Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project

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
TPAB Assigned Scope of Audit

• Analysis of decision-making and identification of
  lessons-learned about the Port Angeles Graving
  Dock Project
• Site Selection
• Environmental Permitting and Streamlining
• Archaeological Assessment
• Interactions of Interested Parties
• Budget and Expenditures
• Recommendations- Identify lessons learned
• Audit covers Port Angeles activities through
  December 2004 termination of PA construction.

3
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.
• 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.
• TPAB decided to continue project, recognizing the
  limitations on addressing one study objective.

4
Background Hood Canal Bridge (SR 104) East Half
Replacement Project and a Graving Dock

• Hood Canal Bridge
• Draw span pontoon bridge
• Important transportation link between Kitsap and
  Olympic Peninsulas.
• 1997 WSDOT study indicated east half of bridge
  did not meet current engineering standards.
• WSDOT proposed to rebuild bridge by 2007.
• Project required a graving dock to build the
  pontoons and anchors.

5
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
Timeline of Key Events
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.
7
Timeline of Key Events
2003
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.
8
Timeline of Key Events
2004
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.
9
Objective 1 Site Selection Audit Criteria

• Best practice standards used in project
  development
• Schedules Comprehensive project development
  schedules required for complex projects.
• Project Leadership - Both project management and
  leadership required.

10
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
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
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.
• State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
• Environmental consequences must be considered, or
  review of alternatives, public review and
  comment.
• Endangered Species Act (ESA)
• Federally listed endangered plants and animals.

13
Objective 2 Environmental Permitting Findings

• Transportation Permit Efficiency and
  Accountability Committees 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 teams 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
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
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
• 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.
• Advisory Council on Historic Preservation must
  have the opportunity to comment on the
  undertaking.

16
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
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
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
Objectives 3 and 4 Archaeological Assessment
and Consultation Audit Criteria Consulting
Parties

• Consulting parties include
• State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
• Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO)
• Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian Organizations
• Local governments
• Applicants for federal assistance (e.g., state
  DOTs)
• Others with demonstrated legal, economic interest
  or concern with effects on historic properties

20
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
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
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.
• Direct effects of the depth of sheet piling,
  location of bioswales, staging areas, and the
  depth of piping were not defined.

23
Objective 3 Archaeological Assessment Findings

• WSDOTs 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.
• Consultants scope of work was based on WSDOTS
  insufficient description of the Area of Potential
  Effect.

24
Objective 3 Archaeological Assessment Findings

• Why did WSDOTs consultant miss the site?
• Non-systematic sampling pattern
• Geoarchaeological expertise was not applied
• Rainy weather conditions
• Modified sampling plan due to equipment
  malfunctions
• Despite these difficulties, the contract and
  approach in the field investigation were not
  adjusted.

25
Objective 3 Archaeological Assessment
Recommendations

• WSDOT should
• Develop deepsite 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
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 consultants
  progress between major project milestones.
• Divide management tasks between a project manager
  and technical expert on large and complex
  projects.

27
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.
• 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.

28
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.
• Face-to-face meetings with Tribe occurred after
  initial discovery of human bone fragments.
• Memorandum of Agreement entered into March 2004.

29
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.
• Good faith attempts at communicating were made,
  but divergent opinions exist about the nature of
  the communication.

30
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
Objective 5 Fiscal Review - WSDOT Budget for
Hood Canal Bridge East Half Replacement Project
500
470 M
Millions
450
400
195 M
350
275 M
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
June 2003
March 2006
32
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
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
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.
• Establish and implement policies and guidelines
  for appropriate application of different levels
  of economic analysis for proposed projects
  including benefit-cost analysis.

35
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 budget and expenditure reporting complex
  and economic analysis of alternatives not
  thorough.
• Excellent engineering design work and
  communication concerning bridge closure
  mitigation.
• DAHP (SHPO)
• 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.
• WSDOT and DAHP improvements are in progress.

36
For more information, contact JLARC Ruta
Fanning, Valerie Whitener, or Keenan
Konopaski [phone]