As you know, we have all been told that the fragments were obtained from a few feet below the floor of the Narrows waterway, and this occurred as a result of the TNC unearthing them during the process of construction of the caissons for the 2007 Narrows Bridge. It has been suggested by them that they are fragments of the 1940 Narrows Bridge. You may also be aware of the required notification by the WSDOT to the WA State Historic Presrvation Officer in Feb. of 2003, that the Galloping Gertie historical site had been adversely affected by the new bridge construction.

Subsequently, the investigation of Gertie remains underwater in 2004 found that some degree of damages had occurred, though the amount & degree of damages are unclear. Due to this acknowledgement by the TNC and WSDOT, Federal law mandated some sort of mitigation to take place. Several options for satisfying mitigation had been suggested, and by various entities. Those suggestions ranged from: (1) Abandonment of the new caisson’s anchor chains to minimize the ongoing damages of the current’s dragging the chains across Gertie remains, (2) Completing a comprehensive exam of Gertie remains and producing a documented record after the new bridge was completed, (3) Establishing a dive path for sports divers, (4) Installation of underwater cameras along Gertie remains, (5) WA State approval to sink a large vessel in Puget Sound within a sport diving range, and (6) Possibly recovering & preserving parts of Gertie’s roadway- side girders- support structure, etc. for display at an appropriate facility or Museum; all these being among the suggestions for satifying mitigation. To date, the only action taken has been on the latter suggestion.

Granted, I am not an expert in any particular field that has to do with this subject. My higher education was in the architectural engineering field, of which I successfully completed a 2 year course. My experience in regards to the subject I am writing to you about comes from self-education, and much research, as well as discussions with people knowledgeable in various fields relating to the bridges, and their history. I am compelled to relay my thoughts and concerns to you, in hopes of providing you additional input with the Museum being handed a “can of worms” in the name of Gertie fragments.

I have several concerns that lead me to be of the opinion that these fragments have nothing to do with Gertie, and therefore they are questionable as to their true source.

After my examination of these metal parts, and having taken photos, as well as examining other’s photos of the fragments; I additionally researched the blueprints, and compared measurements and conditions of various details. I re-examined the history of Gertie’s collapse, and the dismantling of what was left of the 1940 bridge. I again looked at the history of building the 1950 bridge. I re-examined known Narrows bridge remains. In no aspect of this research could I find even one item that would verify the claim that the fragments were from Gertie. Quite the contrary, I found several facts that disprove the claim, and more than one reason to be wary of a possibly intentional deception.

To summarize my findings, please consider:
- To the best of my knowledge, none of the fragments is a match on any of Clark Eldridge’s blueprints, nor Pacific Car & Foundry, nor Bethlehem Steel for the Gertie bridge parts or components. I did not find a complete match for the rivet holes pattern, or spacing throughout any particular fragment, nor the size & overall shape (as best as could be determined) of the fragments. At best I found some hole spacings as a match- but not the hole patterns. The fragments have numerous jagged edges, and even given that they are lacking but a select few factory straight edges & that they are parts of larger original components of something, I could not find any Gertie plan that shows any component these may have been part of. Fragment #1 has the straightest edges of the group, but the hole spacing & overall size measurements do not match anything on the plans.

- The thickness of the metal in some areas, such as on fragment #5, being much thinner on some edges, therefore not uniform across the surface is not consistent with the collapse of the bridge, or subsequent dis-assembly of the bridge remainder. The collapse occurred with the concrete road deck breaking & falling, the main cable band cutting into the cable, which allowed for slack in tension, and then the main span girders fell apart & into the water. The remaining towers, side spans, and main cables were carefully dis-assembled after the collapse. No action of compressing metal components ever occurred, therefore the fragments that have compressed metal evident on them would not be from Gertie.

- Each fragment varies in twisting & contortions from moderate to extreme. In some places middle portions have experienced severe forces, even while still attached to an adjacent part that it was originally fastened to. The forces that would be necessary to produce such damages to thick metal did not occur in Gertie’s collapse, and surely did not occur in the later disassembly of what was left of Gertie. The towers, and much of the metal recovered from the Gertie recycling did, in fact, get used in construction of several other bridges in Washington after 1942. In other words, the metal reclaimed from Gertie in 1941/42 was in very good condition to be able to be used again.

- A number of the fragments have brackets, or bracing attached at angles in relation to the length of the fragment. I find no part or component of Gertie that has such an angle bracing, let alone any bracing at all.

- The fragments lack crustation normally seen in salt-water saturated metal, as evident on the known Gertie remains, including remains under ground that I have found. The reason for this lack of crustation has been suggested that because the fragments were buried, they did not develop crust. This reason does not apply to the history of Gertie underwater remains, as they did not get buried at the time; and during the subsequent years of tidal flow only the lower most portions have been somewhat covered by the sea floor.

- The location given by the TNC as their origination of discovery invalidates them from being parts of Gertie. When Gertie collapsed, it was during an out-going tide; which flows to the north in that location. If any part of Gertie were to have been carried by the tide before it made it’s way to the sea floor- it would have traveled to the north. The location these fragments are claimed to come from is to the south of where Gertie fell.

- The parts that Gertie consists of were a concrete road deck over framework and rebar “screening”, the girder sides, the main and suspender cables, and the towers. The only parts that collapsed were the main span’s roadway and framework/girders, as well as a small amount of suspender cabling. The main cables, most of the suspender cables, the side spans, and the towers were all removed, with very minor exceptions. These exceptions amount to a relatively small amount of rebar filled concrete (as compared to the entire roadway) , and small sections of metal framing. But again, this after-the-fact debris was not of the size of the fragments, and was dropped in the location of each respective tower to each shore. If it fell into the water in these locations, the after-the-fact debris sank quickly, and straight down. It is not possible for the TNC fragments to be from Gertie in the location they claim to have been found.

- The TNC made no effort to verify either the location, nor the raising of the fragments. There exists (as far as I know) no documentation of who exactly performed this raising, when it occurred, the placement of the fragments before they were brought up, or the process at the time. This lack of documentation raises the question of legitimacy.

- The TNC, nor the WSDOT has not made any attempt (that I know of) to fulfill any term of mitigation, short of this action. This may be viewed as their sole action, and in their opinion, may be considered as the only requirement needed by them to perform mitigation, and therefore they may believe they have satisfied the Federal requirements.

- There exists in, not only the Narrows waterway, but in Commencement Bay, as well as most all waters; any amount of debris ranging from wood to metal to general trash. Ships have traveled this region’s waters since the late 1700’s, and the fragments, if they were really removed from the place the TNC claims, can legitimately be said to have come from any number of sources. Robert Mester knows of a munitions explosion that occurred near Point Fosdick during WW II, in which metal parts were strewn. The location of this 1940’s explosion is in the close vicinity of where the fragments are claimed to have come from. These fragments could be from that source, among other possibilities.

The above determinations lead me to accurately and honestly state that the fragments cannot be attributed to Gertie without reasonable doubt. Although I tried numerous times, and different ways to confirm their association with Gertie, I have come to the same conclusion each time.

My skeptical nature also prompts me to wonder if this action by the TNC and the WSDOT has been an intentional deception, with motivation to pacify mitigation at the least expendature possible. Could it be simply put, that someone had scrap metal in their junkyard, and was told to bring it to the bridge construction site, the TNC dipped it in the water, brought it to the Tideflats, and then claimed it was brought up from the Narrows waterway & was Gertie parts? If this is a possibility (which I believe it is), then the Harbor History Museum, the Peninsula Historical Society, and all entities involved in proper preservation, and upholding Federal laws have been taken for a ride. If the TNC really did recover the fragments from the location stated, and in the manner stated by them, they may simply be assuming the fragments are from Gertie without any known facts to verify this. In that case, it would be a plain assumption with no deception intended- but the same ends being fulfilled mitigation.

If the Museum accepts that the fragments are Gertie parts, and continues with preservation & display of them as such; then the WSDOT will have successfully fulfilled their obligation for mitigation. If the Museum determines that there is enough evidence to reject the claim of these being from Gertie, or at least cannot positively verify that they are from Gertie and therefore cannot find reason to classify them as such; then the WSDOT will be left without satisfying any mitigation as yet, and must therefore proceed with another option. This decision of the fragments identity places the Museum in a sensitive situation. And it does not necessarily mean that the Museum has the last word on it either. The WSDOT could possibly hire a consultant, or supposed “expert” to make a statement that they are Gertie fragments, irregardless of the facts. Of course, if this were to happen, it would be a biased statement, paid for by the State- but not unheard of in a political world that the State is in. Also, if this were to happen, the Museum might be told that they have to accept the State’s decision, and proceed with the expense & display of materials in the Museum which are not proven to be genuine.

In closing, I write all this to you because I do not know if anyone else would, or will be as forthcoming & provide you with an independent assessement as I have here. My hopes are that you may discuss this fully with your Executive Directors, and the Historical Society, and proceed carefully given the highly skeptical details of these fragments. Any preservation expenditures already performed, and any future expenditures may be for not, if the fragments are indeed not from Gertie, and are in fact, simply scrap metal.