Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project Preliminary Report Valerie Whitener, JLARC Analyst Keenan Konopaski, JLARC Audit Coordinator Curtis Hudak,

Review of Port Angeles Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock ProjectGraving Dock Project

Preliminary ReportPreliminary Report

Valerie Whitener, JLARC AnalystValerie Whitener, JLARC Analyst

Keenan Konopaski, JLARC Audit CoordinatorKeenan Konopaski, JLARC Audit Coordinator

Curtis Hudak, Foth and Van DykeCurtis Hudak, Foth and Van Dyke

June 2, 2006June 2, 2006

22June 2, 2006June 2, 2006 JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock ProjectJLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project

TPAB Assigned Scope of AuditTPAB Assigned Scope of AuditAnalysis of Analysis of decision-makingdecision-making and identification of and identification of lessons-learnedlessons-learned about the Port Angeles Graving about the Port Angeles Graving Dock Project:Dock Project:

1.1. Site SelectionSite Selection

2.2. Environmental Permitting and StreamliningEnvironmental Permitting and Streamlining

3.3. Archaeological AssessmentArchaeological Assessment

4.4. Interactions of Interested PartiesInteractions of Interested Parties

5.5. Budget and ExpendituresBudget and Expenditures

6.6. Recommendations- Identify lessons learnedRecommendations- Identify lessons learned

Audit covers Port Angeles activities through Audit covers Port Angeles activities through December 2004 – termination of PA construction. December 2004 – termination of PA construction.


Constraint to Fulfilling One Study ObjectiveConstraint to Fulfilling One Study Objective

Study Objective 3 – Interactions of interested Study Objective 3 – Interactions of interested parties.parties. Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe filed lawsuit against the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe filed lawsuit against the

State shortly after audit initiated.State shortly after audit initiated. The Tribe withdrew from participation in the audit The Tribe withdrew from participation in the audit

interview process.interview process. Audit team had one meeting with the Tribe and Audit team had one meeting with the Tribe and

access to previously existing project records.access to previously existing project records. TPAB decided to continue project, recognizing the TPAB decided to continue project, recognizing the

limitations on addressing one study objective.limitations on addressing one study objective.


Background: Hood Canal Bridge (SR 104) East Background: Hood Canal Bridge (SR 104) East Half Replacement Project and a Graving DockHalf Replacement Project and a Graving Dock

Hood Canal Bridge:Hood Canal Bridge: Draw span pontoon bridgeDraw span pontoon bridge Important transportation link Important transportation link

between Kitsap and Olympic between Kitsap and Olympic Peninsulas.Peninsulas.

1997 WSDOT study indicated 1997 WSDOT study indicated east half of bridge did not meet east half of bridge did not meet current engineering standards.current engineering standards.

WSDOT proposed to rebuild WSDOT proposed to rebuild bridge by 2007.bridge by 2007.

Project required a graving dock Project required a graving dock to build the pontoons and to build the pontoons and anchors.anchors.


Timeline of Key EventsTimeline of Key Events1997 - 2001

October 1997 – Identified need to replace east half floating portion of the HCB.

January 1998 –• Project Team initiated.• Planning assumed use of graving dock used in previous projects (Concrete Technology Corporation).

January 2001 - Project team focused on graving dock. Considered issuing RFP for graving dock sites. WSDOT had lease discussions with CTC, alternative sites suggested.

December 2001 – WDFW identified permitting issues at CTC site.


2002

May – WSDOT CEVP analysis identified feasibility concerns of leased CTC site.

July – August - WSDOT suggested Port Angeles site for a state owned graving dock facility to IDT. IDT supports Port Angeles site.

October – WSDOT requests scope of work for archaeological survey, Sec. 106 tribal consultation form letter sent to Tribe the same day.

November – Archaeological field survey performed by Western Shore Heritage Services, Inc. (WSHS) and no cultural resources were identified.

November – WSDOT publicly announced Port Angeles as the site for graving dock.

Timeline of Key EventsTimeline of Key Events


January – WSHS final report recommended monitoring of graving dock site. Report sent to Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe (LEKT) and State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). SHPO concurred with report findings.

February – LEKT agreed in writing with the survey results and the proposed monitoring, recommended proceeding with caution.

August 5 – Groundbreaking at Port Angeles site.

August 16 – Potential archaeological site found by WSDOT.

August 19 – First human remains found.

September – Second archaeological site assessment started.

October – SHPO concurred with finding that Tse-whit-zen village eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places.

Timeline of Key EventsTimeline of Key Events2003


March 16 – WSDOT, SHPO, LEKT, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) executed archaeological Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). WSDOT and LEKT negotiated a $3.4 Million settlement agreement and release of liability.

April – November - Work at site recommenced. Additional human remains found. Conflict among parties about how to proceed as additional discoveries are made.

December 10 – LEKT requested permanent work stoppage at Tse-whit-zen village site.

December 21 – WSDOT announced termination of the Port Angeles project.

Timeline of Key EventsTimeline of Key Events2004


Objective 1: Site Selection Audit CriteriaObjective 1: Site Selection Audit Criteria

Best practice standards used in project Best practice standards used in project development:development: Schedules – Comprehensive project Schedules – Comprehensive project

development schedules required for complex development schedules required for complex projects.projects.

Project Leadership - Both project Project Leadership - Both project management and leadership required.management and leadership required.


Objective 1 - Site Selection Findings Objective 1 - Site Selection Findings

Certain aspects of the project process were Certain aspects of the project process were lacking comprehensive plans and schedules.lacking comprehensive plans and schedules.

Decision to use Port Angeles was made under Decision to use Port Angeles was made under the assumption of an inflexible construction and the assumption of an inflexible construction and permitting schedule and the date drove permitting schedule and the date drove subsequent decisions.subsequent decisions.

Analysis of using alternative state- or privately-Analysis of using alternative state- or privately-owned graving dock sites was limited and poorly owned graving dock sites was limited and poorly documented. documented.


Objective 1: Site Selection Objective 1: Site Selection Recommendations Recommendations

WSDOT should require the use of critical path WSDOT should require the use of critical path scheduling of the project development scheduling of the project development processes used on complex projects. processes used on complex projects.

All project managers should be required to have All project managers should be required to have project leadership, management and project leadership, management and responsibility training.responsibility training.


Objective 2: Environmental Permitting Objective 2: Environmental Permitting Audit CriteriaAudit Criteria

Several environmental factors needed to be Several environmental factors needed to be addressed:addressed:National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Systematic, interdisciplinary approach – insure Systematic, interdisciplinary approach – insure

integrated use of integrated use of naturalnatural and and social social sciences.sciences.

State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental consequences must be considered, Environmental consequences must be considered,

or review of alternatives, public review and or review of alternatives, public review and comment.comment.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)Endangered Species Act (ESA) Federally listed endangered plants and animals.Federally listed endangered plants and animals.


Objective 2: Environmental Permitting Objective 2: Environmental Permitting FindingsFindings

Transportation Permit Efficiency and Accountability Transportation Permit Efficiency and Accountability Committee’s inter-disciplinary team, and permit Committee’s inter-disciplinary team, and permit streamlining process both entered the project late.streamlining process both entered the project late.

Resource agencies on team focused efforts on Resource agencies on team focused efforts on Endangered Species Act concerns.Endangered Species Act concerns.

WSDOT did not use expertise to either confirm or WSDOT did not use expertise to either confirm or contradict the regulatory agencies’ positions, and the contradict the regulatory agencies’ positions, and the team’s mostly verbal approval or disapproval of team’s mostly verbal approval or disapproval of alternative sites.alternative sites.

Review of archaeology, socioeconomics, and geology Review of archaeology, socioeconomics, and geology of site alternatives, and experts in those disciplines of site alternatives, and experts in those disciplines not represented.not represented.


Objective 2: Environmental Permitting Objective 2: Environmental Permitting Recommendations Recommendations

WSDOT should:WSDOT should:

Incorporate ESA and fisheries considerations at Incorporate ESA and fisheries considerations at the earliest possible opportunity for any the earliest possible opportunity for any transportation project with the potential for transportation project with the potential for impact.impact.

Promote stronger inter-agency permitting team Promote stronger inter-agency permitting team leadership by finding someone to provide focus leadership by finding someone to provide focus for the overall team and a balance between for the overall team and a balance between WSDOT and regulating agencies.WSDOT and regulating agencies.


Objectives 3 and 4: Archaeological Objectives 3 and 4: Archaeological Assessment and Consultation Audit Criteria – Assessment and Consultation Audit Criteria –

Section 106, National Historic Preservation ActSection 106, National Historic Preservation ActCongress mandated in 1966 that:Congress mandated in 1966 that:

““……the historical and cultural foundations of the Nation … the historical and cultural foundations of the Nation … be preserved….” be preserved….”

Critical concepts:Critical concepts: All federal agencies have Section 106 responsibilitiesAll federal agencies have Section 106 responsibilities Federal agencies must take into account the effect of their Federal agencies must take into account the effect of their

undertakings on historic properties listed in, or eligible for listing undertakings on historic properties listed in, or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Placesin the National Register of Historic Places

Section 106 compliance must be completed before funds are Section 106 compliance must be completed before funds are spent or the project is authorized, consultation persists spent or the project is authorized, consultation persists throughout the process.throughout the process.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation must have the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation must have the opportunity to comment on the undertaking.opportunity to comment on the undertaking.


Objectives 3 and 4: Archaeological Objectives 3 and 4: Archaeological Assessment and Consultation Audit Criteria Assessment and Consultation Audit Criteria

– Federal Agencies and Section 106– Federal Agencies and Section 106

Federal agencies have legal responsibility to see Federal agencies have legal responsibility to see that Section 106 process is carried out and that that Section 106 process is carried out and that the consulting parties are properly involved.the consulting parties are properly involved.

Federal agencies may delegate the Section 106 Federal agencies may delegate the Section 106 work to other parties.work to other parties.

Federal Highway Administration delegated Federal Highway Administration delegated Section 106 authority to WSDOT.Section 106 authority to WSDOT.



What is the Area of Potential Effect?What is the Area of Potential Effect?

“…“…the geographic area or areas within the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist.” properties exist.” 36 CFR 800.1636 CFR 800.16


Objectives 3 and 4: Archaeological Objectives 3 and 4: Archaeological Assessment and Consultation Audit Assessment and Consultation Audit

Criteria – GeoarchaeologyCriteria – GeoarchaeologyBest practices supported by multiple Best practices supported by multiple professional authors and state guidelines professional authors and state guidelines recommend the inclusion of the recommend the inclusion of the geoarchaeological discipline in archaeological geoarchaeological discipline in archaeological investigations.investigations.



Consulting PartiesConsulting Parties

Consulting parties include: Consulting parties include: State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO)Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian OrganizationsIndian Tribes and Native Hawaiian Organizations Local governmentsLocal governments Applicants for federal assistance (e.g., state DOTs)Applicants for federal assistance (e.g., state DOTs) Others with demonstrated legal, economic interest Others with demonstrated legal, economic interest

or concern with effects on historic propertiesor concern with effects on historic properties



Definition of ConsultationDefinition of Consultation

Consultation means the process of seeking, Consultation means the process of seeking, discussing, and considering the views of other discussing, and considering the views of other participants, and, where feasible, seeking participants, and, where feasible, seeking agreement with them regarding matters arising agreement with them regarding matters arising in the Section 106 process. in the Section 106 process. 36 CFR 800.1536 CFR 800.15



ConsultationConsultationConsultation should begin Consultation should begin earlyearly in the in the planning processplanning process 36 CFR 800.236 CFR 800.2

Government agency individuals should be of comparable Government agency individuals should be of comparable stature to tribal leaders during consultation. stature to tribal leaders during consultation. (National (National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, 1999.)Environmental Justice Advisory Council, 1999.)

Agencies should not assume that a lack of tribal Agencies should not assume that a lack of tribal response means that the tribe has no interest in the response means that the tribe has no interest in the undertaking. undertaking. (NEJAC, 1999)(NEJAC, 1999)

Consultation should be a 2-way dialogue that provides Consultation should be a 2-way dialogue that provides meaningful involvement, all pertinent project information meaningful involvement, all pertinent project information shared with the tribes so that the tribes may develop shared with the tribes so that the tribes may develop informed decisions. informed decisions. (NEJAC, 1999)(NEJAC, 1999)


Objective 3: Archaeological Assessment –Objective 3: Archaeological Assessment –Findings Findings

WSDOT did not follow a WSDOT did not follow a consistent consistent documented documented protocol for addressing Section 106 of the National protocol for addressing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act compliance needs. Historic Preservation Act compliance needs.

Area of Potential Effect (APE) was not adequately Area of Potential Effect (APE) was not adequately defined by WSDOT prior to the initial site defined by WSDOT prior to the initial site assessment in 2002:assessment in 2002: Indirect effects of dewatering, compaction, and Indirect effects of dewatering, compaction, and

vibration on archaeological resources were not vibration on archaeological resources were not defined.defined.

Direct effects of the depth of sheet piling, location of Direct effects of the depth of sheet piling, location of bioswales, staging areas, and the depth of piping were bioswales, staging areas, and the depth of piping were not defined.not defined.


Objective 3: Archaeological Assessment –Objective 3: Archaeological Assessment –FindingsFindings

WSDOT’s Cultural Resources Specialist WSDOT’s Cultural Resources Specialist recognized the need for deep site testing. recognized the need for deep site testing.

Consultant selected from on-call contract list did Consultant selected from on-call contract list did not include a geoarchaeology or geomorphology not include a geoarchaeology or geomorphology specialty. specialty.

Consultant’s scope of work was based on Consultant’s scope of work was based on WSDOT’S insufficient description of the Area of WSDOT’S insufficient description of the Area of Potential Effect.Potential Effect.


Objective 3: Archaeological Assessment –Objective 3: Archaeological Assessment –FindingsFindings

Why did WSDOT’s consultant miss the site?Why did WSDOT’s consultant miss the site? Non-systematic sampling patternNon-systematic sampling pattern Geoarchaeological expertise was not appliedGeoarchaeological expertise was not applied Rainy weather conditionsRainy weather conditions Modified sampling plan due to equipment Modified sampling plan due to equipment

malfunctionsmalfunctions

Despite these difficulties, the contract and Despite these difficulties, the contract and approach in the field investigation were not approach in the field investigation were not adjusted.adjusted.


Objective 3: Archaeological Assessment Objective 3: Archaeological Assessment RecommendationsRecommendations


Develop deep–site testing protocols, in consultation Develop deep–site testing protocols, in consultation with SHPO, to minimize the chances of missing a with SHPO, to minimize the chances of missing a buried site in the future.buried site in the future.

Provide a detailed written description of the Area of Provide a detailed written description of the Area of Potential Effect (APE) to the consultant and require Potential Effect (APE) to the consultant and require that the consultant provide a detailed scope of work that the consultant provide a detailed scope of work back to WSDOT.back to WSDOT.

Add a geoarchaeology/geomorphology specialty, Add a geoarchaeology/geomorphology specialty, including deep-site testing, to the list of services in including deep-site testing, to the list of services in the Cultural Resource On-Call Contracts.the Cultural Resource On-Call Contracts.


Objective 3: Archaeological Assessment Objective 3: Archaeological Assessment RecommendationsRecommendations


Require their project managers to contact their Require their project managers to contact their Cultural Resource Program for all of their Section Cultural Resource Program for all of their Section 106 compliance issues.106 compliance issues.

Implement methods to monitor a consultant’s Implement methods to monitor a consultant’s progress between major project milestones. progress between major project milestones.

Divide management tasks between a project Divide management tasks between a project manager and technical expert on large and complex manager and technical expert on large and complex projects.projects.


Objective 4: Interactions with Interested Objective 4: Interactions with Interested Parties - FindingsParties - Findings

WSDOT initiated formal consultation late in the WSDOT initiated formal consultation late in the process through a letter to Lower Elwha Klallam process through a letter to Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe.Tribe. Letter sent to the LEKT the same day a request for Letter sent to the LEKT the same day a request for

proposal was sent to the archaeological consultant.proposal was sent to the archaeological consultant. LEKT was provided with an inadequate description of LEKT was provided with an inadequate description of

the project Area of Potential Effect (APE).the project Area of Potential Effect (APE).

State Historic Preservation Officer not consulted State Historic Preservation Officer not consulted when Port Angeles locale under consideration.when Port Angeles locale under consideration. SHPO learned about project upon review of initial SHPO learned about project upon review of initial

archaeological assessment.archaeological assessment.



Site monitoring plan required WSDOT consulting Site monitoring plan required WSDOT consulting archaeologists to be on site if construction went archaeologists to be on site if construction went below four feet. below four feet. No archaeologist was on site on August 16, 2003 No archaeologist was on site on August 16, 2003

when archaeological material first discovered.when archaeological material first discovered.

Face-to-face meetings with Tribe occurred after Face-to-face meetings with Tribe occurred after initial discovery of human bone fragments.initial discovery of human bone fragments.

Memorandum of Agreement entered into March Memorandum of Agreement entered into March 2004.2004.



Compressed bridge project schedule triggered Compressed bridge project schedule triggered changes in archaeological methodologies.changes in archaeological methodologies. All parties to the agreement should have been All parties to the agreement should have been

consulted about major changes and the agreement consulted about major changes and the agreement formally updated.formally updated.

Good faith attempts at communicating were made, Good faith attempts at communicating were made, but divergent opinions exist about the nature of but divergent opinions exist about the nature of the communication.the communication.


Objective 4: Interactions with Interested Objective 4: Interactions with Interested Parties - RecommendationsParties - Recommendations

Consultation should be initiated early and a Consultation should be initiated early and a dialogue maintained.dialogue maintained.

Continue to implement procedural Programmatic Continue to implement procedural Programmatic Agreements with Tribes to assist in formalizing Agreements with Tribes to assist in formalizing the consultation process.the consultation process.


Objective 5: Fiscal Review - WSDOT Objective 5: Fiscal Review - WSDOT Budget for Hood Canal Bridge East Half Budget for Hood Canal Bridge East Half

Replacement ProjectReplacement Project

0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

$450

$500

June 2003 March 2006

Mil

lio

ns

$275 M

$470 M

$195 M


Objective 5: Fiscal Review – Port Angeles Objective 5: Fiscal Review – Port Angeles Site Expenditures as of July 2005Site Expenditures as of July 2005

Delay Costs$15.2 M

Additional Mobilization

$11.1Direct

Expenditures PA Site$60.5 M

Total Expenditures Attributable to

PA Site: $86.8 M


Objective 5: Fiscal Review - FindingsObjective 5: Fiscal Review - Findings

Adjustments within program budget made Adjustments within program budget made consistent with internal project control policies consistent with internal project control policies and procedures.and procedures.

Difficulties in comparing project budget and Difficulties in comparing project budget and expenditure information due to differences in expenditure information due to differences in public and internal reporting.public and internal reporting.

Continued investment at the site based on Continued investment at the site based on professional judgment.professional judgment.

However, no benefit-cost analysis of alternatives However, no benefit-cost analysis of alternatives to support that professional judgment. to support that professional judgment.


Objective 5: Fiscal Review - Objective 5: Fiscal Review - RecommendationsRecommendations

WSDOT should:WSDOT should: Continue efforts to improve financial reporting Continue efforts to improve financial reporting

structure for transportation projects so that in the structure for transportation projects so that in the future, project budget and expenditure information future, project budget and expenditure information is presented in a format that is consistent and is presented in a format that is consistent and meaningful to decision-makers and the public.meaningful to decision-makers and the public.

Establish and implement policies and guidelines Establish and implement policies and guidelines for appropriate application of different levels of for appropriate application of different levels of economic analysis for proposed projects including economic analysis for proposed projects including benefit-cost analysis. benefit-cost analysis.


Summary of Conclusions and Summary of Conclusions and Lessons LearnedLessons Learned

WSDOT WSDOT Project and contract management, geological and cultural Project and contract management, geological and cultural

resources assessments, and communication and consultation resources assessments, and communication and consultation practices inconsistent with best practices. practices inconsistent with best practices.

Project budget and expenditure reporting complex and Project budget and expenditure reporting complex and economic analysis of alternatives not thorough.economic analysis of alternatives not thorough.

Excellent engineering design work and communication Excellent engineering design work and communication concerning bridge closure mitigation.concerning bridge closure mitigation.

DAHP (SHPO)DAHP (SHPO) Performed consistent with law.Performed consistent with law. Could take more active role working with stakeholders to Could take more active role working with stakeholders to

revise guidelines and standards, deep site testing protocols, revise guidelines and standards, deep site testing protocols, and mapping potential buried sites.and mapping potential buried sites.

WSDOT and DAHP improvements are in progress.WSDOT and DAHP improvements are in progress.


For more information, contact JLARC:For more information, contact JLARC:Ruta Fanning, Valerie Whitener, or Ruta Fanning, Valerie Whitener, or Keenan KonopaskiKeenan Konopaski(360) 786-5171(360) 786-5171

Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project Preliminary Report Valerie Whitener, JLARC Analyst Keenan Konopaski, JLARC Audit Coordinator Curtis Hudak,

Documents

graving dock sites

project team

port angeles site

graving dock hood canal

assumed use of graving

port angeles activities

wsdot study

existing project records