ATHABASCA – While it isn’t an immediate problem in need of a quick resolution, Athabasca County will likely have to contribute financially towards an estimated $1.9 million repair of the Athabasca River Bridge, the total cost of which Alberta Pacific Forest Industries is also willing to contribute $600,000.
That was the upshot of a presentation given to Athabasca County councillors at their Feb. 8 meeting by two representatives of Al-Pac — Woodlands manager Keith Windeler and director of operations Allan Danrother — regarding the current state of the bridge.
“Am I saying that this is dire and has to be done this year? No. I asked that question of the engineers,” said Windeler. “More than likely, it can (wait) another year.”
According to background information supplied to council, the Athabasca River Bridge and adjoining C-Road were originally built by the provincial government as their commitment to the construction of the $1.2 billion Al-Pac pulp mill.
In exchange, Al-Pac committed to funding maintenance of the gravel surface of the C-Road, though the paved surface of the bridge deck was not part of their responsibility.
The nearby gravel road was also paved under the auspices of the Resource Road Program, with Al-Pac covering Athabasca County’s portion of the work.
Windeler said that in 2020, the paved surface of the bridge started to break up and potholes developed.
Ultimately, Al-Pac called in WSP Engineering to assess the causes of the road failure, which they determined to be the result of the bridge deck losing its water proofing membrane.
“They’ve determined the membrane has lifted and moisture is getting in there, and it’s causing the pavement to fail,” Windeler said.
While Al-Pac patched the potholes, WSP developed a plan to repair the bridge entirely. The firm indicated that another provincial bridge at Peace River with the same kind of design was recently repaired for the same kind of failure at a cost of $2 million.
Windeler indicated that Al-Pac had recently reached out to Athabasca County officials regarding the condition of the bridge deck and the estimated $1.9 million in repairs that are eventually required.
Windeler noted that the $1.9 million price tag is only an estimate, and it could be higher or lower depending on the condition of the rebar in the bridge deck. And as noted earlier, Al-Pac itself is willing to contribute $600,000 towards the project.
He indicated that the company is planning to do a test this spring or summertime that will determine the extent of the corrosion, which will cost the company about $24,000.
Reeve Brian Hall said it was clear that work was needed to maintain the bridge, adding that the pulp mill is of “critical importance” to the region and there aren’t a lot of other spots where a river crossing would be feasible.
Council reaction
Later in the meeting, after passing a motion to accept Al-Pac's presentation for information, Coun. Rob Minns asked where the county was sitting in terms of the project and whether they would tap into a program like STIP (Strategic Transportation Infrastructure program) to pay for the repairs.
Administration officials indicated that there were a lot of questions around this bridge structure, as while the road is provincially owned, the bridge is maintained by Al-Pac.
It was noted that Alberta Transportation carries out inspections of various bridges and this particular bridge was set for another inspection after the last one occurred in 2019.
Hall noted that a local MLA (he didn’t specify which one) has been advocating for a much larger STIP program as the pool has remained too small for too long.
Councillors wondered if it would be possible to resolve the question of who owns the bridge before the Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) spring conference, where councillors will have a chance to meet with provincial representatives.
Deputy reeve Ashtin Anderson said the county would need a meeting with the minister just on this project alone rather than lumping it in with a bunch of other issues.
For that reason, she said resolving the ownership dilemma before the RMA convention wasn’t really that important.
“We need more than 15 minutes to discuss this,” she said.
