Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


PPT – Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 72bdf0-ZDIwY


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation

Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project


Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project Preliminary Report Valerie Whitener, JLARC Analyst Keenan Konopaski, JLARC Audit Coordinator Curtis Hudak, Foth and Van Dyke – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:19
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 37
Provided by: Deane151
Learn more at:


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project

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

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.

Constraint to Fulfilling One Study Objective
  • Study Objective 3 Interactions of interested
  • 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.

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.

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
  • 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.

Timeline of Key Events
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
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
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.
Objective 1 Site Selection Audit Criteria
  • Best practice standards used in project
  • Schedules Comprehensive project development
    schedules required for complex projects.
  • Project Leadership - Both project management and
    leadership required.

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

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

Objective 2 Environmental Permitting Audit
  • Several environmental factors needed to be
  • 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
  • Endangered Species Act (ESA)
  • Federally listed endangered plants and animals.

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.

Objective 2 Environmental Permitting
  • WSDOT should
  • Incorporate ESA and fisheries considerations at
    the earliest possible opportunity for any
    transportation project with the potential for
  • 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.

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
  • 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

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.

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

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.

Objectives 3 and 4 Archaeological Assessment
and Consultation Audit Criteria Consulting
  • 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
  • Others with demonstrated legal, economic interest
    or concern with effects on historic properties

Objectives 3 and 4 Archaeological Assessment
and Consultation Audit Criteria Definition of
  • 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

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)

Objective 3 Archaeological Assessment Findings
  • WSDOT did not follow a consistent documented
    protocol for addressing Section 106 of the
    National Historic Preservation Act compliance
  • 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
  • Direct effects of the depth of sheet piling,
    location of bioswales, staging areas, and the
    depth of piping were not defined.

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

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

Objective 3 Archaeological Assessment
  • 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

Objective 3 Archaeological Assessment
  • 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

Objective 4 Interactions with Interested Parties
- Findings
  • WSDOT initiated formal consultation late in the
    process through a letter to Lower Elwha Klallam
  • Letter sent to the LEKT the same day a request
    for proposal was sent to the archaeological
  • 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.

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.

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.

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.

Objective 5 Fiscal Review - WSDOT Budget for
Hood Canal Bridge East Half Replacement Project
470 M
195 M
275 M
June 2003
March 2006
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
Objective 5 Fiscal Review - Findings
  • Adjustments within program budget made consistent
    with internal project control policies and
  • 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.

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.

Summary of Conclusions and Lessons Learned
  • Project and contract management, geological and
    cultural resources assessments, and communication
    and consultation practices inconsistent with best
  • Project budget and expenditure reporting complex
    and economic analysis of alternatives not
  • Excellent engineering design work and
    communication concerning bridge closure
  • 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.

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