Microsoft Word - HQ-APPENDIX-F_Cost Engineering_POST-HQ.docxUSACE |
Appendix F – Cost Engineering F-2
Table of Contents 2 Introduction
...........................................................................................................................................
4
3 Background
...........................................................................................................................................
4
5.1 CWWBS 01 Lands and Damages
.................................................................................................
5
5.2 CWWBS 02 Relocations
...............................................................................................................
5
5.3 CWWBS 09 Channels
...................................................................................................................
5
5.4 CWWBS 11 Levees and Floodwalls
.............................................................................................
5
5.5 CWWBS 13 Pumping Plant
..........................................................................................................
5
5.6 CWWBS 14 Recreation Facilities
.................................................................................................
5
5.7 CWWBS 15 Floodway Control Diversion Structure
....................................................................
6
5.8 CWWBS 30 Pre-Construction, Engineering and Design
.............................................................
6
5.9 CWWBS 31 Construction Management
......................................................................................
6
6 Cost Methodology
.................................................................................................................................
6
6.1 Price Level
....................................................................................................................................
6
6.2 Unit Prices
.....................................................................................................................................
6
6.3 Quantity Takeoffs
.........................................................................................................................
6
6.4 Labor Rates
...................................................................................................................................
7
6.5 Fuel Rates
......................................................................................................................................
7
7.3 Dewatering and Temporary By-Passes
.........................................................................................
8
7.4 Preparatory Work
..........................................................................................................................
9
7.5 Project Schedule
............................................................................................................................
9
9 Total Project Cost Summary
...............................................................................................................
10
10 Average Annual Costs
....................................................................................................................
10
11 Operation and Maintenance
............................................................................................................
10
Souris River Basin Flood Risk Management Draft Feasibility Report
With Integrated Environmental Assessment; Bottineau, McHenry,
Renville Ward County, North Dakota
USACE | Appendix F – Cost Engineering F-3
12 References
.......................................................................................................................................
11
13 Attachments
....................................................................................................................................
11
USACE | Appendix F – Cost Engineering F-4
2 Introduction This appendix presents a summary of the detailed
cost estimate prepared for the Recommended Plan of the Souris River
Basin Feasibility Risk Management Feasibility Report and Integrated
Environmental Assessment (Feasibility Report). This estimate was
developed based on review of the non-federal local sponsor
alternatives as identified in the Mouse River Enhanced Flood
Protection Project (MREFPP). The project consists of constructing a
series of new levees, floodwalls, and other flood risk reduction
features through Minot, North Dakota (Reference 1), the Corps,
Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Mouse River
Enhanced Flood Protection Project Ward County, North Dakota,
November 2016 (Reference 2), Task Order 3 Mouse River Enhanced
Flood Protection Alternatives Assessment (Work in Kind) Engineer's
Opinion of Probable Cost (OPC) (Reference 3), Houston Engineering
Inc., Barr Engineering Co., and Ackerman-Estvold Engineering,
Souris River Feasibility Study – Design Documentation Report –
Prepared for Souris River Joint Board and USACE St. Paul District,
April 2018 (Reference 4), and regional unit prices from the
recently awarded MREFPP construction contracts for adjacent
reaches. This estimate is at feasibility level of design detail,
and all costs are based on quantities developed from the
feasibility report and design layout as reviewed.
This estimate includes; lands and damages; planning, engineering
and design (PED); construction; construction management (CM); and
operation and maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement
(OMRR&R) costs. The estimate was developed after review of
available work in kind (Reference 2) project plans, reports, recent
regional construction bid abstracts, and discussion with team
members.
Guidance for the preparation of the estimate and attachments was
obtained from Engineer Regulations (ER)-1110-2-1150, Engineering
and Design for Civil Work Projects; ER 1110-2-1302, Civil Works
Cost Engineering; Engineer Technical Letters (ETL) 1110-2-573,
Construction Cost Estimating Guide for Civil Works; Engineering and
Construction Bulletin (ECB) 2007-17, Application of Cost Risk
Analysis Methods to Develop Contingencies for Civil Work Total
Project Costs; EM 1110-2-1304, Civil Works Construction Cost Index
System, and ER 1105-2-100, Planning Guidance Notebook - Appendix
E.
3 Background A complete description of future without project and
alternative comparisons can be found in the feasibility report.
This cost appendix presents only the Tentatively Selected Plan
(TSP), which was optimized in the second phase of the study, and is
the final level of performance as defined in the feasibility report
as the National Economic Development plan and the Recommended Plan.
All future reference to the TSP within this appendix will be as
recommended plan.
4 Recommended Plan The recommended plan includes the construction
of the Maple Diversion high flow by-pass channel with a North
Levee, the West Tieback Levee, and the 10 foot wide multi-use
recreation trail along the North Levee connecting to the existing
regional trail system. A full description of recommended plan
features can be found in the feasibility report.
5 Assumptions and Constraints The assumption for this project is
that all work will be done within the existing right of way and no
other Real Estate will be required for the recommended plan. It is
assumed that all borrow material needed to
Souris River Basin Flood Risk Management Draft Feasibility Report
With Integrated Environmental Assessment; Bottineau, McHenry,
Renville Ward County, North Dakota
USACE | Appendix F – Cost Engineering F-5
complete the levee features is available within a 12 mile round
trip of any place on the levees. It is also assumed that the
disposal of all materials removed will be disposed of at the local
landfill also within a 12 mile round trip from any place within in
the diversion channel. USACE Civil Works Work Breakdown
Structure
This section provides elements of the Civil Works Work Breakdown
Structure (CWWBS). The federal share of the project cost is limited
to 65 percent of the flood risk management (FRM) features and 50
percent of the recreation features.
5.1 CWWBS 01 Lands and Damages The lands and damages account
includes the costs for the remaining administrative costs and the
borrow material necessary for construction of the levees at the
construction risk contingency of 25 percent. These costs were
confirmed and provided by the St Paul District Real Estate
Division. The land required for the Project has been acquired and
was paid for under separate programming funds.
5.2 CWWBS 02 Relocations The relocations account includes the costs
for both permanent and temporary relocations of infrastructure
modifications and municipal utilities such as: pavement, curb and
gutter, water, sanitary, storm, electrical, natural gas, and fiber
optic. Relocations also include 2nd Avenue SW and 6th Street NW
road realignments, Canadian Pacific (CP) Railroad track and bridge
realignment, restorations, associated demolition to existing
features, and hauling and disposal of materials not to remain
within the project.
5.3 CWWBS 09 Channels The channels account includes the costs for
the permanent high flow by-pass channel construction, dewatering
and control of water during construction, existing channel
rehabilitation, upstream inlet weir, downstream channel outlet
protection, rock and vegetation stabilization, and hauling and
disposal of waste materials.
5.4 CWWBS 11 Levees and Floodwalls The levees and floodwalls
account includes the costs for the permanent construction of the
earthen Maple Diversion North and West Tieback levees, inspection
and seepage trenches, concrete floodwalls, and levee closure
structures at the shared trail, roadways, and CP railroad
crossings.
5.5 CWWBS 13 Pumping Plant The pumping plant account includes the
costs for modifying and realigning the stormwater forcemain from
the existing 6TH Street Pump Station to accommodate the dewatering
of the Maple Diversion Channel as needed.
5.6 CWWBS 14 Recreation Facilities The recreation facilities
account includes the costs for construction of a shared use trail
connecting the existing regional trail system along the Maple
Diversion North Levee, and the additional levee material needed to
maintain the Maple Diversion North Levee geometry where the shared
use trail transitions away from the levee but is not necessary for
the FRM project.
Souris River Basin Flood Risk Management Draft Feasibility Report
With Integrated Environmental Assessment; Bottineau, McHenry,
Renville Ward County, North Dakota
USACE | Appendix F – Cost Engineering F-6
5.7 CWWBS 15 Floodway Control Diversion Structure The floodway
control diversion structure account includes the costs for both
permanent and temporary construction of two gated Souris River
control structures within the existing river alignment, dewatering
and control of water during construction, rock and vegetation
stabilization, and hauling and disposal of waste materials.
5.8 CWWBS 30 Pre-Construction, Engineering and Design The
pre-construction engineering and design (PED) account includes
costs for project management, project planning, preliminary design,
final design; geotechnical and hazardous, toxic and radioactive
waste (HTRW) investigations; preparation of plans and
specification, engineering during construction, contract
advertisement, opening of bids and contract award. Based on
discussions between the project manager and cost engineer, the cost
for this account was assumed to be 16 percent of the construction
costs. This is assumed to be reasonable as the design is a
relatively a straightforward description of work to include,
relocations, channel, earthen levees, and closure structures, and
is essentially the same design for multiple structures and
features
5.9 CWWBS 31 Construction Management The construction management
(CM) account includes costs for contract supervision, construction
administration, technical management activities, and district
office supervision and administration costs. Based on discussions
between the project manager and cost engineer, the cost for this
account was assumed to be 7 percent of the construction costs. This
is assumed to be reasonable as the design is a relatively a
straightforward description of work to include, relocations,
channel, earthen levees, and closure structures, and is essentially
the same design for multiple structures and features.
6 Cost Methodology
6.1 Price Level The Feasibility Report cost estimate is based on
October 2018, fiscal year (FY) 2019 prices, unless noted otherwise.
This level 3 estimate was prepared using version 4.3 of the MII
Cost Estimating Program, see Attachment 1. Project costs were
developed using MII English Cost Book 2015 revision A, and the MII
2014 EP Region 4 Equipment Manual. Estimated costs are considered
fair and reasonable for a prudent and capable contractor and
include overhead, profit, and bond. Based on the location of the
project in Minot, North Dakota, it is assumed that no per diem will
be required to be included in the estimate.
6.2 Unit Prices Unit prices were developed for the cost estimate by
averaging multiple 2017 bid tabulations for similar projects in
Minot. Unit costs were referenced in the 2012 MREFP Preliminary
Engineering Report (PER) (Reference 1), 2017 MREFP Phase 1 Bid
Tabulation (Reference 5) and 2017 MREFP Phase 2 and 3 Bid
Tabulation (Reference 6). Costs are included for the hauling of
spoil materials from the excavation site for disposal at Minot
Landfill. Preliminary impervious borrow source locations and sizes
are assumed to be within 3 to 5 miles of the site.
6.3 Quantity Takeoffs Approximate dimensions, areas and volumes
were determined using hand computations, digital drawings, scaling,
and comparison to similar order-of-magnitude installations. These
dimensions were used to generate quantity tabulations in
spreadsheet and hand computation formats. Most major dimensions
are
Souris River Basin Flood Risk Management Draft Feasibility Report
With Integrated Environmental Assessment; Bottineau, McHenry,
Renville Ward County, North Dakota
USACE | Appendix F – Cost Engineering F-7
the result of preliminary engineering analysis. Minor
approximations were necessary to account for less costly items. In
most cases, major dimensions used to calculate quantities account
for dimensional variations associated with differing flow scenarios
at each hydraulic structure location and preliminary structural
analysis. Unit prices were based on contractor conversations,
internal estimates, similar diversion works projects, material
quotes from suppliers, recent bid prices, published construction
cost index resources and the 2008 English Cost book for MII cost
estimating software. Several projects were referenced to formulate
this estimate including the Grand Forks Red River Floodway Project,
Breckenridge Flood Reduction Project, Sheyenne River Diversion,
Rose Coulee Pump Station, Roseau Flood Damage Reduction Project,
Winnipeg Red River Floodway, East Grand Forks Heartsville and
English Coulees, several COE Everglades restoration projects, and
Fargo – Moorhead Metro Flood Risk Management Project and
others.
Throughout the feasibility study the non-federal local sponsor’s
consultant team and the Corps have worked closely to track the
concept development, including the implementation of all Corps
regulated quality control milestones. The current quantities, see
Attachment 3, were developed using the April 2018 work in kind
project plans (Reference 2), and quantity quality assurance and
quality certification (QA/QC) was documented in the Souris River
Feasibility Study – Quality Control Documentation– Prepared for
Souris River Joint Board and USACE St. Paul District, April 2018
was reviewed (Reference 7).
6.4 Labor Rates Labor rates for the most part reflect Davis Bacon
rates for Ward County, North Dakota for heavy construction and are
current as of April 2018. For labor categories that were not
included or were not current in the Davis Bacon wage rate
publication, the current North Dakota Department of Labor wage
rates for heavy construction in region 4 were used.
6.5 Fuel Rates Fuel Rates were updated using April 2018 price
levels published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration for
the Midwest Region. Off road diesel fuel was priced by subtracting
estimated state and federal tax from retail diesel prices.
6.6 Mark-Ups
6.6.1 Overtime Overtime was based on a 6-day, 8-hour work week with
a multiplier of 1.5 for Monday through Saturday and 2.0 for
Sunday.
6.6.2 Contractor Mark-ups Contractor mark-ups were based on
mark-ups used on District projects of similar scope. Mobilization
and Demobilization are assumed to be 6 percent of the construction
costs. Job Office Overhead (JOOH) includes itemized equipment and
personnel needed to accomplish JOOH tasks, and was developed based
on 10 percent of the running cost. These are listed under Field
Office and Supervision Prime contractor folder in the MII estimate.
Home Office Overhead (HOOH) includes shop drawing preparation, as
well as general and administration costs, and was developed based
on 10 percent of the running cost. Profit was developed based on 8
percent of the running costs and Bond was developed based on 1
percent of the
Souris River Basin Flood Risk Management Draft Feasibility Report
With Integrated Environmental Assessment; Bottineau, McHenry,
Renville Ward County, North Dakota
USACE | Appendix F – Cost Engineering F-8
direct costs.
7 Construction Methodology
7.1 Staging Area and Site Access General access to the project for
delivery of equipment, materials, and personnel, will be on public
primary and secondary roads. The roads along the Souris River in
the project area are gravel, asphalt, and concrete surfaced and
will require vehicle tracking control, maintenance, and
restoration. Detours and road closures will be necessary to
construct the project. Traffic control signs, roadway and rail
flaggers will be needed to caution the public during construction
activities. Temporary access roads will be constructed to allow
materials to be brought to the individual work sites. These access
roads will be built by first stripping the topsoil to create the
driving surface. Roadway aggregate will then be placed as required
to form a stable roadbed. Frost penetration in the ground during
winter construction season may eliminate the need for aggregate in
some areas.
A primary staging and storage area will be cleared to provide a
location for office trailers, and parking for workers. The size
required for storing materials and construction equipment when not
being used depends on the number of excavators, backhoes,
compactors and dozers needed for production. Smaller staging areas
will be located adjacent to the each work site to allow equipment
and material storage.
7.2 Material Sources and Disposal Sites Material sources to be used
will be based on the lowest price for materials of acceptable
quality. Local commercial riprap, bedding, and aggregate sources
are assumed to be within 25 miles of the project, based on
discussions with local suppliers. Cleared trees and brush will be
taken from the site. Material removed from the work for disposal is
assumed to be permanently disposed of in the Minot landfill
approximately 3.1 miles from the center of the project.
7.3 Soil Factor Development Shrinkage at the disposal site is not
factored into the cost estimate due to materials being spread at
the local landfill. Excavation for utility removals and relocations
are considered in-place cubic yards, with no shrink or swell soil
factors applied, it is assumed these excavation volumes are
conservative and capture the variance of the soils and debris
materials.
Levee embankment material is assumed to swell approximately 25
percent (soil factor 1.25) from the source banked cubic yard (BCY)
and shrink 10 percent (soil factor 1.10) with compaction. To
account for this shrinkage and swelling in the cost estimate a soil
factor of 1.38 loose cubic yard (LCY) to 1.00 compacted cubic yard
(CCY) is used. This soil factor is based on past experience with
drying and compacting of embankments materials that are likely to
be encountered on this project. Additional soil boring and soil
analysis data can reduce uncertainty with earthwork assumptions.
Dimensions shown on Drawings and quantities are preliminary,
pending more detailed design efforts
7.4 Dewatering and Temporary By-Passes Sheetpile and earthen
cofferdams, and localized pumping are anticipated to be necessary
to construct the diversion channel, floodwall features, temporary
river by-passes, and river closure structures features of the
project.
Souris River Basin Flood Risk Management Draft Feasibility Report
With Integrated Environmental Assessment; Bottineau, McHenry,
Renville Ward County, North Dakota
USACE | Appendix F – Cost Engineering F-9
7.5 Preparatory Work Trees and shrubs that have been planted or
have grown adjacent to the river will need to be removed. Access
ramps will be constructed from the road to the riverbank to allow
equipment to reach the streambank. Turbidity curtains will be
placed in the river in a herringbone pattern near the downstream
work limits to contain sediments.
7.6 Project Schedule The project schedule implementation assumes
authorization in a future Water Resources Reform and Development
Act. After project authorization, the project would be eligible for
construction funding. The anticipated design and construction
schedule, see Attachment 4, is based on receiving funding for
development of plans and specifications in FY 2019 and funds for
construction by FY 2021. It is assumed that the planning,
engineering, and design (PED) phase will begin in first quarter of
FY 2019, be at midpoint of PED by the first quarter of FY 2020, and
completed during the first quarter of FY 2021, with contract award
by the third quarter of FY 2021. The total estimated period for
construction is assumed to be two and a half years, beginning in
the third quarter of FY 2021, be at midpoint of construction during
the third quarter of FY 2022, and completed by the end of the
fourth quarter of FY 2023. Holidays, weather delays, wildlife
restriction, and slippage are not considered in the schedule
directly but are assessed in the cost and schedule risk analysis
(CSRA). Typical construction restrictions include high water,
freezing temperatures, fish spawning, waterfowl migration, and
eagle nesting.
Although the attached construction sequence and schedule is
considered to be reasonable based on the amount of time required
for construction of each feature and the logical progression of
work to optimize efficiency and construction site conditions, it is
ultimately up to the Contractor to determine progression of work.
The schedule presented in Attachment 4 shows task durations in
calendar days and not the assumed 6 day work week. Acquisition
Plan
The project as a whole is assumed to be too large for an 8A small
business owner to handle successfully, however if funding for the
project is parsed the work could be spread to multiple 8A
contractors to complete.
8 Cost Schedule and Risk Analysis The US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), District, presents this CSRA report regarding the risk
findings and recommended contingencies for the Feasibility Report.
In compliance with (ER) 1110-2- 1302, Civil Works Cost Engineering,
dated September 15, 2008, a Monte-Carlo based risk analysis was
conducted by the Project Development Team (PDT) on remaining costs.
The purpose of this risk analysis study is to present the cost and
schedule risks considered, those determined and respective project
contingencies at a recommended 80 percent confidence level of
successful execution to project completion. Based on the results of
the analysis, the Cost Engineering Mandatory Center of Expertise
for Civil Works (MCX located in Walla Walla District) recommends a
contingency of approximately 25 percent the base project cost at an
80 percent confidence level of successful execution. For full CSRA
report discussion see Attachment 5. Contingencies used are intended
to identify an estimated construction cost amount that is not
likely to be exceeded, given the current project scope. The
contingency selected for this project is not a means of adding
costs to the project for possible schedule slippage or future cost
growth, or to cover items that are not specifically being
considered in the current scope. Contingencies were chosen to
account for uncertainties in quantities, uncertainties in unit
pricing, and pure unknowns. Contingencies were not included in
quantity computations.
Souris River Basin Flood Risk Management Draft Feasibility Report
With Integrated Environmental Assessment; Bottineau, McHenry,
Renville Ward County, North Dakota
USACE | Appendix F – Cost Engineering F-10
9 Total Project Cost Summary A total project cost summary (TPCS)
was developed for the estimated construction costs, see Attachment
6. The TPCS was developed using the current Cost DX Excel
spreadsheet which incorporates the cost for all feature accounts
developed in the recommended plan estimate at the FY 2019 price
level, and escalated to the midpoint of design (1st quarter FY
2020) and midpoint of construction (3rd quarter FY 2022).
The non-Federal cost share includes feasibility costs, lands,
easements, rights-of-way, relocations (LERRDs) and related
administrative costs. The current estimate assumes fee title
acquisition of the project footprint. Fee title is appropriate
where features are constructed (e.g., a site not already within
State or county right-of-way). Maximum use of easements will
improve project acceptability to local interests (the non-federal
local sponsor, city, county, and landowners) because it will reduce
costs, retain the tax base, and mitigate major impacts on
individuals.
10 Average Annual Costs Average annual costs for Souris River Basin
Flood Risk Management can be found in the Economic Appendix
E.
11 Operation and Maintenance Operation and Maintenance (OMRR&R)
costs were developed to cover periodic monitoring, inspections,
repairs, rehabilitation, and future replacement of all project
features. The estimate includes costs for routine Levee Inspections
to be conducted annually for the first five years, then
periodically every other year until year 11, and every five years
from year 15. Routine annual maintenance of the levees and
diversion channel would include mowing of grass and vegetation and
spraying herbicide on the riprap to prevent growth of woody
materials and brush. A five year cycle is assumed for repairs to
the riprap, bedding, impervious fill, topsoil, turf, and closure
structures. Maintenance of concrete structures is assumed to be on
a longer interval at ten years and would include repair to concrete
as well as painting the railings, and major
repair/rehabilitation/replacement at year 50. For a summary of
OMRR&R costs see Attachment 7.
Souris River Basin Flood Risk Management Draft Feasibility Report
With Integrated Environmental Assessment; Bottineau, McHenry,
Renville Ward County, North Dakota
USACE | Appendix F – Cost Engineering F-11
12 References [1] Barr Engineering Co. (Barr), Ackerman-Estvold
Engineering (AE), Moore Engineering and CPS, Ltd, Mouse River
Enhanced Flood Protection Plan – Preliminary Engineering Report,
2012.
[2] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Draft Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) Mouse River Enhanced Flood Protection
Project Ward County, North Dakota, November 2016.
[3] Task Order 3 Mouse River Enhanced Flood Protection Alternatives
Assessment (Work in Kind) Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost
(OPC)
[4] Houston Engineering Inc. (HEI), Barr Engineering Co. (Barr),
and Ackerman-Estvold Engineering (AE), Souris River Feasibility
Study – Design Documentation Report – Prepared for Souris River
Joint Board and USACE St. Paul District, April 2018
[5] Mouse River Enhanced Flood Protection Project (MREFP) PHASE
MI-1, 4th Avenue NE Bid Tabulation, November 2017.
[6] Mouse River Enhanced Flood Protection Project (MREFP) PHASE
MI-2 AND MI-3 Bid Tabulation, November 2017.
[7] Houston Engineering Inc. (HEI), Barr Engineering Co. (Barr),
and Ackerman-Estvold Engineering (AE), Souris River Feasibility
Study – Quality Control Documentation– Prepared for Souris River
Joint Board and USACE St. Paul District, April 2018
13 Attachments ATTACHMENT 1 MII SUMMARY REPORT ATTACHMENT 2 RISK
MANAGEMENT PLAN ATTACHMENT 3 QUANTITIES ATTACHMENT 4 PROJECT
SCHEDULE ATTACHMENT 5 COST AND SCHEDULE RISK ANALYSIS REPORT (CSRA)
ATTACHMENT 6 TOTAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY (TPCS) ATTACHMENT 7
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, REHABILITATION,
AND REPLACEMENT (OMRR&R)
USACE | Appendix F – Cost Engineering F-12
ATTACHMENT 1 – MII SUMMARY REPORT
Estimated by MATT METZGER (BARR) AND SUSAN TAYLOR
Designed by BARR/HOUSTON/ACKERMAN-ESETVOLD, AND USACE PDT
Prepared by SUSAN TAYLOR Preparation Date 5/1/2018 Effective Date
of Pricing 10/1/2018 Estimated Construction Time 1,095 Days This
report is not copyrighted, but the information contained herein is
For Official Use Only. Labor ID: EQ ID: EP14R04 Currency in US
dollars TRACES MII Version 4.0
Print Date Thu 8 November 2018 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Time
15:27:04 Eff. Date 10/1/2018 Project : POST HQ REVIEW - SOURIS
RIVER BASIN FEASIBILITY STUDY POST_HQ_REVIEW Title Page
Purpose of Report: The purpose of the feasibility study is to
determine measures that can reduce the flood risk in the study area
and determine measures that can improve the aquatic ecosystem along
the Souris River. The study will also seek to identify actions that
others may implement as part of an overall
watershed plan but not limited to the actions of reducing flood
risk or improving the aquatic ecosystem. The report will examine
the costs and benefits of flood risk management and ecosystem
restoration alternatives and make a recommendation regarding
federal participation in the alternative plans.
Project Location: The Souris River has its headwaters in
Saskatchewan, Canada, and flows southeasterly into North Dakota
near Sherwood, ND, continuing
southeast through the cities of Burlington, Minot, Sawyer, and
Velva, then turns back north and reenters Canada in Manitoba near
Westhope, ND.
The Souris River has a total length of over 700 miles and a
drainage area of approximately 23,600 square miles. About 300 miles
of the river and about 9,000
square miles of the drainage area are in the United States’ portion
of the basin. This study covers primarily the United States’
portion of the watershed area of the Souris River located in north
central North Dakota, downstream of the U.S. Geological Survey
gaging station near Sherwood, ND where the Souris River
enters the United States. The Des Lacs River, a major tributary
that enters the Souris River upstream of Minot, ND, is included in
this study. The study area includes three national wildlife refuges
(NWRs) managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): the
Upper Souris NWR upstream from Minot, the J.
Clark Salyer NWR downstream of Towner, ND, and the Des Lacs NWR on
the Des Lacs River.
Future Without Project Condition The future without project
condition (FWOP) described in this feasibility report includes
features of the Mouse River Enhanced Flood Protection Plan
(MREFPP,
Mouse River Plan) that do not currently exist but are assumed to be
implemented in the future. The proposed features would alter the
existing federal flood risk management project in the Souris River
Basin within North Dakota.
The FWOP includes several existing federal projects from Burlington
to Minot that already reduce flood risk up to approximately 5,000
cfs. Non-federal funding is
available to construct portions of the proposed MREFPP along the
left bank of the Souris River in Minot. These features would reduce
the emergency actions needed during a flood event, but they would
not create a complete line of protectionflood risk management
system. The features of the MREFPP that are
included in the FWOP condition are located along the left bank of
the Souris River through Minot from the U.S. Highway 83 bypass on
the upstream end to 13th Street Northeast on the downstream end.
There is a gap in the line of protectionflood risk management
system from 16th Street Southwest Bridge to the North
Broadway Bridge, between Phases MI-3 and MI-1.
Description of the Tentatively Selected Plan - Maple Diversion with
a North Levee - West Tieback Levee - Recreation trail along the
North Levee
Print Date Thu 8 November 2018 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Time
15:27:04 Eff. Date 10/1/2018 Project : POST HQ REVIEW - SOURIS
RIVER BASIN FEASIBILITY STUDY POST_HQ_REVIEW POST_HQ_REVIEW Page
1
Description Quantity UOM ProjectCost
Labor ID: EQ ID: EP14R04 Currency in US dollars TRACES MII Version
4.0
POST_HQ_REVIEW 69,885,551.05 FRM RECOMMENDED_PLAN 1.00 JOB
69,885,551.05 LANDS AND DAMAGES 1.00 JOB 417,600.00 ADMINISTRATIVE
FEES 1.00 EA 61,200.00 ADMINISTRATIVE FEES 1.00 EA 356,400.00 FRM
CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL 1.00 EA 56,478,008.99 RELOCATIONS and
REMOVALS 1.00 JOB 17,572,935.61 REMOVALS 1.00 EA 797,133.26 Remove
curb and gutter 13,500.00 LF 57,484.86 Remove pavement 32,500.00 EA
231,712.09 Remove Storm Pipe (All Types, All Sizes) 3,882.00 LF
143,609.52 Remove Manhole (Storm, All sizes) 20.00 EA 19,973.53
Remove Catch Basin (All Sizes) 12.00 EA 5,396.00 Remove Pipe
(Sanitary, All Sizes) 3,897.00 LF 99,165.97 Remove Manhole
(Sanitary, All Sizes) 20.00 EA 20,627.48 Remove Pipe (Water, All
Sizes) 9,468.00 LF 206,415.77 Remove and Salvage Gate Valve (All
Sizes) 17.00 EA 5,426.86 Remove and Salvage Fire Hydrant 12.00 EA
7,321.18 MUNICIPAL UTILITIES 1.00 EA 3,142,416.39 WATER SUPPLY 1.00
EA 1,894,579.28 SANITARY SEWER 1.00 EA 492,432.21 STORM SEWER 1.00
EA 505,404.89 ELECTRICAL SUPPLY 1.00 EA 100,000.00 NATURAL GAS
SUPPLY 1.00 EA 100,000.00 FIBER OPTIC SUPPLY 1.00 EA 50,000.00 2nd
Avenue SW Realignment & 6th Street NW Realignment 1.00 EA
895,007.85 Geotextile Fabric (Type R1) 19,408.00 SY 35,493.45
Subgrade Preparation 19,408.00 SY 23,970.59 Aggregate Base Course
(CL 5) 10,108.00 TON 172,204.99 Hot Bituminous Pavement Superpave
FAA 43 4,226.00 TON 237,127.92 PG 58-28 Asphalt Cement 254.00 TON
118,907.77 Concrete Curb and Gutter (Type 1) 7,510.00 LF 153,251.31
4" Concrete Sidewalk 1,667.00 SY 91,565.67 Detectable Warning Panel
90.00 SF 4,050.00 4" Pavement Marking 950.00 LF 1,044.55 6"
Pavement Marking 400.00 LF 711.25 24" Pavement Marking 150.00 LF
3,132.69 4" Edge Underdrain 7,510.00 EA 53,547.66 RR BRIDGE -
CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY - RECONSTRUCTION 1.00 EA 5,467,029.14
Bridge Removal 13,600.00 SF 340,000.00 Bridge - Reconstruction
13,600.00 SF 4,080,000.00 Track Removal 1,800.00 FT 40,389.59 Track
Realignment w/ Rails, Ties, Ballast 2,300.00 FT 529,000.00 Rail
Crossover 2.00 EA 250,000.00 Clearing and Grubbing - Light 1.20 EA
4,241.59 Dewatering and Control of Water 1.00 JOB 50,000.00 Strip
and Stockpile Topsoil 900.00 CY 8,981.54 Remove Gravel Surface
500.00 CY 3,823.08 Topsoil - Install from Stockpile 900.00 CY
9,473.87
Print Date Thu 8 November 2018 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Time
15:27:04 Eff. Date 10/1/2018 Project : POST HQ REVIEW - SOURIS
RIVER BASIN FEASIBILITY STUDY POST_HQ_REVIEW POST_HQ_REVIEW Page
2
Description Quantity UOM ProjectCost
Labor ID: EQ ID: EP14R04 Currency in US dollars TRACES MII Version
4.0
Site Restoration 1.20 ACR 5,131.10 Granular Filter Aggregate 278.00
CY 22,537.29 Riprap 1,112.00 EA 123,451.09 6th Street NW Box
Culvert Crossing w/ Floodwall 1.00 EA 7,271,348.96 Reinforced
Concrete (Cast-in-place Box Culvert) 1,815.00 CY 2,248,037.71
Reinforced Structural Concrete - Wall 3,670.00 CY 4,404,000.00
Sheet Pile (PZC 13) 2,925.00 SF 117,510.20 Granular Filter
Aggregate 1,327.00 CY 107,579.08 Riprap 3,551.00 CY
394,221.98
DIVERSION CHANNEL 1.00 JOB 12,690,970.56 Maple Diversion - Inlet
Weir 1.00 EA 2,003,520.91 Sheet Pile (PZC 13) 6,450.00 SF
259,125.06 Granular Filter Aggregate 4,655.00 CY 377,378.01 Riprap
11,638.00 CY 1,292,017.84 Dewatering and Control of Water 1.00 JOB
50,000.00 (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) System 1.00
JOB 25,000.00 Maple Diversion Channel 1.00 EA 9,325,106.09
Dewatering and Control of Water 1.00 JOB 200,000.00 Clearing and
Grubbing - Light 10.30 EA 36,406.97 Clearing and Grubbing - Dense
13.40 EA 165,009.59 Strip and Stockpile Topsoil 19,142.00 CY
157,851.61 Overbank and Channel Excavation & Haul 598,000.00
BCY 7,899,071.11 Lighting 1.00 JOB 100,000.00 Topsoil - Install
from Stockpile 19,142.00 CY 148,200.99 Import Topsoil 8,583.00 CY
193,832.32 Site Restoration 35.00 ACR 424,733.49 Maple Diversion -
Outlet To Souris River 1.00 EA 1,362,343.55 Granular Filter
Aggregate 3,222.00 CY 261,205.57 Riprap 7,517.00 CY 834,516.08
Dewatering and Control of Water 1.00 JOB 69,760.40 Steel Sheet Pile
Coffering (purchased PZ27 sheets, w/ wales & struts) 4,000.00
SF 196,861.50
LEVEES AND FLOODWALLS 1.00 EA 8,840,936.51 LEVEES 1.00 JOB
4,005,831.19 Levee Along North Edge of Maple Diversion 1.00 BCY
3,175,491.54 West Tie-Back Levee 1.00 BCY 830,339.65 FLOODWALLS AND
CLOSURES 1.00 EA 4,835,105.32 Closure and Floodwall: CP Rail at
Diversion; 15' T-WALL 1.00 LS 1,496,895.82 Closure and Floodwall:
6th ST NW Road; 23' T-WALL 1.00 LS 1,721,927.34 Closure and
Floodwall: CP Rail at West Tieback; 14' T-wall 1.00 LS 580,245.09
Closure and Floodwall: Shared Use Path at West Tieback; 17' T-wall
1.00 LS 590,170.79 Removable Floodwall Storage Building 1,350.00 SF
445,866.28
PUMP STATION MODIFICATION 1.00 JOB 117,982.99 18" Forcemain
1,000.00 LF 117,982.99 RECREATION FACILITIES 1.00 EA 753,011.76
Recreation Trail 6,294.00 SY 661,487.94 Impervious Levee Embankment
6,557.00 ECY 91,523.83 FLOODWAY CONTROL STRUCTURES 1.00 JOB
16,502,171.55 Maple Diversion - Upstream River Closure Structure
1.00 EA 8,106,384.81 Dewatering 1.00 JOB 200,000.00
Print Date Thu 8 November 2018 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Time
15:27:04 Eff. Date 10/1/2018 Project : POST HQ REVIEW - SOURIS
RIVER BASIN FEASIBILITY STUDY POST_HQ_REVIEW POST_HQ_REVIEW Page
3
Description Quantity UOM ProjectCost
Labor ID: EQ ID: EP14R04 Currency in US dollars TRACES MII Version
4.0
Temporary Steel Sheet Pile Coffering (for construction phasing,
coffering) 20,000.00 SF 816,996.79 Fence Chain Link 500.00 LF
18,024.97 Granular Filter Aggregate 1,249.00 CY 101,255.67 Riprap
3,388.00 CY 376,126.18 Signage 1.00 EA 10,000.00 Unreinforced Mud
Mat 47.00 CY 16,065.82 Concrete - Footing 800.00 CY 385,212.63
Concrete - Piers 1,189.00 EA 1,858,376.10 Concrete - Walls, Sheet
Pile Facing 431.00 CY 411,168.51 Concrete - Elevated Deck 251.00 CY
312,695.45 Concrete - Slab on Grade 94.00 CY 51,932.89 Concrete
Waste (Material Only) 138.00 CY 23,466.69 Wall Rustication
(Architectural) 10,000.00 SF 80,000.00 Steel Reinforcement
414,750.00 LB 638,566.09 Misc. Steel 28,400.00 LB 56,800.00 Steel
Bridge Hand Railing 900.00 LF 103,081.82 Steel Sheet Piling PZ
18,000.00 SF 963,512.72 Structural Aggregate 3,000.00 CY 110,803.75
Hydraulic Gates - Steel (6 gates @ 10'x16' each) 960.00 SF
600,000.00 Hydraulic Gate Hoist (Actuator) 6.00 EA 150,000.00
Hydraulic Gate - Heating System - Wall and Sill 6.00 EA 240,000.00
Removable Bulkhead Floodwall System 1,000.00 SF 427,298.70
Mechanical - Miscellaneous 1.00 EA 50,000.00 Electrical -
Miscellaneous 1.00 EA 30,000.00 Site Lighting 1.00 JOB 50,000.00
(Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) System 1.00 JOB
25,000.00 Maple Diversion - Downstream River Closure Structure 1.00
EA 8,395,786.74 Dewatering 1.00 JOB 200,000.00 Temporary Steel
Sheet Pile Coffering (for construction phasing, coffering)
20,000.00 SF 816,996.79 Granular Filter Aggregate 917.00 CY
74,340.63 Riprap 2,594.00 CY 287,978.54 Fence Chain Link 500.00 LF
18,024.97 Signage 1.00 EA 10,000.00 Unreinforced Mud Mat 47.00 CY
16,065.82 Concrete - Footing 800.00 CY 385,212.63 Concrete - Piers
1,274.00 EA 1,858,376.10 Concrete - Walls, Sheet Pile Facing 550.00
CY 516,547.96 Concrete - Elevated Deck 251.00 CY 312,695.45
Concrete - Slab on Grade 111.00 CY 57,933.65 Concrete Waste
(Material Only) 149.00 CY 25,337.22 Wall Rustication
(Architectural) 10,000.00 SF 80,000.00 Steel Reinforcement
447,900.00 LB 689,605.19 Misc. Steel 33,800.00 LB 67,600.00 Steel
Bridge Hand Railing 1,000.00 LF 114,535.36 Steel Sheet Piling PZ
22,100.00 SF 1,182,979.51 Structural Aggregate 3,000.00 CY
109,258.21 Hydraulic Gates - Steel (6 gates @ 10'x16' each) 960.00
SF 600,000.00 Hydraulic Gate Hoist (Actuator) 6.00 EA 150,000.00
Hydraulic Gate - Heating System - Wall and Sill 6.00 EA
240,000.00
Print Date Thu 8 November 2018 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Time
15:27:04 Eff. Date 10/1/2018 Project : POST HQ REVIEW - SOURIS
RIVER BASIN FEASIBILITY STUDY POST_HQ_REVIEW POST_HQ_REVIEW Page
4
Description Quantity UOM ProjectCost
Labor ID: EQ ID: EP14R04 Currency in US dollars TRACES MII Version
4.0
Removable Bulkhead Floodwall System 1,000.00 SF 427,298.70
Mechanical - Miscellaneous 1.00 EA 50,000.00 Electrical -
Miscellaneous 1.00 EA 30,000.00 Site Lighting 1.00 JOB 50,000.00
(Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) System 1.00 JOB
25,000.00
PLANNING, ENGINEERING, AND DESIGN 1.00 JOB 9,036,481.44
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 1.00 JOB 3,953,460.63
USACE | Appendix F – Cost Engineering F-13
ATTACHMENT 2 – RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN
Souris River Basin Flood Risk Management Draft Feasibility Report
With Integrated Environmental Assessment; Bottineau, McHenry,
Renville Ward County, North Dakota
USACE | RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN 1
Table of Contents 1 Purpose
..................................................................................................................................................
3
2 Objectives
.............................................................................................................................................
3
3.3.3 Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis (CSRA)
............................................................................
4
3.4 Risk Communication
....................................................................................................................
4
3.6 Risk Monitoring and Control
........................................................................................................
4
3.7 Risk Register
.................................................................................................................................
5
3.8 Risk Trigger
..................................................................................................................................
5
3.9 Risk Trigger
..................................................................................................................................
6
3.10 Watch List
.....................................................................................................................................
6
6 RISK MANAGEMENT PROCESS AND PROCEDURES
.................................................................
7
6.1 Risk Management Planning
..........................................................................................................
8
6.2 Risk Identification
.........................................................................................................................
8
6.2.2 PDT Coordination
.................................................................................................................
8
6.2.4 Risk Level
.............................................................................................................................
8
6.3 Risk Analysis
................................................................................................................................
9
6.3.3 Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis (CSRA)
..........................................................................
10
6.3.4 Risk Prioritization
...............................................................................................................
10
USACE | RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN 2
6.4 Risk Response Planning and Mitigation
.....................................................................................
10
6.5 Risk Monitoring and Control
......................................................................................................
11
6.5.1 Monitor Risk Status
............................................................................................................
11
6.5.2 Maintenance of Project Risk Register
.................................................................................
12
6.5.3 Maintenance of Project Watch List
.....................................................................................
12
6.6 Risk Communication
..................................................................................................................
12
Souris River Basin Flood Risk Management Draft Feasibility Report
With Integrated Environmental Assessment; Bottineau, McHenry,
Renville Ward County, North Dakota
USACE | RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN 3
1 Purpose This Risk Management Plan (RMP) presents the process for
implementing the comprehensive and proactive management of risk as
part of the overall management of the Souris River Basin Flood Risk
Management Project. Risk management is a project management tool to
handle events that might adversely impact the program, thereby
increasing the probability/likelihood of success. This RMP
describes a management tool that will:
• Serve as a basis for identifying alternatives to achieve cost,
schedule, and performance goals, • Assist in making decisions on
budget and funding priorities, • Provide risk information for
Milestone decisions, and • Allow monitoring the health of the
program as it proceeds.
The RMP describes methods for assessing (identifying and
analyzing), prioritizing, and monitoring risk drivers; developing
risk-handling approaches, and applying adequate resources to handle
risk. It assigns specific responsibilities for these functions, and
prescribes the documenting, monitoring, and reporting processes to
be followed.
The four main building blocks of the risk management process are
identification, assessment, response, and documentation. The CSRA
process addresses the “identification” and “assessment” portions of
the risk management process. The activities of “response” and
“documentation” are PM and PDT management efforts to mitigate,
monitor, and manage the risks throughout the life cycle of the
project.
If necessary, this RMP will be updated at the following milestones:
(1) following approval of the FCSA; (2) Congressional authorization
for construction; (3) receipt of
Construction General funding; or (4) concurrent with the review and
update of other program plans.
2 Objectives The objectives of the risk management plan are:
To focus attention on minimizing threats to achievement of the
project objectives. To provide an approach for:
• Identifying and assessing risks. • Determining cost-effective
risk reduction actions. • Monitoring and reporting progress in
reducing risk.
The overall goal of this process is to progressively reduce the
project’s exposure to events that threaten the accomplishment of
its objectives by:
• Incorporating approaches into the project plans that minimize or
avoid identified risks, • Developing proactive, contingent risk
response actions, and • Rapidly implementing risk responses based
on timely identification of risk occurrence.
Souris River Basin Flood Risk Management Draft Feasibility Report
With Integrated Environmental Assessment; Bottineau, McHenry,
Renville Ward County, North Dakota
USACE | RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN 4
3 RISK-RELATED DEFINITIONS The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cost
Engineering Mandatory Center of Expertise for Civil Works (Cost
MCX) recommends the following definitions for risk, as contained in
current project and risk management guidance and literature, as
noted.
3.1 Risk An uncertain event or condition that, if it occurs, has a
positive or negative effect on a project’s objectives (source:
PMBoK® Guide, p. 373). 3.1.1 Technical Risk: Risks having to do
with product, process, or “technique” issues involved with
designing and producing the deliverable (source: Project Risk
Management, p. 78). 3.2 Risk Management Project Risk Management
includes the processes concerned with conducting risk management
planning, identification, analysis, responses, and monitoring and
control on a project; most of these processes are updated
throughout the project (source: PMBoK® Guide, 3rd edition, p.
237).
3.3 Risk Analysis Qualitative or quantitative evaluations of the
potential impact and probability of project risk events (source:
Risk Management Concepts and Guidance, p. 373).
3.3.1 Qualitative Risk Analysis Prioritizing risks for subsequent
further analysis or action by assessing and combining their
probability of occurrence and impact (source: PMBoK® Guide, 3rd
edition, p. 237).
3.3.2 Quantitative Risk Analysis Numerically analyzing the effect
on overall project objectives of identified risks (source: PMBoK®
Guide, 3edition, p. 237).
3.3.3 Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis (CSRA) Technique used to
improve the development of contingencies by studying the variance
of project cost caused by the effects of cost and schedule risk
events. This process relies on qualitative and quantitative (e.g.
Monte Carlo simulation) risk analysis techniques. CSRA is required
on projects costs anticipated to be $40 Million or higher.
3.4 Risk Communication Exchange or sharing of information about
risk between the decision-maker, often the project manager, and
other stakeholders (source: Project Risk Management Guidelines, p.
372).
3.5 Risk Response Planning/Mitigation Developing options and
actions to enhance opportunities, and to reduce threats to project
objectives (source: PMBoK® Guide, 3rd edition, p. 237).
3.6 Risk Monitoring and Control Tracking identified risks,
monitoring residual risks, identifying new risks, executing risk
response plans, and evaluating their effectiveness throughout the
project life cycle (source: PMBoK® Guide, 3rd edition, p.
237).
Souris River Basin Flood Risk Management Draft Feasibility Report
With Integrated Environmental Assessment; Bottineau, McHenry,
Renville Ward County, North Dakota
USACE | RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN 5
3.7 Risk Register The document containing the results of the
qualitative risk analysis, quantitative risk analysis and risk
response planning. The risk register details all identified risks,
including description, category, cause, probability of occurring,
impact(s) on objectives, proposed responses, owners, and current
status (source: PMBoK® Guide, 4th edition, p. 439). 3.8 Risk
Trigger An indicator of the imminent occurrence of a given risk
event that serves as an immediate precursor to the occurrence of
the risk. Often used to initiate specific actions, behaviors, or
responses (source: Risk Management Concepts and Guidance, p. 376).
3.1.1 Technical Risk Risks having to do with product, process, or
“technique” issues Involved with designing and producing the
deliverable (source: Project Risk Management, p. 78).
3.1.3 Schedule Risk Events or conditions that may have a negative
influence on the project’s timing (source: Risk Management Concepts
and Guidance, p. 376).
3.1.4 Life-Safety Risk Risk relating to the safety and/or security
of human interests.
3.1.5 Reliability Risk Risk relating to the performance and/or
reliability of the system, product, or project feature being
acquired.
3.1.6 Non-Technical Risk Any risk that is not technical in nature
and does not directly influence cost growth. Such risks would
include organizational risks, political exposure, public relations
issues, or potential loss of “goodwill” (public trust).
3.1.7 Internal Risk An item or activity upon which the PDT has
control or influence.
3.1.8 External Risk An item or activity upon which the PDT has no
control or influence.
3.2 Risk Management Project Risk Management includes the processes
concerned with conducting risk management planning, identification,
analysis, responses, and monitoring and control on a project; most
of these processes are updated throughout the project (source:
PMBoK® Guide, 3rd edition, p. 237).
3.3 Risk Analysis Qualitative or quantitative evaluations of the
potential impact and probability of project risk events (source:
Risk Management Concepts and Guidance, p. 373).
Souris River Basin Flood Risk Management Draft Feasibility Report
With Integrated Environmental Assessment; Bottineau, McHenry,
Renville Ward County, North Dakota
USACE | RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN 6
3.3.1 Qualitative Risk Analysis Prioritizing risks for subsequent
further analysis or action by assessing and combining their
probability of occurrence and impact (source:PMBoK® Guide, 3rd
edition, p. 237). 3.3.2 Quantitative Risk Analysis Numerically
analyzing the effect on overall project objectives of identified
risks (source: PMBoK® Guide, 3rd edition, p. 237).
3.3.3 Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis (CSRA) Technique used to
improve the development of contingencies by studying the variance
of project cost caused by the effects of cost and schedule risk
events. This process relies on qualitative and quantitative (e.g.
Monte Carlo simulation) risk analysis techniques. CSRA is required
on projects costs anticipated to be $40 Million or higher.edition,
p. 237).
3.4 Risk Communication Exchange or sharing of information about
risk between the decision-maker, often the project manager, and
other stakeholders (source: Project Risk Management Guidelines, p.
372). 3.5 Risk Response Planning/Mitigation Developing options and
actions to enhance opportunities, and to reduce threats to project
objectives (source: PMBoK® Guide, 3rd edition, p. 237).
3.6 Risk Monitoring and Control Tracking identified risks,
monitoring residual risks, identifying new risks, executing risk
response plans, and evaluating their effectiveness throughout the
project life cycle (source: PMBoK® Guide, 3rd edition, p.
237).
3.7 Risk Register The document containing the results of the
qualitative risk analysis, quantitative risk analysis and risk
response planning. The risk register details all identified risks,
including description, category, cause, probability of occurring,
impact(s) on objectives, proposed responses, owners, and current
status (source: PMBoK® Guide, 4th edition, p. 439).
3.9 Risk Trigger An indicator of the imminent occurrence of a given
risk event that serves as an immediate precursor to the occurrence
of the risk. Often used to initiate specific actions, behaviors, or
responses (source: Risk Management Concepts and Guidance, p.
376).
3.10 Watch List A list of major risks examined at each project risk
review meeting (source: Project Risk Management Guidelines, p.
372).
4 RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY The Meander Reach 1 / Shorty’s Island
Ecosystem Restoration Project risk management strategy is to handle
program risks, both technical and non-technical, before they become
problems, causing serious
Souris River Basin Flood Risk Management Draft Feasibility Report
With Integrated Environmental Assessment; Bottineau, McHenry,
Renville Ward County, North Dakota
USACE | RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN 7
cost, schedule, or performance impacts. This strategy is an
integral part of project success, and will be executed primarily
through the Government Project Delivery Team (PDT). The PDT will
continuously and proactively assess critical areas to identify and
analyze specific risks and will develop options to mitigate all
risks designated as moderate and high.
The PDT will keep risk information current by maintaining the risk
register described in paragraph 6.2.4. Risk status will be reported
at all project milestone reviews.
5 RESPONSIBILITIES AND ASSIGNMENTS Over the course of the project,
the Project manager may make specific assignments to individual
members of the PDT, within their functional areas, to provide
updates or input to the risk register. Table 1 below lists the
general assignments and responsibilities: Table 1 Risk Management
Responsibilities
Task Task Support
Risk Identification PM PDT
Risk Analysis and Quantification
Risk Communication PM PDT
Risk Documentation/Closeout PM PM
6 RISK MANAGEMENT PROCESS AND PROCEDURES Led by the project
manager, the PDT will conduct risk management activities to address
those risks that are pertinent to the project. The project manager
will employ the assistance of members of the PDT, project
sponsors/customers and other subject matter experts as appropriate.
Overview of Project Risk Management Activities • Risk Management
Planning • Risk Identification
Souris River Basin Flood Risk Management Draft Feasibility Report
With Integrated Environmental Assessment; Bottineau, McHenry,
Renville Ward County, North Dakota
USACE | RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN 8
• Risk Analysis and Quantification • Risk Response Planning and
Mitigation • Risk Monitoring and Control • Risk Communication •
Risk Documentation/Closeout
6.1 Risk Management Planning Risk Management Planning will occur in
conjunction with the development of the Project Management Plan
(PMP) and will culminate with the approval of the Risk Management
Plan (RMP). The RMP will present the strategy for procedures for
identifying, analyzing, responding to, and monitoring risk
throughout the project life cycle. The RMP will include treatment
for both technical and non-technical risks, as well as risks that
affect the project cost and schedule performance. Per ER
1110-2-1302 and ETL 1110-2-573, this project is anticipated to
require and will undergo a formal Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis
(CSRA). 6.2 Risk Identification
6.2.1 Initial Risk Discussions Identification of risks will be
accomplished through brainstorming sessions held with the PDT and
project stakeholders. The PDT brainstorming session is the initial
attempt to develop the risk register that serves as the basis for
both the risk register development and the CSRA.
6.2.2 PDT Coordination The PM will coordinate an initial risk
discussion meeting, also referred to as a PDT brainstorming
session. This is the first meeting where the PDT attempts to
collectively capture the project risks and place them into the risk
register. The brainstorming session will include the major PDT
members.
6.2.3 PDT Brainstorming Session The PDT brainstorming session is
the opportunity to bring the PDT together to qualitatively define
the risk concerns as well as potential opportunities. As the
concerns are discussed, the facilitator or risk analyst begins
developing the initial risk register, capturing the PDT’s concerns
and discussions.
6.2.4 Risk Level Each identified risk will be assigned a risk
rating based on the joint consideration of event
probability/likelihood and consequence/impact (see the Probability
vs. Impact Risk Matrix below in Figure 1). This rating is a
reflection of the severity of the risk and provides a starting
point for the development of options to handle the risk.
Probabilities are described as, VERY UNLIKELY, UNLIKELY, LIKELY, or
VERY LIKELY. Impacts are described as, NEGLIGIBLE, MARGINAL
SIGNIFICANT, CRITICAL, or CRISIS. Risk levels are described as,
LOW, MODERATE, or HIGH. It is important to consider both the
probability/likelihood and consequences/impacts in establishing the
rating, as there may be risk events that have a low
probability/likelihood, but whose consequences/impacts are so
severe that the occurrence of the event would be disastrous to the
project.
6.2.5 Completing Initial Risk Register The risk register will serve
as the basis for risk management, including the CSRA process. When
referring to the risk register, the PDT should focus on the
following: • Risk/Opportunity – Event. • PDT Event Concerns –
Describe the risk event.
Souris River Basin Flood Risk Management Draft Feasibility Report
With Integrated Environmental Assessment; Bottineau, McHenry,
Renville Ward County, North Dakota
USACE | RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN 9
• PDT Discussions – List the implications or any relevant
background for this risk. • Responsibility/POC – List who should
have the action on the status of this risk. • Likelihood – Describe
the likelihood of this risk occurring, using VERY UNLIKELY,
UNLIKELY, LIKELY, or VERY LIKELY. • Impact – Describe the impact of
this risk if it occurs, using NEGLIGIBLE, MARGINAL SIGNIFICANT,
CRITICAL, or CRISIS. • Risk Level – Determine the risk level
according to the matrix below, using LOW, MODERATE, or HIGH. Table
2 - Risk Management Matrix
Risk Level
Li ke
lih oo
d of
Likely Low Moderate High High High
Unlikely Low Low Moderate Moderate High
Very Unlikely
Low Low Low Low High
Negligible Marginal Significant Critical Crisis
Impact or Consequence of Occurrence
The PDT should capture all concerns for all project features even
if the risk level is considered low. The register serves as an
archive of discussions and there is potential that low-level risks
may become higher following market studies, more information being
made available, or over time during the risk management and
mitigation processes. Within the risk register, the PDT concerns
and discussions must be adequately and clearly captured, because
the logic presented in those discussions must support the
“likelihood” and “impact” decisions reflected within the risk
register. While this product is the initial risk register, it has
already captured the PDT’s greatest concerns. The PDT can begin
using this data to prepare for project risk management.
6.3 Risk Analysis Risk analysis includes both qualitative and
quantitative techniques to determine the key drivers of risk.
Qualitative risk analysis shall occur on all risks, both technical
and nontechnical. The Project Risk “Watch List” will incorporate
all risks identified as “Moderate” or “High” by qualitative
analysis. All risks determined to have cost and/or schedule impacts
and rated as “Moderate” or “High” will be quantitatively studied
through the CSRA process. The PDT will enlist the support of the
Cost Engineering Dx for completion of the CSRA process.
6.3.1 Qualitative Risk Analysis Qualitative risk analysis will be
conducted on all project risks, utilizing the collective judgment
of the PDT and project stakeholders. Qualitative analysis will
occur simultaneously to the completion of the initial risk
register. Additionally, the qualitative analysis will be updated as
the risks change throughout the project life cycle. Changes to the
status of risks shall be captured by the project risk register at
each monthly risk review meeting.
Souris River Basin Flood Risk Management Draft Feasibility Report
With Integrated Environmental Assessment; Bottineau, McHenry,
Renville Ward County, North Dakota
USACE | RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN 10
6.3.2 Quantitative Risk Analysis Quantitative analysis will be
conducted on all risks qualitatively rated as MODERATE or HIGH that
affect cost and/or schedule performance. Quantitative analysis
shall be conducted using the Monte Carlo technique with the support
of the Cost Engineering Dx. Other risks may also be studied
quantitatively, as directed. The results of the quantitative
analysis will be presented in a final report and will include
identification of the key drivers of risk for cost and schedule.
The results of the quantitative analysis will include recommended
levels for contingency and management reserve for completion of the
project through implementation.
6.3.3 Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis (CSRA) The CSRA will be
performed in accordance with ER 1110-2-1302, ETL 1110-2-573, and
Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis Guidance published by the Cost
Engineering Dx. The project will utilize the Cost Engineering Dx
for performance of the CSRA, using Crystal Ball software. At a
minimum, the CSRA will include but not be limited to: • Review of
planning, design and/or construction contract documents: -
Deliverables and work processes - Milestones and schedule dates -
Resource estimates/needs/sources - Performance requirements •
Discussions and brainstorming activities with PDT members,
appropriate stakeholders/sponsor representatives and other
qualified/knowledgeable individuals to develop a comprehensive list
of risks for this project, referred to as the Risk Register. •
Investigation of the various sources and symptoms of risks to aid
in subsequent determination of risk controllability and selection
of appropriate risk response actions.
6.3.4 Risk Prioritization The PM and the PDT will prioritize the
MODERATE and HIGH risks in their disciplines or functional areas.
This prioritization will provide the basis for the development of
risk handling plans and the allocation of risk management
resources. Prioritization will be accomplished using expert opinion
within the PDT, and will be based on the following criteria: • Risk
Rating – MODERATE to HIGH • Consequence/Impact – Within each
rating, the highest value of consequence/impact • Urgency – How
much time is available before risk-handling actions must be
initiated • Probability/Likelihood – Within each rating, the
highest value The PDT will review the prioritized list of developed
risks, and integrate them into a single list of prioritized project
risks, using the same criteria.
6.4 Risk Response Planning and Mitigation Following initial
identification and analysis of risks, the PDT will develop an
approach for risk handling for all key drivers of risk, including
each MODERATE and HIGH risk. For all such risks, the various
handling techniques should be evaluated in terms of feasibility,
expected effectiveness, cost and schedule
Souris River Basin Flood Risk Management Draft Feasibility Report
With Integrated Environmental Assessment; Bottineau, McHenry,
Renville Ward County, North Dakota
USACE | RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN 11
implications, and the effect on the project’s performance. Risk
responses will also include an accompanying “fallback” plan if the
primary treatment strategy is not effective at mitigating the
impact of risk. Reducing requirements as a risk avoidance technique
will be used only as a last resort, and then only with the
participation and approval of District and Division Management. In
addition to developing approaches for handling each MODERATE and
HIGH risk, the following will act as risk triggers requiring an
immediate response and mitigation plan: • Cost growth greater than
1% of the estimated project cost • Schedule delays greater than 1
month • Potential for significant damage to private or public
property • Potential for injury or loss of life • Potential to
generate media coverage (either positive or negative) • Potential
environmental degradation or release of deleterious substances •
Potential to alter political or stakeholder support The results of
the evaluation and selection will be included and documented. This
documentation will include the following elements: • What must be
done, • List of all assumptions, • Level of effort and resources
required, • Resources needed that are outside the expertise of the
PDT, • Estimated cost to implement the plan, • Proposed schedule
showing the proposed start date, the time phasing of significant
risk reduction activities, the completion date, and their
relationship to significant project activities/milestones, •
Recommended metrics for tracking risk-handling activity, •
Considerations for secondary or residual risks implications, and •
Person responsible for implementing and tracking the selected
option.
6.5 Risk Monitoring and Control Risk monitoring is the systematic
tracking and evaluation of the progress and effectiveness of risk-
handling actions by the comparison of predicted results of planned
actions with the results actually achieved to determine status and
the need for any change in risk-handling actions. The Project
Manager and the PDT will monitor all identified risks in their
disciplines or areas, with particular attention to those risks
rated as MODERATE OR HIGH.
6.5.1 Monitor Risk Status As work is performed on the project, the
PDT will monitor and assess: • Progress in reducing risk, •
Occurrence of risks that call for initiation of contingent risk
responses, • Effectiveness of implemented risk reduction actions
and any needs to modify these actions. Risk status will be updated
immediately when risks change and upon the completion of a project
milestone. The status of the risks and the effectiveness of the
risk-handling actions will be agenda items for all design and
program reviews, and will be reported to the PM on the following
occasions: • Monthly, • When the PDT determines that the status of
the risk area has changed significantly (as a minimum when the risk
changes from high to moderate to low, or vice versa), • When
requested by Management.
Souris River Basin Flood Risk Management Draft Feasibility Report
With Integrated Environmental Assessment; Bottineau, McHenry,
Renville Ward County, North Dakota
USACE | RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN 12
There are a number of techniques and tools available for monitoring
the effectiveness of risk-handling actions. At a minimum, the PM
and PDT will use the Risk Register and Watch List for day-to-day
management and monitoring of risks. MODERATE or HIGH risks will be
monitored by the PM until the risk is considered LOW and
recommended for “Close Out.” Functional area leads will continue to
monitor LOW risk events in their areas to ensure that appropriate
risk-handling action can be initiated if there are indications that
the rating may change.
6.5.2 Maintenance of Project Risk Register Throughout the life
cycle of the project, the PDT will update the Risk Register to
reflect the results of monitoring risk status. This list will also
reflect the effect of any project replanning changes and/or change
controls. Updates shall be made monthly to the risk register. Any
changes to risk status upon event occurrence or completion of a
project milestone will also be captured immediately on the risk
register. The Risk Register will be discussed at project team
meetings and specific risks of concern should be elevated to the
Pre-PRB, PRB and/or project sponsors as appropriate.
6.5.3 Maintenance of Project Watch List Throughout the life cycle
of the project, the PM and the PDT will maintain a project watch
list to reflect the results of monitoring risk status. The watch
list, at a minimum, will contain the: • Potential Risk Event, •
Planned Risk Reduction Actions, • Point of Contact/Assignment, •
Due Date, and • Status.
6.6 Risk Communication Risk communication is essential to actively
managing risks throughout the project life cycle. Communication
begins with the preparation of the Risk Management Plan and
continues through project closeout. Subsequently, the preparation
of the project risk register facilitates communication of risks at
all levels. The Cost Engineering Dx will also prepare a report
regarding the formal CSRA process to be incorporated within the
Cost Appendix to the Engineering Appendix of the Feasibility
Report. The PDT will review the risk register monthly to provide
visibility of risks and progress in mitigating them. If necessary,
risk occurrences will be elevated to the Pre-PRB, PRB and/or
project sponsors for their attention (note “internal” vs.
“external” risks). The following risk triggers, as contained in
paragraph 6.4 above, shall prompt the immediate communication of
risks to Management: • Cost growth greater than 1% of the estimated
project cost • Schedule delays greater than 1 month • Potential for
significant damage to private or public property • Potential for
injury or loss of life • Potential to generate media coverage
(either positive or negative) • Potential environmental degradation
or release of deleterious substances
Souris River Basin Flood Risk Management Draft Feasibility Report
With Integrated Environmental Assessment; Bottineau, McHenry,
Renville Ward County, North Dakota
USACE | RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN 13
• Potential to alter political or stakeholder support
6.7 Risk Documentation and Closeout When the project reaches the
closeout phase, the PM and the PDT will document the final results
of the execution of the Risk Management Plan for inclusion in the
final project records and the District and/or Enterprise Lessons
Learned database. At a minimum, this information will include risk
assessment documents (including the risk register), risk-handling
plans (including the project watch list), contract deliverables, if
appropriate, and any other risk-related reports.
Souris River Basin Flood Risk Management Draft Feasibility Report
With Integrated Environmental Assessment; Bottineau, McHenry,
Renville Ward County, North Dakota
USACE | Appendix F – Cost Engineering F-14
ATTACHMENT 3 - QUANTITIES
Feasibility Quantities PROJECT:
North Dakota State Water Commission Mouse River Enhanced Flood Protection
BY: MRM LOCATION: City Minot, North Dakota
CHECKED BY: ATS PROJECT #:
34/511010 Task 13 APPROVED BY: MRM
OPINION OF COST DETAILED TABULATION
ISSUED: 4/6/2018
Plan Option Flow Rate = 27,400 cfs (Full Project Levee w/Freeboard, Overbuild)
ISSUED:
Engineer's Opinion of Probable Project Cost
Maple Diversion to Upstream of Broadway Bridge (PER Reach 07)
WBS QUANTITY UNITS
NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION
01 LANDS & EASEMENTS 01
Ecological Mitigation 1.00 AC 01
Property Acquisition (Moose Lodge) 0.93 AC 01
Property Acquisition (209 4th St NW) 0.01
AC 01
Property Acquisition Temporary Easement Moose Lodge
0.77 AC 01
Property Acquisition Temporary Easement 209 4th St NW
0.01 AC 01
BNSF Railroad Right of Way Encroachment
2.24 AC SUBTOTAL 01 LANDS & EASEMENTS
02 RELOCATIONS 02 Mobilization/Demobilization 02
Assume 6% of CWWBS feature construction cost
1 LS 02
02 Removals
02 Remove curb and gutter 13,500 LF 02
Remove pavement 32,500 SY 02
02
Remove Storm Pipe (All Types, All Sizes)
3,882 LF 02 Remove Manhole (Storm, All sizes)
20 EA 02 Remove Catch Basin (All Sizes) 12 EA
02 Remove Pipe (Sanitary, All Sizes) 3,897 LF
02 Remove Manhole (Sanitary, All Sizes) 20 EA
02 Remove Pipe (Water, All Sizes) 9,468 LF 02
Remove and Salvage Gate Valve (All Sizes)
17 EA 02 Remove and Salvage Fire Hydrant 12 EA
02
02 Municipal Utilities
02 Water Supply Utility
02 Connect to Existing Water (Service) 1 EA 02
Connect to Existing Water (Main) 14 EA 02
Water Service (1 1/2" Type "K") 50 EA 02
Curb Stop and Box (1 1/2") 1 EA 02
6" Watermain 208 LF 02 8" Watermain 498 LF 02
12" Watermain 777 LF 02 18" Watermain 2787 LF 02
6" Gate Valve 9 EA 02 8" Gate Valve 0 EA 02
12" Gate Valve 2 EA 02 18" Gate Valve 5
EA
02
West TieBack Levee Water Line Crossing (pipe w/ casing)
500 LF
02 West TieBack 8" Gate Valve 2 EA
02
West TieBack Levee NAWS Water Supply Crossing 48" Casing Pipe Cased in Place
200 LF
02
West TieBack Levee NAWS Water Supply Crossing 30" Gate Valve and Meter Pit
2 EA 02 Fire Hydrant 5 EA 02
02 Sanitary Sewer Utility
02
Connect to Existing Service (Moose Lodge)
1 EA 02 Connect to Existing MH 0 EA 02 SS MH 10
EA 02 Connect to Existing 8" 0 EA 02
Connect to Existing 10" 0 EA 02
8" Sewermain 61 LF 02 10" Sewermain 441 LF 02
4" Forcemain 710 LF 02 4" Gate Valve 2 LF
X:\PROJECTS\SA\SA_Souris_Minot_ND457847\02Feasibility(FEA)\Feasibility_Report_Documents\Feasibility_Report\Appendices\Appendix F_Cost_Engineering_(Susan)\03DQC_REVIEW_MATERIALS\SOURIS_MAPLEDIVWIK_MII_20180406.xlsx
02
Sanitary Sewer Force Main Gate Valve (4")
1 EA 02 4" Bend 0 EA 02
West TieBack Levee CP Dewatering Forcemain Temp. Pumped Bypass
1 LS 02
West TieBack Levee Sanitary Forcemain Modification
1 LS 02
Construct Maple Sanitary Sewer Lift Station
1 EA 02
02 Storm Sewer Utility
02 Storm Catch Basin 15 EA 02
Storm Catch Basin Manhole 7 EA 02 48" Manhole 8
EA 02 60" Manhole 2 EA 02 72" Manhole 1 EA 02
15" Storm Drain 761 LF 02 18" Storm Drain 416
LF 02 24" Storm Drain 2577 LF 02
48" Storm Drain 63 LF 02 84" Storm Drain 70 LF
02 84" Storm Drain (Steel Forcemain) 45 LF 02
48" Flared End Section 1 EA 02
84" Flared End Section 1 EA 02
02 Franchise Utilities
02 Natural Gas Utility
02 Utility Relocations at West Tieback 1 LS 02
Utility Relocations 1 LS 02
02 Fiber Optic Utility
02
2nd Avenue SW Realignment & 6th Street NW Realignment
02 Geotextile Fabric (Type R1) 19,408 SY 02
Subgrade Preparation 19,408 SY 02
Aggregate Base Course (CL 5) 10,108 TON 02
Hot Bituminous Pavement Superpave FAA 43
4,226 TON 02 PG 5828 Asphalt Cement 254 TON 02
8" Concrete Pavement (Recreation Trail) 5,214
SY 02
8" Concrete Pavement (Recreation Trail at Hydraulic Structures)
1,080 SY 02
Concrete Curb and Gutter (Type 1) 7,510 LF
02 4" Concrete Sidewalk 1,667 SY 02
Detectable Warning Panel 90 SF 02
4" Pavement Marking 950 LF 02
6" Pavement Marking 400 LF 02
24" Pavement Marking 150 LF 02
4" Edge Underdrain 7,510 LF 02 02
6th Street NW Box Culvert Crossing w/ Floodwall
02
Reinforced Concrete (Castinplace Box Culvert)
1815 CY 02 Reinforced Structural Concrete Wall
3670 CY 02 Sheet Pile (PZC 13) 2925 SF 02
Removable Floodwall System 2470 SF 02
Granular Filter Aggregate 1327 CY 02 Riprap 3551 CY 02 02
RR Bridge Canadian Pacific Railway Reconstruction
02 Bridge Removal 13,600 SF 02
Bridge Reconstruction 13,600 SF 02 Track Removal
1800 TF 02
Track Realignment w/ Rails, Ties, Ballast
2300 TF 02 Rail Crossover 2 EA 02
Clearing and Grubbing Light 1.2 AC 02
Dewatering and Control of Water 1 LS 02
Strip and Stockpile Topsoil 900 CY 02
Remove Gravel Surface 500 CY 02
Topsoil Install from Stockpile 900 CY 02
Site Restoration 1.2 AC 02 Granular Filter Aggregate
278 CY 02 Riprap 1,112 CY 02 02
Restore Local Roadways Due to Levee Borrow Hauling
02
Haul Road Restoration: Bituminous Roadway Restoration (Allowance)
1 LS 02
SUBTOTAL 02 INFRASTRUCTURE MODIFICATIONS
X:\PROJECTS\SA\SA_Souris_Minot_ND457847\02Feasibility(FEA)\Feasibility_Report_Documents\Feasibility_Report\Appendices\Appendix F_Cost_Engineering_(Susan)\03DQC_REVIEW_MATERIALS\SOURIS_MAPLEDIVWIK_MII_20180406.xlsx
09 01 CHANNELS 09 Mobilization/Demobilization 09
Assume 6% of CWWBS feature construction cost
1 LS 09 09 Maple Diversion Inlet Weir 09
Steel Sheet Piling PZ 6,450 SF 09
Granular Filter Aggregate 4,655 CY 09 Riprap 11,638 CY 09
Safety Features Miscellaneous (Allowance) 1 LS
09
Dewatering and Control of Water (Allowance)
1 LS 09
SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) System (Allowance)
1 LS 09
09 Maple Diversion Channel
09
Site Preparation, Traffic & Pedestrian Control Measures (Allowance)
1 LS 09
Temporary Erosion Prevention and Sedimentation Control (Allowance)
1 LS 09 Dewatering and Control of Water 1 LS 09
Clearing and Grubbing Light 10.3 AC 09
Clearing and Grubbing Dense 13.4 AC 09
Strip and Stockpile Topsoil 19,142 CY 09
Overbank and Channel Excavation & Haul
598,000 BCY 09 Lighting 1 LS 09
Topsoil Install from Stockpile 19,142 CY 09
Import Topsoil 8,583 CY 09 Seeding 35 AC 09
Hydromulching (Bonded Fiber Matrix BFM) 35 AC
09 Vegetation Establishment & Maintenance 35 AC
09 09
Maple Diversion Outlet To Souris River
09 Granular Filter Aggregate 3,222 CY 09 Riprap 7,517 CY
09
Steel Sheet Pile Coffering (purchased PZ27 sheets, w/ wales & struts)
4,000 SF 09
Dewatering and Control of Water (Allowance)
1 LS 09
SUBTOTAL 09 01 CHANNELS
11 LEVEES AND FLOODWALLS 11
Mobilization/Demobilization 11
Assume 6% of CWWBS feature construction cost
1 LS 11 11
Levee Along North Edge of Maple Diversion
11
Site Preparation, Traffic & Pedestrian Control Measures (Allowance)
1 LS 11
Temporary Erosion Prevention and Sedimentation Control (Allowance)
1 LS 11
Dewatering and Control of Water (Allowance)
1 LS 11 Clearing and Grubbing Light 8.30 AC 11
Strip and Stockpile Topsoil 6,700 CY 11
Inspection Trench 3,790 LF 11
Levee Underseepage Toe Drain w/ Perforated Pipe
2,760 LF 11 Impervious Levee Embankment 126,600 ECY 11
Impervious Levee Borrow: Purchase Material from Landowner
126,600 ECY 11 Topsoil Install from Stockpile
6,700 CY 11 Import Topsoil 0 CY 11 Seeding 8.30 AC 11
Hydromulching (Bonded Fiber Matrix BFM) 8.3 AC
11 Vegetation Establishment & Maintenance 8.30
AC 11 Monuments and Markers 20 EA 11
Fence Chain Link 3800 LF 11 Site Lighting 1 LS 11
Gate Vehicle 6 EA 11 11 West TieBack Levee 11
Site Preparation, Traffic & Pedestrian Control Measures (Allowance)
1 LS 11
Temporary Erosion Prevention and Sedimentation Control (Allowance)
1 LS 11
Dewatering and Control of Water (Allowance)
1 LS 11 Clearing and Grubbing Light 3.42 AC 11
Strip and Stockpile Topsoil 2760 CY 11
Inspection Trench 1638 LF 11
Impervious Levee Embankment 30,000 ECY 11
Impervious Levee Borrow: Purchase Material from Landowner
30,000 ECY 11 Topsoil Install from Stockpile
2760 CY 11 Import Topsoil 0 CY 11 Seeding 3.42 AC 11
Straw Mulching and Disk Anchoring 3.42 AC 11
Hydromulching (Bonded Fiber Matrix BFM) 3.42 AC
11 Vegetation Establishment & Maintenance 3.42
AC 11 Monuments and Markers 10 EA 11 Site Lighting 1
LS 11 Utility Modifications (Allowance) 1 LS 11 11
Closure and Floodwall: CP Rail at Diversion
11 Excavation 5000 CY 11 Dewatering 1 LS
X:\PROJECTS\SA\SA_Souris_Minot_ND457847\02Feasibility(FEA)\Feasibility_Report_Documents\Feasibility_Report\Appendices\Appendix F_Cost_Engineering_(Susan)\03DQC_REVIEW_MATERIALS\SOURIS_MAPLEDIVWIK_MII_20180406.xlsx
11 Concrete Footing 700 CY 11 Concrete Walls
500 CY 11 Wall Rustication (Architectural) 3,940 SF 11
Steel Reinforcement 180000 LB 11 Structural Aggregate
1500 CY 11 Steel Sheet Piling PZ 900 SF 11
Removable Bulkhead Floodwall System 500 SF 11
Site Lighting 1 LS 11 Backfill/Compaction 5000 CY 11 11
Closure and Floodwall: 6th ST NW Road
11 Excavation 4000 CY 11 Dewatering 1 LS 11
Concrete Footing 1100 CY 11 Concrete Walls
300 CY 11 Wall Rustication (Architectural) 3,150 SF 11
Steel Reinforcement 210000 LB 11 Structural Aggregate
1300 CY 11 Steel Sheet Piling PZ 1250 SF 11
Removable Aluminum Bulkhead Floodwall System
1462 SF 11 Site Lighting 1 LS 11 Backfill/Compaction 4000 CY
11 11
Closure and Floodwall: CP Rail at West Tieback
11 Excavation 1500 CY 11 Dewatering 1 LS 11
Concrete Footing 250 CY 11 Concrete Walls 100
CY 11 Wall Rustication (Architectural) 954 SF 11
Steel Reinforcement 52500 LB 11 Structural Aggregate 500
CY 11 Steel Sheet Piling PZ 1400 SF 11
Removable Bulkhead Floodwall System 450 SF 11
Site Lighting 1 LS 11 Backfill/Compaction 1500 CY 11 11
Closure and Floodwall: Shared Use Path at West Tieback
11 Excavation 1500 CY 11 Dewatering 1 LS 11
Concrete Footing 250 CY 11 Concrete&n