Appendix F: Cost Engineering

Mississippi River Upper Pool 4

Section 1122

Pierce County Islands Head of Lake Pepin

Backwater Complex

Feasibility Report and Integrated

Environmental Assessment

March 2020
 Appendix F: Cost Engineering

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 3

2 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 3

3 Anticipated Construction Schedule ................................................................................... 3

4 Cost Estimate Components .............................................................................................. 4

4.1 Direct Costs ........................................................................................................... 4
4.2 Indirect Costs ........................................................................................................ 5

5 Risk Management and Contingency Analysis ................................................................... 6

5.1 General .................................................................................................................. 6
5.2 Contingency Discussion ........................................................................................ 6
5.3 Miscellaneous Assumptions .................................................................................. 6

6 Major Project Cost Accounts ............................................................................................. 7

6.1 (01) Real Estate .................................................................................................... 7
6.2 (06) Construction of Fish and Wildlife Facilities..................................................... 7
6.3 (30) Planning, Engineering & Design .................................................................... 8
6.4 (31) Construction Management ............................................................................. 8

7 Total Project Cost Summary ............................................................................................. 8

7.1 FY20 Project First Cost ......................................................................................... 9
7.2 Fully Funded Total Project Cost ............................................................................ 9

8 References ...................................................................................................................... 10

9 Attachments .................................................................................................................... 10
• TRACES MII Cost Report; 1-page....................................................................... 10
• Risk Management and Contingency Analysis; 9-pages ...................................... 10
• Total Project Cost Summary (TPCS); 2-pages.................................................... 10
• Anticipated Project Schedule; 1-page ................................................................. 10

Table of Contents i
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Tentatively Selected Plan Project First Cost (in $1,000) ................................................. 9

Table of Contents ii
Appendix F: Cost Engineering

1 Introduction
Several alternate plans were evaluated for this project. The Evaluation and Comparison of
Alternatives section in the Main Report details the final array of each alternative, considering
both costs and benefits. As discussed in the Plan Formulation section, a number of factors
contributed to the formulation of alternatives and plan selection including project objectives,
agency priorities, costs, and benefits. The inclusion or exclusion of individual features, rather
than evaluation of different designs for a specific feature, were utilized to develop alternative
plans. Unit pricing used to determine the costs for each specific alternative plan is based on
pricing from the current working estimate in MII format developed at the time the of evaluation of
alternatives. This unit pricing is based on assumed crews and production rates typical for this
type of work and includes markups such as typical contractor overhead and profit rates. A
contingency rate developed during the alternative plan formulation phase was applied to the unit
price. Then a total markup of 16% for planning, engineering, and design, and construction
management was applied to this unit price and the two costs summed. During the review of the
MII alternative unit pricing, and corresponding XCEL spreadsheet developed using the MII input,
it was determined that changes in the pricing would likely be warranted. However, based on
discussions with the project delivery team (PDT), and the fact that the alternatives were
developed by adding or removing specific features and not by evaluating different designs and
therefore different costs for a specific feature, it is unlikely that the tentatively selected plan
(TSP) would change. No further evaluation of the alternatives was judged to be warranted.

The remainder of this appendix refers to the TSP and contains a feasibility level project cost
estimate and Total Project Cost Summary (TPCS) prepared for the Mississippi River Upper Pool
4, head of Lake Pepin, Section 1122 Project. The study area encompasses Catherine’s Pass,
and includes some of the Pierce County Islands at the head of Lake Pepin, beginning at river
mile 785 and extending to river mile 790.

2 Methodology
The cost estimate prepared for the TSP includes real estate acquisition, planning, engineering,
design, construction, and adaptive management and monitoring costs. The estimate was
developed after review of preliminary project schematics, project data and requirements, and
attending regular PDT meetings.

Guidance for the preparation of the estimate and attachments obtained from the following
sources:
• Cost Engineering Policy and General Requirements (ER 1110-1-1300)
• Civil Works Cost Engineering (ER 1110-2-1302)
• Construction Cost Estimating Guide for Civil Works (ETL 1110-2-573)

The Fully Funded Estimate (FFE) was completed in accordance with the Engineering Manual
for Civil Works Construction Cost Index System (CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304).

3 Anticipated Construction Schedule

The project schedule is based on receiving funding for the project in the beginning of the first
quarter of 2020 with planning, engineering and design being conducted from October 1, 2020

USACE | Upper Pool 4 Section 1122 Pilot Study 3

Appendix F: Cost Engineering

through May of 2021. It is assumed that the project would be advertised in June of 2021 with
contract award in August of 2021. After award, notice to proceed would be given in September
of 2021 with preconstruction submittals to follow.

Actual construction is anticipated to begin in May of 2022 after ice out and when high spring
flows are diminished. The anticipated construction duration is five full seasons for this project.
Construction would occur during the navigation season, typically May through October, using
mostly marine equipment. Determination of duration of specific project features is based on the
estimated quantity for the feature and assumed production rates for the task, assuming a 10-
hour work day and 5 day work week. External factors such as potential spring flooding or other
adverse weather conditions could affect the project’s construction schedule. These uncertainties
are accounted for by increasing the calculated duration by an additional 25% to cover weather
days and other unforeseen factors that could impact the work. Adaptive management and
monitoring would extend an additional 10 years after completion of construction.

An anticipated project schedule is provided in the attachments of this cost appendix.

4 Cost Estimate Components

This estimate is based on price levels effective October 2019. The costs are considered fair and
reasonable to a well-equipped and capable contractor and include overhead and profit. Based
on the location of the project, less than 1-hour from St. Paul, Minnesota, no per diem is included
in the estimate.

4.1 Direct Costs

Direct costs are based on the anticipated material, equipment, and labor necessary to construct
the Project based on the current scope of work. Most of the work is assumed to be done by the
prime contractor, with the refuge dredging, site work (access road and re-paving), and turf
establishment performed by subcontractors. It is assumed the prime contractor will perform the
project coordination and oversight with construction work.

4.1.1 Labor Rates Determination

Labor rates are based on 2020 Davis-Bacon Wage Rates General Decision Number:
WI20200015 01/24/2020, Heavy Construction, for the state of Wisconsin.

4.1.2 Overtime
Overtime is applied to the estimate at 5-days per week, 10-hours per workday.

4.1.3 Productivity
Normal productivity was applied. User crews were created using the estimator’s judgment. Most
of the work crews and production rates are based on information received from the Contracting
Officer Representative based on the actual construction of Conway HREP and Harpers HREP
bid abstract. Productivity rates and work crews were obtained from daily average productions
and include crew set up time, site inefficiencies, equipment-operator crews, and crew
assemblies.

USACE | Upper Pool 4 Section 1122 Pilot Study 4

Appendix F: Cost Engineering

4.1.4 Equipment Rates

All equipment costs are from MII Equipment Region 4 2016 and MII English Cost Book 2016.

4.1.5 Fuel Rates

Fuel rates were updated as of January 2020. Current fuel prices are based on Midwest
averages from www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel. This includes gasoline, marine fuel, on-road
diesel, and off-road diesel.

4.1.6 Material Cost

Prices for large quantity items such as road aggregate, asphalt pavement, turf products, and
riprap were obtained from current bid abstracts. A sales tax of 5.6% was applied to the material
costs for the state of Wisconsin.

4.2 Indirect Costs

Contractor assignments were determined after the formulation of the direct costs. The estimate
includes work assignments for a single prime contractor and four subcontractors. Indirect
markups are applied to the prime and subcontractors doing the work based on percentages of
their own work and/or subcontracted work as it is assigned. The following indirect costs are
included in the estimate.

4.2.1 Job Office Overhead (JOOH)

JOOH are those indirect cost which occur specifically and only as a result of a particular project
and hence are charged directly to the project. Cost contributors include, support vehicles,
contractor’s superintendent, small tools, site maintenance, and clean up.

JOOH was applied as a running percentage at 10% for both the contractor and the
subcontractors, based on similar projects such as Harpers Slough and Conway.

4.2.2 Home Office Overhead (HOOH)

HOOH are those expenses incurred by the contractor in the overall operation of the business,
which are not associated with a particular project. A certain percentage of these expenses are
charged to each project. HOOH includes such items as office rental or ownership costs, utilities,
office equipment, office staff, and insurance. The range of home office overhead can be quite
broad and depends largely on the contractor’s annual volume of work and the type of work that
is generally performed by the contractor.

The HOOH was applied as a running percentage at 10% for the prime contractor and 8.60% for
the subcontractors, based on calculations from similar projects such as Harpers Slough and
Conway.

USACE | Upper Pool 4 Section 1122 Pilot Study 5

Appendix F: Cost Engineering

4.2.3 Profit
Profit is defined as a return on investment and provides the contractor with an incentive to
perform the work as efficiently as possible. For the TSP estimate, profit was developed using
the weighted guideline method, which considers the contractor’s degree of risk, the relative
difficulty of work, the monetary size of the job, the period of performance, the contractor’s
investment, any assistance by the Government, and the amount of subcontracting.

Profit for the contractor and the subcontractors is applied using the weighted guideline method
at 8.98%.

4.2.4 Bonds
Bond contract costs are for performance and payment security bonds that protect the
government from a non-performing contractor and subcontractors and suppliers from non-
payment. The bond markup is applied only to the prime contractor’s own work and the prime’s
subcontractor’s work at 2%. This is an assumption based of industry standard data. Bonding
requirements are assumed the responsibility of the prime contractor.

5 Risk Management and Contingency Analysis

5.1 General
The objective for developing a cost risk analysis (CRA) for the project is to identify and quantify
uncertainties related to the project that could adversely impact costs or schedules. After review
of the recommended plan and associated documents, the PDT meets to discuss project risks.
The result of the CRA exercise is to develop contingencies that are applied to the major cost
accounts of the project estimate.

5.2 Contingency Discussion

The contingencies are based on uncertainties in quantities, unit pricing, and items of work not
yet defined or recognized at the time of the feasibility design. Quantity and design uncertainties
are assigned with input from the PDT designers.

The PDT’s analysis arrived at an overall project contingency of 27% for this project. The
analysis and register are attachments to this appendix.

5.3 Miscellaneous Assumptions

5.3.1 Site Access
All project features shall be constructed on lands owned by the State of Wisconsin and
managed by the WDNR. It is assumed that the Bay City Campground located at W6490 Lake
Pepin Boulevard, in Bay City, Wisconsin will be utilized for construction access and as a staging
area for the duration of this project. A temporary construction sand pad, with riprap on the side
slopes to minimize erosion, is included for marine access of construction material to the
peninsulas. Temporary construction fencing is included to identify construction staging and
equipment area at Bay City Campground. Due to the existing condition of the roadway into the

USACE | Upper Pool 4 Section 1122 Pilot Study 6

Appendix F: Cost Engineering

Bay City Campground, and the 5-year construction use at the staging area, a re-paving
allowance for the roadway into the campground has been included in the cost estimate.

A gravel access road to the proposed project dike is assumed to be constructed along an
existing trail, and will remain when construction is completed. A temporary roadway easement
to access the dike will need to be acquired, see Appendix E – Real Estate Plan for details. A
gate to secure the access road to the dike is not included and is assumed the responsibility of
the agency who will maintain the stop log structure and the dike.

5.3.2 Land and Dike Features

Fill material to complete the recommended plan features is estimated to be available via marine
transport from the Read’s Landing site. All dredged material will be utilized within the project
features.

5.3.3 Disposal
There is no cost included for hauling cleared material, excess fill or dredged material. No cost is
included for off-site disposal of any material, other than normal construction debris.

6 Major Project Cost Accounts

The estimate is organized in accordance with the Civil Works Work Breakdown Structure
(CWWBS). The estimate was developed using Micro-Computer Aided Cost Estimate System
software (MII v4.4). Applicable crews and equipment were applied in the estimate to correspond
with the work being performed. Material prices were developed using the MII Cost Book 2016
and abstract data from similar projects. Details for each project feature and their contingencies
are described below.

6.1 (01) Real Estate

This account includes cost for land acquisition and administrative costs necessary for the
construction of the recommended plan. An easement cost is included to cover the east entrance
of the access road that leads to the dike (roughly 500 LF).

A separate real estate contingency supplied by Real Estate for 25 percent is included in
included in the cost for this feasibility effort.

6.2 (06) Construction of Fish and Wildlife Facilities

The features is this account correspond with the TSP and include features such as: (4)
peninsulas, access dredging, (2) backwater dredged areas, (1) mudflat, (3) shoreline protection
areas (includes a partial closure at Catherine’s Pass), refuge dredging, a water level
management dike, a water control structure, an access road to the dike, turf establishment on
up-land features, and the temporary construction access/staging area at the Bay City
Campground. A cost to re-pave a portion of the access road into the campground, and the
parking area, due to truck traffic during construction use, is included in this account.

Based on similar projects of complexity and scope, a 28% contingency for construction of the
project features is included in the cost estimate.

USACE | Upper Pool 4 Section 1122 Pilot Study 7

Appendix F: Cost Engineering

6.3 (30) Planning, Engineering & Design

The work covered under this account includes the project management, planning, engineering,
and design costs spent to date, as well as the remaining estimated costs that will be associated
with the engineering and design for this project. The contract advertisement, solicitation, and
contract award are also included in this account. Finally, an Adaptive Management and
Monitoring program cost is included (see the main report for more details on this program).

This account is calculated as 10% of the construction of Fish and Wildlife Facilities (06) account,
based on projects similar in design and scope, and includes a 14% contingency.

6.4 (31) Construction Management

The work covered under this account includes the expected costs for administration of the
contract, supervision of construction, technical management activities, and the district office
administration costs.

This cost equals 8% of the Fish and Wildlife Facilities (06) account, and a 24% contingency,
based on similar projects in design and scope, like Conway and Harpers HREPs.

7 Total Project Cost Summary

A total project cost summary (TCPS) for the estimated construction costs of the TSP has been
developed and provided as an attachment. The TPCS incorporates the cost for all accounts
developed in the MII cost estimate, the contingencies for each major project feature, and the
escalation to the midpoint of construction for a 5-year duration (3rd quarter 2024).

USACE | Upper Pool 4 Section 1122 Pilot Study 8

Appendix F: Cost Engineering

7.1 FY20 Project First Cost

The project first cost is listed in Table 1 and is the estimated cost at the effective price level of
October 2019. This cost includes risk contingencies, however inflation or escalation are not
included.

Table 1: Tentatively Selected Plan Project First Cost (in $1,000)

Contin- Project
Cost Contingency
Account Item gency First Cost
($1,000) (%) ($1,000) ($1,000)

Real Estate
Acquisition
1 8 25% $2 $9

6 Construction $16,336 28% $4,579 $20,915

Planning,
Engineering, and
Design
30 (PED, 7%)
$1,144 14% $160 $1,304

Adaptive
Management &
30 Monitoring (3%)
$490 14% $69 $559

Construction
Management
(8%)
31 $1,307 24% $314 $1,621

Total $19,284 $5,123 $24,407

7.2 Fully Funded Total Project Cost

The fully funded total project cost includes contingency and escalation to the midpoint of
construction (3rd quarter of 2024) and is estimated to be $27,791,000. The Total Project Cost
Summary is included as an attachment to this cost appendix.

USACE | Upper Pool 4 Section 1122 Pilot Study 9

Appendix F: Cost Engineering

8 References
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. ER 1110-1-1300, Cost Engineering Policy and Requirements.
Washington DC. March 26, 1993.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. ER 1110-2-1302, Civil Works Cost Engineering. Washington
DC. June 30, 2016.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. ER 1110-2-1304, Civil Works Construction Cost Index System.
Washington DC. March 31, 2018.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. ETL 1110-2-573, Construction Cost Estimating Guide for Civil
Works. Washington DC. September 30, 2008.

9 Attachments
• TRACES MII Cost Report; 1-page
• Risk Management and Contingency Analysis; 9-pages
• Total Project Cost Summary (TPCS); 2-pages
• Anticipated Project Schedule; 1-page

USACE | Upper Pool 4 Section 1122 Pilot Study 10

 Cost Risk Analysis
Project (less than $40M): Upper Pool 4 Lake Pepin CAP Alternative: Tentatively Selected Plan
Project Development Stage/Alternative: Feasibility (Recommended Plan)
Risk Category: Low Risk: Typical Construction, Simple Meeting Date: 2/14/2019.
Cost updated 3/5/2020
Total Estimated Construction Contract Cost = $ 16,335,899

CWWBS Feature of Work Estimated Cost % Contingency $ Contingency Total

01 LANDS AND DAMAGES Real Estate $ 7,500 25% $ 1,875 $ 9,375

1 06 FISH AND WILDLIFE FACILITIES Peninsula Construction - Granular Fill $ 7,308,795 29% $ 2,146,845 $ 9,455,640

2 06 FISH AND WILDLIFE FACILITIES Peninsula Construction - Fine Fill $ 4,845,151 31% $ 1,511,397 $ 6,356,548

3 06 FISH AND WILDLIFE FACILITIES Shoreline Protection & CP Partial Closure $ 1,721,206 31% $ 531,378 $ 2,252,584

4 06 FISH AND WILDLIFE FACILITIES Turf Establishment $ 320,000 32% $ 102,076 $ 422,076
Remaining Construction (access road,
5 06 All Other structure, refuge dredging, staging area) $ 2,140,747 15.1% 15% $ 322,772 $ 2,463,519
Planning, Engineering, & Design (7%)
6 30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING, AND DESIGN (3% Adapt Mgmt & Monitoring) $ 1,633,590 14% $ 225,352 $ 1,858,942

7 31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT Construction Management (8%) $ 1,306,872 24% $ 314,625 $ 1,621,496

XX FIXED DOLLAR RISK ADD (EQUALLY DISPERSED TO ALL, MUST INCLUDE JUSTIFICATION SEE BELOW) $ -
KEEP
KEEP Totals
KEEP Real Estate $ 7,500 25% $ 1,875 $ 9,375.00
KEEP Total Construction Estimate $ 16,335,899 28% $ 4,614,468 $ 20,950,367
KEEP Total Planning, Engineering & Design $ 1,633,590 14% $ 225,352 $ 1,858,942
KEEP Total Construction Management $ 1,306,872 24% $ 314,625 $ 1,621,496
KEEP
KEEP Total Excluding Real Estate $ 19,276,361 27% $ 5,154,445 $ 24,430,806
RANGE Base 50% 80%
RANGE Confidence Level Range Estimate ($000's) $19,276k $22,369k $24,431k
Upper Pool 4 Lake Pepin CAP Tentatively Selected Plan
Feasibility (Recommended Plan)
Cost Risk Analysis Risk Evaluation

Project Specialty Technical

Acquisition Construction Cost Estimate External Project Cost in
WBS Potential Risk Areas Management & Construction or Design &
Strategy Elements Assumptions Risks Thousands
Scope Growth Fabrication Quantities

01 LANDS AND DAMAGES Real Estate

$7,500
Peninsula Construction - Granular
06 FISH AND WILDLIFE FACILITIES
Fill
2 0 5 0 0 0 0
$7,309

06 FISH AND WILDLIFE FACILITIES Peninsula Construction - Fine Fill 2 0 5 0 0 0 1

$4,845
Shoreline Protection & CP
06 FISH AND WILDLIFE FACILITIES
Partial Closure
0 2 5 0 0 0 0
$1,721

06 FISH AND WILDLIFE FACILITIES Turf Establishment 0 0 5 0 0 3 0

$320
Remaining Construction Items
06 All Other (access road, structure, refuge 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
dredging, staging area) $2,141
Planning, Engineering, & Design
30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING, AND
DESIGN
(7%) 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
(3% Adapt Mgmt & Monitoring)
$1,634

31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT Construction Management (8%) 3 1 2 0 0 0 0

$1,307
$19,276
Risk $ 651 $ 1,123 $ 3,240 $ - $ 30 $ 22 $ 88 $5,154
Fixed Dollar Risk Allocation $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $0
Risk $ 651 $ 1,123 $ 3,240 $ - $ 30 $ 22 $ 88 $5,154
Total $24,431
 Risk Register
Upper Pool 4 Lake Pepin CAP Tentatively Selected Plan
Feasibility (Recommended Plan) Risk Register
Risk Level

Cost Risk Analysis Very Likely 2 3 4 5 5

Likely 1 2 3 4 5
Meeting Date: 14-Feb-19 Possible 0 1 2 3 4
Unlikely 0 0 1 2 3
Negligible Marginal Moderate Significant Critical

PDT Discussions & Conclusions

Risk Element Feature of Work Concerns (Include logic & justification for choice of Impact Likelihood Risk Level
Likelihood & Impact)

Project Management & Scope Growth Maximum Project Growth 40%

Location is known. No mussel impacts. Geotechnical is less
• Design confidence?
Peninsula Construction - known (settlement). Settlement may raise cost, but does not
PS-2
Granular Fill
• Potential for scope growth, added features and
affect Sec 204 cost. Assumption will be proven in the field
Marginal Likely 2
quantities?
favorably or not regarding settlement.

The number, sizes, and shapes, of the features should not

change in terms of topsoil. Uncertainty in placed density
• Design confidence?
Peninsula Construction - versus excavated density. Assuming 50% shrinkage on
PS-3
Fine Fill - Dry/Wet
• Potential for scope growth, added features and
islands, no shrinkage in mudflats. High water levels during
Marginal Likely 2
quantities?
construction season are likely due to the location (delays
dewatering of fines).

• Potential for scope growth, added features and The number, sizes, and shapes, of the features could change.
PS-4 Shoreline Protection-Riprap
quantities? Small item with a solid scope defined with entire team.
Negligible Unlikely 0

Plantings likely willows, wetland seedmix and plantings are

• Potential for scope growth, added features and
PS-5 Turf Establishment
quantities?
not yet determined, however the rough budgeted cost for this Marginal Unlikely 0
item is more than enough to cover the "worst case."

Remaining Construction
Items (access road, • Potential for scope growth, added features and
PS-12
structure, refuge quantities?
Dike 3 WLM structure and the road. Change not expected. Negligible Unlikely 0
dredging, staging area)

Planning, Engineering, &

Design (7%) • Potential for scope growth, added features and
PS-13
(3% Adapt Mgmt & quantities?
The number, sizes, and shapes, of the features could change. Marginal Unlikely 0
Monitoring)

The number, sizes, and shapes, of the features could change.

Construction Management • Potential for scope growth, added features and
PS-14
(8%) quantities?
Assuming multi-year, multiple contracts/funding years. Likely Moderate Likely 3
that high water could cause delays.
 Risk Register
Upper Pool 4 Lake Pepin CAP Tentatively Selected Plan
Feasibility (Recommended Plan) Risk Register
Risk Level

Cost Risk Analysis Very Likely 2 3 4 5 5

Likely 1 2 3 4 5
Meeting Date: 14-Feb-19 Possible 0 1 2 3 4
Unlikely 0 0 1 2 3
Negligible Marginal Moderate Significant Critical

PDT Discussions & Conclusions

Risk Element Feature of Work Concerns (Include logic & justification for choice of Impact Likelihood Risk Level
Likelihood & Impact)

Acquisition Strategy Maximum Project Growth 30%

The entire study area is in the state of WI (WDNR is project
sponsor). No direct real estate aquisition needed. May need a
Peninsula Construction - temporary easment with Bay City, WI for a staging area
AS-2
Granular Fill (temporary acquisition). An Acquisition Strategy Meeting has not
Negligible Unlikely 0
been held. Assuming Low Price Technically Acceptable
• Contracting plan firmly established? acquisition.
The entire study area is in the state of WI (WDNR is project
sponsor). No direct real estate aquisition needed. May need a
Peninsula Construction - temporary easment with Bay City, WI for a staging area
AS-3
Fine Fill - Dry/Wet (temporary acquisition). An Acquisition Strategy Meeting has not
Negligible Unlikely 0
been held. Assuming Low Price Technically Acceptable
• Contracting plan firmly established? acquisition.

The entire study area is in the state of WI (WDNR is project

sponsor). No direct real estate aquisition needed. May need a
AS-4 Shoreline Protection-Riprap temporary easment with Bay City, WI for a staging area Moderate Possible 2
(temporary acquisition). An Acquisition Strategy Meeting has not
been held. Assuming Low Price Technically Acceptable
• Contracting plan firmly established? acquisition. Potential to stockpile riprap at Bay City.
The entire study area is in the state of WI (WDNR is project
sponsor). No direct real estate aquisition needed. May need a
temporary easment with Bay City, WI for a staging area
AS-5 Turf Establishment (temporary acquisition). An Acquisition Strategy Meeting has not Negligible Unlikely 0
been held. Assuming Low Price Technically Acceptable
• Contracting plan firmly established? acquisition.

The entire study area is in the state of WI (WDNR is project

sponsor). No direct real estate aquisition needed. May need a
Remaining Construction temporary easment with Bay City, WI for a staging area
Items (access road, (temporary acquisition). An Acquisition Strategy Meeting has not
Negligible Unlikely 0
structure, refuge been held. Assuming Low Price Technically Acceptable
AS-12 dreding, staging area) • Contracting plan firmly established? acquisition.

The entire study area is in the state of WI (WDNR is project

Planning, Engineering, & sponsor). No direct real estate aquisition needed. May need a
Design (7%) temporary easment with Bay City, WI for a staging area
AS-13
(3% Adapt Mgmt & (temporary acquisition). An Acquisition Strategy Meeting has not
Negligible Likely 1
Monitoring) been held. Assuming Low Price Technically Acceptable
• Contracting plan firmly established? acquisition.

The entire study area is in the state of WI (WDNR is project

sponsor). No direct real estate aquisition needed. May need a
Construction temporary easment with Bay City, WI for a staging area
AS-14
Management (8%) (temporary acquisition). An Acquisition Strategy Meeting has not
Negligible Likely 1
been held. Assuming Low Price Technically Acceptable
• Contracting plan firmly established? acquisition.
 Risk Register
Upper Pool 4 Lake Pepin CAP Tentatively Selected Plan
Feasibility (Recommended Plan) Risk Register
Risk Level

Cost Risk Analysis Very Likely 2 3 4 5 5

Likely 1 2 3 4 5
Meeting Date: 14-Feb-19 Possible 0 1 2 3 4
Unlikely 0 0 1 2 3
Negligible Marginal Moderate Significant Critical

PDT Discussions & Conclusions

Risk Element Feature of Work Concerns (Include logic & justification for choice of Impact Likelihood Risk Level
Likelihood & Impact)

Construction Elements Maximum Project Growth 15%

High river flows (i.e. >55,000 cfs) may delay construction/cause
safety concerns for the contractor so they may shut down their
Peninsula Construction - • High risk or complex construction elements, site
CE-2
Granular Fill access, in-water?
dredging operations. Variations in elevations would reduce risk Significant Very LIKELY 5
(allow contractor to work if some features were built at higher
elevations when water is high).

High river flows (i.e. >55,000 cfs) may delay construction/cause

safety concerns for the contractor so they may shut down their
Peninsula Construction - • High risk or complex construction elements, site
CE-3
Fine Fill - Dry/Wet access, in-water?
dredging operations. Variations in elevations would reduce risk Significant Very LIKELY 5
(allow contractor to work if some features were built at higher
elevations when water is high).

High river flows (i.e. >55,000 cfs) may delay construction/cause

• High risk or complex construction elements, site
CE-4 Shoreline Protection-Riprap
access, in-water?
safety concerns for the contractor so they may shut down their Significant Very LIKELY 5
dredging operations.

High river flows (i.e. >55,000 cfs) may delay construction/cause

• High risk or complex construction elements, site
CE-5 Turf Establishment
access, in-water?
safety concerns for the contractor so they may shut down their Significant Very LIKELY 5
dredging operations.

Road elevation 672 - less risk to the road and WLM structure
Remaining Construction
construction. 55,000 cfs = 671 elevation. High river flows (i.e.
Items (access road,
>55,000 cfs) may delay construction/cause safety concerns for
Moderate Likely 3
structure, refuge • High risk or complex construction elements, site
the contractor so they may shut down their dredging operations.
CE-12 dredging, staging area) access, in-water?

Planning, Engineering, &

Design (7%) • High risk or complex construction elements, site
CE-13
(3% Adapt Mgmt & access, in-water?
No significant changes. Negligible Unlikely 0
Monitoring)

Construction • High risk or complex construction elements, site

CE-14
Management (8%) access, in-water?
High water could cause schedule delays for the contractor. Negligible Very LIKELY 2
 Risk Register
Upper Pool 4 Lake Pepin CAP Tentatively Selected Plan
Feasibility (Recommended Plan) Risk Register
Risk Level

Cost Risk Analysis Very Likely 2 3 4 5 5

Likely 1 2 3 4 5
Meeting Date: 14-Feb-19 Possible 0 1 2 3 4
Unlikely 0 0 1 2 3
Negligible Marginal Moderate Significant Critical

PDT Discussions & Conclusions

Risk Element Feature of Work Concerns (Include logic & justification for choice of Impact Likelihood Risk Level
Likelihood & Impact)

Specialty Construction or Fabrication Maximum Project Growth 50%

Peninsula Construction - • Unusual parts, material or equipment
Granular Fill manufactured or installed?
NA Negligible Unlikely 0
SC-2

Peninsula Construction - • Unusual parts, material or equipment

Fine Fill - Dry/Wet manufactured or installed?
NA Negligible Unlikely 0
SC-3

• Unusual parts, material or equipment

Shoreline Protection-Riprap
manufactured or installed?
NA Negligible Unlikely 0
SC-4

• Unusual parts, material or equipment

Turf Establishment
manufactured or installed?
NA Negligible Unlikely 0
SC-5
Remaining Construction
Items (access road, • Unusual parts, material or equipment
structure, refuge manufactured or installed?
NA Negligible Unlikely 0
SC-12 dredging, staging area)

Planning, Engineering, &

Design (7%) • Unusual parts, material or equipment
(3% Adapt Mgmt & manufactured or installed?
NA Negligible Unlikely 0
Monitoring)
SC-13

Construction Management • Unusual parts, material or equipment

(8%) manufactured or installed?
NA Negligible Unlikely 0
SC-14
 Risk Register
Upper Pool 4 Lake Pepin CAP Tentatively Selected Plan
Feasibility (Recommended Plan) Risk Register
Risk Level

Cost Risk Analysis Very Likely 2 3 4 5 5

Likely 1 2 3 4 5
Meeting Date: 14-Feb-19 Possible 0 1 2 3 4
Unlikely 0 0 1 2 3
Negligible Marginal Moderate Significant Critical

PDT Discussions & Conclusions

Risk Element Feature of Work Concerns (Include logic & justification for choice of Impact Likelihood Risk Level
Likelihood & Impact)

Technical Design & Quantities Maximum Project Growth 20%

This risk is captured in conservative settlement quantity estimate

Peninsula Construction - • Level of confidence based on design and
Granular Fill assumptions?
(Settlement assumption is 3.5). Some risk with existing Negligible Possible 0
bathymetry surveys used (2017), however entire study area is
T-2 very shallow (average across project area is more accurate).

Peninsula Construction - • Level of confidence based on design and This risk is captured in conservative settlement quantity estimate
Fine Fill - Dry/Wet assumptions? (Settlement assumption is 3.5). Some risk with existing Negligible Possible 0
bathymetry surveys used (2017), however entire study area is
T-3 very shallow (average across project area is more accurate).

This risk is captured in conservative settlement quantity estimate

• Level of confidence based on design and
Shoreline Protection-Riprap
assumptions?
(Settlement assumption is 3.5). Some risk with existing Negligible Possible 0
bathymetry surveys used (2017), however entire study area is
T-4 very shallow (average across project area is more accurate).

• Level of confidence based on design and This risk is captured in conservative settlement quantity estimate
Turf Establishment
assumptions? (Settlement assumption is 3.5). Some risk with existing Negligible Possible 0
bathymetry surveys used (2017), however entire study area is
T-5 very shallow (average across project area is more accurate).
Remaining Construction
Items (access road, • Level of confidence based on design and
structure, refuge assumptions?
LIDAR used for road area to calc quantities. Negligible Unlikely 0
T-12 dreding, staging area)

Planning, Engineering, &

This risk is captured in conservative settlement quantity estimate
Design (7%) • Level of confidence based on design and
(3% Adapt Mgmt & assumptions?
(Settlement assumption is 3.5). Some risk with existing Marginal Possible 1
bathymetry surveys used (2017), however entire study area is
Monitoring)
T-13 very shallow (average across project area is more accurate).

This risk is captured in conservative settlement quantity estimate

Construction • Level of confidence based on design and
Management (8%) assumptions?
(Settlement assumption is 3.5). Some risk with existing Negligible Possible 0
bathymetry surveys used (2017), however entire study area is
T-14 very shallow (average across project area is more accurate).
 Risk Register
Upper Pool 4 Lake Pepin CAP Tentatively Selected Plan
Feasibility (Recommended Plan) Risk Register
Risk Level

Cost Risk Analysis Very Likely 2 3 4 5 5

Likely 1 2 3 4 5
Meeting Date: 14-Feb-19 Possible 0 1 2 3 4
Unlikely 0 0 1 2 3
Negligible Marginal Moderate Significant Critical

PDT Discussions & Conclusions

Risk Element Feature of Work Concerns (Include logic & justification for choice of Impact Likelihood Risk Level
Likelihood & Impact)

Cost Estimate Assumptions Maximum Project Growth 25%

Peninsula Construction - • Assumptions regarding crew, productivity, Source Reads Landing has plenty of sand, typically unloaded
Granular Fill overtime? every 10 yrs.
Negligible Unlikely 0
EST-2
Peninsula Construction - • Assumptions regarding crew, productivity,
EST-3 Fine Fill - Dry/Wet overtime?
Low risk Negligible Unlikely 0
• Assumptions regarding crew, productivity,
These cost are similar to Capoli Slough, Harpers, and
Shoreline Protection-Riprap overtime?
Conway.
Negligible Unlikely 0
EST-4 • Reliability and number of key quotes?

A standard mix will be used. Contractor likely familiar with the

• Assumptions regarding crew, productivity, river, likely to account for planting delays due to high water.
Turf Establishment
overtime? However, the government would need to address losses of
Moderate Likely 3
topsoil.
EST-5
Remaining Construction
Items (access road,
structure, refuge
NA Negligible Unlikely 0
EST-12 dreding, staging area)

Planning, Engineering, &

• Assumptions regarding crew, productivity,
Design (7%)
(3% Adapt Mgmt &
overtime? NA Negligible Unlikely 0
• Reliability and number of key quotes?
EST-13 Monitoring)

Construction Management • Assumptions regarding crew, productivity,

(8%) overtime?
NA Negligible Unlikely 0
EST-14
 Risk Register
Upper Pool 4 Lake Pepin CAP Tentatively Selected Plan
Feasibility (Recommended Plan) Risk Register
Risk Level

Cost Risk Analysis Very Likely 2 3 4 5 5

Likely 1 2 3 4 5
Meeting Date: 14-Feb-19 Possible 0 1 2 3 4
Unlikely 0 0 1 2 3
Negligible Marginal Moderate Significant Critical

PDT Discussions & Conclusions

Risk Element Feature of Work Concerns (Include logic & justification for choice of Impact Likelihood Risk Level
Likelihood & Impact)

External Project Risks Maximum Project Growth 20%

Peninsula Construction -
EX-2
Granular Fill
High flows would result in higher cost and/or delays. High flows Marginal Unlikely 0
• High water, fuel pricing, and availability of skilled could wash portions of the island away prior to completion.
Contractors, environmental construction windows Source of sand is known (Reads Landing, or even Corps Island).

Peninsula Construction -
EX-3
Fine Fill - Dry/Wet
High flows would result in higher cost and/or delays. High flows Moderate Unlikely 1
• High water, fuel pricing, and availability of skilled could wash portions of the fines away and lengthen the drying
Contractors, environmental construction windows time.

EX-4 Shoreline Protection-Riprap • High water, fuel pricing, and availability of skilled Marginal Unlikely 0
Contractors, environmental construction windows High flows would result in higher cost and/or delays.

EX-5 Turf Establishment

• High water, fuel pricing, and availability of skilled High flows would result in higher cost and/or delays. High flows
Marginal Unlikely 0
Contractors, environmental construction windows could wash portions of the island away prior to completion.

Remaining Construction
Items (access road, Marginal Unlikely 0
structure, refuge
EX-12 dreding, staging area) NA NA
Planning, Engineering, &
Design (7%)
EX-13
(3% Adapt Mgmt &
Marginal Unlikely 0
Monitoring) • Potential for severe adverse weather? High flows would result in higher cost and/or delays.

Construction Management
EX-14
(8%)
Marginal Unlikely 0
• Potential for severe adverse weather? High flows would result in higher cost and/or delays.
 **** TOTAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY **** Printed:3/10/2020
Page 1 of 2

PROJECT: Mississippi River Upper Pool 4 Lake Pepin (Section 1122) DISTRICT: St. Paul District PREPARED: 3/5/2020
PROJECT NO: P2 xxxxxx POC: CHIEF, COST ENGINEERING, James D. Sentz
LOCATION: Bay City, WI, Mississippi River

This Estimate reflects the scope and schedule in report; Feasibility Report and Integrated Environmental Assessment for Mississippi River Upper Pool 4- Head of Lake Pepin (Section 1122)

PROJECT FIRST COST TOTAL PROJECT COST

Civil Works Work Breakdown Structure ESTIMATED COST
(Constant Dollar Basis) (FULLY FUNDED)

Program Year (Budget EC): 2020

Effective Price Level Date: 1 OCT 19
TOTAL
Spent Thru: FIRST
WBS Civil Works COST CNTG CNTG TOTAL ESC COST CNTG TOTAL 1-Oct-19 COST INFLATED COST CNTG FULL
NUMBER Feature & Sub-Feature Description ($K) ($K) (%) ($K) (%) ($K) ($K) ($K) ($K) ($K) (%) ($K) ($K) ($K)
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O

06 Peninsula Construction - Granular Fill $7,309 $2,120 29.0% $9,428 0.0% $7,309 $2,120 $9,428 $0 $9,428 10.9% $8,105 $2,350 $10,455
06 Peninsula Construction - Fine Fill $4,845 $1,502 31.0% $6,347 0.0% $4,845 $1,502 $6,347 $0 $6,347 14.2% $5,534 $1,716 $7,249
06 Shoreline Protection (Riprap) $1,721 $534 31.0% $2,255 0.0% $1,721 $534 $2,255 $0 $2,255 15.9% $1,995 $618 $2,613
06 Turf Establishment $320 $102 32.0% $422 0.0% $320 $102 $422 $0 $422 15.9% $371 $119 $489
Refuge Dredging,Structure,Access Rd
06 Staging Pad and Re-Pave $2,141 $321 15.0% $2,462 0.0% $2,141 $321 $2,462 $0 $2,462 14.2% $2,445 $367 $2,812
$0 $0 - $0 - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 - $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 - $0 - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 - $0 $0 $0
__________ ___________ ____________ _________ _________ __________ ___________ _________ _________ ________________
CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS: $16,336 $4,579 $20,914.5 0.0% $16,336 $4,579 $20,915 $0 $20,915 12.9% $18,449 $5,170 $23,619

01 LANDS AND DAMAGES $8 $1.9 25.0% $9.4 0.0% $8 $2 $9 $0 $9 14.2% $9 $2 $11

30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN $1,634 $228.7 14.0% $1,862.3 0.0% $1,634 $229 $1,862 $0 $1,862 20.8% $1,973 $276 $2,249

31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $1,307 $313.6 24.0% $1,620.5 0.0% $1,307 $314 $1,621 $0 $1,621 18.0% $1,542 $370 $1,912

PROJECT COST TOTALS: $19,284 $5,123 26.6% $24,407 $19,284 $5,123 $24,407 $0 $24,407 13.9% $21,973 $5,818 $27,791

CHIEF, COST ENGINEERING, James D. Sentz

ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST: $27,791
PROJECT MANAGER, Angela Deen

CHIEF, REAL ESTATE, Kevin Sommerland

**** CONTRACT COST SUMMARY ****

Filename: TPCS_UP4_PostDQC_05Mar20.xlsx
TPCS
 **** TOTAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY **** Printed:3/10/2020
Page 2 of 2

PROJECT: Mississippi River Upper Pool 4 Lake Pepin (Section 1122) DISTRICT: St. Paul District PREPARED: 3/5/2020
LOCATION: Bay City, WI, Mississippi River POC: CHIEF, COST ENGINEERING, James D. Sentz
This Estimate reflects the scope and schedule in report; Feasibility Report and Integrated Environmental Assessment for Mississippi River Upper Pool 4- Head of Lake Pepin (Section 1122)

PROJECT FIRST COST

Civil Works Work Breakdown Structure ESTIMATED COST TOTAL PROJECT COST (FULLY FUNDED)
(Constant Dollar Basis)

Estimate Prepared: 12-Dec-19 Program Year (Budget EC): 2020

Effective Price Level: 1-Oct-19 Effective Price Level Date: 1 OCT 19

RISK BASED

WBS Civil Works COST CNTG CNTG TOTAL ESC COST CNTG TOTAL Mid-Point INFLATED COST CNTG FULL
NUMBER Feature & Sub-Feature Description ($K) ($K) (%) ($K) (%) ($K) ($K) ($K) Date (%) ($K) ($K) ($K)
A B C D E F G H I J P L M N O
PHASE 1 or CONTRACT 1
06 Peninsula Construction-Granular Fill $7,309 $2,119.6 29.0% $9,428 0.0% $7,309 $2,120 $9,428 2023Q3 10.9% $8,105 $2,350 $10,455
06 Peninsula Construction - Fine Fill $4,845 $1,502.0 31.0% $6,347 0.0% $4,845 $1,502 $6,347 2024Q3 14.2% $5,534 $1,716 $7,249
06 Shoreline Protection & CP Partial Closure $1,721 $533.6 31.0% $2,255 0.0% $1,721 $534 $2,255 2025Q1 15.9% $1,995 $618 $2,613
06 Turf Establishment $320 $102.4 32.0% $422 0.0% $320 $102 $422 2025Q1 15.9% $371 $119 $489
Refuge Dredging,Structure,Access Rd
06 Staging Pad and Re-Pave $2,141 $321.1 15.0% $2,462 0.0% $2,141 $321 $2,462 2024Q3 14.2% $2,445 $367 $2,812
$0 $0.0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0
$0 $0.0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0 0.0% $0 $0 $0
__________ ___________ _________ ____________ _________ _________ __________ _________ _________ ________________
CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS: $16,336 $4,578.6 28.03% $20,914.5 $16,336 $4,579 $20,915 $18,449 $5,170 $23,619

01 LANDS AND DAMAGES $8 $1.9 25.0% $9 0.0% $8 $2 $9 2024Q3 14.2% $9 $2 $11

30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN

0.5% Project Management $82 $11 14.0% $93 0.0% $82 $11 $93 2021Q2 4.8% $86 $12 $98
0.5% Planning & Environmental Compliance $82 $11 14.0% $93 0.0% $82 $11 $93 2021Q2 4.8% $86 $12 $98
3.0% Engineering & Design $490 $69 14.0% $559 0.0% $490 $69 $559 2021Q2 4.8% $513 $72 $585
0.3% Reviews, ATRs, IEPRs, VE $41 $6 14.0% $47 0.0% $41 $6 $47 2021Q2 4.8% $43 $6 $49
0.3% Life Cycle Updates (cost, schedule, risks) $41 $6 14.0% $47 0.0% $41 $6 $47 2021Q2 4.8% $43 $6 $49
0.5% Contracting & Reprographics $82 $11 14.0% $93 0.0% $82 $11 $93 2021Q2 4.8% $86 $12 $98
0.5% Engineering During Construction $82 $11 14.0% $93 0.0% $82 $11 $93 2024Q3 18.0% $96 $13 $110
0.5% Planning During Construction $82 $11 14.0% $93 0.0% $82 $11 $93 2024Q3 18.0% $96 $13 $110
3.0% Adaptive Management & Monitoring $490 $69 14.0% $559 0.0% $490 $69 $559 2031Q3 53.8% $754 $106 $859
1.0% Project Operations $163 $23 14.0% $186 0.0% $163 $23 $186 2021Q2 4.8% $171 $24 $195

31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
5.5% Construction Management $898 $216 24.0% $1,114 0.0% $898 $216 $1,114 2024Q3 18.0% $1,060 $254 $1,315
0.5% Project Operation: $82 $20 24.0% $101 0.0% $82 $20 $101 2024Q3 18.0% $96 $23 $120
2.0% Project Management $327 $78 24.0% $405 0.0% $327 $78 $405 2024Q3 18.0% $386 $93 $478

CONTRACT COST TOTALS: $19,284 $5,123 $24,407 $19,284 $5,123 $24,407 $21,973 $5,818 $27,791

Filename: TPCS_UP4_PostDQC_05Mar20.xlsx
TPCS
ID Task Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Mode Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
1 Funding Approved 1 day Thu 10/1/20 Thu 10/1/20
2 Planning, Engineering, & Design (PED) 172 days Fri 10/2/20 Mon 5/31/211
3 Advertise Solicitation 22 days Tue 6/1/21 Wed 6/30/212
4 Award Contract 23 days Thu 7/1/21 Mon 8/2/21 3
5 Notice to Proceed 21 days Tue 8/3/21 Tue 8/31/21 4
6 Preconstruction Submittals 22 days Wed 9/1/21 Thu 9/30/21 5
7 Construction
8 CP Access Pad and Staging Area 10 days Mon 5/2/22 Fri 5/13/22
9 CP Mudflat 2
10 Place Fines from CP Access 1 2 days Mon Tue 5/17/22 8
5/16/22

11 Plantings 2 days Wed 5/18/22Thu 5/19/22 10

12 CP Peninsula 1
13 Place Granular Fill 72 days Fri 5/20/22 Mon 8/29/22
14 Place Fine Fill from CP4 Access Dredging 45 days Tue 8/30/22 Mon 10/31/213
15 Place Fine Fill from CP4 Access Dredging Next Construction Seas 18 days Mon 5/1/23 Wed 5/24/2314
16 Place Riprap 9 days Thu 5/25/23 Tue 6/6/23 15
17 Plantings 9 days Thu 5/25/23 Tue 6/6/23 15
18 CP Peninsula 6 + 7
19 Place Granular Fill 90 days Wed 6/7/23 Tue 10/10/2 17
20 PLACE FINE FILL FROM CP4, 5, AND 6 ACCESS DREDGING AND 15 days Wed Tue 19
CP DREDGE AREAS 2 AND 3 10/11/23 10/31/23

21 Place Fine Fill ‐ Next Construction Season 60 days Wed 5/1/24 Tue 7/23/24 20
22 Place Riprap 11 days Wed 7/24/24Wed 8/7/24 21
23 Plantings 10 days Wed 7/24/24Tue 8/6/24 21
24 CP Peninsula 3
25 Place Granular Fill 53 days Wed 8/7/24 Fri 10/18/24
26 PLACE FINE FILL FROM CP4, 5, AND 6 ACCESS DREDGING AND 9 days Mon Thu 25
CP DREDGE AREAS 2 AND 3 10/21/24 10/31/24

27 Place Fine Fill ‐ Continuous from previous season 23 days Thu 5/1/25 Mon 6/2/25 26
28 Plantings 5 days Tue 6/3/25 Mon 6/9/25 27
29 CP BANKLINE RESTORATION (NORTH)
30 PLACE GRANULAR FILL 10 days Tue 6/10/25 Mon 6/23/2528
31 PLACE FINE FILL FROM ACCESS DREDGING 5 days Tue 6/24/25 Mon 30
6/30/25

32 PLANTINGS (WILLOWS) AND TURF ESTABLISHMENT 2 days Tue 7/1/25 Wed 7/2/25 31
33 CP SHORELINE PROTECTION (NORTH)
34 PLACE RIPRAP 5 days Thu 7/3/25 Wed 7/9/25 32
35 CP SHORELINE PROTECTION (WEST)
36 PLACE RIPRAP 2 days Thu 7/10/25 Fri 7/11/25 34
37 CP CUT AREA (ROCK LINER, DEFLECTOR, PARTIAL CLOSURE,
AND SHORELINE PROTECTION

38 PLACE RIPRAP 15 days Mon 7/14/25Fri 8/1/25 36

39 CP ACCESS ROAD CONSTRUCTION
40 CLEARING AND GRUBBING 2 days Mon 8/4/25 Tue 8/5/25 38

41 STRIPPING 1 day Wed 8/6/25 Wed 8/6/25 40

42 PLACE AGGREGATE 3 days Thu 8/7/25 Mon 41

8/11/25

43 PLACE EXCESS FINES 36 days Tue 8/12/25 Tue 9/30/25 42

44 CP WLM DIKE 2
45 PLACE GRANULAR FILL 20 days Fri 5/1/26 Thu
5/28/26

46 PLACE FINE FILL FROM CP6 ACCESS DREDGING 27 days Fri 5/29/26 Mon 7/6/26 45
47 PLANTINGS (WILLOWS) AND TURF ESTABLISHMENT 4 days Tue 7/7/26 Fri 7/10/26 46

48 CP CONTROL STRUCTURE
49 BUILD STRUCTURE 2 days Fri 5/29/26 Mon 6/1/26 45

50 PLACE RIPRAP 1 day Tue 6/2/26 Tue 6/2/26 49

51 REFUGE DREDGING
52 DREDGE 41 days Wed 6/3/26 Wed 7/29/2650
53

54

55 Note: Access and habitat dredging is assumed to be conducted

throughout the construction season as required.

56

57

58

59 12 days Sun 7/5/09 Sun 7/19/09

Project: msproj11 Task Milestone Project Summary External Milestone Inactive Milestone Manual Task Manual Summary Rollup Start‐only Deadline Manual Progress
Date: Thu 2/13/20
Split Summary External Tasks Inactive Task Inactive Summary Duration‐only Manual Summary Finish‐only Progress

Page 1