Port Angeles graving yard update If you recall, this was a bridge project that ended up being halted when a major site was found. A short news account of the findings of the DOT is here and the report in full is here. Chapter 4 describes the original archaeological survey and the reasons why it failed to find the large site:

Why was not the cultural resource significance of the graving dock site successfully identified in the Cultural Resources Survey?

The question is underscored by the fact that the background investigation conducted as part of the Cultural Resources Survey clearly recognized the existence somewhere in the feneral area of Tse-whit-zen village and strongly suggested the possible existence and significance of its cemetery.

One bad thing for the archaeologists involved, seen on p. 46 is the seeming inability of the field investigator to state whether or how much of the materials obtained through augering and trenching were actually screened. That seems a bit sloppy. The principal investigator also did not visit the site at all, though the report doesn't state whether the presence of a "more experienced archaeologist than the assigned field investigator" had any effect on the results. It also notes that in many cases where augering was attempted, subsurface concrete from historic constructions hindered collecting anything underneath.

The basic conclusion (p. 53-54) kind of equivocates:

WSDOT believes that the Section 106 assessment, while procedurally in order and on its face in accordance with regulatory requirements, was not onducted with the thoroughness, care or insight that it should have received in light of the information available about the site.

They cite four basic failures:
-- Inadequate background research and field procedures by the consultants (1)
-- Lack of resources on both the WSDOT and Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation to monitor the consultant's work (2 and 3)
-- Failure on the Tribe's part (they word it as "failure of the consultation process with the Tribe") to provide information about the site that they knew (4)

That latter will surely draw a response from the tribes.

They also go into the post-prehistoric uses of the site for construction also interfering with access and visibility of the stratigraphically lower deposits, which seems to me to be the biggest contributor.

But read the whole thing, it's fascinating.