The restoration would remove the dam in the upper estuary to restore tidal fl ows. The existing railroad berm at the mouth of the estuary would be removed and the trestle would be extended to span the entire inlet (1,400 feet). The inactive railroad tracks also would be removed and Chambers Creek Road would be relocated to the east. Two culverted streams would be daylighted (Garrison Springs Creek and No Name Creek) within the former mill property. A historic barrier beach (located near the marina) would be restored by removing the armor, fi ll, and marina docks, boathouses and associated structures. In select tidal marsh and riparian areas, invasive species would be removed and native species would be planted.
Remove bulkhead
Remove mill site fill
Restore barrier beach
Remove marina, upland buildings and fill/paving
Remove existing berm fill and small drawbridge and replace with full span railroad trestle
Puget SoundPuget SoundPuget Sound
Cham
bers
Bay
Cham
bers
Bay
Cham
bers
Bay
Garrison Creek
Garrison Creek
Garrison Creek
Unnamed Creek
Unnamed Creek
Unnamed Creek
Daylight Creek
New bridge
Realign roadway
Remove inactiverail spur
Replace bridge with full span
Remove impounded sediments behind dam
Remove dam structure,support buildings, and abutment fill
N
Chambers Bay
PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT (PSNERP) SITES FOR ADDITIONAL STUDY
Ecosystem Restoration Benefits Significance
IMA
GE
: Was
hin
gto
n S
tate
Dep
artm
ent
of
Eco
log
y (2
006)
• ProvidescriticalestuaryhabitatintheWhidbeybasin,whereabout80percentofestuaryhabitatisnolongeraccessible.
• IncludedinPugetSoundChinookSalmonFederalRecoveryPlan.
• Sitewillbeusedbyroughlyhalfoftheout-migratingNorthForkSkagitjuvenilesalmon.
• Addsmorethanfivetimestheshorelinelengthtoexisting,availablenearshorehabitat.
• RestorecoastalembaymentthatprovidesvaluablenurseryhabitatforjuvenilethreatenedsalmonspeciesincreasingtheirsurvivalandsupportingPugetSoundpopulationrecovery.
• Restoreintertidalandshallowsubtidalareasforrecreationally-andculturally-importantshellfish.
• Increaseshorelinearea,lengthandcomplexity.
Dugualla Bay is located on northeast Whidbey Island in western Skagit Bay. A former estuary and salt marsh, the area is now separated from Dugualla Bay’s marine waters by Dike Road, a causeway that functions as a levee. To create agricultural land, the causeway, a tide gate, and pump station system were built at the historic barrier embayment inlet. This eliminated tidal inundation, converting the estuary into freshwater Dugualla Lake and restricting fish access from Puget Sound. The proposed restoration will remove tidal hydrology barriers in Dugualla Bay, allowing tidal exchange between Dugualla Lake and bay, restoring 572 acres of salt marsh and mudflats. It also improves connection with the surrounding floodplain and allows fish to access the system.
Dugualla Bay
www.pugetsoundnearshore.org
Key Design ElementsImage above depicts major project features. See design report for additional details.
Site Summary Statistics
N
SO
UR
CE
: ES
A (
2011
); U
SD
A-N
AIP
(20
09)
AreaofRestoredProcess: 572acres
TotalProjectCost (Mar 2016 Prices) $88,355,000
TherestorationreturnshistoricaltidalinundationtoDuguallaBaybyremovingthetidegateandpumpingsystem,excavatingastarterchannel,andallowingtidalflowintotheexistinglake.Twobarrierbeaches,historicallydefiningthetidalchannelentrance,willbecreatedandanew750-foot-longbridgewillallowvehiclepassagealongDikeRoad.Portionsoftheroadwillalsoberaisedoutofthenewlyinundatedfloodplain.A200-foot-longbridgewillreplaceaculvertunderStateRoute20.
Dugualla Bay
N
Excavate New Tidal Channel
New Estuary Extent
Remove Culvert& Build Bridge
Build Levee &Reconstruct New
Roadway on Levee
Install twoCulverts
RemoveLevee &Armor
RestoreShoreline
Fill Drainage Channels
Remove Roadway& Causeway Fill
Both Sides
Remove Culvert& Build Bridge
N
Ecosystem Output Score: 162.6
www.pugetsoundnearshore.org
PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT (PSNERP) SITES FOR ADDITIONAL STUDY
Ecosystem Restoration Benefits Significance
IMA
GE
: Go
og
le E
arth
(20
10)
• Morethan80percentoftheSnohomishestuaryisleveed,withonly18percentofhistoricalwetlandsremaining.
• Providesfloodplainforestandswampwetlands,themostabsentfromtheSnohomishsystem,andcriticalforout-migratingfish.
• LocatedontheSnohomishRiver’smainstem,thesitewillbenefitallout-migratingfish.
• BuildsonpreviousFederal,state,tribal,localandnon-governmentrestorationinvestments,includingCorpsprojectsatQwulooltandUnionSlough.
• IncludedinPugetSoundChinookSalmonFederalRecoveryPlan.
• Addsmorethanthreetimestheshorelinelengthtoexisting,availablenearshorehabitat.
• Restorehighlyproductivetidalfreshwaterwetlandhabitatsthatsupportbiodiversityandprovideconnectivitybetweenlandandsea.
• Restorelargeriverdeltathatprovidesvaluablenurseryhabitatforjuvenilethreatenedsalmon,increasingtheirsurvivalandsupportingPugetSoundpopulationrecovery.
• Improveestuarywaterquality.
• Increaseshorelinearea,lengthandcomplexity.
• Improveresiliencyoftheshorelinetorespondtochangesintheenvironmentsuchassealevelchangeandincreasingstormevents.
The Everett Marshland site is located along Snohomish River’s west bank near the Ebey Slough fork. Although in the river’s 100-year floodplain, the action area is completely cut off from tidal hydrology by levees and drainage structures installed to support agricultural land use. The area is also bisected by a railroad running generally northwest and southeast, with utility corridors running east and west. This project restores tidal hydrology and channel-forming processes to 829 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, reconnecting the site to the Snohomish River. This is accomplished by relocating levees and roadways, altering and filling drainage canals, restoring tidal channels, and reconnecting streams to the tidal area.
Everett Marshland
www.pugetsoundnearshore.org
Key Design ElementsImage above depicts major project features. See design report for additional details.
Site Summary Statistics
N
SO
UR
CE
: ES
A (
2011
); B
ing
Map
s (2
011)
AreaofRestoredProcess: 829acres
TotalProjectCost (Mar 2016 Prices): : $296,905,000
Therestorationremoves1.5milesofleveealongtheSnohomishRiverandLowell-SnohomishRiverRoad,whichre-introducestidalinfluencetodikedfarmlands.Theroadwillalignwiththe railroadandmultiplenewbridgeswillallowtidalflowbeneaththeroadandrailroadembankment.TheMarshlandPumpStationandfloodgateswillrelocatetothesite’ssouthend.Excavationofmultiplestarterchannelsintheareawillinitiatetidalsloughchanneldevelopment.Newleveeswillprotectregionaltransmissionlinesandgaspipelineswestoftherailroad line.
Everett Marshland
N
Protect ExistingRailroad Bridge
Install Four CulvertsUnder New Levee
Replace Portionof Existing
Railroad Bridge
Remove ExistingStructures below100-yr Floodplain
FillDrainageDitches
ExcavatePilot
Channels
Upgrade Existing Railroad Bridge Opening
Excavate Channel
Build Roadway Bridge
Fill Marshland Canal
Remove Existing Roadbed & Levee
Build Levee &Relocate Roadway
Install New Culvert
Install Four FloodRelief Gates
Build Levee
Build Channel toConvey Discharge
N
Ecosystem Output Score: 349.3
www.pugetsoundnearshore.org
PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT (PSNERP) SITES FOR ADDITIONAL STUDY
www.pugetsoundnearshore.org
Processes Restored Conditions Improved
IMA
GE
: Was
hin
gto
n S
tate
Dep
artm
ent
of
Eco
log
y (2
006)
• Re-established historic tidal fl at habitats that are importantforaging and resting areas for large fl ocks of shorebirds, such asDunlin, as well as other marine birds like Great Blue Heron.
• Restored coastal embayment that provides valuable nurseryhabitat for threatened species of juvenile salmon such asChinook, increasing their survival and supporting populationrecovery in Puget Sound.
• Improved connectivity between nearshore and adjacentuplands.
• Improved resiliency of the shoreline to respond to changes inthe environment such as sea level change and increasing stormevents.
• Natural erosion and accretion of beaches.
• Natural formation of tidal channels in estuaries.
• Unrestricted fl ow of freshwater rivers and streams intoestuaries.
• Unrestricted movement of saltwater through tidal channels inestuaries.
• Accumulation and retention of organic material from plants andaquatic animals.
• Unrestricted movement and migration of fi sh and wildlife.
Lilliwaup Creek is a relatively large stream system on the western side of Hood Canal. The upper reaches contain signifi cant wetlands and lakes as well as Lilliwaup Falls, while the lower reaches provide important salt marsh and estuary habitat for salmon. The lower fl oodplain contains extensive gravel and sediment due to large upper watershed landslide events. The Highway 101 bridge constricts tidal fl ow in the estuary. The restoration would construct a longer bridge to span the entire estuary mouth and allow unrestricted fl ow of fresh and tidal waters. The gravel and sediment would be removed from the estuary to restore habitat for salmon and tidal channels would be excavated where they were once historically present.
Lilliwaup River Estuary
Key Design ElementsImage above depicts major project features. See design report for additional details.
www.pugetsoundnearshore.org
SO
UR
CE
: PS
NE
RP
(20
11);
AE
X A
eria
ls M
aps
& D
ata
(200
9)
The project would restore tidal flow and connectivity to Lilliwaup Creek by removing the current bloackage associated with Hwy 101 and replacing with a longer span (500ft) bridge. The accumulated gravel and sediment would be removed from the tidal channels. Lilliwaup Street would be rebuilt to meet the new bridge alignment and beach nourishment would be added to the western shore.
New 500-foot bridge
Lilliwaup BayLilliwaup BayLilliwaup Bay
Lilliwaup C
reekLilliw
aup Creek
Lilliwaup C
reek
Lilliwaup Street
Lilliwaup Street
Lilliwaup Street
101
Remove Highway 101 roadway and bridge
Remove boulders and concrete
Widen and deepen channel Remove sediment
N
Lilliwaup River Estuary
1.13
Site Summary Statistics
19 AcresArea of Restored Process:
Total Project Cost (Mar 2016 Prices):
Ecosystem Output Score:
Beach Nourishment
$36,994,000
PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT (PSNERP) SITES FOR ADDITIONAL STUDY
www.pugetsoundnearshore.org
Processes Restored
IMA
GE
: Was
hin
gto
n S
tate
Dep
artm
ent
of
Eco
log
y (2
006)
Conditions Improved• Restored large river delta that provides valuable nursery habitat
for threatened species of juvenile salmon such as Chinook,increasing their survival and supporting population recovery inPuget Sound.
• Improved quality of the water fl owing through the estuary.
• Improved public access to the shore and recreationalopportunities.
• Natural formation of tidal channels in estuaries.
• Unrestricted fl ow of freshwater rivers and streams intoestuaries.
• Unrestricted movement of saltwater through tidal channels inestuaries.
• Unrestricted movement and migration of fi sh and wildlife.
The Snohomish River Estuary is the second largest estuary in Puget Sound, providing critically important spawning and rearing habitat for salmon, steelhead, and trout. The lower estuary historically included numerous tidal channels and extensive intertidal habitats, but diking, fi lling, and dredge disposal have resulted in the loss of some of these important areas. Estuarine habitat restoration is a cornerstone of the Snohomish Basin salmon recovery strategy. This project will restore and enhance connectivity between the Snohomish River mainstem and side channel habitat by removing fi ll material and relocating levees. The project includes two sites: a historic distributary channel near Dagmar’s Marina, and a blind slough north of Langus Riverfront Park.
Snohomish River Estuary
Key Design ElementsImage above depicts major project features. See design report for additional details.
www.pugetsoundnearshore.org
SO
UR
CE
: PS
NE
RP
(20
11);
AE
X A
eria
ls M
aps
& D
ata
(200
9)
A new berm surrounding the restored marsh would protect adjacent properties including the Everett WWTP facilities from fl ooding.
The proposed project alternative would reconnect the distributary channel to Union Slough (at the north end) and the Snohomish River (south end) by removing road fill and the tide gate. Existing levees and additional fill would be removed to allow tidal flows and restore intertidal marsh habitat along the restored channel. An existing access road will be relocated and new levees would be installed along the perimeter of the restored area to protect surrounding areas from fl ooding. At the blind slough site, road fill would be removed from the mouth of the slough to reconnect it to the Snohomish River. A new bridge across the slough would allow continued vehicle access to the south end of Smith Island. Removal of dredge spoils from the slough would encourage reestablishment of a tidal marsh.
New bridge (220 feet)
Install berm, culvert and flapgate for flood control
Excavate slough
New bridge (330 feet)
Relocated access road
New bridge (160 feet)
Flood protection levees
Ross Road
Ross Road
Ross Road
28th Pl28th Pl28th Pl
Snohomish R
iverSnohom
ish River
Snohomish R
iver
Union SloughUnion SloughUnion Slough
Snohomish River
Snohomish River
Snohomish River
Remove fill
Revegetate
Remove fill to create blind slough
Revegetate
Remove fill
529
Remove fill to reconnect slough to river (F/P)
Remove levee to reconnect Union Slough through new distributary channel to Snohomish River
N
5
5
Snohomish River Estuary
Total Project Cost (Mar 2016 prices):
Ecosystem Output Score: 17.73
67.5 AcresArea of Restored Process:
$126,593,000
Site Summary Statistics
PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT (PSNERP) SITES FOR ADDITIONAL STUDY
www.pugetsoundnearshore.org
Processes Restored
IMA
GE
: Was
hin
gto
n S
tate
Dep
artm
ent
of
Eco
log
y (2
006)
Conditions Improved• RestoredcoastalembaymentthatprovidesvaluablenurseryhabitatforthreatenedspeciesofjuvenilesalmonsuchasChinook,increasingtheirsurvivalandsupportingpopulationrecoveryinPugetSound.
• Restoredintertidalandshallowsubtidalareasthatarehabitatforrecreationallyandculturallyimportantshellfishsuchasoysters,mussels,andclams.
• Improvedqualityofthewaterflowingthroughtheestuary.
• Naturalerosionandaccretionofbeaches.
• Naturalformationoftidalchannelsinestuaries.
• Unrestrictedflowoffreshwaterriversandstreamsintoestuaries.
• Unrestrictedmovementofsaltwaterthroughtidalchannelsinestuaries.
The Tahuya River inlet is near the Great Bend of Hood Canal. In the past, the inlet supported a large estuary. To support logging and later a county road, an embankment was constructed across the mouth of the Tahuya River estuary, with only a short bridge where it crosses the Tahuya River channel. The embankment has constrained tidal flows and the formation of tidal channels. In addition, gravel fill material was placed on historic tidelands southwest of the bridge (now used as a helipad for emergency medical transport). The restoration would replace the road embankment with a bridge, allowing tidal flows to resume across the estuary and tidal channel patterns to form. Fill would be removed to restore historic salt marsh habitat. The restoration would improve shellfish productivity in the lower estuary by allowing increased transport of coarse sediments that are beneficial to shellfish.
Tahuya River Estuary
Key Design Elements Site Summary StatisticsImage above depicts major project features. See design report for additional details.
www.pugetsoundnearshore.org
SO
UR
CE
: ES
A (
2011
); U
SD
A-N
AIP
(20
09)
• AreaofRestoredProcess: 29acres
• TotalProjectCost (Mar 2016 Prices):$30,305,000
Therestorationwouldremovetheentireroadwayembankmentfillfromtheestuary,replacingitwitha700-foot-longbridgespan.PortionsoftheNENorthShoreRoadwouldberealignedtoconformtothenewbridgeplacement.Otherfillsuchasthegravelhelipadwouldalsoberemovedfromtheintertidalzone.Inareaswherefillisremoved,themarshwouldberestoredbydecompactingthesoilandinstallingnativeplantspecies.
Remove roadway and fill;Restore tidal marsh
Remove roadway and fill;Restore tidal marsh
Remove existing bridge
Remove helipad and restore tidal marsh
Restore tidal marsh
Construct new bridge (700 LF)
Minor intersection improvements
Remove debris
Tahuya RiverTahuya River
NE North Shore Rd
NE North Shore Rd
Remove fill
N
Tahuya River Estuary
Ecosystem Output Score: 7.6
PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT (PSNERP)SITES FOR ADDITIONAL STUDY
Ecosystem Restoration Benefits
IMA
GE
: Was
hin
gto
n S
tate
Dep
artm
ent
of
Eco
log
y (2
006)
Telegraph Slough is located in a diked area between Swinomish Channel and Padilla Bay. Major regional road and railway transportation as well as utility infrastructure bisects the site in an east and west direction. Tidal influence, blocked by State Route 20 and adjacent railroad, is limited to a small historical slough remnant north of the highway. South of this highway, Telegraph Slough and three other distributary channels are cutoff from Swinomish Channel and Padilla Bay. A series of tide gates drain the Slough’s south portion to the Swinomish Channel. Most of the land outside public road rights-of-way is privately owned and in agricultural use or largely abandoned. Levees turned the area into a freshwater marsh dominated by invasive species in the south and limited salt marsh and mudflat area north of State Route 20. This project aims to restore tidal hydrology and channel-forming processes to historic distributary slough channels connecting Swinomish Channel to Padilla Bay, restore tidal hydrology to diked farmland that was historically estuarine marsh, and increase freshwater inputs to Padilla Bay by constructing bridges at causeway crossings, removing levees and creating and reconnecting channels.
• OpensanotherfishpathwayintoPadillaBay,aNationalEstuarineResearchReservewiththelargestexistingPugetSoundeelgrassmeadow.
• ProvidesrestorationbeneficialtofishandwildlifeusingtheNorthForkSkagitRiver,whereopportunitiesarelimited.
• IncludedinthePugetSoundChinookSalmonFederalRecoveryPlan.
• Increasesjuvenilesalmonrearinghabitat.
• Morethandoublesexistingnearshoreshorelinehabitatavailable.
• Restorelargeriverdeltathatprovidesvaluablenurseryhabitatforjuvenilethreatenedsalmonspecies,increasingsurvivalandsupportingPugetSoundpopulationrecovery.
• Restoresandandgravelbeachesthatserveasspawninggroundsforforagefish,suchassurfsmeltandPacificsandlance,keyelementsofthemarinefoodchain.
• Re-establishintertidalandshallowsubtidalareastoencouragekelpandeelgrassgrowth,increasingnearshoreproductivityforfish,birdsandothermarinespecies.
Telegraph Slough
Significance
www.pugetsoundnearshore.orgwww.pugetsoundnearshore.org
www.pugetsoundnearshore.org
Key Design ElementsImage above depicts major project features. See design report for additional details.
Site Summary Statistics
N
SO
UR
CE
: ES
A (
2011
); B
ing
Map
s (2
011)
AreaofRestoredProcess: 832acres
TotalProjectCost (Mar 2016 Prioces): $256,124,000
TherestorationremovesmostoftheleveesalongTelegraphSlough,PadillaBayandeasternSwinomishChannel.LeveeremovalrequiresraisingtherailroadandStateRoute20betweenSwinomishChanneltoTelegraphSloughtokeepthemabovetheinundationandwaveactionlimits.TherailroadandStateRoute20willcrosstheSloughonelevatedlong-spanbridges.AnewleveealongeastandsouthTelegraphSloughwillcontainfloodflowsandextremetides.Leveeremovalrestoresabout832acresofformersaltmarshtotidalinfluence.
Telegraph Slough
w w w w w ww
ww
ww
ee
ee
e ee
e ee
ee
ee
e
ee
ee
ee
ee e
ee
ee
e
e ee
ee
ee
ee
ee
ee
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
Padilla Bay
Swinomish Channel
Tele
grap
h Sl
ough
B N S F
S R-
2 0
TwinBridgesMarina
UV20
UV20
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
0 660
Feet
Lead Contractor: ESADesign Lead: Anchor QEA, J. Bibee P.E.
Legend
Site Name: Telegraph Slough Phase 1 and 2
!!2 Hydraulic Structures - SmallExisting Rail AlignmentExisting Dike (to remain)Dike RemovalDike ConstructionProposed Box CulvertExisting Channel
Proposed Tide MHHWExisting Tide MHHWChannel Rehab/Creation
e Electricg Gass Sewerw Water
BridgeRoadwayExcavation - LowlandRemove BuildingsRecreation Public AccessRequired Project Lands
North
V:\C
ivil\
PS
AW
RP
uget
Sou
ndan
dA
djac
entW
ater
sR
esto
ratio
nP
rogr
am\N
ears
hore
\DF
R-E
IS\E
ngin
eerin
gA
ppen
dix\
GIS
\201
2-12
-06_
PS
NE
RP
_EA
Gra
phic
s_to
US
AC
E\P
SN
ER
P_G
IS\P
SN
ER
P_m
xds_
Pha
seIV
\Tel
grap
hSlo
ugh-
PIV
-GIS
_v11
_NoC
allo
ut.m
xdg3
echl
jo9/
18/2
014
1:23
:50
PM
SOURCE: Skagit County GIS(2007); PSNERP (2010); Service LayerCredits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Remove Tidal Levees
RemoveLevees
Remove Culvert & Existing Tide Gates
Remove Tide Gates
Build Levee
Install Culverts
Excavate Channel &Connecting Slough to Outlet
Install Culvert UnderSR-20 and BNSF RR
Build SR-20& BNSF
RR Bridge
ExcavateTelegraph
SloughSediment
Excavate Channel & Connecting Distributary Channels to Padilla Bay
N
Ecosystem Output Score: 253.9
www.pugetsoundnearshore.org
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish
1 Start 1 day Mon 10/3/16 Mon 10/3/162 Cultural Resources 75 days Tue 10/4/16 Mon 1/16/173 Site Survey 148 days Tue 10/4/16 Thu 4/27/174 Erosion Control 23 days Tue 10/4/16 Thu 11/3/165 Clear and Grub 2 days Fri 4/28/17 Mon 5/1/176 SR‐20 Road Berm 45 days Tue 5/2/17 Mon 7/3/177 Building Demo 45 days Tue 5/2/17 Mon 7/3/178 Buildind Utilty Demo 45 days Tue 5/2/17 Mon 7/3/179 Dike Road Pavement Demo 24 days Tue 5/2/17 Fri 6/2/1710 Dike Road Utility Demo 48 days Tue 5/2/17 Thu 7/6/1711 Demo Tide Gate 3 days Tue 5/2/17 Thu 5/4/1712 Rebuild SR‐20 26 days Tue 7/4/17 Tue 8/8/1713 SR‐20 Bridge 109 days Wed 8/9/17 Mon 1/8/1814 SR‐20 Pavement Demo 24 days Tue 1/9/18 Fri 2/9/1815 SR‐20 Berm Removal 130 days Mon 2/12/18 Fri 8/10/1816 Utility Installation 120 days Tue 7/4/17 Mon 12/18/1717 Shoreline Dike (Road Berm) 42 days Mon 6/5/17 Tue 8/1/1718 Dike Road Rebuild 26 days Wed 8/2/17 Wed 9/6/1719 Dike Road Bridge 300 days Thu 9/7/17 Wed 10/31/1820 Revegetation 62 days Thu 11/1/18 Fri 1/25/1921 Shoreline Dike Demo 63 days Thu 11/1/18 Mon 1/28/1922 Fill Ditches 10 days Thu 11/1/18 Wed 11/14/1823 Beach Nourishment 33 days Mon 1/28/19 Wed 3/13/1924 Finish 1 day? Thu 3/14/19 Thu 3/14/19
W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S Sep 4, '1 Nov 20, ' Feb 5, '1 Apr 23, ' Jul 9, '17 Sep 24, ' Dec 10, ' Feb 25, ' May 13, Jul 29, '1 Oct 14, ' Dec 30, ' Ma
Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration‐only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start‐only
Finish‐only
Deadline
Progress
PSNERPDugualla BayConstruction Schedule
Page 1
Project: Dugualla BayDate: Fri 3/25/16
PSNERPDugualla BayRisk Register
March 2016
Likelihood* Impact* Risk Level* Likelihood* Impact* Risk Level*
PROJECT & PROGRAM MGMT
PPM-1 Project Scheduling
High volume of projects under the PSNERP authorization may present issues in terms of resource allocation and
quality control.
PDT does not believe the volume of project will cause problems. Project will be schedule over years and even
decades in order to meet construction goals. Very Unlikely Negligible LOW Very Unlikely Negligible LOW
PPM-2 Staffing Reductions
Both the Seattle District and the WDFW have numerous projects competing for staffing resources. If other
projects become a higher priority staff could be pulled from PSNERP.
PSNERP remains a District and WDFW priority and will is less likely than other projects to see staffing reductions. There are minor cost increases due to increases in work
being out-sourced to AEs and potential slowdowns is staffing is shifted on short notice. Unlikely Marginal LOW Very Unlikely Negligible LOW
PPM-3 Communication Issues
Excellent communications is necessary in order to successfully complete the project. Both internal issues
intra-Corps or intra-WDFW, or issues between the Corps and local sponsors could affect the project timeline.
The project currently has strong communication and trust between the Corps and WDFW, and enjoys high levels of
political support both from the Federal and local sponsors. There are other local sponsors (municipalities, tribes, NGOs, etc.) that will be involved once the project moves into PED/CG phase. Communications with these entities may be more fraught and there are likely to be at
least some schedule delays because of this. Very Unlikely Negligible LOW Likely Marginal MODERATE
PPM-4Poor Initial Project Performance
The PSNERP project will be very visible in the Puget Sound area once construction begins. Could an early
action that performs poorly (reduced environmental benefits, project neighbors who felt slighted or whose
concerns were not fully addressed, etc.) cause the remainder of the project to have increased
cost/schedule?
PDT believes its very unlikely that there would be a poorly performing initial project as the earliest projects
that proceed to construction are likely to be those whose success is the most assured. Impacts would likely be
delays to the start of projects, and costs other than increases due to inflation would be unlikely. Very Unlikely Negligible LOW Very Unlikely Marginal LOW
PPM-5Authorization at 10% Design
Project is going forward for authorization at a 10% design level. Usually TSP is done at the 35%. Unknown
elements may increase cost and schedule.
This is a very likely risk. Contract costs could increase substantially if this project is not awarded until 2020.
However, authorized funding is adjusted for inflation, and the impacts due to delay are mitigated somewhat
because of this. Very Likely Significant HIGH Very Likely Negligible LOW
Likelihood* Impact* Risk Level* Likelihood* Impact* Risk Level*
CONTRACT ACQUISITION RISKS
CA-1 Small Business Markups
The Seattle District has goals for allocating projects to small businesses, women/minority/veteran owned
businesses, and other historically underutilized groups and areas. Costs could increase due to a restricted bidding environment and higher contractor markups.
Project size to a certain degree drives whether or not a project will go to restricted bidding. Anything under $20M is very likely to be restricted, over $30M will likely be full and open, and anything in-between could go either way.
During the estimating process all contracts were assumed to be advertised to small businesses only. Its possible that projects between $20-30M could see cost
reductions, and it's very likely that projects over $40M will see reductions. Unlikely Critical MODERATE Very Unlikely Negligible LOW
CA-2 Inefficient ContractorsThe acquisition process may higher inefficient
contractors.
PDT believe that this is unlikely. Contracting language and selection processes can be done in a way that can
filter out poor performing contractors. Very Unlikely Negligible LOW Unlikely Marginal LOW
PDT Discussions
PDT DiscussionsRisk No. Risk/Opportunity Event Concerns
Project Cost Project Schedule
Contract Risks (Internal Risk Items are those that are generated, caused, or controlled within the PDT's sphere of influence.)
Project Cost Project Schedule
Risk No. Risk/Opportunity Event Concerns
Project Cost Project Schedule
1 of 4
PSNERPDugualla BayRisk Register
March 2016
Likelihood* Impact* Risk Level* Likelihood* Impact* Risk Level*
TECHNICAL RISKS
TL-1 Changes to levee designLevee design changes due to limited geotechnical
knowledge.
PDT believes that there is a high likelihood of the increased levee scope due to limited knowledge of
geotechnical conditions. Levee settlement is the biggest concern. Impact to cost would be significant. Likely Significant HIGH Likely Significant HIGH
TL-2 Levee Settling Potential of levee elevation change due to settling.
Current levee design does not account for the potential of any levee settling. Area is known to be marsh land and there is high risk of mitigation, substantial redesign, or
other work being required to change the berm itself or to fix utilities if the break. Assume an increase in costs to have to go back demo a portion of the roadway, fix the
utilities, add fill, and reinstall the road. Potential significant impact on cost. Per NWS Soils, a 30%
increase in soil costs is possible. Very Likely Significant HIGH Very Likely Critical HIGH
TL-3 Demo tide gate structure
Conditions at the area are unknown. Estimators assumptions were used to determine production and
method.
Since almost everything is unknown about this feature of work, it is very likely there will be increases. Any likely
change would have a negligible impact on costs. Very Likely Negligible LOW Very Unlikely Negligible LOW
TL-4 On-Site BorrowCould on-site borrow be used to fulfill some or all of the
levee fill requirements?
The PDT does not believe this is a possible opportunity. The only possible source would be the fill from the
existing levees, but the new setback levees must be installed prior to removal of the existing levees. Very Unlikely Negligible LOW Very Unlikely Negligible LOW
TL-5Additional Drainage Requirements
There are limited drainage features through the levee. Could additional gates be required?
PDT believes this risk is likely. There may be a possible 10% cost adjustment to the levees for additional drainage
features. Likely Critical HIGH Likely Negligible LOW
TL-6 Deeper Bridge Piers
Bridge designs were not adjusted for each individual site, but are a common design. Is this appropriate for
Dugualla with its more marginal subsurface conditions?
NWS Soils believe piers may need to extend an additional 50' for all bridge items. Additionally, more
scour protection could be required at the base of bridge piers. Very Likely Significant HIGH Very Likely Marginal MODERATE
Likelihood* Impact* Risk Level* Likelihood* Impact* Risk Level*
LANDS AND DAMAGES RISKS
LD-1 Hostile landownersUnwilling landowners who do not want to sell land or
provide easements could drive up costs.
If landowners are unwilling to sell, the action may not move forward. A more likely scenario is that a few
landowners are not willing to sell and some mitigation will need to be done in order to protect their property from
inundation. PDT believes that there is a high likelihood of unwilling sellers, and the most likely mitigation would be
to construct additional dikes. 1000' of additional dike would raise costs into the significant range. Very Likely Significant HIGH Very Likely Significant HIGH
LD-2 Relocations
Is it possible that relocations may not have been completed by the time construction started, potentially delaying projects. Additionally, H&H modelling has not been done for all sites. Could higher calculated water
lines affect additional properties?
Relocations not being completed is very unlikely as all projects must have their real estates objectives met prior
to construction starting. The potential for increased affected areas is likely and contains significant costs. Primarily this is due to utilities as increased costs for
property relocations is captured in the real estate contingency. Likely Marginal MODERATE Likely Marginal MODERATE
LD-3 Vagrancy/Loitering Could vagrants on the project site slow the project?
Very unlikely. Most sites are well away from large populated areas and are not likely to contain transient
populations. Very Unlikely Negligible LOW Very Unlikely Negligible LOW
PDT Discussions
PDT DiscussionsConcerns
Project Cost Project Schedule
Risk No. Risk/Opportunity Event Concerns
Risk No. Risk/Opportunity Event
2 of 4
PSNERPDugualla BayRisk Register
March 2016
Likelihood* Impact* Risk Level* Likelihood* Impact* Risk Level*
REGULATORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
RE-1Contaminated Drainage Fields
Potential leaking pipes/contaminated drainage fields releasing sanitary waste.
Likely that this would occur, but it would be at low concentrations and volumes. Negligible increase in cost. Likely Negligible LOW Very Unlikely Negligible LOW
RE-2 Building HTRW
Buildings have not been surveyed for HAZMAT materials. As many of the buildings are older there may be a
potential for asbestos, lead, or other materials.
PDT believes this is very likely to occur, but there is standard procedures to deal with these problems.
Marginal cost increase Very Likely Marginal MODERATE Unlikely Marginal LOW
RE-3Petroleum Compounds in Road Dikes
Years of driving on existing road berms may have lead to petroleum contamination.
It is very likely that leaking vehicles have contaminated small (relative to total volume) amounts of soil and base
course. Material would need to be excavated and disposed of properly. Negligible cost increase for all
dikes. Very Likely Negligible LOW Very Unlikely Negligible LOW
RE-4Contamination from NAS Whidbey
NAS Whidbey is reported to have possibly spilled petroleum in the area.
Very high likelihood of finding low level petroleum contamination. Material would need to be excavated and
disposed of properly. Marginal cost increase. Very Likely Marginal MODERATE Very Unlikely Negligible LOW
Likelihood* Impact* Risk Level* Likelihood* Impact* Risk Level*
CONSTRUCTION RISKS
CON-1 Building Demolition
Building construction is assumed light frame and foundation. Heavier structures would be more difficult to
demolish and remove.
High likelihood of at least some of the buildings on-site being heavier construction than this. A 20% increase in
cost due to more complicated building construction would have a negligible impact on total project cost. Very Likely Negligible LOW Very Likely Negligible LOW
CON-2 Equipment AccessibilityProduction rate is dependent on soil conditions suitable
for equipment travel.
If soil is saturated or has other issues travel in the areas where channels are being excavated will be difficult.
While weather days are included in the schedule, rain at any time could so saturate the soil that it is unworkable
for time past the actual weather event. Also, if conditions are inherently unsuitable changes in work methods will be required. A 25% production rate slowdown, would have a
significant increase on costs. Likely Significant HIGH Likely Significant HIGH
Likelihood* Impact* Risk Level* Likelihood* Impact* Risk Level*
ESTIMATE AND SCHEDULE RISKS
EST-1 Earthwork Construction
Site conditions were assumed appropriate to bring in large scale equipment. Changes in this would affect size
of equipment and thus production.
If weather and soil conditions are not suitable for large equipment, smaller pieces will need to be brought in, or
an access road will need to be built. A 20% slowdown in production will increase levee removal and install costs.
This would have a marginal impact on overall cost. Likely Critical HIGH Likely Negligible LOW
EST-2 Fish WindowsIn-water work windows control a certain portion of the schedule and may drive overall construction duration.
Existing levee work occurs in or near the river. In-water work is a relatively narrow window. It may not be possible
for a contractor to complete all the work necessary in a single season, necessitating multiple mob/demobs and
lost efficiency. Likely Negligible LOW Likely Crisis HIGH
PDT Discussions
PDT Discussions
PDT Discussions
Risk No. Risk/Opportunity Event ConcernsProject Cost Project Schedule
Risk No. Risk/Opportunity Event Concerns
Project Cost Project Schedule
Risk No. Risk/Opportunity Event Concerns
Project Cost Project Schedule
3 of 4
PSNERPDugualla BayRisk Register
March 2016
EST-3 Fuel Cost IncreasesFuel cost increases above expected rates will contribute
to total project costs.
Fuel costs for the machinery and the hauling. An increase of 25% in fuel costs increases the total project
cost less than 0.5%. Likely Significant HIGH Very Unlikely Negligible LOW
EST-4Speculative Earthwork Quantities
Earthwork quantities were entirely developed through aerial surveys. Removal costs may increase
The PDT believes that it is very high likely that there will be additional quantities due to margin of error inherent in aerial surveys. Errors may be present in shoreline dike
removal, SR-20 berm removal, Dugualla Lake berm removal, and beach nourishment placement. Very Likely Significant HIGH Very Likely Significant HIGH
EST-5 Beach Fill Haul
It is assumed in the estimate, that trucks will be able to access the area to deposit fill. If this is not possible and
material must be unloaded and then reloaded into equipment that can access the site
At present, conditions are expected to allow trucks to access the site, so this risk is unlikely to occur Unlikely Marginal LOW Unlikely Marginal LOW
EST-6 Estimator Assumptions
As the project drawings were only completed to a 10% level, the estimator made a variety of assumptions
regarding items such as utility installation, site access points, and overall production. At higher level of detail,
these assumptions may be revised.
Assumptions were generally conservative, but there is definitely potential for cost movement on these items.
Some manner of cost impact should be considered likely. Likely Marginal MODERATE Likely Marginal MODERATE
Likelihood* Impact* Risk Level* Likelihood* Impact* Risk Level*
PR-1Transmission Utility Demolition
The utilities along Dike Road are generally transmission systems that feed whole communities south of the current
road. Could special requirements be placed on their demolition?
It's highly likely that disconnecting the current utilities and attaching them to alternate lines would have to be done
at off hours. This costs associated with this would be primarily increased labor rates due to construction at
unusual times. Negligible overall impact to project cost. Very Likely Negligible LOW Very Unlikely Negligible LOW
PR-2Presence of Unknown Utilities
Site has not been analyzed for many utilities. Their presence could increase cost and schedule
High likelihood of additional power lines being present. If found, could be either reinforced or relocated. Negligible
effect on cost. Very Likely Negligible LOW Very Likely Negligible LOW
PR-3 Historical Buildings
The state historical preservation office will do an evaluation of all buildings at the site to determine whether
any form of preservation will be required.
NWS Built Environment archaeologists believes that there is a high potential that one of the buildings would be significant (listed in the National register). Shouldn't have
any delays since it will be done before construction. Avoidance would be the best option, but this could
require additional berm construction. 1000' of additional berm would have a significant impact on overall cost. Likely Marginal MODERATE Likely Marginal MODERATE
PR-4 Changing Laws/Regulations
Laws, regulations, and guidelines could change over the life of the project, potentially requiring changes in
materials used on sites, adjusted construction methodology, or increased design/study requirements.
In general this risk was viewed to be very unlikely to affect the project. The only exception is that the WA
Dept. of Ecology may change its sediment management guidelines. However, these changes are not expected to require more than extremely minor adjustments to TPC. Unlikely Negligible LOW Very Unlikely Negligible LOW
PR-5Presence of Historical Artifacts Potential for archaeological finds.
Corps Archeologist reports a moderate (likely) chance of finding cultural artifacts within the action area. They
believe costs may be significant if found. Likely Significant MODERATE Likely Marginal MODERATE
PR-6 Changing Laws/Regulations
Laws, regulations, and guidelines could change over the life of the project, potentially requiring changes in
materials used on sites, adjusted construction methodology, or increased design/study requirements.
In general this risk was viewed to be very unlikely to affect the project. The only exception is that the WA
Dept. of Ecology may change its sediment management guidelines. However, these changes are not expected to require more than extremely minor adjustments to TPC. Unlikely Negligible LOW Very Unlikely Negligible LOW
PDT DiscussionsRisk No. Risk/Opportunity Event Concerns
Project Cost Project Schedule
Programmatic Risks (External Risk Items are those that are generated, caused, or controlled exclusively outside the PDT's sphere of influence.)
4 of 4
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish
1 Start 1747 days Mon 10/3/16 Tue 6/13/23
2 Relocations 1249 days Mon 10/3/16 Thu 7/15/21
3 Roads 1063 days Mon 10/3/16 Wed 10/28/20
4 Mobilize 10 days Mon 10/3/16 Fri 10/14/16
5 Survey 10 days Mon 10/17/16 Fri 10/28/16
6 Road Demo 16 days Tue 7/24/18 Tue 8/14/18
7 Bridge Demo 88 days Mon 6/15/20 Wed 10/14/20
8 Road Installation 72 days Fri 4/13/18 Mon 7/23/18
9 Bridge Installation 494 days Tue 7/24/18 Fri 6/12/20
10 Demobilization 10 days Thu 10/15/20 Wed 10/28/20
11 Railroads 284 days Mon 6/15/20 Thu 7/15/21
12 Mobilize 10 days Mon 6/15/20 Fri 6/26/20
13 Survey 10 days Mon 6/29/20 Fri 7/10/20
14 Bridge Installation 254 days Mon 7/13/20 Thu 7/1/21
15 Demobilization 10 days Fri 7/2/21 Thu 7/15/21
16 Utilities 1061 days Mon 10/17/16Mon 11/9/20
17 Mobilize 10 days Mon 10/17/16 Fri 10/28/16
18 Survey 4 days Mon 10/31/16 Thu 11/3/16
19 Distribution Utilities 301 days Fri 11/4/16 Fri 12/29/17
20 BPA Transmission Line 113 days Fri 11/4/16 Tue 4/11/17
21 Pump Station Removal 310 days Tue 9/3/19 Mon 11/9/20
22 Pump Station Construction
737 days Fri 11/4/16 Mon 9/2/19
23 Demobilization 10 days Tue 9/3/19 Mon 9/16/19
24 Fish & Wildlife 200 days Wed 9/7/22 Tue 6/13/23
25 Vegetation 200 days Wed 9/7/22 Tue 6/13/23
26 Levees & Floodwalls 1537 days Mon 10/17/16Tue 9/6/22
27 Levee Installation 1537 days Mon 10/17/16Tue 9/6/22
28 Mobilize 10 days Mon 10/17/16 Fri 10/28/16
29 Fill Ditches 130 days Wed 3/9/22 Tue 9/6/22
30 Setback Levess 379 days Mon 10/31/16 Thu 4/12/18
31 Remove Levees 178 days Fri 7/2/21 Tue 3/8/22
32 Demobilization 10 days Wed 3/9/22 Tue 3/22/22
33 Floodway Control & Diversion100 days Fri 4/13/18 Thu 8/30/18
34 Diversion Structure 100 days Fri 4/13/18 Thu 8/30/18
8/9 12/6 4/3 7/31 11/27 3/26 7/23 11/19 3/18 7/15 11/11 3/10 7/7 11/3 3/1 6/28 10/25 2/21 6/20 10/17 2/13 6/12 10/9 2/5 6/41 January 1 September 1 May 1 January 1 September 1 May 1 January 1 September 1 May 1 January 1 September 1 May 1
Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration‐only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start‐only
Finish‐only
Deadline
Progress
PSNERPEverett MarshlandConstruction Schedule
Page 1
Project: Everett MarhslandDate: Fri 3/25/16
PS
NE
RP
Eve
rett
Mar
shla
ndR
isk
Reg
iste
r
Mar
ch 2
016
PDT
Dis
cuss
ions
&C
oncl
usio
nsLi
kelih
ood*
Impa
ct*
Ris
kLe
vel*
Like
lihoo
d*Im
pact
*R
isk
Leve
l*
PRO
JEC
T&
PRO
GR
AM
MG
MT
PP
M-1
Pro
ject
Sch
edul
ing
Hig
h vo
lum
e of
pro
ject
s un
der t
he P
SN
ER
P a
utho
rizat
ion
may
pr
esen
t iss
ues
in te
rms
of re
sour
ce a
lloca
tion
and
qual
ity
cont
rol.
PD
T do
es n
ot b
elie
ve th
e vo
lum
e of
pro
ject
will
cau
se
prob
lem
s. P
roje
ct w
ill b
e sc
hedu
le o
ver y
ears
and
eve
n de
cade
s in
ord
er to
mee
t con
stru
ctio
n go
als.
Ver
y U
nlik
ely
Neg
ligib
leLO
WV
ery
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
PP
M-2
Sta
ffing
Red
uctio
ns
Bot
h th
e S
eattl
e D
istri
ct a
nd th
e W
DFW
hav
e nu
mer
ous
proj
ects
com
petin
g fo
r sta
ffing
reso
urce
s. I
f oth
er p
roje
cts
beco
me
a hi
gher
prio
rity
staf
f cou
ld b
e pu
lled
from
PS
NE
RP
.
PS
NE
RP
rem
ains
a D
istri
ct a
nd W
DFW
prio
rity
and
will
is
less
like
ly th
an o
ther
pro
ject
s to
see
sta
ffing
redu
ctio
ns.
Ther
e ar
e m
inor
cos
t inc
reas
es d
ue to
incr
ease
s in
wor
k be
ing
out-s
ourc
ed to
AE
s an
d po
tent
iall
slow
dow
ns is
st
affin
g is
shi
fted
on s
hort
notic
e.V
ery
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
Ver
y U
nlik
ely
Neg
ligib
leLO
W
PP
M-3
Com
mun
icat
ion
Issu
es
Exc
elle
nt c
omm
unic
atio
ns is
nec
essa
ry in
ord
er to
suc
essf
ully
co
mpl
ete
the
proj
ect.
Bot
h in
tern
al is
sues
intra
-Cor
ps o
r int
ra-
WD
FW, o
r iss
ues
betw
een
the
Cor
ps a
nd lo
cal s
pons
ors
coul
d af
fect
the
proj
ect t
imel
ine.
The
proj
ect c
urre
ntly
has
stro
ng c
omm
unic
atio
n an
d tru
st
betw
een
the
Cor
ps a
nd W
DFW
, and
enj
oys
high
leve
ls o
f po
litic
al s
uppo
rt bo
th fr
om th
e Fe
dera
l and
loca
l spo
nsor
s.Th
ere
are
othe
r loc
al s
pons
ors
(mun
icip
aliti
es, t
ribes
, N
GO
s, e
tc) t
hat w
ill b
e in
volv
ed o
nce
the
proj
ect m
oves
in
to P
ED
/CG
pha
se.
Com
mun
icat
ions
with
thes
e en
titie
s m
ay b
e m
ore
fraug
ht a
nd th
ere
are
likel
y to
be
at le
ast
som
e sc
hedu
le d
elay
s be
caus
e of
this
.V
ery
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
Like
lyM
argi
nal
MO
DE
RA
TE
PP
M-4
Poo
r Ini
tial P
roje
ct P
erfo
man
ce
The
PS
NE
RP
pro
ject
will
be
very
vis
ible
in th
e P
uget
Sou
nd
area
onc
e co
nstru
ctio
n be
gins
. C
ould
an
early
act
ion
that
pe
rform
s po
orly
(red
uced
env
ironm
enta
l ben
efits
, pro
ject
ne
ighb
ors
who
felt
slig
hted
or w
hose
con
cern
s w
ere
not f
ully
ad
dres
sed,
etc
) cau
se th
e re
mai
nder
of t
he p
roje
ct to
hav
e in
crea
sed
cost
/sch
edul
e?
PD
T be
lieve
s its
ver
y un
likel
y th
at th
ere
wou
ld b
e a
poor
ly
perfo
rmin
g in
itial
pro
ject
as
the
earli
est p
roje
cts
that
pr
ocee
d to
con
stru
ctio
n ar
e lik
ely
to b
e th
ose
who
se
succ
ess
is th
e m
ost a
ssur
ed.
Impa
cts
wou
ld li
kely
be
dela
ys to
the
star
t of p
roje
cts,
and
cos
ts o
ther
than
in
crea
ses
due
to in
flatio
n w
ould
be
unlik
ely.
Ver
y U
nlik
ely
Neg
ligib
leLO
WV
ery
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
PDT
Dis
cuss
ions
& C
oncl
usio
nsLi
kelih
ood*
Impa
ct*
Ris
k Le
vel*
Like
lihoo
d*Im
pact
*R
isk
Leve
l*C
ON
TRA
CT
AC
QU
ISIT
ION
RIS
KS
CA
-1P
oten
ially
Cou
ld G
o S
mal
l Bus
ines
s
This
est
imat
e as
sum
es S
B o
pen
acqu
isiti
on. T
he p
rime
cont
ract
or is
doi
ng n
o w
ork.
All
the
wor
k do
ne is
don
e by
su
bcon
tract
ors.
Thi
s pr
ojec
t cou
ld b
e ac
quire
d by
oth
er
met
hods
asi
de fr
om S
B o
pen
com
petit
ion.
The
size
of t
his
proj
ect i
s ve
ry la
rge.
The
pro
ject
will
pro
babl
y be
con
stru
cted
und
er m
ultip
le a
cqui
sitio
ns.
Typi
cally
if a
pro
ject
goe
s ve
ry re
stric
tive
smal
l bus
ines
s th
e am
ount
of s
ubco
ntra
ctin
g an
d th
e ov
erhe
ad ra
tes
incr
ease
. S
ubco
ntra
ctin
g sh
ould
not
be
muc
h of
the
risk
for t
his
proj
ect s
ince
eve
ryth
ing
is s
ubbe
d ou
t. If
this
wen
t sm
all b
usin
ess
the
over
head
wou
ld in
crea
se.
Oth
er
stra
tegi
es c
ould
als
o in
crea
se c
osts
. G
iven
the
natu
re o
f th
is w
ork
it is
felt
that
it c
ould
go
smal
l bus
ines
s. A
lso,
ot
her m
etho
ds m
ay b
e us
ed a
s w
ell.
It is
con
side
red
likel
y th
at th
e co
ntra
ctin
g m
etho
d co
uld
chan
ge fr
om w
hat i
s pr
opos
ed in
the
estim
ate.
The
impa
ct c
ould
be
up to
10%
.V
ery
Like
lyS
igni
fican
tH
IGH
Ver
y Li
kely
Sig
nific
ant
HIG
H
CA
-2R
ailro
ad B
ridge
Pla
cem
ent C
ontra
ctin
gU
ncer
tain
ty o
n w
ho w
ould
exe
cute
this
wor
k. W
ould
it b
e U
SA
CE
or t
he ra
ilroa
d?
If ra
ilroa
d ha
ndle
s th
e co
ntra
ct th
ere
is p
oten
tial f
or c
ost
incr
ease
s.Li
kely
Crit
ical
HIG
HV
ery
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
CA
-3In
effic
ient
Con
tract
ors
The
acqu
isiti
on p
roce
ss m
ay h
ighe
r ine
ffici
ent c
ontra
ctor
s.
PD
T be
lieve
that
this
is u
nlik
ely.
Con
tract
ing
lang
uage
and
se
lect
ion
proc
esse
s ca
n be
don
e in
a w
ay th
at c
an fi
lter
out p
oor p
erfo
rmin
g co
ntra
ctor
s.V
ery
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
Ver
y U
nlik
ely
Neg
ligib
leLO
W
PDT
Dis
cuss
ions
& C
oncl
usio
nsLi
kelih
ood*
Impa
ct*
Ris
k Le
vel*
Like
lihoo
d*Im
pact
*R
isk
Leve
l*TE
CH
NIC
AL
RIS
KS
Ris
k N
o.R
isk/
Opp
ortu
nity
Eve
ntC
once
rns
Proj
ect C
ost
Proj
ect S
ched
ule
Ris
k N
o.R
isk/
Opp
ortu
nity
Eve
ntC
once
rns
Proj
ect C
ost
Proj
ect S
ched
ule
Con
trac
t Ris
ks (I
nter
nal R
isk
Item
s ar
e th
ose
that
are
gen
erat
ed, c
ause
d, o
r con
trolle
d w
ithin
the
PD
T's
sphe
re o
f inf
luen
ce.)
Ris
k N
o.R
isk/
Opp
ortu
nity
Eve
ntC
once
rns
Proj
ect C
ost
Proj
ect S
ched
ule
PS
NE
RP
Eve
rett
Mar
shla
ndR
isk
Reg
iste
r
Mar
ch 2
016
TL-1
Ear
thw
ork
- Lac
k of
Det
ails
Lim
ited
wor
k w
as d
one
to d
eter
min
e th
e re
quire
men
ts th
at
wou
ld b
e pl
aced
on
the
leve
es.
Add
ition
al a
naly
sis
may
in
crea
se S
OW
.
Ther
e is
the
poss
ibili
ty th
at th
e ar
eas
of e
xcav
atio
n an
d fil
l co
uld
chan
ge fr
om w
hat i
s pr
esen
ted
in th
e dr
aft r
epor
t.A
ny in
crea
se in
qua
ntity
will
be
cove
red
in th
e Q
uant
ity ri
sk
elem
ent s
ectio
n. T
he ri
sk h
ere
is th
at th
e na
ture
of t
he
earth
wor
k m
ay c
hang
e. T
here
cou
ld b
e ad
ditio
nal
requ
irem
ents
(not
qua
ntiti
es) i
mpo
sed
in th
e ex
cava
tion
and
fill.
It is
thou
ght t
o be
at l
east
a 5
0% c
hanc
e th
at th
e sc
ope
of th
e ea
rthw
ork
will
cha
nge.
Any
cha
nges
in s
cope
co
uld
easi
ly in
crea
se th
e co
st fo
r thi
s ite
m b
y 2%
. Th
at
wou
ld tr
ansl
ate
to 1
% in
crea
se in
TP
C.
Like
lyS
igni
fican
tH
IGH
Ver
y Li
kely
Crit
ical
HIG
H
TL-2
Pum
p S
tatio
nN
o in
form
atio
n is
kno
wn
for t
he d
emol
ition
or i
nsta
llatio
n of
the
pum
p st
atio
n.
The
only
item
use
d fo
r est
imat
ing
this
item
was
an
aeria
l ph
otog
raph
for d
emol
ition
. It
is v
ery
likel
y th
at s
cope
will
ch
ange
for t
his
item
bec
ause
ther
e is
cur
rent
ly n
o sc
ope
prov
ided
. Th
is it
em h
as a
crit
ical
impa
ct g
iven
the
pote
ntia
l for
cos
t gro
wth
. P
umps
, ele
ctric
al c
ompo
nent
s,
SC
AD
A a
nd o
ther
com
pone
nts
are
unkn
own.
PD
T m
entio
ned
fish
pass
age
whi
ch in
crea
ses
the
requ
irem
ents
of
fabr
icat
ion.
The
re is
a v
ery
likel
y ris
k he
re.
Ass
ume
impa
ct is
sig
nific
ant.
Ver
y Li
kely
Sig
nific
ant
HIG
HV
ery
Like
lyS
igni
fican
tH
IGH
TL-3
Roa
d B
ridge
Pla
cem
ent
No
desi
gn.
Sam
e ty
pica
l sec
tion
used
for a
ll of
the
brid
ges.
Sei
smic
requ
irem
ents
.
The
brid
ge ty
pe is
like
ly to
cha
nge
or s
ome
elem
ents
of t
he
scop
e of
the
prop
osed
brid
ge.
The
brid
ge is
app
roxi
mat
ely
unde
r 10%
of t
he c
onst
ruct
ion
cost
. Li
kely
Sig
nific
ant
HIG
HV
ery
Like
lyS
igni
fican
tH
IGH
TL-4
Rai
lroad
Brid
ge P
lace
men
tN
o de
sign
. Ty
pica
l sec
tion
used
for e
stim
ate
deve
lopm
ent.
Sei
smic
requ
irem
ents
and
tyin
g in
to e
xist
ing
brid
ges.
The
brid
ge ty
pe is
like
ly to
cha
nge
or s
ome
elem
ents
of t
he
scop
e of
the
prop
osed
brid
ge. C
urre
ntly
pro
pose
d co
nstru
ctio
n m
etho
dolo
gy is
to re
plac
e w
hile
und
er u
se.
This
will
be
extre
mel
y pr
oble
mm
atic
and
will
like
ly re
quire
re
thin
king
dur
ing
PE
D.
Ver
y Li
kely
Crit
ical
HIG
HV
ery
Like
lyC
ritic
alH
IGH
PDT
Dis
cuss
ions
& C
oncl
usio
nsLi
kelih
ood*
Impa
ct*
Ris
k Le
vel*
Like
lihoo
d*Im
pact
*R
isk
Leve
l*LA
ND
SA
ND
DA
MA
GES
RIS
KS
LD-2
Stru
ctur
e R
emov
alN
o de
tails
for t
he s
truct
ures
to b
e re
mov
ed.
The
PD
T no
ted
that
ther
e is
the
poss
ibili
ty o
f res
iden
tial
relo
catio
n. I
t is
as g
ood
assu
mpt
ion
that
it is
like
ly th
e sc
ope
for t
his
item
will
incr
ease
. The
impa
ct is
ass
umed
to
be m
argi
nal.
Like
lyM
argi
nal
MO
DE
RA
TELi
kely
Mar
gina
lM
OD
ER
ATE
LD-3
Land
Acq
uisi
tion
Land
acq
uisi
tions
and
unw
illin
g pr
oper
ty o
wne
rs.
Sta
keho
lder
in
volv
emen
t.Th
is h
as th
e po
tent
ial t
o ch
ange
the
proj
ect s
cope
. R
isk
capt
ured
in th
e sc
ope
risk
elem
ent.
Ver
y U
nlik
ely
Neg
ligib
leLO
WV
ery
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
PDT
Dis
cuss
ions
& C
oncl
usio
nsLi
kelih
ood*
Impa
ct*
Ris
k Le
vel*
Like
lihoo
d*Im
pact
*R
isk
Leve
l*R
EGU
LATO
RY
AN
DEN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
RE
-2H
TRW
- E
arth
wor
kFa
rmin
g ch
emic
als,
con
tain
ers
with
resi
dual
pro
duct
s.
Hig
h po
tent
ial p
er P
DT
mee
ting.
Thi
s w
ould
requ
ire
rem
edia
tion
sim
ular
to th
e w
ork
in th
e la
ndfil
l or c
reos
ote
faci
lity
task
s. I
mpa
ct c
ould
be
sign
ifica
nt.
---J
UN
E 2
014-
--
Ris
k is
rem
oved
. H
TRW
issu
es a
re a
100
% lo
cal s
pons
or
resp
onsi
bilit
y. L
ER
RD
cre
ditn
g is
not
app
licab
leLi
kely
Sig
nific
ant
HIG
HV
ery
Like
lyS
igni
fican
tH
IGH
PDT
Dis
cuss
ions
& C
oncl
usio
nsLi
kelih
ood*
Impa
ct*
Ris
k Le
vel*
Like
lihoo
d*Im
pact
*R
isk
Leve
l*C
ON
STR
UC
TIO
NR
ISK
S
CO
N-1
Pos
t-Lev
ee R
emov
al F
lood
ing
Follo
win
g le
vee
rem
oval
wor
k on
filli
ng a
g di
tche
s w
ill o
ccur
.Th
e si
te w
ill b
e vu
lner
able
to fl
oodi
ng a
t tha
t poi
nt a
nd th
ere
coul
d be
slo
w d
owns
.
This
is li
kely
to o
ccur
due
to th
e du
ratio
n re
quire
d to
re
mov
e th
e ex
istin
g le
vee
and
fill t
he d
itche
s. L
ikel
y to
af
fect
sch
edul
e on
lyV
ery
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
Like
lyS
igni
fican
tH
IGH
Ris
k N
o.R
isk/
Opp
ortu
nity
Eve
ntC
once
rns
Proj
ect C
ost
Proj
ect S
ched
ule
Ris
k N
o.R
isk/
Opp
ortu
nity
Eve
ntC
once
rns
Proj
ect C
ost
Proj
ect S
ched
ule
Ris
k N
o.R
isk/
Opp
ortu
nity
Eve
ntC
once
rns
Proj
ect C
ost
Proj
ect S
ched
ule
PS
NE
RP
Eve
rett
Mar
shla
ndR
isk
Reg
iste
r
Mar
ch 2
016
CO
N-2
Ear
thw
ork
- Set
tlem
ent i
ssue
sP
oten
tial s
ettle
men
t iss
ues
and
pote
ntia
l add
ition
al li
fts to
be
adde
d fo
r lev
ee c
onst
ruct
ion.
Wou
ld li
ke n
eed
to s
o st
age
cons
truct
ion
whe
re le
vees
are
co
nstru
cted
and
then
wai
t a y
ear f
or s
ettle
men
t and
then
re
turn
to c
ompl
ete
the
wor
k. A
ssum
e lik
ely
with
sig
nific
ant
impa
cts.
Like
lyS
igni
fican
tH
IGH
Like
lyS
igni
fican
tH
IGH
CO
N-3
Pum
p S
tatio
n - s
ite a
cces
sTh
is it
em h
as th
e po
tent
ial f
or c
ompl
ex c
onst
ruct
ion
issu
es.
Site
acc
ess,
dem
oliti
on, a
nd in
stal
latio
n m
ay p
rese
nt
need
s fo
r uni
que
cosn
truci
ton
tech
niqu
es.
Ass
ume
likel
y w
ith s
igni
fican
t im
pact
.Li
kely
Sig
nific
ant
HIG
HU
nlik
ely
Sig
nific
ant
MO
DE
RA
TE
PDT
Dis
cuss
ions
& C
oncl
usio
nsLi
kelih
ood*
Impa
ct*
Ris
k Le
vel*
Like
lihoo
d*Im
pact
*R
isk
Leve
l*ES
TIM
ATE
AN
DSC
HED
ULE
RIS
KS
ES
T-1
Ear
thw
ork
Qua
ntiti
es
Ver
y fe
w c
ross
sec
tions
, jus
t typ
ical
sec
tions
use
d in
qua
ntity
de
velo
pmen
t. A
dditi
onal
ly th
e le
vel o
f det
ail f
rom
LID
AR
wor
k is
lim
ited.
Mor
e in
form
atio
n w
ill b
e ob
tain
ed a
s de
sign
pro
gres
ses.
It
is li
kely
that
ther
e w
ill b
e a
chan
ge in
the
quan
titie
s.
Ass
ume
Sig
nific
ant i
mpa
ct.
Larg
e co
st it
em.
Like
lyS
igni
fican
tH
IGH
Like
lyS
igni
fican
tH
IGH
ES
T-2
Pum
p st
atio
n - Q
uant
ities
No
info
rmat
ion
is k
now
n fo
r the
dem
oliti
on o
r ins
talla
tion
of th
e pu
mp
stat
ion.
Qua
ntiti
es d
evel
oped
wer
e ve
ry ro
ugh
estim
ates
. V
ery
likel
y fo
r the
qua
ntiti
es to
cha
nge.
Im
pact
is la
rge,
ass
ume
criti
cal.
Ver
y Li
kely
Crit
ical
HIG
HV
ery
Like
lyS
igni
fican
tH
IGH
ES
T-4
Land
fill &
Cre
osot
e Fa
cilit
y Q
uant
ities
Ass
umed
dep
th o
f rem
oval
and
per
cent
age
of a
rea
need
ing
rem
oval
.
No
basi
s fo
r cos
t eng
inee
r's a
ssum
ptio
ns.
Ver
y Li
kely
the
quan
titie
s w
ill c
hang
e. I
mpa
ct c
ould
dou
ble
cost
s an
d ar
e cr
itica
l. --
-JU
NE
201
4---
Ris
k is
rem
oved
. H
TRW
issu
es
are
a 10
0% lo
cal s
pons
or re
spon
sibi
lity.
LE
RR
D c
redi
tng
is n
ot a
pplic
able
Ver
y Li
kely
Crit
ical
HIG
HV
ery
Like
lyS
igni
fican
tH
IGH
PDT
Dis
cuss
ions
& C
oncl
usio
nsLi
kelih
ood*
Impa
ct*
Ris
k Le
vel*
Like
lihoo
d*Im
pact
*R
isk
Leve
l*EC
ON
OM
ICS
RIS
KS
FL-1
Fuel
Fuel
pric
es a
re v
olat
ile a
nd w
ill p
roba
bly
go u
p
A 2
5% in
crea
se in
fuel
cou
ld c
ontri
bute
to u
p to
a 3
%
incr
ease
in to
tal c
onst
ruct
ion
cost
s. H
ow li
kely
is it
that
ga
solin
e w
ill re
ach
$5.0
0/ga
l? D
epen
ds o
n w
ho y
ou a
sk.
For t
he p
urpo
ses
of th
is ri
sk a
naly
sis,
ass
ume
that
it is
un
likel
y.
Unl
ikel
yM
argi
nal
LOW
Ver
y U
nlik
ely
Neg
ligib
leLO
W
FL-2
Asp
halt
Asp
halt
is a
pet
role
um p
rodu
ct a
nd s
ubje
ct to
fluc
tuat
ion.
Ass
ume
likel
y an
d m
argi
nal.
Like
lyM
argi
nal
MO
DE
RA
TEV
ery
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
FL-3
Con
cret
e &
Ste
el
Cos
t of s
teel
and
oth
er m
etal
s ar
e su
bjec
t to
mar
ket
cond
ition
s. It
is b
elie
ved
that
ther
e is
at l
east
a 5
0%
chan
ce o
f flu
ctua
tion
upw
ard.
The
impa
ct is
con
side
red
to
incr
ease
the
tota
l pro
ject
cos
ts n
o m
ore
than
1%
Like
lyM
argi
nal
MO
DE
RA
TEV
ery
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
PDT
Dis
cuss
ions
& C
oncl
usio
nsLi
kelih
ood*
Impa
ct*
Ris
k Le
vel*
Like
lihoo
d*Im
pact
*R
isk
Leve
l*Pr
ogra
mm
atic
Ris
ks(E
xter
nal R
isk
Item
s ar
e th
ose
that
are
gen
erat
ed, c
ause
d, o
r con
trolle
d ex
clus
ivel
y ou
tsid
e th
e P
DT'
s sp
here
of i
nflu
ence
.)
PR
-1C
hang
ing
Law
s/R
egul
atio
ns
Law
s, re
gula
tions
, and
gui
delin
es c
ould
cha
nge
over
the
life
of
the
proj
ect,
pote
ntia
lly re
quiri
ng c
hang
es in
mat
eria
ls u
sed
on
site
s, a
djus
ted
cons
truct
ion
met
hodo
logy
, or i
ncre
ased
de
sign
/stu
dy re
quire
men
ts.
In g
ener
al th
is ri
sk w
as v
iew
ed to
be
very
unl
ikel
y to
affe
ct
the
proj
ect.
The
onl
y ex
cept
ion
is th
at th
e W
A D
ept o
f E
colo
gy m
ay c
hang
e its
sed
imen
t man
agem
ent g
uide
lines
. H
owev
er, t
hese
cha
nges
are
not
exp
ecte
d to
requ
ire m
ore
than
ext
rem
ely
min
or a
djus
tmen
ts to
TP
C.
Ver
y U
nlik
ely
Neg
ligib
leLO
WV
ery
Like
lyN
eglig
ible
LOW
Ris
k N
o.R
isk/
Opp
ortu
nity
Eve
ntC
once
rns
Proj
ect C
ost
Proj
ect S
ched
ule
Ris
k N
o.R
isk/
Opp
ortu
nity
Eve
ntC
once
rns
Proj
ect C
ost
Proj
ect S
ched
ule
Ris
k N
o.R
isk/
Opp
ortu
nity
Eve
ntC
once
rns
Proj
ect C
ost
Proj
ect S
ched
ule
ID Task Mode
Task Name Duration Start Finish
1 Telegraph Slough Full Restoration629 days Mon 10/3/16
Thu 2/28/19
2 Start 1 day Mon 10/3/16Mon 10/3/16
3 Demo Marina & Piers 27 days Tue 10/4/16Wed 11/9/16
4 Construct (2) 6'x6 Box Culverts 19 days Tue 10/4/16 Fri 10/28/16
5 Construct Railroad Embankment
116 days Tue 10/4/16 Tue 3/14/17
6 Excavate Sediment Filled Channel
18 days Tue 10/4/16 Thu 10/27/16
7 Construct Temporary Traffic Controls
57 days Tue 10/4/16Wed 12/21/16
8 Relocate Overhead Transmission
33 days Tue 10/4/16 Thu 11/17/16
9 Demo Site Wide Structures 68 days Tue 10/4/16 Thu 1/5/17
10 Demo Site Utilities/Septic 90 days Fri 11/18/16Thu 3/23/17
11 Construct Setback Dike 63 days Fri 10/28/16Tue 1/24/17
12 Construct New Railroad 90 days Wed 3/15/17Tue 7/18/17
13 Construct Railroad Bridge 202 days Fri 10/28/16Mon 8/7/17
14 Excavate Channel 6 days Wed 1/25/17Wed 2/1/17
15 Demo Existing Railroad 29 days Wed 7/19/17Mon 8/28/17
16 Construct West Bound SR‐20 Bridge
248 days Fri 10/28/16
Tue 10/10/17
17 Construct 10' Culvert 19 days Thu 2/2/17 Tue 2/28/17
18 Lower Existing Utilities 68 days Wed 3/1/17 Fri 6/2/17
19 Raise SR‐20 West Bound 112 days Wed 3/1/17 Thu 8/3/17
20 Raise SR‐20 East Bound 112 days Wed 10/11/1Thu 3/15/18
21 Construct East Bound SR‐20 Bridge
248 days Wed 10/11/17
Fri 9/21/18
22 Remove Existing Dikes 114 days Mon 9/24/18Thu 2/28/19
23 Remove Tidal Gates 15 days Mon 9/24/18Fri 10/12/18
24 Finish 0 days Thu 2/28/19 Thu 2/28/19 2/28
T S W S T M F T S W S T M F T S W S T M F T S W S TAug 28, '16 Nov 20, '16 Feb 12, '17 May 7, '17 Jul 30, '17 Oct 22, '17 Jan 14, '18 Apr 8, '18 Jul 1, '18 Sep 23, '18 Dec 16, '18 Mar 10, '19
Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration‐only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start‐only
Finish‐only
Deadline
Progress
PSNERPTelegraph SloughConstruction Schedule
Page 1
Project: Telegraph SloughDate: Fri 3/25/16
PS
NE
RP
Tele
grap
h S
loug
hR
isk
Reg
iste
r
Mar
ch 2
016
PDT
Dis
cuss
ions
Like
lihoo
d*Im
pact
*R
isk
Leve
l*Li
kelih
ood*
Impa
ct*
Ris
k Le
vel*
PRO
JEC
T&
PR
OG
RA
MM
GM
T
PP
M-1
Pot
entia
l for
sco
pe
redu
ctio
n
As
this
pro
ject
is a
ver
y la
rge
and
dive
rse
envi
ronm
enta
l re
stor
atio
n ef
fort
with
mul
tiple
feat
ures
ther
e is
the
pote
ntia
l tha
t pro
ject
ele
men
ts w
ill b
e de
scop
ed to
mov
e fo
rwar
d w
ith th
e pr
ojec
t.
This
is a
tier
2 p
roje
ct e
ncom
pass
ing
a la
rge
arra
y of
fe
atur
es.
This
pro
ject
is a
lso
one
of th
e hi
gher
est
imat
ed
proj
ects
and
it is
ver
y lik
ely
that
feat
ures
will
be
desc
oped
.W
hich
spe
cific
feat
ures
is u
nkno
wn
at th
is ti
me.
Like
lyS
igni
fican
tH
IGH
Like
lyS
igni
fican
tH
IGH
PP
M-2
Long
del
ay b
efor
e an
ticip
ated
aw
ard
date
This
pro
ject
aw
ard
date
has
bee
n se
t to
2034
as
of J
uly
2014
. Th
is is
an
extre
me
amou
nt o
f tim
e fro
m p
roje
ct
ince
ptio
n to
aw
ard.
Con
tract
cos
ts c
ould
incr
ease
sub
stan
tially
if th
is p
roje
ct is
no
t aw
arde
d un
til 2
034.
How
ever
, aut
horiz
ed fu
ndin
g is
ad
just
ed fo
r inf
latio
n, a
nd th
e im
pact
s du
e to
del
ay a
re
miti
gate
d so
mew
hat b
ecau
se o
f thi
s.V
ery
Like
lyS
igni
fican
tH
IGH
Ver
y U
nlik
ely
Neg
ligib
leLO
W
PP
M-3
Aut
horiz
atio
n at
10%
D
esig
n
Pro
ject
is g
oing
forw
ard
for a
utho
rizat
ion
at a
10%
des
ign
leve
l. U
sual
ly T
SP
is d
one
at th
e 35
%.
Unk
now
n el
emen
ts m
ay in
crea
se c
ost a
nd s
ched
ule.
This
impa
ct w
as d
iscu
ssed
whi
le d
ecid
ing
to g
o do
wn
this
pa
th.
This
act
ion
is fa
irly
wel
l def
ined
as
is, a
nd th
e po
tent
ial f
or s
cope
incr
ease
s ar
e ac
coun
ted
for i
n th
e ev
alua
tions
of i
ndiv
idua
l ele
men
ts.
This
risk
is to
cap
ture
th
e po
tent
ial f
or s
cope
cre
ep a
nd a
dded
feat
ures
that
wer
e no
t orig
inal
ly c
onsi
dere
d.U
nlik
ely
Sig
nific
ant
MO
DE
RA
TEU
nlik
ely
Neg
ligib
leLO
W
PP
M-4
Pro
ject
Sch
edul
ing
Hig
h vo
lum
e of
pro
ject
s un
der t
he P
SN
ER
P a
utho
rizat
ion
may
pre
sent
issu
es in
term
s of
reso
urce
allo
catio
n an
d qu
ality
con
trol.
PD
T do
es n
ot b
elie
ve th
e vo
lum
e of
pro
ject
will
cau
se
prob
lem
s. P
roje
ct w
ill b
e sc
hedu
le o
ver y
ears
and
eve
n de
cade
s in
ord
er to
mee
t con
stru
ctio
n go
als.
Ver
y U
nlik
ely
Neg
ligib
leLO
WV
ery
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
PP
M-5
Sta
ffing
Red
uctio
ns
Bot
h th
e S
eattl
e D
istri
ct a
nd th
e W
DFW
hav
e nu
mer
ous
proj
ects
com
petin
g fo
r sta
ffing
reso
urce
s. I
f oth
er p
roje
cts
beco
me
a hi
gher
prio
rity
staf
f cou
ld b
e pu
lled
from
P
SN
ER
P.
PS
NE
RP
rem
ains
a D
istri
ct a
nd W
DFW
prio
rity
and
will
is
less
like
ly th
an o
ther
pro
ject
s to
see
sta
ffing
redu
ctio
ns.
Ther
e ar
e m
inor
cos
t inc
reas
es d
ue to
incr
ease
s in
wor
k be
ing
out-s
ourc
ed to
AE
s an
d po
tent
ial s
low
dow
ns is
st
affin
g is
shi
fted
on s
hort
notic
e.V
ery
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
Like
lyM
argi
nal
MO
DE
RA
TE
PP
M-6
Com
mun
icat
ion
Issu
es
Exc
elle
nt c
omm
unic
atio
ns is
nec
essa
ry in
ord
er to
su
cces
sful
ly c
ompl
ete
the
proj
ect.
Bot
h in
tern
al is
sues
in
tra-C
orps
or i
ntra
-WD
FW, o
r iss
ues
betw
een
the
Cor
ps
and
loca
l spo
nsor
s co
uld
affe
ct th
e pr
ojec
t tim
elin
e.
The
proj
ect c
urre
ntly
has
stro
ng c
omm
unic
atio
n an
d tru
st
betw
een
the
Cor
ps a
nd W
DFW
, and
enj
oys
high
leve
ls o
f po
litic
al s
uppo
rt bo
th fr
om th
e Fe
dera
l and
loca
l spo
nsor
s.Th
ere
are
othe
r loc
al s
pons
ors
(mun
icip
aliti
es, t
ribes
, N
GO
s, e
tc.)
that
will
be
invo
lved
onc
e th
e pr
ojec
t mov
es
into
PE
D/C
G p
hase
. Th
is is
not
exp
ecte
d to
be
a co
st ri
sk.
Ver
y U
nlik
ely
Neg
ligib
leLO
WLi
kely
Mar
gina
lM
OD
ER
ATE
PP
M-7
Poo
r Ini
tial P
roje
ct
Per
form
ance
The
PS
NE
RP
pro
ject
will
be
very
vis
ible
in th
e P
uget
S
ound
are
a on
ce c
onst
ruct
ion
begi
ns.
Cou
ld a
n ea
rly
actio
n th
at p
erfo
rms
poor
ly (r
educ
ed e
nviro
nmen
tal
bene
fits,
pro
ject
nei
ghbo
rs w
ho fe
lt sl
ight
ed o
r who
se
conc
erns
wer
e no
t ful
ly a
ddre
ssed
, etc
.) ca
use
the
rem
aind
er o
f the
pro
ject
to h
ave
incr
ease
d co
st/s
ched
ule?
PD
T be
lieve
s its
ver
y un
likel
y th
at th
ere
wou
ld b
e a
poor
ly
perfo
rmin
g in
itial
pro
ject
as
the
earli
est p
roje
cts
that
pr
ocee
d to
con
stru
ctio
n ar
e lik
ely
to b
e th
ose
who
se
succ
ess
is th
e m
ost a
ssur
ed.
Impa
cts
wou
ld li
kely
be
dela
ys to
the
star
t of p
roje
cts,
and
cos
ts o
ther
than
in
crea
ses
due
to in
flatio
n w
ould
be
unlik
ely.
Ver
y U
nlik
ely
Mar
gina
lLO
WV
ery
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
PP
M-8
Mul
ti-ye
ar c
ontra
ct a
war
d
This
pro
ject
has
an
extre
mel
y la
rge
estim
ate
cons
truct
ion
cost
. Th
ere
is a
risk
that
the
proj
ect w
ill b
e br
oken
into
m
ultip
le c
ontra
ct p
hase
s an
d aw
arde
d se
para
tely
ove
r m
ultip
le F
isca
l Yea
rs
PD
T be
lieve
s its
like
that
this
pro
ject
will
be
brok
en u
p in
to
smal
ler c
ontra
ct s
olic
itatio
ns d
ue to
the
larg
e es
timat
ed
cons
truct
ion
cost
. It
is u
nkno
wn
how
the
proj
ect w
ould
be
brok
en u
p at
this
tim
e, a
nd w
hat t
he c
ost i
mpa
cts
of th
is
wou
ld b
e.Li
kely
Neg
ligib
leLO
WV
ery
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
PDT
Dis
cuss
ions
Like
lihoo
d*Im
pact
*R
isk
Leve
l*Li
kelih
ood*
Impa
ct*
Ris
k Le
vel*
CO
NTR
AC
T A
CQ
UIS
ITIO
NR
ISK
S
Ris
k N
o.R
isk/
Opp
ortu
nity
Eve
ntC
once
rns
Proj
ect C
ost
Proj
ect S
ched
ule
Con
trac
t Ris
ks (I
nter
nal R
isk
Item
s ar
e th
ose
that
are
gen
erat
ed, c
ause
d, o
r con
trolle
d w
ithin
the
PD
T's
sphe
re o
f inf
luen
ce.)
Ris
k N
o.R
isk/
Opp
ortu
nity
Eve
ntC
once
rns
Proj
ect C
ost
Proj
ect S
ched
ule
PS
NE
RP
Tele
grap
h S
loug
hR
isk
Reg
iste
r
Mar
ch 2
016
CA
-1A
cqui
sitio
n st
rate
gy h
as n
ot
been
det
erm
ined
Acq
uisi
tion
stra
tegy
is c
urre
ntly
not
def
ined
. Thi
s es
timat
e as
sum
es fu
ll an
d op
en a
cqui
sitio
n. F
or th
is le
vel o
f es
timat
e, w
ith s
o m
uch
unce
rtain
ty, a
ll w
ork
has
been
as
sum
ed to
be
subc
ontra
cted
out
.
Typi
cally
if a
pro
ject
goe
s sm
all b
usin
ess
the
amou
nt o
f su
bcon
tract
ing
and
the
over
head
rate
s in
crea
se.
Sub
cont
ract
ing
shou
ld n
ot b
e m
uch
of th
e ris
k fo
r thi
s pr
ojec
t sin
ce e
very
thin
g is
sub
bed
out.
If th
is w
ent o
ut to
a
larg
e w
ell e
quip
ped
cont
ract
or th
e co
sts
coul
d be
redu
ced
by le
ss s
ubco
ntra
ctin
g. S
ubbi
ng o
ut 2
0% o
f the
wor
k re
sults
in a
ppro
xim
atel
y a
5% re
duct
ion
in to
tal c
ost.
Unl
ikel
yM
argi
nal
LOW
Ver
y U
nlik
ely
Neg
ligib
leLO
W
PDT
Dis
cuss
ions
Like
lihoo
d*Im
pact
*R
isk
Leve
l*Li
kelih
ood*
Impa
ct*
Ris
k Le
vel*
TEC
HN
ICA
L R
ISK
S
TL-1
Tem
pora
ry T
raffi
c C
ross
over
s
Unk
now
ns in
how
the
traffi
c w
ill b
e m
anag
ed d
urin
g de
mol
ition
of t
he e
xist
ing
brid
ge a
nd c
onst
ruct
ion
of n
ew
brid
ge.
With
out p
relim
inar
y de
sign
ther
e is
pot
entia
l for
sco
pe
chan
ge re
gard
ing
traffi
c m
anag
emen
tLi
kely
Mar
gina
lM
OD
ER
ATE
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
TL-2
Pla
ns a
re in
com
plet
eD
raw
ings
that
are
ava
ilabl
e ar
e co
ncep
tual
in n
atur
e an
d m
ay c
onta
in e
rror
s or
not
fully
mat
ch th
e si
te
Ver
y lik
ely
that
ther
e is
som
e le
vel o
f dat
a m
issi
ng fr
om th
e cu
rren
t des
ign
repo
rts a
nd p
lans
. Th
is ri
sk to
cap
ture
the
pote
ntia
l for
cos
t driv
ing
erro
rs in
con
stru
ctio
n fe
atur
es th
at
wer
e id
entif
ied
but l
imite
d da
ta w
as a
vaila
ble
and
assu
mpt
ions
wer
e us
ed; s
uch
as b
ridge
pile
s, b
ridge
pr
ofile
, util
ity lo
catio
ns a
nd ty
pes.
Ver
y Li
kely
Sig
nific
ant
HIG
HV
ery
Like
lyS
igni
fican
tH
IGH
PDT
Dis
cuss
ions
Like
lihoo
d*Im
pact
*R
isk
Leve
l*Li
kelih
ood*
Impa
ct*
Ris
k Le
vel*
LAN
DS
AN
D D
AM
AG
ESR
ISK
S
LD-1
Dem
oliti
on o
f Mis
c.
Bui
ldin
gs (M
arin
a B
oat
Sto
rage
Fac
ility
)Th
e M
arin
a ha
s no
t bee
n co
ntac
ted
abou
t any
rest
orat
ion
actio
ns a
ffect
ing
thei
r pro
perty
.
The
Mar
ina
wou
ld n
eed
to b
e ac
quire
d be
caus
e of
the
mod
ifica
tion
to th
e be
rms.
If i
t is
not a
cqui
red,
ther
e w
ould
be
a c
hang
e to
the
proj
ect f
eatu
res
(dik
e al
ignm
ent),
but
th
e pr
ojec
t cou
ld c
ontin
ue.
Ver
y Li
kely
Sig
nific
ant
HIG
HV
ery
Like
lyS
igni
fican
tH
IGH
LD-2
Rai
lroad
Rig
ht-o
f-Ent
ry
Rig
ht o
f ent
ry w
ill b
e re
quire
d at
all
site
s w
ith ra
il ro
ads.
Cou
ld n
egot
iatio
ns w
ith th
e ra
il ro
ads
exte
nd p
roje
ct
timel
ines
?
It's
very
unl
ikel
y to
affe
ct a
n in
divi
dual
pro
ject
sch
edul
e si
nce
all r
eal e
stat
e ite
ms
mus
t be
nego
tiate
d pr
ior t
o co
nstru
ctio
n be
ginn
ing.
How
ever
, it's
pos
sibl
e th
at th
e rig
ht o
f ent
ry n
egot
iatio
ns c
ould
con
tain
rest
rictio
ns a
s to
ho
w w
ork
is c
ondu
cted
at t
he s
ite (e
.g.,
rail
oper
atio
ns
mus
t be
allo
wed
to c
ontin
ue u
nint
erru
pted
), an
d th
ese
may
af
fect
pro
ject
cos
t.V
ery
Unl
ikel
yM
argi
nal
LOW
Unl
ikel
yM
argi
nal
LOW
PDT
Dis
cuss
ions
Like
lihoo
d*Im
pact
*R
isk
Leve
l*Li
kelih
ood*
Impa
ct*
Ris
k Le
vel*
REG
ULA
TOR
Y A
ND
EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
RIS
KS
RE
-1C
ultu
ral R
esou
rce
Pre
serv
atio
nD
isco
very
of a
n ar
chae
olog
ical
site
of s
igni
fican
ce.
Whi
le th
ere
has
been
no
prev
ious
sur
veys
don
e w
ithin
the
proj
ect A
PE
, the
re is
a k
now
n ar
chae
olog
ical
site
with
in a
ha
lf m
ile ra
dius
of t
he p
roje
ct a
rea.
The
ent
ire A
PE
will
ne
ed to
be
surv
eyed
, and
if a
ny a
rcha
eolo
gica
l res
ourc
es
are
foun
d, th
ey w
ill n
eed
to b
e te
sted
and
eva
luat
ed fo
r the
N
RH
P.
Like
lyM
argi
nal
MO
DE
RA
TELi
kely
Sig
nific
ant
HIG
H
Ris
k N
o.R
isk/
Opp
ortu
nity
Eve
ntC
once
rns
Proj
ect C
ost
Proj
ect S
ched
ule
Proj
ect C
ost
Proj
ect S
ched
ule
Ris
k N
o.R
isk/
Opp
ortu
nity
Eve
ntC
once
rns
Proj
ect C
ost
Proj
ect S
ched
ule
Ris
k N
o.R
isk/
Opp
ortu
nity
Eve
ntC
once
rns
PS
NE
RP
Tele
grap
h S
loug
hR
isk
Reg
iste
r
Mar
ch 2
016
RE
-2B
uild
ing
Dem
oliti
on H
TRW
Pre
senc
e of
con
tam
inan
ts a
t the
bui
ldin
g si
tes
Soi
ls a
nd s
edim
ents
may
be
cont
amin
ated
with
pet
role
um
hydr
ocar
bons
, hea
vy m
etal
s, c
reos
ote
timbe
rs, a
nd p
aint
co
ntai
ning
TB
T. R
ecom
men
d Le
vel I
and
II s
urve
ys b
e co
nduc
ted
to d
ocum
ent e
xten
t of c
onta
min
atio
n. D
redg
ed
mat
eria
l may
nee
d to
be
haul
ed to
an
appr
opria
te d
ump
site
dep
endi
ng o
n co
ntam
inat
ion
chem
ical
con
cent
ratio
ns.
Par
cels
may
hav
e st
ored
pet
role
um p
rodu
cts
and
pest
icid
es, l
ead-
base
d pa
int,
and
asbe
stos
. Rec
omm
end
Leve
l I a
nd II
sur
veys
to d
ocum
ent p
rese
nce/
abse
nce
of
cont
amin
ants
. (JU
LY 2
014:
Ris
k is
rem
oved
. H
TRW
is
sues
are
a 1
00%
loca
l spo
nsor
resp
onsi
bilit
y. L
ER
RD
cr
editi
ng is
not
app
licab
le)
Ver
y Li
kely
Mar
gina
lM
OD
ER
ATE
Ver
y Li
kely
Sig
nific
ant
HIG
H
RE
-3E
arth
wor
k co
ntam
inat
ion
HTR
WP
rese
nce
of c
onta
min
ants
for t
he m
ajor
ear
thw
ork
exca
vatio
ns.
Sed
imen
ts m
ay c
onta
in d
ebris
and
con
tam
inat
ion.
R
ecom
men
d Le
vel I
I sur
vey
be c
ondu
cted
to d
eter
min
e pr
esen
ce/a
bsen
ce o
f con
tam
inat
ion.
If c
onta
min
atio
n is
do
cum
ente
d, d
redg
ed m
ater
ial m
ay n
eed
to b
e ha
uled
to
an a
ppro
pria
te d
ump
site
. R
euse
of d
ike
mat
eria
ls m
ay
cont
ain
cont
amin
ated
soi
ls s
ince
orig
inal
soi
l orig
in
unkn
own.
Soi
l may
con
tain
pet
role
um h
ydro
carb
ons.
(Jul
y 20
14:
Ris
k is
rem
oved
. H
TRW
issu
es a
re a
100
% lo
cal
spon
sor r
espo
nsib
ility
. LE
RR
D c
redi
ting
is n
ot a
pplic
able
)Li
kely
Sig
nific
ant
HIG
HLi
kely
Sig
nific
ant
HIG
H
PDT
Dis
cuss
ions
Like
lihoo
d*Im
pact
*R
isk
Leve
l*Li
kelih
ood*
Impa
ct*
Ris
k Le
vel*
CO
NST
RU
CTI
ON
RIS
KS
CO
N-1
No
proj
ect g
radi
ng d
etai
ls
for e
arth
wor
k
Pre
limin
ary
plan
ning
sta
ges,
insu
ffici
ent L
iDar
dat
a a
nd n
o gr
adin
g de
tails
kno
wn
for t
he e
xten
sive
ear
thw
ork
outli
ned
for t
his
proj
ect.
Ther
e co
uld
be a
dditi
onal
requ
irem
ents
impo
sed
in th
e ex
cava
tion
and
fill.
It is
thou
ght t
o be
at l
east
a 5
0%
chan
ce th
at th
e sc
ope
of th
e ea
rthw
ork
will
cha
nge.
Like
lyC
risis
HIG
HLi
kely
Crit
ical
HIG
H
CO
N-2
Site
Acc
ess
Issu
es
Ther
e is
the
pote
ntia
l tha
t exc
avat
ors
will
not
be
suffi
cien
t fo
r som
e ex
cava
tion
wor
k an
d ba
rgin
g w
ill b
e ne
ed.
Als
o th
e po
ssib
le re
quire
men
t for
acc
ess
haul
road
s fo
r ex
cava
tors
.
If m
arin
e dr
edgi
ng a
nd b
arge
acc
ess
is re
quire
d th
ere
coul
d be
a s
igni
fican
t cos
t inc
reas
e co
mpa
red
to h
ydra
ulic
ex
cava
tion.
If e
xcav
atio
n is
use
d, th
ere
is s
till t
he c
hanc
e th
at a
dditi
onal
hau
l roa
ds m
ay b
e ne
eded
Like
lyS
igni
fican
tH
IGH
Like
lyM
argi
nal
MO
DE
RA
TE
CO
N-3
Unk
now
n M
arin
a S
ite
cond
ition
sP
oten
tial f
or c
onst
ruct
abili
ty is
sues
with
this
site
due
to
lack
of i
nfor
mat
ion
abou
t the
exi
stin
g co
nditi
ons
With
out f
urth
er in
form
atio
n th
e sc
ope
of th
is w
ork
is
unkn
own
at th
is ti
me
and
coul
d di
ffer f
rom
the
assu
mpt
ions
in
itial
ly m
ade.
Unl
ikel
yM
argi
nal
LOW
Unl
ikel
yM
argi
nal
LOW
CO
N-4
Em
bank
men
t Set
tlem
ent
settl
eth
e pr
opos
ed le
vee
will
nee
d to
set
tle in
ord
er to
brin
g it
up
Like
lyC
ritic
alH
IGH
Like
lyS
igni
fican
tH
IGH
CO
N-5
Ber
m S
ettle
men
tP
ossi
bilit
y th
at th
e ne
w ra
il be
rm w
ill s
ettle
With
out g
eote
chni
cal i
nfor
mat
ion,
it is
unk
now
n w
heth
er
the
prop
osed
ber
m w
ill n
eed
to s
ettle
in o
rder
to b
ring
it up
to
full
elev
atio
n. T
he b
erm
is e
xten
sive
so
it is
ass
ume
that
add
ition
al s
ettle
men
t will
be
loca
lized
occ
urre
nces
onl
yU
nlik
ely
Sig
nific
ant
MO
DE
RA
TEU
nlik
ely
Sig
nific
ant
MO
DE
RA
TE
CO
N-6
Equ
ipm
ent a
cces
s
Site
con
ditio
ns w
ere
assu
med
app
ropr
iate
to b
ring
in la
rge
equi
pmen
t. C
hang
es in
this
wou
ld a
ffect
siz
e of
equ
ipm
ent
and
thus
pro
duct
ion.
If w
eath
er a
nd s
oil c
ondi
tions
are
not
sui
tabl
e fo
r lar
ge
equi
pmen
t, sm
alle
r pie
ces
will
nee
d to
be
brou
ght i
n. A
20
% s
low
dow
n in
pro
duct
ion
will
incr
ease
leve
e re
mov
al
and
inst
all c
osts
. Th
is w
ould
hav
e a
criti
cal i
mpa
ct o
n ov
eral
l cos
t.Li
kely
Cris
isH
IGH
Like
lyC
risis
HIG
H
PDT
Dis
cuss
ions
Like
lihoo
d*Im
pact
*R
isk
Leve
l*Li
kelih
ood*
Impa
ct*
Ris
k Le
vel*
E STI
MA
TE A
ND
SC
HED
ULE
RIS
KS
ES
T-1
No
recy
cled
con
stru
ctio
n w
aste
est
imat
edO
ppor
tuni
ty fo
r rec
yclin
g co
nstru
ctio
n w
aste
from
ea
rthw
ork
and
pave
men
t dem
oliti
on a
t a re
duce
d co
stP
oten
tial f
or c
ost s
avin
gsU
nlik
ely
Sig
nific
ant
MO
DE
RA
TEV
ery
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
Ris
k N
o.R
isk/
Opp
ortu
nity
Eve
ntC
once
rns
Proj
ect C
ost
Proj
ect S
ched
ule
Ris
k N
o.R
isk/
Opp
ortu
nity
Eve
ntC
once
rns
Proj
ect C
ost
Proj
ect S
ched
ule
PS
NE
RP
Tele
grap
h S
loug
hR
isk
Reg
iste
r
Mar
ch 2
016
ES
T-2
Util
ity s
cope
ass
umpt
ions
This
item
is fo
r ove
rhea
d el
ectri
c, o
ver h
ead
com
mun
icat
ion,
und
ergr
ound
pet
role
um a
nd u
nder
grou
nd
wat
er p
ipel
ines
. P
relim
inar
y pl
anni
ng s
tage
. Ver
y lit
tle
info
rmat
ion
prov
ided
. Man
y as
sum
ptio
ns m
ade.
Ther
e is
a v
ery
likel
y ch
ance
that
the
scop
e of
this
wor
k w
ill
chan
ge. T
here
cou
ld b
e re
quire
men
ts to
this
wor
k by
the
utili
ty o
wne
rs. T
here
may
be
addi
tiona
l upg
rade
s to
the
syst
em n
eede
d. T
here
cou
ld b
e ad
ditio
nal u
tiliti
es n
ot
iden
tifie
d an
d in
oth
er a
reas
of t
he p
roje
ct.
Like
lyM
argi
nal
MO
DE
RA
TELi
kely
Mar
gina
lM
OD
ER
ATE
ES
T-3
Brid
ge D
esig
n A
ssum
ptio
nsN
o de
sign
s w
ere
prod
uced
at t
his
leve
l of d
esig
n. T
ypic
al
sect
ion
used
for t
he e
stim
ate.
The
brid
ge ti
me
is li
kely
to c
hang
e or
som
e el
emen
ts o
f th
e sc
ope
of th
e pr
osed
brid
ges.
The
brid
ges
are
appr
oxim
atel
y 20
% o
f the
TP
C.
Like
lyS
igni
fican
tH
IGH
Like
lyC
ritic
alH
IGH
ES
T-4
Fuel
Cos
t inc
reas
ing
Larg
e eq
uipm
ent m
akes
fuel
cos
t inc
reas
e a
pote
ntia
l cos
t co
ncer
n
Fuel
cos
ts fo
r the
mac
hine
ry a
nd th
e ha
ulin
g. A
n in
crea
se
of 2
5% in
fuel
cos
ts in
crea
ses
the
tota
l pro
ject
cos
t by
appr
oxim
atel
y 2%
Unl
ikel
yS
igni
fican
tM
OD
ER
ATE
Ver
y U
nlik
ely
Neg
ligib
leLO
W
ES
T-5
Ste
el c
ost i
ncre
asin
gam
ount
s of
ste
el.
cond
ition
s. It
is b
elie
ved
that
ther
e is
at l
east
a 5
0%
Like
lyS
igni
fican
tH
IGH
Ver
y U
nlik
ely
Neg
ligib
leLO
W
ES
T-6
Mar
ket c
onsi
dera
tions
A c
ompe
titiv
e m
arke
t may
not
occ
ur a
t the
tim
e th
e pr
ojec
t is
out
for b
id.
If th
is o
ccur
s, p
roje
ct c
osts
may
rise
.
Est
imat
e w
as c
reat
ed a
ssum
ing
smal
l bus
ines
s bi
ddin
g w
ith re
lativ
ely
high
con
tract
or m
arku
ps, a
nd li
mite
d se
lf-pe
rform
ed w
ork.
It i
s un
likel
y th
at e
ven
in a
ver
y ro
bust
m
arke
t tha
t pric
es w
ould
rise
sub
stan
tially
bey
ond
this
.V
ery
Unl
ikel
yC
ritic
alLO
WV
ery
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
PDT
Dis
cuss
ions
Like
lihoo
d*Im
pact
*R
isk
Leve
l*Li
kelih
ood*
Impa
ct*
Ris
k Le
vel*
PR
-1P
oliti
cal c
onsi
dera
tions
Fede
ral,
stat
e, a
nd lo
cal p
riorit
ies
may
shi
ft ch
angi
ng
proj
ect p
riorit
ies.
Opp
ositi
on to
the
proj
ect i
s no
t exp
ecte
d, s
ince
this
doe
s no
t im
pact
pro
perty
ow
ners
and
is c
onsi
dere
d to
add
be
nefit
s to
the
area
. If
pol
itica
l con
side
ratio
ns d
ue c
ome
into
pla
y, th
e pr
ojec
t may
be
canc
elle
d ou
trigh
t, bu
t it i
s un
likel
y to
pla
y a
role
in c
ost o
r sch
edul
e.U
nlik
ely
Neg
ligib
leLO
WU
nlik
ely
Neg
ligib
leLO
W
PR
-2C
hang
ing
Law
s/R
egul
atio
ns
Law
s, re
gula
tions
, and
gui
delin
es c
ould
cha
nge
over
the
life
of th
e pr
ojec
t, po
tent
ially
requ
iring
cha
nges
in m
ater
ials
us
ed o
n si
tes,
adj
uste
d co
nstru
ctio
n m
etho
dolo
gy, o
r in
crea
sed
desi
gn/s
tudy
requ
irem
ents
.
In g
ener
al th
is ri
sk w
as v
iew
ed to
be
very
unl
ikel
y to
affe
ct
the
proj
ect.
The
onl
y ex
cept
ion
is th
at th
e W
A D
ept.
of
Eco
logy
may
cha
nge
its s
edim
ent m
anag
emen
t gui
delin
es.
How
ever
, the
se c
hang
es a
re n
ot e
xpec
ted
to re
quire
mor
e th
an e
xtre
mel
y m
inor
adj
ustm
ents
to T
PC
.U
nlik
ely
Neg
ligib
leLO
WV
ery
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
Prog
ram
mat
ic R
isks
(Ext
erna
l Ris
k Ite
ms
are
thos
e th
at a
re g
ener
ated
, cau
sed,
or c
ontro
lled
excl
usiv
ely
outs
ide
the
PD
T's
sphe
re o
f inf
luen
ce.)
Ris
k N
o.R
isk/
Opp
ortu
nity
Eve
ntC
once
rns
Proj
ect C
ost
Proj
ect S
ched
ule
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors
1 Chambers Bay Full Alt 676 days Mon 10/3/16 Mon 5/6/192 [06] Fish and Wildlife Facilities 468 days Mon 10/3/16 Wed 7/18/183 [06 03] Wildlife Facilities and Sanctuaries 468 days Mon 10/3/16 Wed 7/18/184 Mobilization 1 day Mon 10/3/16 Mon 10/3/165 Survey 10 days Tue 10/4/16 Mon 10/17/16 46 Traffic Control Flaggers 320 days Tue 10/18/16 Mon 1/8/18 57 Street Cleaning 320 days Tue 10/18/16 Mon 1/8/18 58 Silt Fence 30 days Tue 10/4/16 Mon 11/14/16 49 Excavation 135 days Tue 10/18/16 Mon 4/24/17
15 Fill 6 days Tue 4/25/17 Tue 5/2/1717 Demolition 132 days Tue 4/25/17 Wed 10/25/1718 Mobilization 1 day Tue 4/25/17 Tue 4/25/17 1419 Dam 95 days Wed 4/26/17 Tue 9/5/17 1822 Buildings 90 days Wed 4/26/17 Tue 8/29/17 1823 Bulkhead 10 days Wed 8/30/17 Tue 9/12/17 2224 Marina 20 days Wed 9/13/17 Tue 10/10/17 2325 Misc Pile Removal 10 days Wed 10/11/17 Tue 10/24/17 2426 Demobilization 1 day Wed 10/25/17 Wed 10/25/17 2527 Dredging and Placement 11 days Thu 10/26/17 Thu 11/9/1731 Vegetation 102 days Fri 11/10/17 Mon 4/2/1836 Utilities 5 days Thu 2/23/17 Wed 3/1/17 6137 Fish Hatchery 220 days Wed 9/6/17 Tue 7/10/1838 Demolition 2 mons Wed 9/6/17 Tue 10/31/17 2139 Installation 9 mons Wed 11/1/17 Tue 7/10/18 3840 Post Construction Survey 5 days Wed 7/11/18 Tue 7/17/18 3941 Demobilization 1 day Wed 7/18/18 Wed 7/18/18 4042 [08] Roads, Railroads, and Bridges 645 days Tue 11/15/16 Mon 5/6/1943 [08 01] Roads 139 days Tue 11/15/16 Fri 5/26/1744 Traffic Control 50 days Tue 11/15/16 Mon 1/23/17 845 Silt Fence 10 days Tue 11/15/16 Mon 11/28/16 846 Street Cleaning 50 days Tue 11/15/16 Mon 1/23/17 847 Earthwork 50 days Tue 11/29/16 Mon 2/6/1748 Mobilization 1 day Tue 11/29/16 Tue 11/29/164549 Pre Construction Survey 10 days Wed 11/30/16 Tue 12/13/16 4850 Excavation 29 days Wed 12/14/16 Mon 1/23/17 4953 Fill 4 days Tue 1/24/17 Fri 1/27/1755 Post Construction Survey 5 days Mon 1/30/17 Fri 2/3/17 5456 Demobilization 1 day Mon 2/6/17 Mon 2/6/17 5557 Pavement 59 days Mon 1/30/17 Thu 4/20/1766 Guard Rail 44 days Thu 2/23/17 Tue 4/25/1767 Demolition 5 days Thu 2/23/17 Wed 3/1/17 6168 Installation 4 days Thu 4/20/17 Tue 4/25/17 6469 Utilities 67 days Thu 2/23/17 Fri 5/26/1770 Demolition 55 days Thu 2/23/17 Wed 5/10/1779 Installation 65 days Mon 2/27/17 Fri 5/26/1787 Drainage 6 days Thu 2/23/17 Thu 3/2/1788 Demolition 1 day Thu 2/23/17 Thu 2/23/1791 Installation 5 days Fri 2/24/17 Thu 3/2/1793 Bridge 222 days Wed 9/6/17 Thu 7/12/1894 Precontstruction Survey 10 days Wed 9/6/17 Tue 9/19/17 2195 Traffic Control 50 days Wed 9/20/17 Tue 11/28/179496 Silt Fence 5 days Wed 9/20/17 Tue 9/26/17 94
S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M016 Half 1, 2017 Half 2, 2017 Half 1, 2018 Half 2, 2018 Half 1, 2019
Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration-only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start-only
Finish-only
Progress
Deadline
PSNERPChambers Bay EstuaryConstruction Schedule
Page 1
Project: Chambers Bay EstuaryDate: Fri 3/25/16
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors
97 Street Clearing 50 days Wed 9/20/17 Tue 11/28/179498 Demolition 23 days Wed 9/27/17 Fri 10/27/17
106 Placement 179 days Mon 10/30/17 Thu 7/5/18107 Mobilization 1 day Mon 10/30/17 Mon 10/30/17 105108 New Bridge North 83 days Tue 10/31/17 Thu 2/22/18122 New Bridge South 95 days Fri 2/23/18 Thu 7/5/18136 Utilities 5 days Mon 10/30/17 Fri 11/3/17142 Post Construction Survey 5 days Fri 7/6/18 Thu 7/12/18 135143 Railroads 434 days Wed 9/6/17 Mon 5/6/19144 Demolition 254 days Wed 9/6/17 Mon 8/27/18145 Cut & Prep Concrete Counterweights 40 days Wed 9/6/17 Tue 10/31/17 21146 Pick & Remove Concrete Counterweight Sections [8ea] 8 days Wed 11/1/17 Fri 11/10/17 145147 Rail Removal 1 day Mon 11/13/17 Mon 11/13/17 146148 Railroad Bridge Demolition [steel truss] 100 days Tue 11/14/17 Mon 4/2/18 147149 Concrete Piers - Demolition 105 days Tue 4/3/18 Mon 8/27/18 148150 Cofferdam Installation 5 days Tue 4/3/18 Mon 4/9/18 148151 Concrete Pier Demolition 100 days Tue 4/10/18 Mon 8/27/18 150152 Installation 280 days Tue 4/10/18 Mon 5/6/19153 Rail Transition 20 days Tue 4/10/18 Mon 5/7/18 150154 New Trestle Railroad Bridge 260 days Tue 5/8/18 Mon 5/6/19155 Drilled Cassion Composite Pile Assembly (Shafts) 100 days Tue 5/8/18 Mon 9/24/18 153156 Composite Pile Assembly - Upper 90 days Tue 7/17/18 Mon 11/19/18 155SS+50 days157 Pile Caps 60 days Tue 9/25/18 Mon 12/17/18 156SS+50 days158 Bridge Beams 40 days Tue 11/20/18 Mon 1/14/19 157SS+40 days159 Deck 70 days Tue 1/1/19 Mon 4/8/19 158SS+30 days160 Parapet Wall Steel Rail 50 days Tue 2/26/19 Mon 5/6/19 159SS+40 days161 [18] Cultural Resource Preservation 68 days Mon 10/3/16 Wed 1/4/17162 [18 00] Cultural Resource Preservation 55 days Mon 10/3/16 Fri 12/16/16163 Cultural Resource Survey 20 days Mon 10/3/16 Fri 10/28/16164 Cultural Resource Report and Consultation 15 days Mon 10/31/16 Fri 11/18/16 163165 Potential NRHP Evaluation 20 days Mon 11/21/16 Fri 12/16/16 164166 Built Environment 68 days Mon 10/3/16 Wed 1/4/17167 Inventory 15 days Mon 10/3/16 Fri 10/21/16168 Site from and report preparation 40 days Mon 10/24/16 Fri 12/16/16 167169 Determination of effects 8 days Mon 12/19/16 Wed 12/28/16 168170 Consultation 5 days Thu 12/29/16 Wed 1/4/17 169171 [32] HTRW 320 days Tue 12/13/16 Mon 3/5/18172 Treat-Wastes/Contaminated Soil & Water 320 days Tue 12/13/16 Mon 3/5/18 5
S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M016 Half 1, 2017 Half 2, 2017 Half 1, 2018 Half 2, 2018 Half 1, 2019
Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration-only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start-only
Finish-only
Progress
Deadline
PSNERPChambers Bay EstuaryConstruction Schedule
Page 2
Project: Chambers Bay EstuaryDate: Fri 3/25/16
PSNERPChambers BayRisk Register
March 2016
Very Likely 2 3 4 5 5Likely 1 2 4 5 5
Unlikely 0 1 3 3 4Very Unlikely 0 0 1 2 4
Negligible Marginal Significant Critical Crisis
Project Scope
PS-1 4
PS-2 4
PS-3 5
PS-4 4
PS-5 0
PS-6 4
PS-7 4
PS-8 4
PS-9 5
06 Earthwork
Very few cross sections for excavation. No details of area, just large scale aerial views.There is the possibility that the areas of excavation and fill could change from what is presented in the draft report. Any increase in quantity will be covered in the Quantity risk element section. The risk here is that the nature of the earthwork may change. There could be additional requirements (notquantities) imposed in the excavation and fill. It is thought to be at least a 50% chance that the scope of the earthwork will change. Changes to the current perceived scope are definitely expected to increase TPC by at least 1%.
Risk Level
Likelihood Impact Risk LevelPotential Risk Areas PDT Discussions & Conclusions
(Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact)
Demolition
Concerns
Fish Hatchery
Vegetation
08 Pavement
08 Utilities
Critical
Significant
Negligible
Significant
No details of area, just large scale aerial views. See PS-1 for description ofquantities. The risk here is that not all of the scope is captured; there is a very likely chance that more work/tasks are needed to perform this demolition.Changes to the current perceived scope are definitely expected to increaseTPC by at least 1%.
Very likely scope will change since there is currently no scope. See PS-1 for discussion of quantities. Assume critical impact.
See PS-1 for a description of the quantities. The risk here is that not all of the scope is captured; there is a very likely chance that more work/tasks are needed to perform this work These could include soil treatment, guaranteed growth clauses, etc.. Changes to the current perceived scope are definitely expected to increase TPC by at least 1%.
This risk analysis does no account for opportunities (cost savings). However it should be noted in the Risk Register. There are risks in the quantities, but that will be covered in the Quantity risk element. No other concerns with this item.
There is a very likely chance that the scope of this work will change. Therecould be requirements to this work by the utility owners. There may beadditional upgrades to the system needed. There could be additional utilitiesnot identified and in other areas of the project. See PS-1 for a description ofUtilities the quantities. The impact could add more than 1% to the TPC.
Very LIKELY Significant
Very LIKELY
Very LIKELY
Unlikely
Very LIKELY Significant
Significant
Significant
Critical
Very LIKELY
Preliminary planning stage. No typical section. Very little information provided Many assumptions made.
No details for this work. No as-builts.
See PS-7
LIKELY
Very LIKELY
Very LIKELY
Assume that the governing agency will accept what is proposed. The bridgetype is likely to change or some elements of the scope of the proposed bridge. The bridge is approximately 10% of the construction cost.
No details of area, just large scale aerial views. See PS-1 for description ofquantities. The risk here is that not all of the scope is captured; there is a very likely chance that more work/tasks are needed to perform this demolition. Changes to the current perceived scope are definitely expected to increase TPC by at least 1%.
The bridge is approximately 30% of the TPC.
Bridge Placement - North & South Bridge
Remove Draw Bridge
New Trestle Railroad Bridge
Risk Element
This item includes excavation of abutment fill southwest of the dam, excavation of fill associated with the mill site, rock armoring along Chambers Creek Road, excavation of the marina, and excavation of the peninsula northeast of the marina. Preliminary planning stages and no grading details known.
Preliminary planning stage. Very little information provided. Manyassumptions made.
Preliminary stage of project planning. Assumed landfill disposal. There couldbe a potential opportunity in recycling the asphalt for a reduced disposal fee.
This item is for the planting of riparian and marsh/wetland areas at theDeschutes Parkway where dredged material will be placed. There is nospecific information in the report regarding this work aside from where and the quantity of surface area.
No information. No scope for this work.
This item is for the demolition and disposal of the dam, buildings, bulkhead, marina, and miscellaneous pile removal.No details for this work. No as-builts.
Chambers Bay Estuarine and Riparian EnhancementPreliminary Budget Estimate Level
Abbreviated Risk Analysis
PSNERPChambers BayRisk Register
March 2016
PS-10 5
PS-11 4
PS-12 4
Acquisition Strategy
AS-1 5
AS-2 4
AS-3 4
AS-4 4
AS-5 4
AS-6 4
AS-7 4
AS-8 5
AS-9 5
AS-10 0
AS-11 4
AS-12 4
Risk Element Potential Risk Areas Concerns PDT Discussions & Conclusions
(Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact)Likelihood Impact Risk
Level
Risk Element Potential Risk Areas Concerns PDT Discussions & Conclusions
(Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact)Likelihood Impact Risk
Level
Critical
Significant
Significant
Per Ashley Dailide, NWS lead Archeologist: "There is a high potential for this project to impact archaeological resources within the project area."
Per Mary McCormick, NWS: "The Chambers Bay project’s APE has a comparatively well developed built environment,dominated by industrial- and transportation-related properties."
Preliminary planning stage. See PS-1.
This is busy proposed site with many different elements of work. Given thenumber of tasks and location of the work, there were not many details provided and the project could be approached in manner different manners based upon the current level of project development. There are many unknowns and additional tasks involved in the project that could be captured in this risk area.
LIKELY
LIKELY
Very LIKELY
"There are four archaeological sites within the project APE that will need to be tested and evaluated for the NRHP. If these sites are found to be eligible, they must be avoided or mitigated prior to project construction. Furthermore, any uninvestigated portions of the APE must be surveyed and any further archaeological resources that may be found must also be evaluated.""Inventory work at Chambers Bay is expected to fully record and evaluate all of the properties listed above (in another document), including the BNSF causeway. The causeway bridge will still need to be inspected to determine if it has sustained modifications since listing in the National Register. Extant buildings and structures (if any) at the 1920s paper mill will need to be recorded and evaluated, and/or the locale investigated for its archaeological values. Otherwise, no more than three additional historic-age properties are presumed to exist in the APE. State and local historic preservation entities likely will have considerable concerns about adverse impacts to the railroad bridge and other properties determined eligible for listing, resulting in a lengthy consultation process. The risk that that avoidance and/or mitigations costs will incur on this project is high."
Likely there will be scope change. Impact is assumed Significant.
It is very likely that the items covered in this risk area could have a change in scope and definitely that scope would be added. The impact could exceed 1% of the TPC.
See AS-1
See AS-1See AS-1. Possibility of utility owners performing the work which could be acost increase.
08 Pavement
08 Utilities
See AS-1
See AS-1. Possibility of railroad owners performing the work which could be a cost increase.
Not applicable
See AS-1
Significant
06 Earthwork
Demolition
Fish Hatchery
Vegetation Lesser impact given item percentage to TPC.
Lesser impact given item percentage to TPC.
Lesser impact given item percentage to TPC.Bridge Placement - North & South Bridge
Remove Draw Bridge
Typically if a project goes small business the amount of subcontracting andthe overhead rates increase. Subcontracting should not be much of the risk for this project since everything is subbed out. If this went small business the overhead would increase. Other strategies could also increase costs. Given the nature of this work it is felt that it could go small business. Also, other methods may be used as well. It is considered likely that the contracting method could change from what is proposed in the estimate. The impact could be over 5%.
Lesser impact given item percentage to TPC.
Lesser impact given item percentage to TPC.
Lesser impact given item percentage to TPC.See AS-1. Possibility of railroad owners performing the work which could be a cost increase.
New Trestle Railroad Bridge
Cultural Resources PreservationHTRW Fill Associated with Mill Site
Remaining Construction Items
Cultural Resources PreservationHTRW Fill Associated with Mill Site
Remaining Construction Items
SignificantSee AS-1
Very LIKELY
Very LIKELY
CriticalSignificantSignificantSignificantSignificant
Significant
Very LIKELYVery LIKELYVery LIKELYVery LIKELY
Very LIKELY
Very LIKELY
Very LIKELYVery Unlikely
Very LIKELYVery LIKELY
Lesser impact given item percentage to TPC.
Lesser impact given item percentage to TPC.
Critical
CriticalNegligible
Significant
See AS-1
See AS-1
This estimate assumes full and open acquisition. However, the primecontractor is doing no work. All the work done is done by subcontractors. This project could be acquired by other methods aside from IFB full competition.The size of this project is very large. The project will probably be constructedunder multiple acquisitions.
PSNERPChambers BayRisk Register
March 2016
Construction Complexity
CC-1 1
CC-2 4
CC-3 1
CC-4 0
CC-5 0
CC-6 0
CC-7 0
CC-8 4
CC-9 1
CC-10 0
CC-11 4
CC-12 0
Volatile Commodities
VC-1 3VC-2 0
VC-3 2VC-4 0
VC-5 1VC-6 1
VC-7 2VC-8 0VC-9 2VC-10 0
VC-11 0VC-12 0
Quantities
Q-1 5
Q-2 4
Q-3 4
Risk Element Potential Risk Areas Concerns PDT Discussions & Conclusions
(Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact)Likelihood Impact Risk
Level
Risk Element Potential Risk Areas Concerns PDT Discussions & Conclusions
(Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact)Likelihood Impact Risk
Level
06 EarthworkDemolition
LIKELY
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
08 Utilities
Assume unlikely and marginal impact.There are always uncertainties with demolition of existing structures.Particularly in this case given the level of project
Assume unlikely and marginal impact.
06 Earthwork
Demolition
Fish Hatchery
Vegetation
08 Pavement
No significant concerns. General location could pose some challenges.
Many unknowns.
Many unknowns.
No concerns.
No concerns.
No concerns.
SignificantNegligible
MarginalNegligible
NegligibleNegligible
Fish HatcheryVegetation
08 Pavement08 Utilities
A 25% increase in fuel could contribute to up to a 1.5% increase in totalconstruction costs. How likely is it that gasoline will reach $5.00/gal? Depends on who you ask. For the purposes of this risk analysis, assume that it is unlikely. Impact is significant.
Cost of steel and other metals are subject to market conditions. It is believed that there is at least a 50% chance of fluctuation upward. The impact is considered to increase the total project costs no more than 1%
Asphalt is a petroleum product and subject to market conditions. Assumelikely and negligible.Assume likely and negligible.
UnlikelyUnlikely
Fuel prices.No concerns.
Concrete, Steel. LIKELYUnlikely
LIKELYLIKELY
No earthwork balance has been calculated or evaluated. More information will be obtained as design progresses. It is very likely that there will be a change in the quantities. Assume Critical impact. Large cost item.Likely that the quantities will significantly change. Impact could be at least a1% increase to the TPC.Likely that the quantities will significantly change. Impact could be at least a1% increase to the TPC.
06 Earthwork
Demolition
Fish Hatchery
No concerns.
AsphaltSee VC-6. Pipe costs.
Very few cross sections for fill, just typical sections used in quantitydevelopment. No cross sections for excavation.No information. Quantities subject to change. Many assumptions made indeveloping quantities.
Critical
Significant
Significant
Very LIKELY
LIKELY
LIKELY
Marginal
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Unlikely
Marginal
Cultural Resources Preservation Very Unlikely Negligible
New Trestle Railroad Bridge Unlikely
Negligible
Remove Draw Bridge Unique demolition. Unknowns and methods required not fully vetted. LIKELY Significant
Bridge Placement - North & South Bridge Very Unlikely
Very Unlikely
Marginal
Significant
Significant
Remaining Construction Items Unlikely Negligible
HTRW Fill Associated with Mill Site
There are currently unknowns since the requirements of this work has not been established. Assume likely and significant. LIKELY
MarginalCultural Resources Preservation Very Unlikely NegligibleNew Trestle Railroad Bridge LIKELY
MarginalRemove Draw Bridge Very Unlikely Negligible
Bridge Placement - North & South Bridge LIKELY
NegligibleRemaining Construction Items Unlikely Negligible
HTRW Fill Associated with Mill Site Very UnlikelyNo concerns at this time.
No concerns at this time.
See PS-3
No concerns
HTRW work can present some constructability issues.
No concerns at this time.
See VC-3No concernsSee VC-3No concerns.
No concerns. A competent bridge contractor should be able to perform thiswork.
Large overhead structure with restricted access.
See CC-1
PSNERPChambers BayRisk Register
March 2016
Q-4 3
Q-5 2
Q-6 4
Q-7 4
Q-8 5
Q-9 4
Q-10 1
Q-11 5
Q-12 4
Fabrication & Project Installed Equipment
FI-1 0
FI-2 0
FI-3 4
FI-4 0
FI-5 0
FI-6 0
FI-7 0
FI-8 0
FI-9 0
FI-10 0
FI-11 0
FI-12 0
Cost Estimating Method
CE-1 1
CE-2 2
CE-3 2
CE-4 0
CE-5 0
Risk Element Potential Risk Areas Concerns PDT Discussions & Conclusions
(Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact)Likelihood Impact Risk
Level
Risk Element Potential Risk Areas Concerns PDT Discussions & Conclusions
(Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact)Likelihood Impact Risk
Level
08 Pavement
08 Utilities
This is very likely to change. The impact is unknown. Assume marginal.
Likely to change. Impact is difficult to evaluate since disposal fees are thelargest cost in demolition. Changes in asphalt placement could increase costs.
Size, material, and lengths estimated. There is a very likely potential that any or all of these three will change. New alignments with the bridge and roadway could cause the utility adjustments to extend beyond what is originally planned in the report. Impact could increase TPC by at least 1%.
Vegetation
LIKELY
Very LIKELY
Marginal
Marginal
Significant
Very LIKELY
08 Pavement
08 Utilities
Pumps, filters, electrical components, etc.
06 Earthwork
Demolition
Fish Hatchery
Vegetation
No concerns at this time.
No concerns at this time.
No design. Many unknowns.
No concerns.
No concerns,
No concerns at this time.
Very Unlikely
Very Unlikely
Negligible
Negligible
Significant
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Very Unlikely
Very Unlikely
LIKELY
Very Unlikely
Unlikely there would be significant changes. Impacts assumed marginal.Likely there will be changes to the methodology in the cost estimate. Impact assumed marginal.
Validity may be in question. See CE-2.
06 Earthwork
Demolition
Fish Hatchery
Vegetation
08 Pavement
No concerns at this time.
No concerns at this time. Very Unlikely
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Negligible
Negligible
Unlikely
LIKELY
LIKELY
Very Unlikely
Significant
Cultural Resources Preservation Findings could lead to more time being required. LIKELY Negligible
New Trestle Railroad Bridge LIKELY
Significant
Remove Draw Bridge Very likely quantities will change. Assume critical impact. Very LIKELY Critical
Bridge Placement - North & South Bridge
Conservative in the caisson depth. Many assumptions were made. It is likely that the quantities will change. The impact could easily be over 1%. LIKELYUsed a typical section for the quantity development.
Many unknowns and assumptions made. See PS-8.
See Q-7.
Time spent on study is an estimate.
Critical
Remaining Construction Items
Quantities were large in part just estimates. Most of the quantities in the Remaining Construction items were very roughly estimated. It is very likely that these quantities will increase. The impact could increase the TPC by 1%. Very LIKELY Significant
HTRW Fill Associated with Mill Site Very LIKELY
NegligibleCultural Resources Preservation Very Unlikely Negligible
New Trestle Railroad Bridge Very Unlikely
NegligibleRemove Draw Bridge Very Unlikely Negligible
Bridge Placement - North & South Bridge Very Unlikely
NegligibleRemaining Construction Items Very Unlikely Negligible
HTRW Fill Associated with Mill Site Very Unlikely
Assumed a density and type of material to be placed.
Assumed depth of removal. Asphalt placement design subject to change.
See PS-6.
No concerns at this time.
Lack of time to be able to spend on the estimate.
Many assumptions made. See CE-1.
Used a previous cost estimate. See CE-1.
See Q-1
Preliminary information and no design.
No concerns at this time.
No concerns at this time.
No concerns at this time.
No applicable.
No concerns at this time.
PSNERPChambers BayRisk Register
March 2016
CE-6 2
CE-7 4
CE-8 4
CE-9 5
CE-10 1
CE-11 0
CE-12 0
External Project Risks
EX-1 5
EX-2 4
EX-3 4
EX-4 0
EX-5 0
EX-6 2
EX-7 4
EX-8 4
EX-9 4
EX-10 0
EX-11 0
EX-12 4
HTRW
HTRW-1 2
HTRW-2 1
HTRW-3 0
HTRW-4 0
HTRW-5 0
HTRW-6 0
HTRW-7 0
HTRW-8 2
Risk Element Potential Risk Areas Concerns PDT Discussions & Conclusions
(Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact)Likelihood Impact Risk
Level
Risk Element Potential Risk Areas Concerns PDT Discussions & Conclusions
(Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact)Likelihood Impact Risk
Level
Bridge Placement - North & South Bridge No concerns at this time. Very Unlikely NegligibleRemove Draw Bridge Material could have contaminates associated with it (lead paint, etc.) Assume likely due to the age of the bridge with marginal impacts. LIKELY Marginal
08 Pavement No concerns. Very Unlikely Negligible08 Utilities No concerns at this time. Very Unlikely Negligible
Fish Hatchery No concerns at this time. Very Unlikely NegligibleVegetation No concerns. Unlikely Negligible
06 Earthwork
Per John Kill Eagle on 6/21/2011 : Quantities of potentially contaminated sediment behind dam could vary significantly from the estimated total sediment of 7,300 CY.
The Level I report estimates 50% to be contaminated. A more conservative estimate of 100% should be used to estimate the contaminated sediment that must be disposed of in landfill. LIKELY Marginal
Demolition
Per John Kill Eagle on 6/21/2011 : 7,300 square feet of buildings at dam abutments (fish hatchery, support building, and water intake building) and 46,700 square feet of buildings at the marina are likely to have hazardous waste associated with demolition. Surveys of LBP and asbestos building material should be conducted to determine the presents of this hazardous waste that must be disposed of at a licensed landfill.
Hazardous waste can be estimated through percentage of square feet of building spa Very Unlikely Significant
08 UtilitiesCost book items and assumptions may not be entirely accurate or applicable to the project.Used many cost book items. Used many assumptions. LIKELY Marginal
Assumptions may not be valid.
Bridge Placement - North & South Bridge
Remove Draw Bridge
New Trestle Railroad Bridge
Cultural Resources PreservationHTRW Fill Associated with Mill Site
Remaining Construction Items
Greater impact. Significant
Significant
Critical
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
LIKELY
LIKELY
LIKELY
LIKELY
Very Unlikely
Very Unlikely
CriticalDemolition Lesser impact given item percentage to TPC. LIKELY Significant
06 Earthwork
The mill site is currently for sale. Willingness of other property owners is in question. It is likely that there will be affects to the project from the noted concerns. It is a safe assumption that the impact is critical. LIKELY
Negligible
08 UtilitiesSee EX-1. Working with utility owners. Likely there will be an impact to the project. Impact assumed marginal. LIKELY Marginal
08 Pavement Very Unlikely
SignificantVegetation Very Unlikely Negligible
Fish Hatchery Lesser impact given item percentage to TPC. LIKELY
Cultural Resources Preservation Very Unlikely Negligible
New Trestle Railroad Bridge LIKELY
Significant
Remove Draw BridgeIt is likely that there will be affects to the project from the noted concerns. It is a safe assumption that the impact is significant. LIKELY Significant
Bridge Placement - North & South Bridge LIKELY
NegligibleRemaining Construction Items Lesser impact given item percentage to TPC. LIKELY Significant
HTRW Fill Associated with Mill Site Very Unlikely
Significant
See EX-1
Land ownership. Water rights. Stakeholder support.
See EX-1
See EX-1
No concerns
No concerns at this time.
See CE-6
See CE-7
See CE-7
Made assumptions.No concerns for items covered in the estimate. Concern is for items notcovered in the estimate. That concern is covered in the scope risk element.
Concerns covered in other risk elements.
Stakeholders.
See EX-2
Working with the railroad company.
See EX-8
No concerns at this time.
No concerns at this time.
PSNERPChambers BayRisk Register
March 2016
HTRW-9 0
HTRW-10 0
HTRW-11 0
HTRW-12 0HTRW-13 0
HTRW-14 0
Planning, Engineering, & Design Very Unlikely NegligibleConstruction Management Very Unlikely Negligible
HTRW Fill Associated with Mill Site Concerns covered by in other risk elements since this is a project item. Very Unlikely NegligibleRemaining Construction Items No concerns at this time. Unlikely Negligible
New Trestle Railroad Bridge No concerns at this time. Very Unlikely NegligibleCultural Resources Preservation Not applicable Very Unlikely Negligible
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish
1 Big Beef Causeway 548 days Mon 10/3/16 Wed 11/7/18
2 Start 1 day Mon 10/3/16 Mon 10/3/16
3 Mobilize 5 days Tue 10/4/16 Mon 10/10/16
4 Road Approach Fill 11 days Tue 10/11/16 Tue 10/25/16
5 Pier Demo 10 days Tue 10/11/16 Mon 10/24/16
6 Finger Pier Construction 35 days Tue 10/25/16 Mon 12/12/16
7 Bridge Construction 254 days Tue 12/13/16 Fri 12/1/17
8 Relocate Utilities 9 days Mon 12/4/17 Thu 12/14/17
9 Remove Causeway 64 days Fri 12/15/17 Wed 3/14/18
10 Demo Existing Bridge 225 days Fri 12/15/17 Thu 10/25/18
11 Planting 3 days Fri 10/26/18 Tue 10/30/18
12 Demobilize 5 days Wed 10/31/18 Tue 11/6/18
13 Finish 1 day Wed 11/7/18 Wed 11/7/18
T T S M W F S T T S M W F S T T S M W F S T Tep 4, '1Nov 20, Feb 5, '1Apr 23, Jul 9, '17Sep 24, Dec 10, Feb 25, May 13, Jul 29, '1Oct 14, Dec
Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration‐only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start‐only
Finish‐only
Deadline
Progress
PSNERPBig Beef Creek EstuaryConstruction Schedule
Page 1
Project: Big Beef Creek EstuaryDate: Fri 3/25/16
PSNERP Big Beef Creek EstuaryRisk Register
March 2016
Very Likely 2 3 4 5 5Likely 1 2 4 5 5
Unlikely 0 1 3 3 4Very Unlikely 0 0 1 2 4
Negligible Marginal Significant Critical Crisis
Project Scope
PS-1 5
PS-2 5
PS-4 5
PS-5 0
PS-6 5
PS-7 0
PS-8 5
PS-10 0
PS-12 4
Acquisition Strategy
AS-1 5
AS-2 5
AS-4 5
AS-5 5
AS-6 2
AS-7 0
AS-8 0
AS-10 0
Risk Element Potential Risk Areas Concerns PDT Discussions & Conclusions
(Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact)Likelihood Impact Risk
Level
Big Beef Creek EstuaryPreliminary Budget Estimate Level
Abbreviated Risk Analysis
See AS-2
This estimate assumes full and open acquisition. However, the prime contractor is doing no work. All the work done is done by subcontractors. This project could be acquired by other methods aside from IFB full competition.
Risk Element
No subsurface geotechnical exploration. Possibility for soil contamination? Preliminary planning stages and no grading details known. Care and Diversion of water.
Unknowns in all subsurface work. There may be more utilities than what is currently identified in the report. If utilities are discovered there may be challenges with causeway removal, and utility relocation?
Assumed landfill disposal. There could be a potential opportunity in recycling the asphalt for a reduced disposal fee.
No subsurface geotechnical exploration. Preliminary planning stages and no grading details known. Risk of excavated soil contamination or unsuitable soil for reuse as fill for roadway section.
Increased erosion following causeway removal could impact homes? Greater sediment outfall from the harbor disturbing native fishing grounds? Mitigation/compensation?
Very Unlikely
Very Unlikely
Very Unlikely
Negligible
Negligible
08 Traffic Control
08 Bridge18 Cultural Resources Preservation
Remaining Construction Items
NegligibleSee AS-2
LIKELY
Very Unlikely
Critical
Critical
Critical
Critical
Critical
LIKELY
LIKELY
LIKELY
06 Earthwork
06 Demolition
08 Earthwork
08 Traffic Control
08 Bridge See AS-218 Cultural Resources Preservation
See AS-2
See AS-2
Typically utility companies perform the relocations of their own utilities. The acquisition strategy may not have an impact on this work.
08 Pavement
08 Utilities
See AS-2
Local authority desires that the existing road remain open during construction. Risk of the entire road needing to be shut down for the duration of construction for staging and construction operations?
Are there concerns/risk of scour around bridge columns as a result of increased tidal flows after removal of the causeway. Will there be a risk of increased embedment depth, revised column number or design?
What happens if Cultural Resources are discovered?
No specific concerns aside from level of detail in scope and design.
Very Unlikely
LIKELY
Very Unlikely
LIKELY
Negligible
Significant
LIKELY Critical
LIKELY
Very Unlikely
LIKELY Critical
Negligible
Crisis
LIKELY
08 Earthwork
08 Pavement
08 Utilities
Crisis
Negligible
Critical
06 Earthwork
Risk Level
Likelihood Impact Risk LevelPotential Risk Areas PDT Discussions & Conclusions
(Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact)
06 Demolition
Concerns
PSNERP Big Beef Creek EstuaryRisk Register
March 2016
AS-12 5
Construction Complexity
CC-1 2
CC-2 2
CC-4 2
CC-5 0
CC-6 0
CC-7 0
CC-8 4
CC-10 0
CC-12 2
Volatile Commodities
VC-1 1
VC-2 1
VC-4 1
VC-5 1
VC-6 2
VC-7 0
VC-8 0
VC-10 0
VC-12 1
Quantities
Q-1 5
Q-2 2
Q-4 4
Q-5 0
Q-6 4
Q-7 0
Q-8 4
Q-10 0
Risk Element Potential Risk Areas Concerns PDT Discussions & Conclusions
(Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact)Likelihood Impact Risk
Level
Risk Element Potential Risk Areas Concerns PDT Discussions & Conclusions
(Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact)Likelihood Impact Risk
Level
Risk Element Potential Risk Areas Concerns PDT Discussions & Conclusions
(Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact)Likelihood Impact Risk
Level
Can the new bridge be constructed without significant closures to the entire roadway. Is a 15ft wide staging area enough for construction opperations? Additional traffic control required for full closures, how many full closures?Construction of bridge columns using temporary finger piers off of existing roadway.
Unknowing how much, if any, excavated material will be suitable for reuse.
Assumed depth.
Unknown if there are additional underground utilities
See CC-1
Concrete prices
18 Cultural Resources Preservation Very Unlikely Negligible
Negligible
08 Bridge LIKELY Significant
08 Traffic Control Very UnlikelyExisting bridge design is unknown, column embedment depth, height, number, diameter were all assumed.Time spent on study is an estimate. Findings could lead to more time being required.
Remaining Construction Items LIKELY NegligibleSee VC-1.
18 Cultural Resources Preservation Very Unlikely Negligible
Negligible
08 Bridge Very Unlikely Negligible
08 Traffic Control Very Unlikely
Remaining Construction Items LIKELY Marginal
18 Cultural Resources Preservation Very Unlikely Negligible
Negligible
08 Bridge LIKELY Significant
08 Traffic Control Very Unlikely
Very Unlikely
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Negligible
Negligible
LIKELY
LIKELY
Critical
Marginal
Significant
Negligible
Significant
LIKELY
LIKELY
LIKELY
LIKELY
LIKELY
LIKELY
08 Pavement
08 Utilities
06 Earthwork
06 Demolition
08 Earthwork
See VC-1.
Fuel and Asphalt prices
Cost increase in the material (conductor, lines, mains, etc.).
Unlikely
LIKELY
Very few cross sections, just typical sections used in quantity development.No cross sections or details on the causeway. Material of the causeway unknown. The assumptions used for quantifying these items could be off.
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Marginal
08 Earthwork
08 Pavement
08 Utilities
LIKELY
LIKELY
Fuel prices.
See VC-1.
06 Earthwork
06 Demolition
LIKELY
LIKELY
Very Unlikely
08 Utilities
06 Earthwork
06 Demolition
08 Earthwork
08 Pavement
Care and diversion of water. Stockpile locations requiring additional easements for excavated earth for reuse.
See CC-1
See CC-1
No concerns.
See CC-5
CriticalRemaining Construction Items See AS-2
PSNERP Big Beef Creek EstuaryRisk Register
March 2016
Q-12 4
Fabrication & Project Installed Equipment
FI-1 0
FI-2 0
FI-4 0
FI-5 0
FI-6 0
FI-7 0
FI-8 0
FI-10 0
FI-12 0
Cost Estimating Method
CE-1 0
CE-2 1
CE-4 0
CE-5 0
CE-6 4
CE-7 0
CE-8 4
CE-10 0
CE-12 4
HTRW
HTRW-1 5
HTRW-2 4
HTRW-4 5
HTRW-5 0
HTRW-6 0
HTRW-7 0
HTRW-8 0
HTRW-10 0
HTRW-12 2
Risk Element Potential Risk Areas Concerns PDT Discussions & Conclusions
(Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact)Likelihood Impact Risk
Level
Risk Element Potential Risk Areas Concerns PDT Discussions & Conclusions
(Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact)Likelihood Impact Risk
Level
Risk Element Potential Risk Areas Concerns PDT Discussions & Conclusions
(Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact)Likelihood Impact Risk
Level
Temporary finger pier construction platforms for new bridge construction.
No concerns.
No concerns.
Estimate assumes no significant closures of the roadway; temporary construction traffic signal to facilitate one way road during construction.
Production rate of installing temporary piers, and production rate for construciton of columns from temporary piers.
There could be an increase in items covered and addition of items not covered.
Remaining Construction Items Very Unlikely Negligible
18 Cultural Resources Preservation Very Unlikely Negligible
Negligible
08 Bridge Very Unlikely Negligible
08 Traffic Control Very Unlikely
Remaining Construction Items LIKELY Significant
Negligible
Significant
Negligible
Significant
Very Unlikely
LIKELY
Very Unlikely
LIKELY
08 Traffic Control
08 Bridge18 Cultural Resources Preservation
Remaining Construction Items
Very Unlikely
LIKELY
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Significant
Very Unlikely
LIKELY
Very Unlikely
08 Utilities
06 Earthwork
06 Demolition
08 Earthwork
08 Pavement
No concerns.
The quantity of reused fill 6,615 CY. Dependent on suitability of unknown causeway material.
No concerns.
Very Unlikely
Very Unlikely
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Very Unlikely
Very Unlikely
Very Unlikely
08 Pavement
08 Utilities
06 Earthwork
06 Demolition
08 Earthwork
No concerns.
No concerns.
No concerns.
No concerns.
No concerns.
06 Earthwork Potential for soil contamination due to roadway runoff. LIKELY Crisis
06 Demolition Creosote hazard for demolition of the old pier. LIKELY Significant
08 Earthwork See HTRW-1 LIKELY Crisis
08 Pavement No Concerns. Very Unlikely Negligible
08 Utilities No Concerns. Very Unlikely Negligible
08 Traffic Control Very Unlikely Negligible
08 Bridge Very Unlikely Negligible18 Cultural Resources Preservation Very Unlikely Negligible
Remaining Construction Items No specific concerns at this time. There may be some impact here. LIKELY Marginal
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Predec
1 ahuya Full Alternative Restoration 428 days Mon 10/3/16 Thu 5/24/182 [06] Fish and Wildlife Facilities 77.5 days Wed 10/26/16 Mon 2/13/17 463 [06 03] Wildlife Facilities and Sanctuaries 77.5 days Wed 10/26/16 Mon 2/13/174 Mobilization 8 hrs Wed 10/26/16 Thu 10/27/16
5 Preconstruction Survey 20 hrs Thu 10/27/16 Tue 11/1/164
6 Erosion & Sediment Control Measures - Install Silt Fence 188 hrs Tue 11/1/16 Fri 12/2/16 5
7 Earthwork 255 hrs Fri 12/2/16 Tue 1/17/17 6
8 Demolition 27 hrs Fri 12/2/16 Wed 12/7/16 6
9 Vegetation 20 hrs Tue 1/17/17 Thu 1/19/17 7
10 Erosion & Sediment Control Measures - Remove silt fenc 101 hrs Thu 1/19/17 Tue 2/7/17 9
11 Post Construction Survey 20 hrs Tue 2/7/17 Fri 2/10/17 10
12 Demobilization 8 hrs Fri 2/10/17 Mon 2/13/17 11
13 [08] Roads, Railroads, and Bridges 333 days Mon 2/13/17 Thu 5/24/18 1214 Erosion & Sediment Control Measures - Install Silt Fence 188 hrs Mon 2/13/17 Thu 3/16/17
15 [08 01] Roads 51.63 days Wed 8/23/17 Fri 11/3/17 4016 Mobilization 8 hrs Wed 8/23/17 Thu 8/24/17
17 Earthwork 286 hrs Thu 9/14/17 Fri 11/3/17 18
18 Pavement 87 hrs Wed 8/30/17 Thu 9/14/17 19
19 Parapet Wall 40 hrs Wed 8/23/17 Wed 8/30/17
20 Utilities 97 hrs Wed 8/23/17 Fri 9/8/17
21 Traffic Control 372 hrs Wed 8/23/17 Fri 10/27/17
22 Demobilization 8 hrs Wed 8/23/17 Thu 8/24/17
23 Bridges 309.5 days Thu 3/16/17 Thu 5/24/18 1424 Mobilization 16 hrs Thu 3/16/17 Mon 3/20/17
25 Bridge Installation 129.25 days Fri 11/3/17 Thu 5/3/18 1734 Bridge Removal 112 days Mon 3/20/17 Wed 8/23/17 2441 Erosion & Sediment Control Measures - Remove Silt Fen 101 hrs Thu 5/3/18 Tue 5/22/18 32
42 Demobilization 16 hrs Tue 5/22/18 Thu 5/24/18 41
43 [18] Cultural Resource Preservation 27.5 days Mon 10/3/16 Wed 11/9/1644 [18 00] Cultural Resource Preservation 27.5 days Mon 10/3/16 Wed 11/9/1645 Survey 100 hrs Mon 10/3/16 Wed 10/19/16
46 Report 40 hrs Wed 10/19/16 Wed 10/26/16 45
47 Consultation 80 hrs Wed 10/26/16 Wed 11/9/16 46
48 Potential NRHP Evaluation 80 hrs Wed 10/26/16 Wed 11/9/16 46
W S T M F T S W S T M F T S W S T M F T S W S T M F T S W S T M F T S28, 'Oct 9, '16Nov 20, 'Jan 1, '17Feb 12, 'Mar 26, 'May 7, '1Jun 18, '1Jul 30, '1Sep 10, 'Oct 22, '1Dec 3, '1Jan 14, 'Feb 25, 'Apr 8, '18May 2
Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration-only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start-only
Finish-only
Progress
Deadline
PSNERPTahuya River EstuaryConstruction Schedule
Page 1
Project: Tahuya River EstuaryDate: Fri 3/25/16
PN
SR
EP
Tahu
ya R
iver
Est
uary
Ris
k R
egis
ter
Mar
ch 2
016
PDT
Dis
cuss
ions
&C
oncl
usio
nsLi
kelih
ood*
Impa
ct*
Ris
kLe
vel*
Like
lihoo
d*Im
pact
*R
isk
Leve
l*
PRO
JEC
T&
PRO
GR
AM
MG
MT
PP
M-1
Pro
ject
Sch
edul
ing
Hig
h vo
lum
e of
pro
ject
s un
der t
he P
SN
ER
P a
utho
rizat
ion
may
pr
esen
t iss
ues
in te
rms
of re
sour
ce a
lloca
tion
and
qual
ity
cont
rol.
PD
T do
es n
ot b
elie
ve th
e vo
lum
e of
pro
ject
will
cau
se
prob
lem
s. P
roje
ct w
ill b
e sc
hedu
le o
ver y
ears
and
eve
n de
cade
s in
ord
er to
mee
t con
stru
ctio
n go
als.
Ver
y U
nlik
ely
Neg
ligib
leLO
WV
ery
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
PP
M-2
Sta
ffing
Red
uctio
ns
Bot
h th
e S
eattl
e D
istri
ct a
nd th
e W
DFW
hav
e nu
mer
ous
proj
ects
com
petin
g fo
r sta
ffing
reso
urce
s. I
f oth
er p
roje
cts
beco
me
a hi
gher
prio
rity
staf
f cou
ld b
e pu
lled
from
PS
NE
RP
.
PS
NE
RP
rem
ains
a D
istri
ct a
nd W
DFW
prio
rity
and
will
is
less
like
ly th
an o
ther
pro
ject
s to
see
sta
ffing
redu
ctio
ns.
Ther
e ar
e m
inor
cos
t inc
reas
es d
ue to
incr
ease
s in
wor
k be
ing
out-s
ourc
ed to
AE
s an
d po
tent
iall
slow
dow
ns is
st
affin
g is
shi
fted
on s
hort
notic
e.V
ery
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
Ver
y U
nlik
ely
Neg
ligib
leLO
W
PP
M-3
Com
mun
icat
ion
Issu
es
Exc
elle
nt c
omm
unic
atio
ns is
nec
essa
ry in
ord
er to
suc
essf
ully
co
mpl
ete
the
proj
ect.
Bot
h in
tern
al is
sues
intra
-Cor
ps o
r int
ra-
WD
FW, o
r iss
ues
betw
een
the
Cor
ps a
nd lo
cal s
pons
ors
coul
d af
fect
the
proj
ect t
imel
ine.
The
proj
ect c
urre
ntly
has
stro
ng c
omm
unic
atio
n an
d tru
st
betw
een
the
Cor
ps a
nd W
DFW
, and
enj
oys
high
leve
ls o
f po
litic
al s
uppo
rt bo
th fr
om th
e Fe
dera
l and
loca
l spo
nsor
s.Th
ere
are
othe
r loc
al s
pons
ors
(mun
icip
aliti
es, t
ribes
, N
GO
s, e
tc) t
hat w
ill b
e in
volv
ed o
nce
the
proj
ect m
oves
in
to P
ED
/CG
pha
se.
Com
mun
icat
ions
with
thes
e en
titie
s m
ay b
e m
ore
fraug
ht a
nd th
ere
are
likel
y to
be
at le
ast
som
e sc
hedu
le d
elay
s be
caus
e of
this
.V
ery
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
Like
lyM
argi
nal
MO
DE
RA
TE
PP
M-4
Poo
r Ini
tial P
roje
ct P
erfo
man
ce
The
PS
NE
RP
pro
ject
will
be
very
vis
ible
in th
e P
uget
Sou
nd
area
onc
e co
nstru
ctio
n be
gins
. C
ould
an
early
act
ion
that
pe
rform
s po
orly
(red
uced
env
ironm
enta
l ben
efits
, pro
ject
ne
ighb
ors
who
felt
slig
hted
or w
hose
con
cern
s w
ere
not f
ully
ad
dres
sed,
etc
) cau
se th
e re
mai
nder
of t
he p
roje
ct to
hav
e in
crea
sed
cost
/sch
edul
e?
PD
T be
lieve
s its
ver
y un
likel
y th
at th
ere
wou
ld b
e a
poor
ly
perfo
rmin
g in
itial
pro
ject
as
the
earli
est p
roje
cts
that
pr
ocee
d to
con
stru
ctio
n ar
e lik
ely
to b
e th
ose
who
se
succ
ess
is th
e m
ost a
ssur
ed.
Impa
cts
wou
ld li
kely
be
dela
ys to
the
star
t of p
roje
cts,
and
cos
ts o
ther
than
in
crea
ses
due
to in
flatio
n w
ould
be
unlik
ely.
Ver
y U
nlik
ely
Neg
ligib
leLO
WV
ery
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
CO
NTR
AC
T A
CQ
UIS
ITIO
N R
ISK
S
CA
-1P
oten
ially
Cou
ld G
o S
mal
l Bus
ines
s
This
est
imat
e as
sum
es fu
ll an
d op
en a
cqui
sitio
n. H
owev
er, t
he
prim
e co
ntra
ctor
is d
oing
no
wor
k. A
ll th
e w
ork
done
is d
one
by
subc
ontra
ctor
s. T
his
proj
ect c
ould
be
acqu
ired
by o
ther
m
etho
ds a
side
from
IFB
full
com
petit
ion.
Typi
cally
if a
pro
ject
goe
s sm
all b
usin
ess
the
amou
nt o
f su
bcon
tract
ing
and
the
over
head
rate
s in
crea
se.
Sub
cont
ract
ing
shou
ld n
ot b
e m
uch
of th
e ris
k fo
r thi
s pr
ojec
t sin
ce e
very
thin
g is
sub
bed
out.
If th
is w
ent s
mal
l bu
sine
ss th
e ov
erhe
ad w
ould
incr
ease
. O
ther
stra
tegi
es
coul
d al
so in
crea
se c
osts
. G
iven
the
natu
re o
f thi
s w
ork
it is
felt
that
it c
ould
go
smal
l bus
ines
s. A
lso,
oth
er m
etho
ds
may
be
used
as
wel
l. It
is c
onsi
dere
d lik
ely
that
the
cont
ract
ing
met
hod
coul
d ch
ange
from
wha
t is
prop
osed
in
the
estim
ate.
V
ery
Like
lyC
ritic
alH
IGH
Ver
y Li
kely
Crit
ical
HIG
H
CA
-3In
effic
ient
Con
tract
ors
The
acqu
isiti
on p
roce
ss m
ay h
ighe
r ine
ffici
ent c
ontra
ctor
s.
PD
T be
lieve
that
this
is u
nlik
ely.
Con
tract
ing
lang
uage
and
se
lect
ion
proc
esse
s ca
n be
don
e in
a w
ay th
at c
an fi
lter
out p
oor p
erfo
rmin
g co
ntra
ctor
s.V
ery
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
Ver
y U
nlik
ely
Neg
ligib
leLO
W
PDT
Dis
cuss
ions
& C
oncl
usio
nsLi
kelih
ood*
Impa
ct*
Ris
k Le
vel*
Like
lihoo
d*Im
pact
*R
isk
Leve
l*TE
CH
NIC
AL
RIS
KS
TL-1
Ear
thw
ork
Pre
limin
ary
plan
ning
sta
ges
and
no g
radi
ng d
etai
ls k
now
n.H
elip
ad re
loca
tion
loca
tion
not y
et id
entif
ied.
Ther
e is
the
poss
ibili
ty th
at th
e ar
eas
of e
xcav
atio
n an
d fil
l co
uld
chan
ge fr
om w
hat i
s pr
esen
ted
in th
e dr
aft r
epor
t.A
ny in
crea
se in
qua
ntity
will
be
cove
red
in th
e Q
uant
ity ri
sk
elem
ent s
ectio
n. T
he ri
sk h
ere
is th
at th
e na
ture
of t
he
earth
wor
k m
ay c
hang
e. T
here
cou
ld b
e ad
ditio
nal
requ
irem
ents
(not
qua
ntiti
es) i
mpo
sed
in th
e ex
cava
tion
and
fill.
It is
thou
ght t
o be
at l
east
a 5
0% c
hanc
e th
at th
e sc
ope
of th
e ea
rthw
ork
will
cha
nge.
Li
kely
Sig
nific
ant
HIG
HV
ery
Like
lyC
ritic
alH
IGH
Ris
k N
o.R
isk/
Opp
ortu
nity
Eve
ntC
once
rns
Proj
ect C
ost
Proj
ect S
ched
ule
Con
trac
t Ris
ks (I
nter
nal R
isk
Item
s ar
e th
ose
that
are
gen
erat
ed, c
ause
d, o
r con
trolle
d w
ithin
the
PD
T's
sphe
re o
f inf
luen
ce.)
Ris
k N
o.R
isk/
Opp
ortu
nity
Eve
ntC
once
rns
Proj
ect C
ost
Proj
ect S
ched
ule
PN
SR
EP
Tahu
ya R
iver
Est
uary
Ris
k R
egis
ter
Mar
ch 2
016
TL-2
Brid
ge w
ork
No
desi
gn fo
r new
brid
ge a
nd n
o as
-bui
lts fo
r exi
stin
g br
idge
.
The
brid
ge ty
pe is
like
ly to
cha
nge
or s
ome
elem
ents
of t
he
scop
e of
the
prop
osed
brid
ge.
The
brid
ge c
onst
ruct
ion
is
appr
oxim
atel
y 50
% o
f the
con
stru
ctio
n co
stLi
kely
Crit
ical
HIG
HV
ery
Like
lyS
igni
fican
tH
IGH
PDT
Dis
cuss
ions
& C
oncl
usio
nsLi
kelih
ood*
Impa
ct*
Ris
k Le
vel*
Like
lihoo
d*Im
pact
*R
isk
Leve
l*R
EGU
LATO
RY
AN
DEN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
RE
-1C
ultu
ral R
esou
rces
Per
Ash
ley
Dai
lide,
NW
S le
ad A
rche
olog
ist:
"The
re is
a
mod
erat
e po
tent
ial f
or a
rcha
eolo
gica
l res
ourc
es to
exi
st w
ithin
th
e pr
ojec
t are
a. "
Per
Mar
y M
cCor
mic
k, N
WS
: "N
o pr
evio
usly
reco
rded
his
toric
-ag
e bu
ildin
gs o
r stru
ctur
es e
xist
with
in th
e A
PE
for t
he T
ahuy
a E
stua
ry."
"Whi
le th
ere
has
been
no
prev
ious
sur
veys
don
e w
ithin
the
proj
ect A
PE
, the
re is
a k
now
n ar
chae
olog
ical
site
with
in a
on
e m
ile ra
dius
of t
he p
roje
ct a
rea.
The
ent
ire A
PE
will
ne
ed to
be
surv
eyed
, and
if a
ny a
rcha
eolo
gica
l res
ourc
es
are
foun
d, th
ey w
ill n
eed
to b
e te
sted
and
eva
luat
ed fo
r the
N
RH
P."
"Con
sulte
d so
urce
s id
entif
ied
only
one
pot
entia
l pro
perty
, a
brid
ge o
n th
e ca
usew
ay w
hich
car
ries
the
NE
Nor
th S
hore
R
oad
acro
ss th
e es
tuar
y. T
he c
onst
ruct
ion
era
of th
is
coun
ty b
ridge
is u
nkno
wn.
Oth
er p
roba
ble
prop
ertie
s in
the
AP
E a
re s
mal
l dik
es, c
anal
or o
ther
mun
dane
stru
ctur
es
asso
ciat
ed w
ith a
gric
ultu
ral a
ctiv
ities
."U
nlik
ely
Mar
gina
lLO
WU
nlik
ely
Mar
gina
lLO
W
RE
-2S
oil C
onta
min
atio
nQ
uant
ities
of c
onta
min
ated
soi
l req
uirin
g ex
cava
tion
coul
d va
ry
sign
ifica
ntly
.
Ext
ent a
nd c
hara
cter
izat
ion
of p
oten
tial c
onta
min
atio
n ha
s no
t bee
n de
linea
ted
yet.
Impa
ct w
ill b
e si
gnifi
cant
sin
ce
cont
amin
ated
soi
l will
hav
e to
truc
ked
to a
n of
fsite
land
fill
for d
ispo
sal.
Like
lyM
argi
nal
MO
DE
RA
TEV
ery
Like
lyS
igni
fican
tH
IGH
CO
NST
RU
CTI
ON
RIS
KS
CO
N-4
Brid
ge R
emov
alM
etho
d of
brid
ge d
emol
ition
.
Ther
e co
uld
be d
iffer
ent w
ays
to p
erfo
rm th
is w
ork.
With
out
mor
e in
form
atio
n on
the
exis
ting
brid
ge, i
t is
diffi
cult
to
unde
rsta
nd th
e fu
ll im
pact
of t
his
task
. It c
ould
be
muc
h m
ore
cum
bers
ome
of a
task
than
cur
rent
ly p
erce
ived
.Li
kely
Sig
nific
ant
HIG
HV
ery
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
ESTI
MA
TEA
ND
SCH
EDU
LER
ISK
S
ES
T-1
Qua
ntiti
esM
any
of th
e fe
atur
es h
ave
limite
d in
form
atio
n, fe
w c
ross
-se
ctio
ns fo
r ear
thw
ork,
etc
.
Mor
e in
form
atio
n w
ill b
e ob
tain
ed a
s de
sign
pro
gres
ses.
It
is li
kely
that
ther
e w
ill b
e a
chan
ge in
the
quan
titie
s.
Ass
ume
Sig
nific
ant i
mpa
ct.
Like
lyS
igni
fican
tH
IGH
Like
lyS
igni
fican
tH
IGH
ES
T-2
Cos
t boo
k ite
ms
Man
y co
st b
ook
item
s us
ed fo
r util
ities
and
brid
ges.
Cos
t boo
k ite
ms
do n
ot a
lway
s re
flect
the
site
-con
ditio
ns o
r do
not
repr
esen
t the
act
ual w
ork
requ
ired.
Pro
duct
ion
rate
s ar
e us
ually
opt
imis
tic a
nd m
ater
ial c
ost m
ay b
e ou
tdat
ed.
Like
lyS
igni
fican
tH
IGH
Ver
y Li
kely
Sig
nific
ant
HIG
HEC
ON
OM
ICS
RIS
KS
FL-1
Fuel
Fuel
pric
es a
re v
olat
ile a
nd w
ill p
roba
bly
go u
p
A 2
5% in
crea
se in
fuel
cou
ld c
ontri
bute
to u
p to
a 2
%
incr
ease
in to
tal c
onst
ruct
ion
cost
s. H
ow li
kely
is it
that
ga
solin
e w
ill re
ach
$5.0
0/ga
l? D
epen
ds o
n w
ho y
ou a
sk.
For t
he p
urpo
ses
of th
is ri
sk a
naly
sis,
ass
ume
that
it is
un
likel
y. Im
pact
is s
igni
fican
t.U
nlik
ely
Sig
nific
ant
MO
DE
RA
TEV
ery
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
FL-2
Asp
halt
Asp
halt
is a
pet
role
um p
rodu
ct a
nd s
ubje
ct to
fluc
tuat
ion.
Ass
ume
likel
y an
d m
argi
nal.
Like
lyM
argi
nal
MO
DE
RA
TEV
ery
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
FL-3
Con
cret
e &
Ste
el
Thes
e m
ater
ial c
osts
are
sub
ject
to m
arke
t con
ditio
ns.
It is
lik
ely
thes
e w
ill in
crea
se.
The
impa
ct is
con
side
red
to b
e ne
glig
ible
.Li
kely
Neg
ligib
leLO
WV
ery
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
Ris
k N
o.R
isk/
Opp
ortu
nity
Eve
ntC
once
rns
Proj
ect C
ost
Proj
ect S
ched
ule
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors
1 Lillwaup Causeway Replacement 524 days Mon 10/3/16 Thu 10/4/182 Fish and Wildlife 221 days Mon 10/3/16 Mon 8/7/173 General 221 days Mon 10/3/16 Mon 8/7/174 Mobilize 1 day Mon 10/3/16 Mon 10/3/165 Pre Survey 5 days Tue 10/4/16 Mon 10/10/16 46 Place Silt Fence 52 days Tue 10/11/16 Wed 12/21/16 57 Remove Silt Fence 18 days Wed 7/5/17 Fri 7/28/17 188 Post Survey 5 days Mon 7/31/17 Fri 8/4/17 79 Demob 1 day Mon 8/7/17 Mon 8/7/17 810 Earthwork 99 days Thu 12/22/16 Tue 5/9/1711 Excavate Tidal Channel 40 days Thu 12/22/16 Wed 2/15/17 612 Excavate Rock & Concrete Debris 2 days Thu 2/16/17 Fri 2/17/17 11
13 Excavate Roadway & Lillwaup Creek Embankment
7 days Mon 2/20/17 Tue 2/28/17 12
14 Fill ‐ Gravel 50 days Wed 3/1/17 Tue 5/9/17 1315 Demolition 40 days Wed 5/10/17 Tue 7/4/1716 Bulkheads 13 days Wed 5/10/17 Fri 5/26/17 1417 Buildings (Three) 24 days Mon 5/29/17 Thu 6/29/17 1618 Utilties 3 days Fri 6/30/17 Tue 7/4/17 1719 Vegeatation 33 days Wed 5/10/17 Fri 6/23/1720 Plantings 30 days Wed 5/10/17 Tue 6/20/17 1421 LWD 3 days Wed 6/21/17 Fri 6/23/17 2022 Dust Control 7 days Wed 5/10/17 Thu 5/18/17 1423 Roads, Railroads, Bridges 90 days Mon 7/31/17 Fri 12/1/1724 Roads 90 days Mon 7/31/17 Fri 12/1/1725 General 90 days Mon 7/31/17 Fri 12/1/1726 Mobilize 1 day Mon 7/31/17 Mon 7/31/17 727 Street Cleaning 16 days Mon 7/31/17 Mon 8/21/17 728 Demob 1 day Fri 12/1/17 Fri 12/1/17 3629 Earthwork 46 days Mon 7/31/17 Mon 10/2/1730 Excavate Highway 101 45 days Mon 7/31/17 Fri 9/29/17 731 Fill ‐ Highway 101 1 day Mon 10/2/17 Mon 10/2/17 3032 Pavement 44 days Tue 10/3/17 Fri 12/1/17
T M F T S W S T M F T S W S T M FSep 25, '16 Jan 1, '17 Apr 9, '17 Jul 16, '17 Oct 22, '17 Jan 28, '18 May 6, '18 Aug 12, '18
Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration‐only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start‐only
Finish‐only
Deadline
Progress
PSNERPLilliwaup CausewayConstruction Schedule
Page 1
Project: Lilliwaup CausewayDate: Fri 3/25/16
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors
33 Mobilize 1 day Tue 10/3/17 Tue 10/3/17 3134 Demolition 12 days Wed 10/4/17 Thu 10/19/17 3335 Place Highway 101 7 days Fri 10/20/17 Mon 10/30/17 3436 Place Lillwaup Road 23 days Tue 10/31/17 Thu 11/30/17 3537 Demobilize 1 day Fri 12/1/17 Fri 12/1/17 3638 Drainage 1 day Wed 10/4/17 Wed 10/4/1739 Demo 1 day Wed 10/4/17 Wed 10/4/17 3340 Relocate Utilties 15 days Thu 10/5/17 Wed 10/25/1741 Power 15 days Thu 10/5/17 Wed 10/25/1742 Mobilize 1 day Thu 10/5/17 Thu 10/5/17 3943 Demo Power 4 days Fri 10/6/17 Wed 10/11/17 4244 Install New Power 9 days Thu 10/12/17 Tue 10/24/17 4345 Demobilze 1 day Wed 10/25/17Wed 10/25/17 4446 Telecommunications 5 days Thu 10/5/17 Wed 10/11/1747 Mobilize 1 day Thu 10/5/17 Thu 10/5/17 3948 Demo Telecom 2 days Fri 10/6/17 Mon 10/9/17 4749 Install New Telecom 3 days Mon 10/9/17 Wed 10/11/17 4850 Demobilze 1 day Tue 10/10/17 Tue 10/10/17 4951 Bridge 219 days Mon 12/4/17 Thu 10/4/1852 Mobilize 1 day Mon 12/4/17 Mon 12/4/17 3753 Crane Testing 1 day Tue 12/5/17 Tue 12/5/17 5254 Placement of New Highway 101 181 days Wed 12/6/17 Wed 8/15/18 53
55 Demolition of Old Highway 101 35 days Thu 8/16/18 Wed 10/3/18 54
56 Demobilze 1 day Thu 10/4/18 Thu 10/4/18 5557 Cultural Resource Preservation 31 days Mon 10/3/16 Mon 11/14/1658 Survey 3 days Mon 10/3/16 Wed 10/5/1659 Report 9 days Thu 10/6/16 Tue 10/18/16 5860 Consultation 9 days Wed 10/19/16Mon 10/31/16 5961 Potential NRHP‐Evaluation 10 days Tue 11/1/16 Mon 11/14/16 60
T M F T S W S T M F T S W S T M FSep 25, '16 Jan 1, '17 Apr 9, '17 Jul 16, '17 Oct 22, '17 Jan 28, '18 May 6, '18 Aug 12, '18
Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration‐only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start‐only
Finish‐only
Deadline
Progress
PSNERPLilliwaup CausewayConstruction Schedule
Page 2
Project: Lilliwaup CausewayDate: Fri 3/25/16
PSNERPLilliwaup Creek EstuaryRisk Register
March 2016
Very Likely 2 3 4 5 5Likely 1 2 4 5 5
Unlikely 0 1 3 3 4Very Unlikely 0 0 1 2 4
Negligible Marginal Significant Critical Crisis
Project Scope
PS-1 2
PS-2 1
PS-4 4
PS-5 0
PS-6 0
PS-7 5
PS-8 1
PS-12 4
Acquisition Strategy
AS-1 5AS-2 5AS-4 5AS-5 5AS-6 5AS-7 5
Risk Element Potential Risk Areas Concerns PDT Discussions & Conclusions
(Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact)Likelihood Impact Risk
Level
06 Earthwork
There is the possibility that the areas of excavation and fill could change from what is presented in the draft report. Any increase in quantity will be covered in the Quantity risk element section. The risk here is that the nature of the earthwork may change. There could be additional requirements (not quantities) imposed in the excavation and fill. It is thought to be at least a 50% chance that the scope of the earthwork will change. Impact is assumed to be marginal.
Risk Level
Likelihood Impact Risk LevelPotential Risk Areas PDT Discussions & Conclusions
(Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact)
06 Demolition
Concerns
08 Earthwork
Pavement
Bridge Removal
Significant
NegligibleNegligible
Possibility for some scope change due to unknowns. Likely for scope to change. Impact assumed to be negligible.
See Ps-1. Assume likely risk to occur with an assumed significant impact.
This risk analysis does no account for opportunities (cost savings). However it should be noted in the Risk Register. There are risks in the quantities, but that will be covered in the Quantity risk element. No other concerns with this item.
Significant
LIKELY Marginal
LIKELY
Unlikely
LIKELY Negligible
Critical
Marginal
Unlikely
No design. Same typical section used for all of the bridges.Per Ashley Dailide, NWS lead Archeologist: "While there has been no previous work done in this area, based on the landforms, there is a moderate potential for archaeological resources to exist within the project area."
No specific concerns aside from level of detail in scope and design.
LIKELY
Unlikely
LIKELY
The bridge type is likely to change or some elements of the scope of the proposed bridge. The bridge is approximately 37% of the construction cost. Curvature in bridge may present design differing from what is proposed. Could easily increase TPC over 5%.
"The entire APE will need to be surveyed, and if any archaeological resources are found, they will need to be tested and evaluated for the NRHP".
Likely unknowns at this point in all aspects of the work. Impact could have between a 1% and 5% increase to project costs.
See AS-1See AS-1See AS-1
PavementBridge Removal
06 Earthwork06 Demolition08 Earthwork
Bridge Installation
Typically if a project goes small business the amount of subcontracting and the overhead rates increase. Subcontracting should not be much of the risk for this project since everything is subbed out. If this went small business the overhead would increase. Other strategies could also increase costs. Given the nature of this work it is felt that it could go small business. Also, other methods may be used as well. It is considered likely that the contracting method could change from what is proposed in the estimate. The impact could be up to 10%.
Bridge Installation
18 Cultural Resources Preservation
Remaining Construction Items
CriticalSee AS-1
LIKELYLIKELY
CriticalCriticalCriticalCriticalCritical
LIKELYLIKELYLIKELY
LIKELY
Risk Element
Preliminary planning stages and no grading details known.
See PS-5. No as-built drawings.
Preliminary stage of project planning. Assumed landfill disposal. There could be a potential opportunity in recycling the asphalt for a reduced disposal fee.
See PS-1. Interchange design of Lilliwaup Street and Hwy 101 may not meet standards.
No specific information is known about the structures to be removed.
Lilliwaup Creek EstuaryPreliminary Budget Estimate Level
Abbreviated Risk Analysis
See AS-1
This estimate assumes full and open acquisition. However, the prime contractor is doing no work. All the work done is done by subcontractors. This project could be acquired by other methods aside from IFB full competition.
PSNERPLilliwaup Creek EstuaryRisk Register
March 2016
AS-8 5AS-12 5
Construction ComplexityCC-1 0
CC-2 0
CC-4 0
CC-5 0
CC-6 1
CC-7 1
CC-8 0
CC-12 0
Volatile Commodities
VC-1 3
VC-2 0
VC-4 3
VC-5 2
VC-6 3
VC-7 1
VC-8 0
VC-12 0
Quantities
Q-1 2
Q-2 1
Q-4 2
Q-5 2
Risk Element Potential Risk Areas Concerns PDT Discussions & Conclusions
(Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact)Likelihood Impact Risk
Level
Risk Element Potential Risk Areas Concerns PDT Discussions & Conclusions
(Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact)Likelihood Impact Risk
Level
Risk Element Potential Risk Areas Concerns PDT Discussions & Conclusions
(Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact)Likelihood Impact Risk
Level
See AS-1 Critical
18 Cultural Resources Preservation Not applicableRemaining Construction Items
06 Earthwork
06 Demolition
UnlikelyUnlikelyUnlikely
Bridge Removal
There could be different ways to perform this work. Without more information on the existing bridge, it is difficult to understand the full impact of this task. It could be much more cumbersome of a task than currently perceived.
06 Earthwork
06 Demolition
08 Earthwork
Pavement
No concerns at this time.
Method of bridge demolition.
Significant
Negligible
Significant
Marginal
Significant
08 Earthwork
Pavement
Bridge Removal
A 25% increase in fuel could contribute to up to a 3% increase in total construction costs. How likely is it that gasoline will reach $5.00/gal? Depends on who you ask. For the purposes of this risk analysis, assume that it is unlikely. Impact is significant.
Assume negligible.
Asphalt is a petroleum product and subject to fluctuation. Assume likely and marginal.
Unlikely
Unlikely
Fuel prices.
See VC-1
Unlikely
LIKELY
Unlikely
Pavement
More information will be obtained as design progresses. It is likely that there will be a change in the quantities. Likely a change in quantities and it could cause the estimate to increase by 1%.
Likely quantities will increase and impact is assumed negligible.
Likely to change. Impact is difficult to evaluate since disposal fees are the largest cost in demolition. Changes in asphalt placement could increase costs.
06 Earthwork
06 Demolition
08 Earthwork
See VC-1
Fuel prices. Asphalt.
See VC-1
LIKELY
Very few cross sections, just typical sections used in quantity development.
No specific information is known about the structures to be removed.
Marginal
Negligible
Marginal
Marginal
LIKELY
LIKELY
LIKELY
NegligibleNegligible
Marginal
Unlikely
Very LIKELYLIKELY
Critical
Marginal18 Cultural Resources Preservation Very Unlikely Negligible
Bridge InstallationIf scope of work adheres to what is presented in the report, this is pretty straight forward bridge work. Assume unlikely and marginal. Unlikely
Unlikely
NegligibleNegligible
Remaining Construction Items Unlikely Negligible
Negligible18 Cultural Resources Preservation Very Unlikely Negligible
Bridge InstallationThese material costs are subject to market conditions. It is likely these will increase. The impact is considered to be negligible. LIKELY
Remaining Construction Items Unlikely NegligibleNo concerns at this time.
See Q-1
Assumed depth of removal. Asphalt placement design subject to change.
No concerns at this time.
Concrete, steel.
No concerns at this time.
Pretty standard cross section.
No concerns at this time.
PSNERPLilliwaup Creek EstuaryRisk Register
March 2016
Q-6 2
Q-7 4
Q-8 4
Q-12 2
Fabrication & Project Installed Equipment
FI-1 0
FI-2 0
FI-4 0
FI-5 0
FI-6 0
FI-7 0
FI-8 0
FI-12 0
Cost Estimating Method
CE-1 0
CE-2 2
CE-4 0
CE-5 0
CE-6 2
CE-7 4
CE-8 4
CE-12 0
External Project Risks
EX-1 0
EX-2 0
EX-4 0
EX-5 0
EX-6 0
EX-7 0
EX-8 0
EX-12 0
Risk Element Potential Risk Areas Concerns PDT Discussions & Conclusions
(Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact)Likelihood Impact Risk
Level
Risk Element Potential Risk Areas Concerns PDT Discussions & Conclusions
(Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact)Likelihood Impact Risk
Level
Risk Element Potential Risk Areas Concerns PDT Discussions & Conclusions
(Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact)Likelihood Impact Risk
Level
Bridge Removal
Clarification will only occur as design progresses. Potential here for more material to be removed from the site and disposed of. It is believed this is likely to occur and assumed to have a marginal impact. LIKELY Marginal
Pavement
Bridge Removal
06 Earthwork
06 Demolition
08 Earthwork
No concerns at this time.
No concerns at this time.
No concerns at this time.
No concerns at this time.
No concerns at this time.
Very Unlikely
Very Unlikely
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Very Unlikely
Very Unlikely
Very Unlikely
Bridge Removal Assumptions may not be valid.
06 Earthwork
06 Demolition
08 Earthwork
Pavement
No concerns at this time.
No concerns at this time.
Made assumptions.
Very Unlikely
LIKELY
Negligible
Marginal
Negligible
Negligible
Marginal
Very Unlikely
LIKELY
Very Unlikely
Bridge Installation18 Cultural Resources Preservation
Remaining Construction Items
Cost book items and assumptions may not be entirely accurate or applicable to the project. It is likely there will be changes to cost model for the bridge as the
Assumptions may not be valid.
Significant
Significant
Negligible
LIKELY
LIKELY
Very Unlikely
Significant18 Cultural Resources Preservation Findings could lead to more time being required. LIKELY Significant
Bridge Installation
Conservative in the caisson depth. Many assumptions were made. It is likely that the quantities will change. The impact is though to have the potential to raise the TPC by up to 5%. LIKELYUsed a typical section for the quantity development.
Time spent on study is an estimate.
Remaining Construction Items Potential here for more quantities needed. LIKELY Marginal
Negligible18 Cultural Resources Preservation Very Unlikely Negligible
Bridge Installation Very Unlikely
Remaining Construction Items Very Unlikely Negligible
Negligible06 Demolition Very Unlikely Negligible
06 Earthwork Unlikely
NegligibleBridge Removal Very Unlikely Negligible
Pavement Very Unlikely
08 Earthwork Very Unlikely Negligible
Negligible18 Cultural Resources Preservation Very Unlikely Negligible
Bridge Installation Very Unlikely
Remaining Construction Items Very Unlikely Negligible
Many assumptions made.
No concerns at this time.
No concerns at this time.
No concerns at this time.
No concerns at this time.
No concerns at this time.
No concerns at this time.
No concerns at this time.
No concerns at this time.
Used many cost book items. Used many assumptions.
Made assumptions.
No concerns at this time.
No concerns at this time.
No concerns at this time.
Preliminary design and early planning stage.
No concerns at this time.
No concerns at this time.
PSNERPLilliwaup Creek EstuaryRisk Register
March 2016
HTRW
HTRW-1 0
HTRW-2 2
HTRW-4 0
HTRW-5 0
HTRW-6 0
HTRW-7 0
HTRW-8 0
HTRW-12 0
Risk Element Potential Risk Areas Concerns PDT Discussions & Conclusions
(Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact)Likelihood Impact Risk
Level
Remaining Construction Items No concerns at this time. Unlikely Negligible
Bridge Installation No concerns at this time. Very Unlikely Negligible18 Cultural Resources Preservation Not applicable Very Unlikely Negligible
Pavement No concerns at this time. Very Unlikely NegligibleBridge Removal No concerns at this time. Very Unlikely Negligible
08 Earthwork No concerns at this time. Unlikely Negligible
06 Earthwork No concerns at this time. Very Unlikely Negligible
06 DemolitionPotential for asbestos material in some of the structures proposed for removal. Potential for underground storage tanks (USTs) associated with the structures.
Individual structures were not assessed in the Phase I survey, and additional investigation is needed to characterize potential asbestos/lead contamination on the structures proposed for removal. LIKELY Marginal
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors
1 Bug Quilcene Delta 650 days Mon 10/3/16 Fri 3/29/19
2 Start 1 day Mon 10/3/16 Mon 10/3/16
3 Site Prep 77 days Tue 10/4/16 Wed 1/18/17 2
4 New LL Road Bridge 417 days Thu 1/19/17 Fri 8/24/18 3
5 Build New LL Road 22 days Mon 8/27/18 Tue 9/25/18 4
6 Remove LL Bridge 51 days Wed 9/26/18 Wed 12/5/18 5
7 Demo LL Road 24 days Thu 12/6/18 Tue 1/8/19 6
8 Other Road Demo 12 days Wed 1/9/19 Thu 1/24/19 7
9 Pilot Channel 3 days Mon 8/27/18 Wed 8/29/18 4
10 Demo Buildings 15 days Thu 1/19/17 Wed 2/8/17 3
11 Demo Utility 23 days Thu 2/9/17 Mon 3/13/17 10
12 Build Setback Levee 4 days Tue 3/14/17 Fri 3/17/17 11
13 Remove South Dike 49 days Mon 3/20/17 Fri 3/8/19 12
14 Remove North Dike 12 days Mon 3/11/19 Tue 3/26/19 13
15 Reinforce South Dike 3 days Wed 3/27/19 Fri 3/29/19 14
16 Revegetate 33 days Fri 1/25/19 Tue 3/12/19 8
17 Finish 1 day Wed 3/13/19 Wed 3/13/19 16
W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S Sep 4, '1Nov 20, Feb 5, '1Apr 23, Jul 9, '17Sep 24, Dec 10, Feb 25, May 13, Jul 29, '1Oct 14, ' Dec 30, Ma
Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration‐only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start‐only
Finish‐only
Deadline
Progress
PSNERPBig Quilcene RiverConstruction Schedule
Page 1
Project: Big Quilcene RiverDate: Fri 3/25/16
PSNERPBig Quilcene RiverRisk Register
March 2016
Very Likely 2 3 4 5 5Likely 1 2 4 5 5
Unlikely 0 1 3 3 4Very Unlikely 0 0 1 2 4
Negligible Marginal Significant Critical Crisis
Project Scope
PS-1 2
PS-2 1
PS-3 0
PS-4 4
PS-8 3
PS-9 3
PS-12 2
Acquisition Strategy
AS-1 0
AS-2 3
Risk Element Potential Risk Areas Concerns PDT Discussions & Conclusions
(Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact)Likelihood Impact Risk
Level
Big Quilcene RiverPreliminary Budget Estimate Level
Abbreviated Risk Analysis
See AS-1
Acquisition strategy is currently not defined. This estimate assumes full and open acquisition. However, the prime contractor is doing no work. All the work done is done by subcontractors. This project could be acquired by other methods aside from full and open competition.
Risk Element
Buildings are not well defined.
Levee settlement
No concerns
Bridge design is based on a section used among all PSNERP sites.
Cultural Resource Preservation
Built Environment Analysis
Remaining Construction Items
Negligible
Critical
Unlikely
Unlikely
Demo Buildings
Roads
Typically if a project goes small business the amount of subcontracting and the overhead rates increase. Subcontracting should not be much of the risk for this project since everything is subbed out. If this went small business the overhead would increase. Other strategies could also increase costs. This project, given the complicated nature of bridge construction is unlikely to go small business and increase feature cost by 10% due to increased markups. Total cost impacts based on this feature would be under 0.5%
Typically if a project goes small business the amount of subcontracting and the overhead rates increase. Subcontracting should not be much of the risk for this project since everything is subbed out. If this went small business the overhead would increase. Other strategies could also increase costs. This project, given the complicated nature of bridge construction is unlikely to go small business and increase feature cost by 10% due to increased markups. Total cost impacts based on this feature would be 8.9%
A prehistoric battleground is present.
Risks due to on-site buildings and dikes.
Preliminary design.
Very LIKELY
Very LIKELY
LIKELY
Very likely something of significance would be found. Cultural Resource team member believes there would be marginal overall cost and schedule impacts.
PDT believes the following: Very likely that there is some national register eligible projects (dikes - less likely, buildings, bridge). In some cases, construction has stopped, but hard to tell now. Marginal costs.There are likely elements of the other associated work that are not included in the project. Elements that are included in the work are likely to change as well. These impacts are unlikely to exceed 1.0% of total cost. Marginal
Very LIKELY Negligible
Very Unlikely
Very LIKELY
Very Unlikely Significant
Marginal
Marginal
Create Pilot Channel
Levees
Negligible
Significant
PDT believes bridge design is fairly conservative for this site. Very unlikely that there would be substantial changes. However, even a small change could have a significant total project impact given the cost of the bridge relative to the all the other aspects of work.
Geotechnical investigations have not been conducted at this site and it is possible that substantial settlement would occur. PDT believes this is very likely and that material for the levee could increase by 50%. This could increase project cost by 1.3%.
Demo Buildings
Report does not establish a great deal of detail regarding buildings types, sizes, or features. It was assumed that all buildings are single story, wood frame, with relatively simple foundations. It is very likely that there would be some variation in this. A 10% increase in this cost would be a negligible impact overall.
Risk Level
Likelihood Impact Risk LevelPotential Risk Areas PDT Discussions & Conclusions
(Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact)
Roads
Concerns
PSNERPBig Quilcene RiverRisk Register
March 2016
AS-3 0
AS-4 1
AS-8 0
AS-9 0
AS-12 0
Construction Complexity
CC-1 0
CC-2 3
CC-3 1
CC-4 2
CC-8 0
Risk Element Potential Risk Areas Concerns PDT Discussions & Conclusions
(Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact)Likelihood Impact Risk
Level
See AS-1
No concernsCultural Resource Preservation Very Unlikely Negligible
Negligible
Critical
Negligible
Marginal
Very Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Typically if a project goes small business the amount of subcontracting and the overhead rates increase. Subcontracting should not be much of the risk for this project since everything is subbed out. If this went small business the overhead would increase. Other strategies could also increase costs. This project, given the complicated nature of bridge construction is unlikely to go small business and increase feature cost by 10% due to increased markups. Total cost impacts based on this feature would be under 0.5%
Typically if a project goes small business the amount of subcontracting and the overhead rates increase. Subcontracting should not be much of the risk for this project since everything is subbed out. If this went small business the overhead would increase. Other strategies could also increase costs. This project, given the complicated nature of bridge construction is unlikely to go small business and increase feature cost by 10% due to increased markups. Total cost impacts based on this feature would be under 0.5%
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Marginal
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
LIKELY
LIKELY
Construction of Linger Longer Rd Bridge is assumed to be conducted from the land surrounding the bridge. If this is not possible due to soil conditions or property owner limitations, there could be higher costs to complete this work. This is not believed to be likely, however a 10% increase in bridge costs would increase the total project cost by 8%.
It was assumed that the entire area where the channel is being dug would be accessible to tracked equipment. If soil conditions are not suitable, or if the area where the vehicles can operate is constrained by biological elements, productivity will slow. A 10% slowdown will cause a negligible increase in cost.
Conditions were assumed to be suitable for the use of large tracked equipment. If this is found to be otherwise, there could be cost increases. Given the large area where levees are being removed and installed, and their proximity to the river, some level of slowdown is likely. A 10% slowdown would cause a 0.52% cost increase to the project.
Demo Buildings
Roads
Create Pilot Channel
Levees
No concerns
Bridge is assumed to be constructible from land.
Area where work is occurring is assumed to be open to equipment.
Area where work is occurring is assumed to be open to equipment.
Negligible
Create Pilot Channel
Levees
Typically if a project goes small business the amount of subcontracting and the overhead rates increase. Subcontracting should not be much of the risk for this project since everything is subbed out. If this went small business the overhead would increase. Other strategies could also increase costs. This project, given its relatively simple scope could go small business and increase feature cost by 10% due to increased markups. Total cost impacts based on this feature would be 0.6%
Cultural Resource Preservation
Typically if a project goes small business the amount of subcontracting and the overhead rates increase. Subcontracting should not be much of the risk for this project since everything is subbed out. If this went small business the overhead would increase. Other strategies could also increase costs. This project, given the complicated nature of bridge construction is unlikely to go small business and increase feature cost by 10% due to increased markups. Total cost impacts based on this feature would be under 0.5%
Typically if a project goes small business the amount of subcontracting and the overhead rates increase. Subcontracting should not be much of the risk for this project since everything is subbed out. If this went small business the overhead would increase. Other strategies could also increase costs. This project, given the complicated nature of bridge construction is unlikely to go small business and increase feature cost by 10% due to increased markups. Total cost impacts based on this feature would be under 0.5%See AS-1
Built Environment Analysis
Remaining Construction Items
See AS-1
See AS-1
See AS-1
PSNERPBig Quilcene RiverRisk Register
March 2016
CC-9 0
CC-12 0
Volatile CommoditiesVC-1 0
VC-2 4
VC-3 1
VC-4 1VC-8 0VC-9 0VC-12 0
Quantities
Q-1 4
Q-2 2Q-3 0
Q-4 4Q-8 0Q-9 0Q-12 3
Fabrication & Project Installed EquipmentFI-1 0FI-2 0FI-3 0FI-4 0FI-8 0FI-9 0FI-12 0
Risk Element Potential Risk Areas Concerns PDT Discussions & Conclusions
(Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact)Likelihood Impact Risk
Level
Risk Potential Risk Areas Concerns PDT Discussions & Conclusions Likelihood Impact Risk
Risk Element Potential Risk Areas Concerns PDT Discussions & Conclusions
(Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact)Likelihood Impact Risk
Level
Risk Element Potential Risk Areas Concerns PDT Discussions & Conclusions
(Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact)Likelihood Impact Risk
Level
Preliminary design. Quantities subject to change.
No concerns.No concerns.
No concerns
No concerns.
No concerns
Levee slope changes
No concerns.
No concernsNo concerns
Remaining Construction Items Very Unlikely NegligibleNegligibleBuilt Environment Analysis Very Unlikely
Cultural Resource Preservation Very Unlikely Negligible
Remaining Construction Items y y
be marginal. Very LIKELY MarginalNegligibleBuilt Environment Analysis Very Unlikely
Cultural Resource Preservation Very Unlikely Negligible
Remaining Construction Items Very Unlikely NegligibleNo concerns.NegligibleBuilt Environment Analysis Very Unlikely
Cultural Resource Preservation Very Unlikely Negligible
Remaining Construction Items Very Unlikely Negligible
NegligibleBuilt Environment Analysis Very Unlikely
NegligibleNegligibleNegligibleNegligible
Very UnlikelyVery UnlikelyVery UnlikelyVery Unlikely
Demo BuildingsRoadsCreate Pilot ChannelLevees
No concerns.No concerns.No concerns.No concerns.
Significant
NegligibleNegligible
Significant
Very LIKELY
Very LIKELYVery Unlikely
LIKELY
LIKELY
LIKELY
PDT believes there is a very high chance that additional houses will need to be removed. If the current number of houses increases from 5 to 10, the impact on the total project cost would be 2.9%.Several roads were noted in the PDR as being removed but no independent calculation of their quantities was possible, and quantities were note provided in the report itself. Assumptions were made regarding the amount of road being removed, but it is very likely that there will be some sort of difference. A 20% increase in the quantity of roadway being demolished would cause a 0.4% increase in total project cost.
Current levee slopes are 2:1. It is likely that slopes will increase to 2.5:1 or 3:1. This would substantially increase material required for import since not only would the levee footprint be larger, but additional material would be required to account for the increased settlement. This could potentially double the amount of material required. Total cost impact would be 2.7%.
Demo Buildings
RoadsCreate Pilot Channel
Levees
Imported fill material could increase in cost.
Potential for additional houses being removed.
Numerous quantity assumptions made for road removal quantities.
Negligible
Significant
Negligible
Negligible
Create Pilot Channel
Levees
Since this is a large concrete bridge, it is vulnerable to increases in the price of pre-cast and ready-mix concrete. Given that the construction industry is in a relative slump, it is likely that material prices will increase as the industry turns around in the future. A 15% increase in concrete based materials would cause an overall cost impact of 2%.
Fuel costs for the equipment and the hauling. An increase of 25% in fuel costs increases the total project cost less than 0.5%.
A 10% increase in material cost would have a 0.23% impact on total cost. A cost increase of this size is considered likely, due to the fact that current material prices were obtained in a period of construction industry slump. Prices are likely to increase once the industry regains strength.
Very Unlikely
LIKELY
No concerns
Concrete price increases.
Fuel cost increases.
Demo Buildings
Roads
PSNERPBig Quilcene RiverRisk Register
March 2016
Cost Estimating Method CE-1 0CE-2 0
CE-3 1
CE-4 0CE-8 0CE-9 0CE-12 2
External Project RisksEX-1 0
EX-2 0EX-3 0
EX-4 4EX-8 0EX-9 0EX-12 0
HTRW
HTRW-1 3
HTRW-2 0
HTRW-3 1
HTRW-4 4HTRW-8 0HTRW-9 0
HTRW-12 2
Risk Element Potential Risk Areas Concerns PDT Discussions & Conclusions
(Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact)Likelihood Impact Risk
Level
Risk Element Potential Risk Areas Concerns
PDT Discussions & Conclusions(Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact)
Likelihood Impact Risk Level
Element Potential Risk Areas Concerns(Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact)
Likelihood Impact Level
No concernsNo concernsNo concerns
No concerns
Existing bridge will be used as a point to assemble new bridge.No concerns
Removing levees exposes BPA transmission towers to potential flooding.
No concernsNo concerns
Sidecasting of excavated soil was assumed
No concernsNo concernsMany assumptions made.
Remaining Construction Items Very Unlikely NegligibleNegligibleBuilt Environment Analysis Very Unlikely
Cultural Resource Preservation Very Unlikely Negligible
Negligible
Levees
PDT believes it's very likely that some level of reinforcement would be required for the towers. Most likely this would be to create berms around the towers. This could be a significant cost. Very LIKELY Significant
Create Pilot Channel Very Unlikely
Negligible
Roads
County will require road to be open at all times. PDT believes it is very unlikely that the proposed method can't be used. If bridge needs to be assembled through barging, there would be a marginal cost increase. Very Unlikely Marginal
Demo Buildings Risk of buildings being declared historical was discussed elsewhere. Very Unlikely
NegligibleNegligibleMarginal
Very UnlikelyVery Unlikely
LIKELYUsed Archaeologist provided data.y g jCould increase costs would be marginal.
Cultural Resource PreservationBuilt Environment AnalysisRemaining Construction Items
Used Archaeologist provided data.
NegligibleNegligible
Marginal
Marginal
Very UnlikelyVery Unlikely
Unlikely
Very Unlikely
Methodology is conservative.Methodology is conservative.Material was assumed to be sidecast next to the channel and not hauled offsite for disposal. It is unlikely that this would not be acceptable, but if offsite disposal is necessary there will be increased costs. Double handling of material and disposal costs will be added to the cost of doing the work. Overall cost increase would be marginal.
No site has been identified yet for stockpiling material. PDT believes this is very unlikely to be an issue since there is Jefferson County land nearby that should be available for no additional charge.
Demo BuildingsRoads
Create Pilot Channel
Levees Stockpiling of material was assumed to occur at no additional cost.
Demo Buildings Potential for asbestos, lead paint, etc.HTRW team member believes buildings are likely to contain standard building contaminants. Marginal overall impact. Very LIKELY Marginal
Roads Potential for petroleum contamination from vehicles.HTRW team member does not believe this to be a concern. Unlikely contamination would be at a level that would require removal. Very Unlikely Negligible
Create Pilot Channel Possible soil contamination from human habitation.PDT believes this is unlikely to occur. If it does, costs would be marginal due to the small size of the soil being removed. Unlikely Marginal
Levees Potential soil related contamination.HTRW report mentions it is likely that some contamination will be found in soils. If soil must be removed, there could be significant cost impacts. LIKELY Significant
Cultural Resource Preservation No concerns. Very Unlikely NegligibleBuilt Environment Analysis No concerns. Very Unlikely Negligible
Remaining Construction Items A variety of minor site features being demoed could contain HTRW substances.
Likely that something would be encountered, but disposal would be straightforward and relatively inexpensive. Marginal cost impacts due to minor nature of expected finds. LIKELY Marginal
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors
1 Snohomish River Estuary 599 days Mon 10/3/16 Thu 1/17/19
2 Start 1 day Mon 10/3/16 Mon 10/3/16
3 Distribution Channel 438 days Tue 10/4/16 Thu 6/7/18
4 Mobilize 10 days Tue 10/4/16 Mon 10/17/16 2
5 Survey 10 days Tue 10/18/16 Mon 10/31/16 4
6 Clear and Grub 23 days Tue 10/18/16 Thu 11/17/16 4
7 Build Temporary Roadway
7 days Tue 10/18/16 Wed 10/26/16 4
8 Demo Boat Ramp 5 days Thu 10/27/16 Wed 11/2/16 7
9 Demo Buildings 70 days Thu 11/3/16 Wed 2/8/17 8
10 Distribution Channel Excavation
126 days Fri 11/18/16 Fri 5/12/17 6
11 Culvert Installation 4 days Mon 5/15/17 Thu 5/18/17 10
12 Levee Construction 67 days Fri 5/19/17 Mon 8/21/17 11
13 Eroision Protection 31 days Tue 8/22/17 Tue 10/3/17 12
14 Road Demo 48 days Tue 8/22/17 Thu 10/26/17 12
15 New Road Construction 53 days Fri 10/27/17 Tue 1/9/18 14
W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T Fep 4, '1Nov 20, Feb 5, '1 Apr 23, ' Jul 9, '17Sep 24, ' Dec 10, Feb 25, 'May 13, Jul 29, '1Oct 14, ' Dec
Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration‐only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start‐only
Finish‐only
Deadline
Progress
PSNERPSnohomish EstuaryConstruction Schedule
Page 1
Project: Snohomish EstuaryDate: Fri 3/25/16
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors
16 New Bridge Construction
89 days Wed 1/10/18 Mon 5/14/18 15
17 Vegetation 18 days Tue 5/15/18 Thu 6/7/18 16
18 Blind Channel 178 days Tue 5/15/18 Thu 1/17/19
19 Mobilize 5 days Tue 5/15/18 Mon 5/21/18 16
20 Survey 10 days Tue 5/22/18 Mon 6/4/18 19
21 Clear and Grub 7 days Tue 5/22/18 Wed 5/30/18 19
22 Blind Channel Excavation
61 days Tue 5/22/18 Tue 8/14/18 19
23 Culvert Installation 2 days Wed 8/15/18 Thu 8/16/18 22
24 Berm Construction 5 days Fri 8/17/18 Thu 8/23/18 23
25 Road Demo 14 days Mon 10/1/18 Thu 10/18/18 26
26 New Road Construction 26 days Fri 8/24/18 Fri 9/28/18 24
27 New Bridge Construction
61 days Mon 10/1/18 Mon 12/24/18 26
28 Vegetation 18 days Tue 12/25/18 Thu 1/17/19 27
W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T Fep 4, '1Nov 20, Feb 5, '1 Apr 23, ' Jul 9, '17Sep 24, ' Dec 10, Feb 25, 'May 13, Jul 29, '1Oct 14, ' Dec
Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration‐only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start‐only
Finish‐only
Deadline
Progress
PSNERPSnohomish EstuaryConstruction Schedule
Page 2
Project: Snohomish EstuaryDate: Fri 3/25/16
PS
NE
RP
Sno
hom
ish
Riv
er E
stua
ryR
isk
Reg
iste
r
Mar
ch 2
016
PDT
Dis
cuss
ions
&C
oncl
usio
nsLi
kelih
ood*
Impa
ct*
Ris
kLe
vel*
Like
lihoo
d*Im
pact
*R
isk
Leve
l*
PRO
JEC
T&
PRO
GR
AM
MG
MT
PP
M-1
Pro
ject
Sch
edul
ing
Hig
h vo
lum
e of
pro
ject
s un
der t
he P
SN
ER
P a
utho
rizat
ion
may
pr
esen
t iss
ues
in te
rms
of re
sour
ce a
lloca
tion
and
qual
ity
cont
rol.
PD
T do
es n
ot b
elie
ve th
e vo
lum
e of
pro
ject
will
cau
se
prob
lem
s. P
roje
ct w
ill b
e sc
hedu
le o
ver y
ears
and
eve
n de
cade
s in
ord
er to
mee
t con
stru
ctio
n go
als.
Ver
y U
nlik
ely
Neg
ligib
leLO
WV
ery
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
PP
M-2
Sta
ffing
Red
uctio
ns
Bot
h th
e S
eattl
e D
istri
ct a
nd th
e W
DFW
hav
e nu
mer
ous
proj
ects
com
petin
g fo
r sta
ffing
reso
urce
s. I
f oth
er p
roje
cts
beco
me
a hi
gher
prio
rity
staf
f cou
ld b
e pu
lled
from
PS
NE
RP
.
PS
NE
RP
rem
ains
a D
istri
ct a
nd W
DFW
prio
rity
and
will
is
less
like
ly th
an o
ther
pro
ject
s to
see
sta
ffing
redu
ctio
ns.
Ther
e ar
e m
inor
cos
t inc
reas
es d
ue to
incr
ease
s in
wor
k be
ing
out-s
ourc
ed to
AE
s an
d po
tent
ial s
low
dow
ns is
st
affin
g is
shi
fted
on s
hort
notic
e.V
ery
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
Ver
y U
nlik
ely
Neg
ligib
leLO
W
PP
M-3
Com
mun
icat
ion
Issu
es
Exc
elle
nt c
omm
unic
atio
ns is
nec
essa
ry in
ord
er to
suc
cess
fully
co
mpl
ete
the
proj
ect.
Bot
h in
tern
al is
sues
intra
-Cor
ps o
r int
ra-
WD
FW, o
r iss
ues
betw
een
the
Cor
ps a
nd lo
cal s
pons
ors
coul
d af
fect
the
proj
ect t
imel
ine.
The
proj
ect c
urre
ntly
has
stro
ng c
omm
unic
atio
n an
d tru
st
betw
een
the
Cor
ps a
nd W
DFW
, and
enj
oys
high
leve
ls o
f po
litic
al s
uppo
rt bo
th fr
om th
e Fe
dera
l and
loca
l spo
nsor
s.Th
ere
are
othe
r loc
al s
pons
ors
(mun
icip
aliti
es, t
ribes
, N
GO
s, e
tc.)
that
will
be
invo
lved
onc
e th
e pr
ojec
t mov
es
into
PE
D/C
G p
hase
. C
omm
unic
atio
ns w
ith th
ese
entit
ies
may
be
mor
e fra
ught
and
ther
e ar
e lik
ely
to b
e at
leas
t so
me
sche
dule
del
ays
beca
use
of th
is.
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
Like
lyM
argi
nal
MO
DE
RA
TE
PP
M-4
Poo
r Ini
tial P
roje
ct P
erfo
rman
ce
The
PS
NE
RP
pro
ject
will
be
very
vis
ible
in th
e P
uget
Sou
nd
area
onc
e co
nstru
ctio
n be
gins
. C
ould
an
early
act
ion
that
pe
rform
s po
orly
(red
uced
env
ironm
enta
l ben
efits
, pro
ject
ne
ighb
ors
who
felt
slig
hted
or w
hose
con
cern
s w
ere
not f
ully
ad
dres
sed,
etc
.) ca
use
the
rem
aind
er o
f the
pro
ject
to h
ave
incr
ease
d co
st/s
ched
ule?
PD
T be
lieve
s its
ver
y un
likel
y th
at th
ere
wou
ld b
e a
poor
ly
perfo
rmin
g in
itial
pro
ject
as
the
earli
est p
roje
cts
that
pr
ocee
d to
con
stru
ctio
n ar
e lik
ely
to b
e th
ose
who
se
succ
ess
is th
e m
ost a
ssur
ed.
Impa
cts
wou
ld li
kely
be
dela
ys to
the
star
t of p
roje
cts,
and
cos
ts o
ther
than
in
crea
ses
due
to in
flatio
n w
ould
be
unlik
ely.
Ver
y U
nlik
ely
Neg
ligib
leLO
WV
ery
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
PDT
Dis
cuss
ions
& C
oncl
usio
nsLi
kelih
ood*
Impa
ct*
Ris
k Le
vel*
Like
lihoo
d*Im
pact
*R
isk
Leve
l*C
ON
TRA
CT
AC
QU
ISIT
ION
RIS
KS
CA
-1P
oten
tially
Cou
ld G
o S
mal
l Bus
ines
s
This
est
imat
e as
sum
es S
B o
pen
acqu
isiti
on. T
he p
rime
cont
ract
or is
doi
ng n
o w
ork.
All
the
wor
k do
ne is
don
e by
su
bcon
tract
ors.
Thi
s pr
ojec
t cou
ld b
e ac
quire
d by
oth
er
met
hods
asi
de fr
om S
B o
pen
com
petit
ion.
The
size
of t
his
proj
ect i
s ve
ry la
rge.
The
pro
ject
will
pro
babl
y be
con
stru
cted
und
er m
ultip
le a
cqui
sitio
ns.
Typi
cally
if a
pro
ject
goe
s ve
ry re
stric
tive
smal
l bus
ines
s th
e am
ount
of s
ubco
ntra
ctin
g an
d th
e ov
erhe
ad ra
tes
incr
ease
. S
ubco
ntra
ctin
g sh
ould
not
be
muc
h of
the
risk
for t
his
proj
ect s
ince
eve
ryth
ing
is s
ubbe
d ou
t. If
this
wen
t sm
all b
usin
ess
the
over
head
wou
ld in
crea
se.
Oth
er
stra
tegi
es c
ould
als
o in
crea
se c
osts
. G
iven
the
natu
re o
f th
is w
ork
it is
felt
that
it c
ould
go
smal
l bus
ines
s. A
lso,
ot
her m
etho
ds m
ay b
e us
ed a
s w
ell.
It is
con
side
red
likel
y th
at th
e co
ntra
ctin
g m
etho
d co
uld
chan
ge fr
om w
hat i
s pr
opos
ed in
the
estim
ate.
The
impa
ct c
ould
be
up to
10%
.Li
kely
Crit
ical
HIG
HLi
kely
Mar
gina
lM
OD
ER
ATE
CA
-3In
effic
ient
Con
tract
ors
The
acqu
isiti
on p
roce
ss m
ay h
ighe
r ine
ffici
ent c
ontra
ctor
s.
PD
T be
lieve
that
this
is u
nlik
ely.
Con
tract
ing
lang
uage
and
se
lect
ion
proc
esse
s ca
n be
don
e in
a w
ay th
at c
an fi
lter
out p
oor p
erfo
rmin
g co
ntra
ctor
s.U
nlik
ely
Neg
ligib
leLO
WU
nlik
ely
Mar
gina
lLO
W
PDT
Dis
cuss
ions
& C
oncl
usio
nsLi
kelih
ood*
Impa
ct*
Ris
k Le
vel*
Like
lihoo
d*Im
pact
*R
isk
Leve
l*TE
CH
NIC
AL
RIS
KS
TL-1
Ear
thw
ork
- Blin
d S
loug
hU
nant
icip
ated
gro
und
cond
ition
sB
ased
on
the
smal
l are
a un
likel
y, b
ut if
ther
e w
ere
som
e th
e im
pact
wou
ld b
e sm
all
Ver
y Li
kely
Sig
nific
ant
HIG
HLi
kely
Mar
gina
lM
OD
ER
ATE
TL-2
Ear
thw
ork
- Dis
tribu
tary
Cha
nnel
Una
ntic
ipat
ed g
roun
d co
nditi
ons
Bas
ed o
n cl
eani
ng a
nd w
iden
ing
an e
xist
ing
chan
nel
unlik
ely,
but
if th
ere
wer
e so
me,
the
impa
ct w
ould
be
smal
lV
ery
Like
lyC
ritic
alH
IGH
Like
lyC
ritic
alH
IGH
Ris
k N
o.R
isk/
Opp
ortu
nity
Eve
ntC
once
rns
Proj
ect C
ost
Proj
ect S
ched
ule
Ris
k N
o.R
isk/
Opp
ortu
nity
Eve
ntC
once
rns
Proj
ect C
ost
Proj
ect S
ched
ule
Con
trac
t Ris
ks (I
nter
nal R
isk
Item
s ar
e th
ose
that
are
gen
erat
ed, c
ause
d, o
r con
trolle
d w
ithin
the
PD
T's
sphe
re o
f inf
luen
ce.)
Ris
k N
o.R
isk/
Opp
ortu
nity
Eve
ntC
once
rns
Proj
ect C
ost
Proj
ect S
ched
ule
PS
NE
RP
Sno
hom
ish
Riv
er E
stua
ryR
isk
Reg
iste
r
Mar
ch 2
016
TL-3
Brid
ge P
lace
men
tN
o de
sign
. S
ame
typi
cal s
ectio
n us
ed fo
r all
of th
e br
idge
s.S
eism
ic re
quire
men
ts.
The
brid
ge ty
pe is
like
ly to
cha
nge
or s
ome
elem
ents
of t
he
scop
e of
the
prop
osed
brid
ge.
The
brid
ge is
app
roxi
mat
ely
unde
r 10%
of t
he c
onst
ruct
ion
cost
. V
ery
Like
lyM
argi
nal
MO
DE
RA
TEV
ery
Like
lyM
argi
nal
MO
DE
RA
TE
TL-4
Ear
thw
ork
Dis
tribu
tary
Cha
nnel
Lev
eeU
nant
icip
ated
gro
und
cond
ition
s
Eve
n w
ith g
ood
expl
orat
ion,
diff
icul
t gro
und
cond
ition
s ca
n be
enc
ount
ered
, may
nee
d a
drag
line
to c
ompl
ete
this
ef
fort
is th
ere
is a
lot o
f wat
er o
n si
te.
Like
lyM
argi
nal
MO
DE
RA
TELi
kely
Mar
gina
lM
OD
ER
ATE
PDT
Dis
cuss
ions
& C
oncl
usio
nsLi
kelih
ood*
Impa
ct*
Ris
k Le
vel*
Like
lihoo
d*Im
pact
*R
isk
Leve
l*LA
ND
SA
ND
DA
MA
GES
RIS
KS
LD-2
Stru
ctur
e R
emov
alN
o de
tails
for t
he s
truct
ures
to b
e re
mov
ed.
The
PD
T no
ted
that
ther
e is
the
poss
ibili
ty o
f com
mer
cial
re
loca
tion.
It i
s as
goo
d as
sum
ptio
n th
at it
is li
kely
the
scop
e fo
r thi
s ite
m w
ill in
crea
se. T
he im
pact
is a
ssum
ed to
be
mar
gina
l.V
ery
Like
lyM
argi
nal
MO
DE
RA
TELi
kely
Mar
gina
lM
OD
ER
ATE
LD-3
Land
Acq
uisi
tion
Land
acq
uisi
tions
and
unw
illin
g pr
oper
ty o
wne
rs.
Sta
keho
lder
in
volv
emen
t.Th
is h
as th
e po
tent
ial t
o ch
ange
the
proj
ect s
cope
. R
isk
capt
ured
in th
e sc
ope
risk
elem
ent.
Ver
y U
nlik
ely
Neg
ligib
leLO
WV
ery
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
LD-4
Util
ities
y,
,se
wer
, tel
ecom
mun
icat
ions
and
road
relo
catio
ns m
ay b
e ap
plic
able
. Pos
sibl
e ga
s lin
e on
wes
tern
edg
e of
mai
nlan
d.Th
ere
is o
ne lo
catio
n ne
ar th
e ne
w b
ridge
whe
re n
ew o
r re
loca
ted
utili
ties
can
be e
xpec
ted.
Thi
s sh
ould
be
a sm
all
mar
gina
l cot
s.V
ery
Like
lyM
argi
nal
MO
DE
RA
TEU
nlik
ely
Mar
gina
lLO
W
PDT
Dis
cuss
ions
& C
oncl
usio
nsLi
kelih
ood*
Impa
ct*
Ris
k Le
vel*
Like
lihoo
d*Im
pact
*R
isk
Leve
l*R
EGU
LATO
RY
AN
DEN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
RE
-2In
dust
rial C
onta
min
atio
nP
ossi
ble
prio
r ind
ustri
al/a
gric
ultu
re a
ctiv
ity a
nd d
umpi
ng.
Dav
id C
lark
Ple
ase
Fill
Out
Ver
y Li
kely
Cris
isH
IGH
Like
lyS
igni
fican
tH
IGH
RE
-5C
reos
ote
Pili
ngs
Ris
k th
at w
e w
ill e
ncou
nter
cre
osot
e pi
lings
the
cost
and
effo
rt to
dis
pose
Dav
id C
lark
Ple
ase
Fill
Out
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
Ver
y U
nlik
ely
Neg
ligib
leLO
W
RE
-6C
ultu
ral R
esou
rces
Ext
rem
ely
high
pro
babi
lity
for u
nide
ntifi
ed c
ultu
ral r
esou
rces
to
be fo
und
with
in p
roje
ct a
rea.
Pre
viou
sly
reco
rded
ar
chae
olog
ical
site
s an
d hi
stor
ic s
truct
ures
kno
wn
to b
e lo
cate
d bo
th in
the
proj
ect f
ootp
rint a
nd w
ithin
clo
se p
roxi
mity
. The
m
ajor
ity o
f the
se re
sour
ces
rem
ain
unev
alua
ted
to th
e N
atio
nal
Reg
iste
r of H
isto
ric P
lace
s.
The
cultu
ral r
esou
rces
sur
vey
coul
d id
entif
y ad
ditio
nal c
ultu
ral r
esou
rces
with
in th
e pr
ojec
t fo
otpr
int.
If an
y ar
chae
olog
ical
site
s an
d/or
his
toric
stru
ctur
es (b
oth
know
n an
d un
know
n) a
re d
eter
min
ed e
ligib
le to
the
Nat
iona
l Reg
iste
r the
y m
ust e
ither
be
avoi
d or
the
adve
rse
effe
ct b
e m
itiga
ted.
Une
valu
ated
site
/stru
ctur
es n
eed
to b
e ev
alua
ted
for t
he N
atio
nal R
egis
ter.
Due
the
larg
e nu
mbe
r of
cur
rent
ly k
now
n ar
chae
olog
ical
site
s an
d hi
stor
ic
stru
ctur
es a
nd th
e po
ssib
ility
for a
dditi
onal
reso
urce
s to
be
iden
tifie
d by
the
cultu
ral r
esou
rce
surv
ey th
ere
is a
co
ncer
ns th
at a
void
ance
may
not
be
feas
ible
in s
ome
situ
atio
ns a
nd m
itiga
tion
will
nee
d to
occ
ur. T
he p
roje
ct
area
will
nee
d to
be
surv
eyed
and
arc
haeo
logi
cal
mon
itorin
g w
ill li
kely
be
nece
ssar
y du
ring
cons
truct
ion.
Li
kely
Mar
gina
lM
OD
ER
ATE
Like
lyM
argi
nal
MO
DE
RA
TE
PDT
Dis
cuss
ions
& C
oncl
usio
nsLi
kelih
ood*
Impa
ct*
Ris
k Le
vel*
Like
lihoo
d*Im
pact
*R
isk
Leve
l*C
ON
STR
UC
TIO
NR
ISK
S
CO
N-1
Pos
t-Lev
ee R
emov
al F
lood
ing
Follo
win
g le
vee
rem
oval
wor
k on
filli
ng a
g di
tche
s w
ill o
ccur
.Th
e si
te w
ill b
e vu
lner
able
to fl
oodi
ng a
t tha
t poi
nt a
nd th
ere
coul
d be
slo
w d
owns
.Th
is is
ver
y un
likel
y to
occ
ur. L
ikel
y to
affe
ct s
ched
ule
only
Ver
y U
nlik
ely
Neg
ligib
leLO
WV
ery
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
CO
N-2
Con
stru
ctio
n M
ods
Ther
e is
alw
ays
the
risk
for c
onst
ruct
ion
mod
s.
Ear
thw
ork
proj
ects
ofte
n ha
ve d
iffer
ing
site
con
ditio
ns th
at
will
mak
e co
nstru
ctio
n m
ore
chal
leng
ing
for t
he c
ontra
ctor
.Ty
pica
lly n
o m
ore
than
10%
.V
ery
Like
lyC
ritic
alH
IGH
Like
lyS
igni
fican
tH
IGH
CO
N-3
Brid
ge P
lace
men
tC
onst
ruct
ion
met
hods
may
be
diffe
rent
than
wha
t was
as
sum
ed in
the
cost
est
imat
eA
diff
eren
t met
hod
of c
onst
ruct
ion
coul
d af
fect
the
crew
si
zes
and
prod
uctio
n ra
tes
and
dura
tions
.V
ery
Like
lyS
igni
fican
tH
IGH
Like
lyS
igni
fican
tH
IGH
PDT
Dis
cuss
ions
& C
oncl
usio
nsLi
kelih
ood*
Impa
ct*
Ris
k Le
vel*
Like
lihoo
d*Im
pact
*R
isk
Leve
l*
Ris
k N
o.R
isk/
Opp
ortu
nity
Eve
ntC
once
rns
Proj
ect C
ost
Proj
ect S
ched
ule
Ris
k N
o.R
isk/
Opp
ortu
nity
Eve
ntC
once
rns
Proj
ect C
ost
Proj
ect S
ched
ule
Ris
k N
o.R
isk/
Opp
ortu
nity
Eve
ntC
once
rns
Proj
ect C
ost
Proj
ect S
ched
ule
Ris
k N
o.R
isk/
Opp
ortu
nity
Eve
ntC
once
rns
Proj
ect C
ost
Proj
ect S
ched
ule
PS
NE
RP
Sno
hom
ish
Riv
er E
stua
ryR
isk
Reg
iste
r
Mar
ch 2
016
ESTI
MA
TEA
ND
SCH
EDU
LER
ISK
S
ES
T-1
Ear
thw
ork
Qua
ntiti
esS
ee T
L-1/
2 R
isk
& C
on-2
See
TL-
1/2
Ris
k &
Con
-2V
ery
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
Ver
y Li
kely
Neg
ligib
leLO
W
ES
T-2
LWD
& P
lant
ings
The
scop
e is
ver
y lim
ited
and
quan
titie
s ar
e br
oad
Sco
pe a
nd q
uant
ities
are
ver
y lik
ely
to c
hang
e si
nce
no
know
n qu
antit
ies.
Li
kely
Neg
ligib
leLO
WLi
kely
Neg
ligib
leLO
W
ES
T-4
Brid
ge C
ost M
odel
Use
d m
any
cost
boo
k ite
ms.
Use
d m
any
assu
mpt
ions
.
Cos
t boo
k ite
ms
and
assu
mpt
ions
may
not
be
entir
ely
accu
rate
or a
pplic
able
to th
e pr
ojec
t. It
is li
kely
ther
e w
ill
be c
hang
es to
cos
t mod
el fo
r the
brid
ge a
s th
e de
sign
pr
ogre
sses
. Th
e im
pact
cou
ld b
e si
gnifi
cant
giv
en th
e %
of
cost
s fo
r the
num
erou
s br
idge
s to
the
TPC
.V
ery
Like
lyS
igni
fican
tH
IGH
Like
lyM
argi
nal
MO
DE
RA
TE
ES
T-5
Floo
ding
and
Wor
k W
indo
ws
Pro
ject
take
s pl
aces
ove
r man
y ye
ars
and
ther
e ar
e lik
ely
to b
e w
eath
er is
sues
, pos
sibl
e flo
odin
g, a
nd o
ther
issu
es th
at o
ccur
du
ring
this
tim
e.
Ther
e is
a h
igh
likel
ihoo
d th
at th
ere
will
be
sche
dule
im
pact
s be
caus
e of
this
. C
ost i
mpa
cts
wou
ld b
e re
lativ
ely
mar
gina
l.U
nlik
ely
Mar
gina
lLO
WLi
kely
Neg
ligib
leLO
W
PDT
Dis
cuss
ions
&C
oncl
usio
nsLi
kelih
ood*
Impa
ct*
Ris
kLe
vel*
Like
lihoo
d*Im
pact
*R
isk
Leve
l*EC
ON
OM
ICS
RIS
KS
FL-1
Fuel
Fuel
pric
es a
re v
olat
ile a
nd w
ill p
roba
bly
go u
p
A 2
5% in
crea
se in
fuel
cou
ld c
ontri
bute
to u
p to
a 3
%
incr
ease
in to
tal c
onst
ruct
ion
cost
s. H
ow li
kely
is it
that
ga
solin
e w
ill re
ach
$5.0
0/ga
l? D
epen
ds o
n w
ho y
ou a
sk.
For t
he p
urpo
ses
of th
is ri
sk a
naly
sis,
ass
ume
that
it is
un
likel
y.
Like
lyM
argi
nal
MO
DE
RA
TEV
ery
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
FL-2
Asp
halt
Asp
halt
is a
pet
role
um p
rodu
ct a
nd s
ubje
ct to
fluc
tuat
ion.
Ass
ume
likel
y an
d m
argi
nal.
Like
lyN
eglig
ible
LOW
Ver
y U
nlik
ely
Neg
ligib
leLO
W
FL-3
Con
cret
e &
Ste
el
Cos
t of s
teel
and
oth
er m
etal
s ar
e su
bjec
t to
mar
ket
cond
ition
s. It
is b
elie
ved
that
ther
e is
at l
east
a 5
0%
chan
ce o
f flu
ctua
tion
upw
ard.
The
impa
ct is
con
side
red
to
incr
ease
the
tota
l pro
ject
cos
ts n
o m
ore
than
1%
Like
lyN
eglig
ible
LOW
Ver
y U
nlik
ely
Neg
ligib
leLO
W
PDT
Dis
cuss
ions
& C
oncl
usio
nsLi
kelih
ood*
Impa
ct*
Ris
k Le
vel*
Like
lihoo
d*Im
pact
*R
isk
Leve
l*Pr
ogra
mm
atic
Ris
ks(E
xter
nal R
isk
Item
s ar
e th
ose
that
are
gen
erat
ed, c
ause
d, o
r con
trolle
d ex
clus
ivel
y ou
tsid
e th
e P
DT'
s sp
here
of i
nflu
ence
.)
PR
-1C
hang
ing
Law
s/R
egul
atio
ns
Law
s, re
gula
tions
, and
gui
delin
es c
ould
cha
nge
over
the
life
of
the
proj
ect,
pote
ntia
lly re
quiri
ng c
hang
es in
mat
eria
ls u
sed
on
site
s, a
djus
ted
cons
truct
ion
met
hodo
logy
, or i
ncre
ased
de
sign
/stu
dy re
quire
men
ts.
In g
ener
al th
is ri
sk w
as v
iew
ed to
be
very
unl
ikel
y to
affe
ct
the
proj
ect.
The
onl
y ex
cept
ion
is th
at th
e W
A D
ept.
of
Eco
logy
may
cha
nge
its s
edim
ent m
anag
emen
t gui
delin
es.
How
ever
, the
se c
hang
es a
re n
ot e
xpec
ted
to re
quire
mor
e th
an e
xtre
mel
y m
inor
adj
ustm
ents
to T
PC
.V
ery
Unl
ikel
yN
eglig
ible
LOW
Ver
y Li
kely
Neg
ligib
leLO
W
Ris
k N
o.R
isk/
Opp
ortu
nity
Eve
ntC
once
rns
Proj
ect C
ost
Proj
ect S
ched
ule
Ris
k N
o.R
isk/
Opp
ortu
nity
Eve
ntC
once
rns
Proj
ect C
ost
Proj
ect S
ched
ule