PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM …...Total Project Cost (Mar 2016 Prices): $37,376,000 The restoration proposal would remove the existing highway to include all roadway fill, armoring,

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)


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




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



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


Area of Restored Process: 25-76 acres

Total project Cost (Mar 2016 Prices): $37,600,000

EO Score: 0.6




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.






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.


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


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




N

SO

UR

CE

: ES

A (

2011

); U

SD

A-N

AIP

(20

09)


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 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




N

SO

UR

CE

: ES

A (

2011

); B

ing

Map

s (2

011)


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






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.






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



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


19 AcresArea of Restored Process:

Total Project Cost (Mar 2016 Prices):

Ecosystem Output Score:

Beach Nourishment

$36,994,000



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.





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



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


Relocated access road


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):


67.5 AcresArea of Restored Process:

$126,593,000




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.


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


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




N

SO

UR

CE

: ES

A (

2011

); B

ing

Map

s (2

011)


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



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


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.)


Risk No. Risk/Opportunity Event Concerns


1 of 4


March 2016


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


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



Risk No. Risk/Opportunity Event

2 of 4


March 2016


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


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


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





3 of 4


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


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


Programmatic Risks (External Risk Items are those that are generated, caused, or controlled exclusively outside the PDT's sphere of influence.)

4 of 4


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


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


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


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

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

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

Start-only

Finish-only

Progress

Deadline

PSNERPChambers Bay EstuaryConstruction Schedule

Page 1

Project: Chambers Bay EstuaryDate: Fri 3/25/16


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

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


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



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.See AS-1. Possibility of railroad owners performing the work which could be a cost increase.


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



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.


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



Level



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.


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


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



Level



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 design. Many unknowns.

No concerns.

No concerns,


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. 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


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


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.


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 applicable.



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



Level



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.


Remove Draw Bridge




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


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




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


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

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




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


AS-1 5

AS-2 5

AS-4 5

AS-5 5

AS-6 2

AS-7 0

AS-8 0

AS-10 0



Level

Big Beef Creek EstuaryPreliminary Budget Estimate Level


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


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



06 Demolition

Concerns


March 2016

AS-12 5


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


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



Level



Level



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.


Negligible

08 Bridge Very Unlikely Negligible

08 Traffic Control Very Unlikely

Remaining Construction Items LIKELY Marginal


Negligible

08 Bridge LIKELY Significant


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


March 2016

Q-12 4


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


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



Level



Level



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


Negligible

08 Bridge Very Unlikely Negligible


Remaining Construction Items LIKELY Significant

Negligible

Significant

Negligible

Significant

Very Unlikely

LIKELY

Very Unlikely

LIKELY

08 Traffic Control

08 Bridge18 Cultural Resources Preservation


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

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


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

Start‐only

Finish‐only

Deadline

Progress

PSNERPLilliwaup CausewayConstruction Schedule

Page 1

Project: Lilliwaup CausewayDate: Fri 3/25/16


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

Start‐only

Finish‐only

Deadline

Progress

PSNERPLilliwaup CausewayConstruction Schedule

Page 2

Project: Lilliwaup CausewayDate: Fri 3/25/16

PSNERPLilliwaup Creek EstuaryRisk Register

March 2016




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


AS-1 5AS-2 5AS-4 5AS-5 5AS-6 5AS-7 5



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



06 Demolition

Concerns

08 Earthwork

Pavement

Bridge Removal

Significant


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


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


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.


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


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



Level



Level



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


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


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


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.


Concrete, steel.


Pretty standard cross section.



March 2016

Q-6 2

Q-7 4

Q-8 4

Q-12 2


FI-1 0

FI-2 0

FI-4 0

FI-5 0

FI-6 0

FI-7 0

FI-8 0

FI-12 0


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



Level



Level



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






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



Made assumptions.

Very Unlikely

LIKELY

Negligible

Marginal

Negligible

Negligible

Marginal

Very Unlikely

LIKELY

Very Unlikely

Bridge Installation18 Cultural Resources Preservation


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


Bridge Installation Very Unlikely


Negligible06 Demolition Very Unlikely Negligible

06 Earthwork Unlikely

NegligibleBridge Removal Very Unlikely Negligible

Pavement Very Unlikely

08 Earthwork Very Unlikely Negligible


Bridge Installation Very Unlikely


Many assumptions made.









Used many cost book items. Used many assumptions.

Made assumptions.




Preliminary design and early planning stage.




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



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


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

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




Project Scope

PS-1 2

PS-2 1

PS-3 0

PS-4 4

PS-8 3

PS-9 3

PS-12 2


AS-1 0

AS-2 3



Level

Big Quilcene RiverPreliminary Budget Estimate Level


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


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



Roads

Concerns


March 2016

AS-3 0

AS-4 1

AS-8 0

AS-9 0

AS-12 0


CC-1 0

CC-2 3

CC-3 1

CC-4 2

CC-8 0



Level

See AS-1

No concernsCultural Resource Preservation Very Unlikely Negligible

Negligible

Critical

Negligible

Marginal

Very Unlikely

Unlikely

Unlikely

Unlikely



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


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


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%See AS-1

Built Environment Analysis


See AS-1

See AS-1

See AS-1


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



Level

Risk Potential Risk Areas Concerns PDT Discussions & Conclusions Likelihood Impact Risk



Level



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


Remaining Construction Items Very Unlikely NegligibleNo concerns.NegligibleBuilt Environment Analysis Very Unlikely



NegligibleBuilt Environment Analysis Very Unlikely

NegligibleNegligibleNegligibleNegligible

Very UnlikelyVery UnlikelyVery UnlikelyVery Unlikely

Demo BuildingsRoadsCreate Pilot ChannelLevees

No concerns.No concerns.No concerns.No concerns.

Significant


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


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


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



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


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.


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


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


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

Start‐only

Finish‐only

Deadline

Progress

PSNERPSnohomish EstuaryConstruction Schedule

Page 1

Project: Snohomish EstuaryDate: Fri 3/25/16


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

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

PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM …...Total Project Cost (Mar 2016 Prices): $37,376,000 The restoration proposal would remove the existing highway to include all roadway fill, armoring,

Documents