Caltrans offers new facts to support replacement at latest Albion River Bridge meeting

MENDOCINO CO., 10/1/24 — Caltrans surprised the Albion community again. At Thursday’s online meeting called to discuss why the Albion River Bridge needs to be replaced rather than restored as some have advocated, the state agency presented a mostly new mountain of facts about why the old bridge has plummeted in safety ratings in recent years and therefore must be replaced. Caltrans representatives presented a PowerPoint with information not seen at its earlier public meetings, with some of those findings also not in the environmental documents now open for comment. There was something else new at Thursday’s meeting—four local residents spoke in favor of a new bridge. 

The agency’s intent to replace the historic bridge began in 2007. In a compromise with critics back in 2017, Caltrans promised to work with the community to consider rehabilitating the iconic bridge, built with old-growth timbers and steel. But once lead was found in the soil under Salmon Creek Bridge and that structure fell off Caltrans’ schedule, Albion River Bridge moved up—and in the move, rehabilitation was abandoned in favor of five options for replacement bridges. At the last two public meetings, those options were the focal point of discussion, to the dismay of those who wanted to know why restoring the bridge had disappeared.

The 3000 pages of environmental reports never said why the agency had backtracked on considering rehabilitation. The massive document is essentially a showroom for the five different bridge options, with the public asked to choose one. Critics demanded that more facts be presented about why Caltrans had taken the rehabilitation option off the table. And to everyone’s surprise, Caltrans agreed to those demands. The agency extended the public comment deadline and quickly scheduled Thursday’s meeting, promising to give details about why they must replace, not save, the historic structure.

At that Sept. 26 meeting, an online crowd of 83 people was provided a mountain of mostly new information about critical problems with the bridge. The agency did not explain why this information wasn’t included in the original draft environmental impact report and other environmental documents. The meeting started with Caltrans experts giving short presentations. Then the meeting turned into a Q&A, with the Caltrans experts answering questions from the public.

In the opening, Caltrans’ Ryan Odell used PowerPoint to show close-up photos of cracking and splitting timbers and rusting bolts and girders. He described the process of annual inspections and analysis that Caltrans uses that in this case led to the ratings of the bridge’s components falling substantially in recent years. He even presented a previously unseen excerpt from a report from the federal government on how important it was to replace the bridge. 

Far more people got to speak on Thursday than at the August 13 meeting, which closed with thirty people waving their hands in the air, wanting to ask a question. Despite that, some were frustrated by the WebX online platform used for the virtual meeting. Despite numerous attempts by Caltrans to help, Alex Degrassi and Norbert Dall, two people who have commented regularly on the plans, could not make their microphone function work. Dall has an environmental consulting business in Sacramento and provided his comments to the Mendocino Voice by e-mail after the meeting.

He was dismayed by what he termed “considerable new information,” including the Federal Highway Administration’s report. Dall said the state needs to include the findings in a new report and begin an entirely new process with a new public comment period. (Public comment now closes on Oct. 9.)

Caltrans’ Odell said there are no comparable wooden bridges in California. Although there are 474 far smaller wooden bridges in California owned and maintained by local and private jurisdictions, none are highway bridges or on state routes. History, the key asset and wonder of the bridge, can’t be repeated with modern wood, Odell said.

In 1941, the California Department of Public Works was finishing up its spectacular project of building bridges from San Diego to Humboldt County along State Route 1 to make transportation and trade practical and far faster. Albion was next in line, as a 1922 wooden bridge located about 1000 feet east of the current bridge was failing badly, historical documents state. A double-arched concrete bridge across the Albion River was approved, but then bombs fell on Pearl Harbor, concrete was unavailable and the approved plans were canceled. County residents and the state scrambled to find materials not needed by the war effort. Old-growth redwood was picked in place of steel and concrete. For almost a year the project was delayed while a search for appropriate redwood went on. Timber companies and the Redwood Empire Association could find no redwood of sufficient quality and size, according to historical documents. (The term “old growth” was not in use in the 1940s.)

Finally, the War Board amended the order, according to a 1944 article in The Mendocino Beacon, to allow old-growth douglas fir to be used instead of redwood. The Wauna Timber Company sent giant fir logs from forests on the Columbia River in northern Oregon, according to documents obtained through Dall and the Caltrans Transportation Library in Sacramento. The documents confirm the fir was not recycled, contrary to longtime claims to that effect. It was feared that the fir might not last a century or more like ancient redwood timber. One report said the big timbers might need to be replaced as early as the late ‘60s. Instead, the original timbers remain strong after 80 years, which amazed Odell, who said in the meeting that he had never seen anything like how long the original timbers have lasted, especially in a hostile marine environment.

But there, he said, lies a key problem with both keeping the old bridge and fixing it up or replacing it with another timber bridge. Wood harvested now from second or third-growth trees is not as strong or long-lasting, a fact undisputed by timber companies, environmentalists or state agencies. “The timber is really special on this bridge,” Odell said. “I have never seen an 80-year-old timber bridge that hasn’t had new timber. This timber was special wood. It was cut from old-growth forests. We don’t have those anymore, so we can’t expect the same high quality timber that lasted as long as it has, because it’s just not available anymore.”

Replacing the tallest bridge on the Mendocino Coast with modern timbers wouldn’t produce a bridge with a comparable lifespan, due to the quality of modern wood. Old-growth lumber isn’t available for purchase, as the entire resource in private hands was logged in a short time, mostly before 1940.

This scotched the idea of rebuilding the bridge with new material as some at the meeting advocated. Instead, Caltrans has advanced essentially two designs, a causeway or one with an arch. They differ in where they begin and end. Several people who live near the bridge spoke at the online meeting, saying they love the iconic structure but fear it is unsafe.They backed Caltrans’ replacement efforts despite the inconvenience the project will cause. 

Architect Ann Zollinger said the bridge, however unique, needs to go.

“I live on Albion River South Side Road with probably one of the most spectacular views of the bridge. Plus, I will be severely impacted by use at the campground, because I can hear people talking on the dock, and additionally, I have an Airbnb, so I will be financially impacted. In spite of those three huge issues, I am a firm supporter of replacing the bridge,” she said.

Still, supporters of repairing the old bridge outnumbered those who want a new bridge. “There have been a lot of scary-looking photos shown here tonight,” said Jim Heid of the Albion Bridge Stewards. “I think that points to a lack of adequate maintenance on this bridge, particularly over the last decade or two. We have seen, looking at past bridge inspection reports, a direct correlation between routine, ongoing maintenance and the bridge rating.”

Dave Steinrueck of Albion warned Caltrans about legal challenges. “I want to mention that if… Caltrans were to see the legal campaign that is being mounted against you, you would pack up your bags and go home now,” Steinrueck said. “But of course, you already know that, because you know that the project won’t pass the legal status. But what I will say is that even if it passes, if you manage to push it through illegally, that this could be, if anything, a very humiliating defeat for your project.”

A man who gave his name as “Toby” spoke in favor of replacement and against lawsuits. “I love these people. They’re all from outlaw Albion, and they love the bridge, and I understand the bridge is unique. It is our Eiffel Tower, our Statue of Liberty. It’s when you see a picture of Albion, and that’s what you see,” he said. But, he continued, “Unfortunately,  Caltrans has a whole room full of lawyers, and no amount of lawyers will not be able to prevent them going ahead as they wish to go ahead. I’d be sorry to see this unique bridge leave. But I feel it’s inevitable, and people are wasting the time and the money by hiring lawyers trying to save it.”

Advocates of restoring the bridge have long sought something not found in the massive environmental documents—how much does it cost to maintain the bridge? How much has been spent? No answers were forthcoming on that point Thursday night.

Dall wrote in an email after the meeting, “Tellingly, Caltrans has not provided the history of performed and avoided or deferred maintenance of the Albion River Bridge, or a real budget based on the previous recommendations for maintenance, repair, and improvement work that its own bridge inspectors recommended.”

Odell provided a much more detailed report on the bridge’s current condition than was given at the August meeting. He said that the ancient wood has been cracking more lately, and those cracks, while at first not a structural problem, let water in to create rot inside the beams. He showed photos that can’t be seen from below of timbers with rotted interiors.

During the meeting, Odell described how bridge inspections are done. The agency uses drones to photograph the bridge before inspectors go up. He said some field inspectors are both engineers and proficient rope climbers. “You can put your hand in [the timbers] and pull material out,” he said, describing a photo in the PowerPoint presentation. “The outer surface looks fine, it looks OK on the outside, and that’s where treatment of the timber was applied. We are getting rot inside the members where there was not as much preservative if any. When we get rot inside, the strength is compromised.” 

He then shifted to the steel brackets that connect the beams. Odell showed photos of rusting metal connecting the timbers and said those are a concern. He also provided a slide that showed extensive loss on the edges of one part of the steel girder structure that supports the bridge where it goes over the river. “Here you can see a flange with edges rusting away. Almost looks like a mouse has been nibbling on it. That is a concern.“

He added, “It probably went through a couple of cycles of life as a railroad bridge also.” The steel girder in the Albion River Bridge was once a Feather River Canyon railroad bridge. It was removed from there in 1942 and transported to San Francisco where a steel fabrication plant refabricated it, after which it was trucked up the coast.

Odell detailed how the Albion River Bridge’s superstructure and substructure have been downgraded by Caltrans inspectors to poor condition and the deck to fair condition. When several people argued that the reason the bridge deteriorated in recent years was that Caltrans stopped doing needed maintenance when they decided to replace the bridge, Odell argued that was untrue and described maintenance efforts. (Dall said that polluted stormwater was incorrectly discharged from beneath the bridge and that correct maintenance and water distribution would have prevented the deterioration.) Odell also rebuffed criticism that Caltrans doesn’t have experience with wooden bridges. Several Caltrans employees chimed in to detail problems in their areas of expertise.

“A long history of inspection findings demands action. Maintaining the status quo is no longer an option,” said Jordan Main, an environmental specialist. 

In an email after the meeting, Dall said Caltrans needs to hire someone who has a sufficient background in wood bridges.

“Engineers Dr. Ben Brungraber and Dr. Dick Schmidt, who are nationally recognized timber structure experts, in 2018 assessed the Albion River Bridge, found it to be substantially over-designed and overbuilt, and generally in good condition…”  Dall wrote. 

At the meeting, Rixanne Wehren of the Sierra Club opposed the replacement but also asked for public access if the project does go forward. There is currently only paid access to the beach under the bridge. Caltrans plans to use that campground for several years during the project.

“If you are going to destroy this iconic bridge, what are you going to give back to the community?” Wehren asked. “You’re going to tear down the bridge and close up the campgrounds for most of the businesses for two to three, four or five years. How about offering something you can do for the community by making a parking place and access  to the river and the shoreline underneath the bridge?”

Caltrans reps once again did not address the public access question on Thursday nor did they respond to a question about whether they would consider building sidewalks beyond the end of the two bridges they will be replacing, the Salmon Creek and Albion River bridges.  Critics at the meeting pointed out little had been offered to mitigate the removal of the historically listed bridge, which is required by law. The Salmon Creek Bridge replacement project, set to start when the Albion River Bridge project is finished, was not discussed, though the bridges are separated by less than a mile. Caltrans did not respond to questions about how long construction disruption might go on for two major bridge projects in a row, which is what is now planned. However, Caltrans did say that rehabilitation would involve as many as 100 all-night closures and be a far bigger headache than replacement, where the old bridge is used while the new one is constructed alongside it. (This too is disputed by advocates of restoring the bridge, who say that replacement of rusting bolts and members with stainless steel would take less time than Caltrans estimates.)

The other issue raised about the meeting was the use of the WebX program, which was much harder to use than Zoom for many. Some didn’t get to speak or gave up entirely.

“Many people in the coastal and Albion area have no Wi-Fi or reliable Wi-Fi or a computer,” said Annemarie Weibel, a longtime activist for saving the historic bridge. “What happened was not exactly user-friendly. This was not in the spirit of the Coastal Act which should allow maximum opportunity for the public to  participate. Why not use Zoom, or better yet, have a true community in-person hearing?”

Dall ended his email with what he wanted to say the most, but could not do so despite the best efforts of Caltrans to make the WebX interface work for him. He wrote, “The mainly timber Albion River Bridge is a living, functional California historical monument of the first order that deserves to be preserved through proper maintenance, not destruction through benign neglect or by greenhouse glass belching manufactured concrete and quick-to-rust low-bidder Chinese steel.”

See the virtual meeting here:

Please find related coverage about this subject from The Mendocino Voice below.

The post Caltrans offers new facts to support replacement at latest Albion River Bridge meeting appeared first on The Mendocino Voice | Mendocino County, CA.