1. Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project Preliminary Report Valerie Whitener, JLARC Analyst Keenan Konopaski, JLARC Audit Coordinator Curtis Hudak, Foth and Van Dyke June 2, 2006

2. 2 JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project TPAB Assigned Scope of Audit Analysis of decision-making and identification of lessons-learned about the Port Angeles Graving Dock Project: 1.Site Selection 2.Environmental Permitting and Streamlining 3.Archaeological Assessment 4.Interactions of Interested Parties 5.Budget and Expenditures 6.Recommendations- Identify lessons learned Audit covers Port Angeles activities through December 2004 – termination of PA construction.

3. 3June 2, 2006JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project Constraint to Fulfilling One Study Objective Study Objective 3 – Interactions of interested parties. Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe filed lawsuit against the State shortly after audit initiated. Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe filed lawsuit against the State shortly after audit initiated. The Tribe withdrew from participation in the audit interview process. The Tribe withdrew from participation in the audit interview process. Audit team had one meeting with the Tribe and access to previously existing project records. Audit team had one meeting with the Tribe and access to previously existing project records. TPAB decided to continue project, recognizing the limitations on addressing one study objective. TPAB decided to continue project, recognizing the limitations on addressing one study objective.

4. 4June 2, 2006JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project Background: Hood Canal Bridge (SR 104) East Half Replacement Project and a Graving Dock Hood Canal Bridge: Draw span pontoon bridge Draw span pontoon bridge Important transportation link between Kitsap and Olympic Peninsulas. Important transportation link between Kitsap and Olympic Peninsulas. 1997 WSDOT study indicated east half of bridge did not meet current engineering standards. 1997 WSDOT study indicated east half of bridge did not meet current engineering standards. WSDOT proposed to rebuild bridge by 2007. WSDOT proposed to rebuild bridge by 2007. Project required a graving dock to build the pontoons and anchors. Project required a graving dock to build the pontoons and anchors.

5. 5June 2, 2006JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project Timeline of Key Events 1997 - 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.

6. 6June 2, 2006JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project 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 Events

7. 7June 2, 2006JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project 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 Events 2003

8. 8June 2, 2006JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project 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 Events 2004

9. 9June 2, 2006JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project Objective 1: Site Selection Audit Criteria Best practice standards used in project development: Schedules – Comprehensive project development schedules required for complex projects. Schedules – Comprehensive project development schedules required for complex projects. Project Leadership - Both project management and leadership required. Project Leadership - Both project management and leadership required.

10. 10June 2, 2006JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project Objective 1 - Site Selection Findings Certain aspects of the project process were lacking comprehensive plans and schedules. Decision to use Port Angeles was made under the assumption of an inflexible construction and permitting schedule and the date drove subsequent decisions. Analysis of using alternative state- or privately- owned graving dock sites was limited and poorly documented.

11. 11June 2, 2006JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project Objective 1: Site Selection Recommendations WSDOT should require the use of critical path scheduling of the project development processes used on complex projects. All project managers should be required to have project leadership, management and responsibility training.

12. 12June 2, 2006JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project Objective 2: Environmental Permitting Audit Criteria Several environmental factors needed to be addressed: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Systematic, interdisciplinary approach – insure integrated use of natural and social sciences. Systematic, interdisciplinary approach – insure integrated use of natural and social sciences. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental consequences must be considered, or review of alternatives, public review and comment. Environmental consequences must be considered, or review of alternatives, public review and comment. Endangered Species Act (ESA) Federally listed endangered plants and animals. Federally listed endangered plants and animals.

13. 13June 2, 2006JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project Objective 2: Environmental Permitting Findings Transportation Permit Efficiency and Accountability Committee’s inter-disciplinary team, and permit streamlining process both entered the project late. Resource agencies on team focused efforts on Endangered Species Act concerns. WSDOT did not use expertise to either confirm or contradict the regulatory agencies’ positions, and the team’s mostly verbal approval or disapproval of alternative sites. Review of archaeology, socioeconomics, and geology of site alternatives, and experts in those disciplines not represented.

14. 14June 2, 2006JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project Objective 2: Environmental Permitting Recommendations WSDOT should: Incorporate ESA and fisheries considerations at the earliest possible opportunity for any transportation project with the potential for impact. Promote stronger inter-agency permitting team leadership by finding someone to provide focus for the overall team and a balance between WSDOT and regulating agencies.

15. 15June 2, 2006JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project Objectives 3 and 4: Archaeological Assessment and Consultation Audit Criteria – Section 106, National Historic Preservation Act Congress mandated in 1966 that: “…the historical and cultural foundations of the Nation … be preserved….” Critical concepts: All federal agencies have Section 106 responsibilities All federal agencies have Section 106 responsibilities Federal agencies must take into account the effect of their undertakings on historic properties listed in, or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places Federal agencies must take into account the effect of their undertakings on historic properties listed in, or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places Section 106 compliance must be completed before funds are spent or the project is authorized, consultation persists throughout the process. Section 106 compliance must be completed before funds are spent or the project is authorized, consultation persists throughout the process. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation must have the opportunity to comment on the undertaking. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation must have the opportunity to comment on the undertaking.

16. 16June 2, 2006JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project Objectives 3 and 4: Archaeological Assessment and Consultation Audit Criteria – Federal Agencies and Section 106 Federal agencies have legal responsibility to see that Section 106 process is carried out and that the consulting parties are properly involved. Federal agencies may delegate the Section 106 work to other parties. Federal Highway Administration delegated Section 106 authority to WSDOT.

17. 17June 2, 2006JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project Objectives 3 and 4: Archaeological Assessment and Consultation Audit Criteria – What is the Area of Potential Effect? “…the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist.” 36 CFR 800.16

18. 18June 2, 2006JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project Objectives 3 and 4: Archaeological Assessment and Consultation Audit Criteria – Geoarchaeology Best practices supported by multiple professional authors and state guidelines recommend the inclusion of the geoarchaeological discipline in archaeological investigations.

19. 19June 2, 2006JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project Objectives 3 and 4: Archaeological Assessment and Consultation Audit Criteria – Consulting Parties 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 Organizations Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian Organizations Local governments Local governments Applicants for federal assistance (e.g., state DOTs) Applicants for federal assistance (e.g., state DOTs) Others with demonstrated legal, economic interest or concern with effects on historic properties Others with demonstrated legal, economic interest or concern with effects on historic properties

20. 20June 2, 2006JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project Objectives 3 and 4: Archaeological Assessment and Consultation Audit Criteria – Definition of Consultation Consultation means the process of seeking, discussing, and considering the views of other participants, and, where feasible, seeking agreement with them regarding matters arising in the Section 106 process. 36 CFR 800.15

21. 21June 2, 2006JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project Objectives 3 and 4: Archaeological Assessment and Consultation Audit Criteria – Consultation Consultation should begin early in the planning process 36 CFR 800.2 Government agency individuals should be of comparable stature to tribal leaders during consultation. (National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, 1999.) Agencies should not assume that a lack of tribal response means that the tribe has no interest in the undertaking. (NEJAC, 1999) Consultation should be a 2-way dialogue that provides meaningful involvement, all pertinent project information shared with the tribes so that the tribes may develop informed decisions. (NEJAC, 1999)

22. 22June 2, 2006JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project Objective 3: Archaeological Assessment – Findings WSDOT did not follow a consistent documented protocol for addressing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act compliance needs. Area of Potential Effect (APE) was not adequately defined by WSDOT prior to the initial site assessment in 2002: Indirect effects of dewatering, compaction, and vibration on archaeological resources were not defined. Indirect effects of dewatering, compaction, and vibration on archaeological resources were not defined. Direct effects of the depth of sheet piling, location of bioswales, staging areas, and the depth of piping were not defined. Direct effects of the depth of sheet piling, location of bioswales, staging areas, and the depth of piping were not defined.

23. 23June 2, 2006JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project Objective 3: Archaeological Assessment – Findings WSDOT’s Cultural Resources Specialist recognized the need for deep site testing. Consultant selected from on-call contract list did not include a geoarchaeology or geomorphology specialty. Consultant’s scope of work was based on WSDOT’S insufficient description of the Area of Potential Effect.

24. 24June 2, 2006JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project Objective 3: Archaeological Assessment – Findings Why did WSDOT’s consultant miss the site? Non-systematic sampling pattern Non-systematic sampling pattern Geoarchaeological expertise was not applied Geoarchaeological expertise was not applied Rainy weather conditions Rainy weather conditions Modified sampling plan due to equipment malfunctions Modified sampling plan due to equipment malfunctions Despite these difficulties, the contract and approach in the field investigation were not adjusted.

25. 25June 2, 2006JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project Objective 3: Archaeological Assessment Recommendations WSDOT should: Develop deep–site testing protocols, in consultation with SHPO, to minimize the chances of missing a buried site in the future. Provide a detailed written description of the Area of Potential Effect (APE) to the consultant and require that the consultant provide a detailed scope of work back to WSDOT. Add a geoarchaeology/geomorphology specialty, including deep-site testing, to the list of services in the Cultural Resource On-Call Contracts.

26. 26June 2, 2006JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project Objective 3: Archaeological Assessment Recommendations WSDOT should: Require their project managers to contact their Cultural Resource Program for all of their Section 106 compliance issues. Implement methods to monitor a consultant’s progress between major project milestones. Divide management tasks between a project manager and technical expert on large and complex projects.

27. 27June 2, 2006JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project Objective 4: Interactions with Interested Parties - Findings WSDOT initiated formal consultation late in the process through a letter to Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe. Letter sent to the LEKT the same day a request for proposal was sent to the archaeological consultant. Letter sent to the LEKT the same day a request for proposal was sent to the archaeological consultant. LEKT was provided with an inadequate description of the project Area of Potential Effect (APE). LEKT was provided with an inadequate description of the project Area of Potential Effect (APE). State Historic Preservation Officer not consulted when Port Angeles locale under consideration. SHPO learned about project upon review of initial archaeological assessment. SHPO learned about project upon review of initial archaeological assessment.

28. 28June 2, 2006JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project Objective 4: Interactions with Interested Parties - Findings Site monitoring plan required WSDOT consulting archaeologists to be on site if construction went below four feet. No archaeologist was on site on August 16, 2003 when archaeological material first discovered. No archaeologist was on site on August 16, 2003 when archaeological material first discovered. Face-to-face meetings with Tribe occurred after initial discovery of human bone fragments. Memorandum of Agreement entered into March 2004.

29. 29June 2, 2006JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project Objective 4: Interactions with Interested Parties - Findings Compressed bridge project schedule triggered changes in archaeological methodologies. All parties to the agreement should have been consulted about major changes and the agreement formally updated. All parties to the agreement should have been consulted about major changes and the agreement formally updated. Good faith attempts at communicating were made, but divergent opinions exist about the nature of the communication.

30. 30June 2, 2006JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project Objective 4: Interactions with Interested Parties - Recommendations Consultation should be initiated early and a dialogue maintained. Continue to implement procedural Programmatic Agreements with Tribes to assist in formalizing the consultation process.

31. 31June 2, 2006JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project Objective 5: Fiscal Review - WSDOT Budget for Hood Canal Bridge East Half Replacement Project 0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400 $450 $500 June 2003March 2006 Millions $275 M $470 M $195 M

32. 32June 2, 2006JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project Objective 5: Fiscal Review – Port Angeles Site Expenditures as of July 2005 Delay Costs $15.2 M Additional Mobilization $11.1 Direct Expenditures PA Site $60.5 M Total Expenditures Attributable to PA Site: $86.8 M

33. 33June 2, 2006JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project Objective 5: Fiscal Review - Findings Adjustments within program budget made consistent with internal project control policies and procedures. Difficulties in comparing project budget and expenditure information due to differences in public and internal reporting. Continued investment at the site based on professional judgment. However, no benefit-cost analysis of alternatives to support that professional judgment.

34. 34June 2, 2006JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project Objective 5: Fiscal Review - Recommendations WSDOT should: Continue efforts to improve financial reporting structure for transportation projects so that in the future, project budget and expenditure information is presented in a format that is consistent and meaningful to decision-makers and the public. Continue efforts to improve financial reporting structure for transportation projects so that in the future, project budget and expenditure information is presented in a format that is consistent and meaningful to decision-makers and the public. Establish and implement policies and guidelines for appropriate application of different levels of economic analysis for proposed projects including benefit-cost analysis. Establish and implement policies and guidelines for appropriate application of different levels of economic analysis for proposed projects including benefit-cost analysis.

35. 35June 2, 2006JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project Summary of Conclusions and Lessons Learned WSDOT Project and contract management, geological and cultural resources assessments, and communication and consultation practices inconsistent with best practices. Project and contract management, geological and cultural resources assessments, and communication and consultation practices inconsistent with best practices. Project budget and expenditure reporting complex and economic analysis of alternatives not thorough. Project budget and expenditure reporting complex and economic analysis of alternatives not thorough. Excellent engineering design work and communication concerning bridge closure mitigation. Excellent engineering design work and communication concerning bridge closure mitigation. DAHP (SHPO) Performed consistent with law. Performed consistent with law. Could take more active role working with stakeholders to revise guidelines and standards, deep site testing protocols, and mapping potential buried sites. Could take more active role working with stakeholders to revise guidelines and standards, deep site testing protocols, and mapping potential buried sites. WSDOT and DAHP improvements are in progress.

36. 36June 2, 2006JLARC Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project For more information, contact JLARC: Ruta Fanning, Valerie Whitener, or Keenan Konopaski (360) 786-5171