Engineers tell Portland Fish Pier Authority Service Piers need near-term repairs; service pier 1 highest priority

Tech Associates engineers told the Portland Fish Pier Authority on a Zoom meeting that parts of the fish pier complex show significant corrosion and that Service Pier 1 is the highest priority for repair.

The consulting team’s survey of sorting piers and service piers found that most of the sorting piers are in relatively good condition, but Service Pier 1 and parts of Service Pier 3 show enough section loss and damage in the splash/high‑tide zone that “something needs to be done in the near future,” Gordon Armstrong of Tech Associates said. Gabriel (Gabe) (Tech Associates) said several piles and braces measured “to zero” at specific locations during field testing, and that the worst damage is concentrated at the high‑tide splash zone.

Tech Associates said it modeled existing geometry, measured corrosion and compared the remaining capacity to applicable design loads. The engineers described their percent metric as “percent of allowable load in use,” where lower numbers are better and values above 100 percent indicate the element does not meet current code. “So that number would have to be close to 200%” before imminent failure in the worst case, Armstrong said, but he warned corrosion can accelerate and recommended monitoring and repairs rather than delay.

The firm presented three broad options for Service Piers 1 and 3: (1) full replacement of the service piers (highest cost, longest life); (2) targeted welded steel repairs, installation of battered piles and wrapped‑pile protection similar to work previously done on Sorting Pier 1; or (3) defer significant repairs and perform only minor corrective work (shortest extension of service). Armstrong and Gabe recommended starting planning and design work now so that work could be bid and completed within a 2–3 year window, if the board chose targeted repairs. Armstrong cited the earlier Sorting Pier 1 project as a precedent and referenced installed costs in past projects, saying the protective wrapped piles had been on the order of a few thousand dollars per pile — workshop comments in the meeting referenced roughly $4,000 per pile as a prior installed cost for that protection system.

Board members and staff asked questions about public safety and near‑term use. “I would say in the near future, something needs to be done,” Gabe said in response to a question about whether vehicles should be prohibited; Armstrong added that the structure was not at the point to require immediate shutdown but that the condition “is certainly the highest priority and should be repaired as soon as it’s practical.” Tech Associates recommended repeating the inspection on an annual or biannual schedule to update the capacity numbers and to support a timeline for funding and construction.

The consulting presentation also cataloged smaller maintenance items: fender piles that are poor or missing, ladders with defects (the board later reported many ladders have since been replaced), and localized sheet‑pile/bulkhead corrosion that Tech Associates judged lower priority than the service‑pier bracing and H‑pile concerns. The engineers noted sacrificial anodes remain in the waterline (installed or replaced in 2019) but do not protect steel that is exposed to air and salt residue in the splash zone, which explains concentrated corrosion near the high tide line.

Board members asked the firm to provide cost estimates, financing options and a draft schedule for planning and bidding. Tech Associates said it would provide options and cost ranges for: (a) targeted steel repair plus battered‑pile bracing and wrapped protection for the splash zone; (b) full replacement; and (c) limited short‑term repairs. The presentation closed with the engineers’ recommendation to begin designs and budgeting work soon so that repairs could be completed within the recommended 2–3 year timeframe for Service Pier 1 and follow‑on work on Service Pier 3.

The board did not vote on a contract or funding at the meeting; directors asked staff and the consultants to develop scopes, cost estimates and financing scenarios for future board consideration.