MD Council agrees to tender possible solution for Bruder Bridge problem

"Bruder Bridge" and Drywood Creek
C. Davis file photo

Chris Davis

As reported here previously, the June 2014 rain event in southern Alberta caused significant damage to Bridge 2064 ("Bruder Bridge") and Range Road 29-2, which leads to the bridge. Drywood Creek re-routed itself during the event, washing away a section of roadway between the south abutment and the bridge, creating a gap in the roadway where the river now courses, rendering the bridge/road impassable. The rain event also caused serious sloughing issues for nearby roads. On August 26 citizen Tony Bruder appeared before Council as a delegation to present his concerns. At the September 9 meeting of council Bruder was also in attendance to hear council's deliberations on the matter. At that meeting a report from Director of Operations Leo Reedyk dated September 3, 2014 regarding the situation was tabled due to Reedyk's absence from the meeting for personal reasons. At the September 23 meeting of council Reedyk was in attendance. He explained to council where the matter currently stood.


 "Following the events, based on multiple issues, we commissioned WSP (WSP Lethbridge, an engineering/consulting firm) to provide us with some technical and engineering solutions to the two different situations," Reedyk said, referring to the bridge and the road as potentially two separate issues for discussion purposes. "We received that report about the same time that Mr. Bruder attended council as a delegation to present his concerns."

Council spent considerable time listening to and discussing possible solutions to the issues, which included considerable input and suggestions from, and discussions with, WSP's Jim Bester and Russell Pinchak.

A letter by Tony and Lorraine Bruder to council dated August 21, 2014 explained their concerns as homeowners directly affected by the impassable bridge and damaged roadways. "The bridge has been a constant problem since its construction in the 1950s, as it is too small to handle the Drywood Creek during high water events," their letter explains. "After the high water event of 1995 it was decided to lower the abutment on the south side of the bridge to accommodate future high water events. This has caused the creek to go over the road for an average of two weeks every spring as well as other high water events during the year (August long weekend 2013). As this is a school bus route on an MD road and bridge, this was and still is unacceptable. While the road is out of use we are required to drive our kids 4 miles to meet another bus route. While the MD road is out of use, it adds 8 miles for us to get to Pincher Creek (one way) as we have to go around past Twin Butte. We have been hearing from MD Council and staff since the MD took over the road from Gulf Canada back in 1984 that there will be improvements made. At one time the MD was offered a larger bridge by the Department of Transportation with the clause that the MD was to carry out the road work, the MD turned it down. We feel that this has gone on too long and it is time to get something done on this issue."

The letter continues "As well as this bridge being too small to handle high water events, it is also too narrow to accommodate most farm machinery. Many of the local farms and ranches use this road to access other properties of their operations. This means a creek crossing, which in the spring or winter cannot be done, or traveling extra miles by having to go around on Highway #6 which during summer tourism months is quite dangerous. I talked with Leo Reedyk in May of this year about building a better approach on the north end of the bridge onto the MD road to make it easier for large equipment to access the road after crossing the creek. He, in that conversation, suggested a wider "forestry bridge", and that I write a letter to council suggesting such."

Leo Reedyk's report to council confirms the inadequacy of the bridge (and others in the area) for farming use, saying "There are no bridges between Highway 6 and the Waterton River Dam that are adequate to transport large farm equipment across the Drywood Creek".

The Bruders' letter also addresses concerns relating to roadway areas nearby which, combined with the impassable bridge, they say could result in them having no access to their home. "Farther south on MD Range Road 29-2A there has been major sliding below the road above Yarrow Creek. In two places within 75 yards of one another, the bank has been cut to the base of the MD road. This has been going on since the 1995 flood as well. The MD did some road work just south of these two slides about 4 years ago. When meeting with Leo Reedyk about this issue we discussed the sliding in the other two areas. It was decided By MD administration that nothing had to be done at that time. If the sliding continues at the current rate, Range Road 29-2A will not be passable within 5 years. This will leave us no access to our place if there is not work done on either the bridge or the slides."

"Regarding MD Township Road 4-1A south of our place. This road was very poorly built causing extreme drifting during winter months. It is also below MD standards for width."

"Regarding MD Range Road 29-3 north of Township Road 4. This road also was very poorly constructed. It is below MD standard for width, has very poor visibility due to many rolling hills, and has extreme drifting problems in the winter months as well. There have been many near misses on this road due to width and the fact that you cannot see very far ahead due to the roller coaster type road. It is almost impossible for large vehicles to pass due to width."

During the September 9 meeting of council Tony Bruder showed council the affected areas on a projected map.

"If this is the only access to the residents in this area due to the frequent bridge closers, these roads will have to be improved," the Bruders' letter continues. "If not, it will not be long before there is a major accident."

"This is not an issue for only the Bruder Family. There are many residents in the area that frequently use this road. The employees of Twin Butte Energy use this road as their main access to their gas field to the south of the main facility. It is also used by many non-residents as a short cut from the east to the Twin Butte Store and well as Waterton Park."

According to Director of Operation Leo Reedyk's report "Following the rain event, considering the damage to the creek crossing and the potential for further damage to the road, administration requested WSP to look at options for repair to the two areas of concern. In August, following their investigation, WSP provided reports giving options for the bridge and road. The options include minimal work to allow for continued use to complete realignment to minimize future disruption".

Council discussed at length several possible solutions to the sloughing problems associated with the roadways, and possible solutions, before later deciding to concentrate on the bridge issue as a more pressing concern. For easier understanding, discussions held during two different parts of the council meeting are here combined into one (hopefully) coherent whole.

Reedyk's report says that "In addition to funding from the Alberta Disaster Recovery Program should the Province declare the event a disaster, funding may also be available from the Alberta Community Resilience Program".

Reedyk's report state that options Council could move forward with include:

• Do nothing and wait for the Disaster Recovery Program to be announced for 2014 prior to rehabilitating the bridge and or the hill
• Take action to ensure the hill to the South is stable and do nothing to the bridge until a funding source is identified:
• Relocate the existing bridge structure over the new creek channel using 2015 MSI funding
• As the repairs have been ongoing, and the bridge is inadequate, apply for an Alberta Community Resilience Program grant to cover the cost of upgraded approaches to and bridge over the Drywood Creek.

According to the WSP report, the bridge is a single span 18.3 m long and 3.3 m wide Bailey type bridge, considered to be narrow, but still in good structural condition "but in a deep valley and likely only designed to accommodate" a 1:10 year  flood" and "In later correspondence it is suggested 1:5". In 1987 "high flows washed out the north roadway behind the bridge abutment" and in 1991 "high flows washed out the north roadway a second time." In 1995 there was "construction of a guide bank on the northwest corner of the bridge to direct flow beneath the bridge and prevent further washouts". Between 2002-2004 there was "Design and construction of spurs/groynes southwest of the bridge to resist further erosion toward the south".

The WSP report says the "Multiple options have been considered at this location for attempting to control the flow or direct the flow beneath the existing bridge but the bridge opening can only handle so much flow. More river training options can be considered, but they would likely be short term repairs".

The WSP report offers three "Preliminary Recommendations":

• Elimination of the crossing entirely
• Construction of a new crossing (either at this location or on an alternate alignment at a different location)
• Repairs/Modification to this existing crossing.

"First consideration should be given to taking a critical look at the local infrastructure and determining whether this crossing is required."

The WSP report also states that the crossing location should be reconsidered.

"If it is determined that a crossing must be maintained, then a new crossing on an alternate alignment would be the ideal solution. The existing crossing location is a poor choice for a bridge structure and functional planning would be recommended to determine cost effective alignments to minimize bridge length, road work and environmental impacts. The cost of a new crossing is difficult to predict, but looking at the upstream and downstream structures, BF 903 on Highway 6 is 113m long and SF 479 downstream is 62m long we could assume a new structure would be a 60-70m long bridge. A structure of this type would cost $4M in addition to engineering and any roadwork to realign the roadway. Depending on the alignment chosen, 1-2 km of roadwork may be required,at an estimated cost of $500K/km."

"A third option, which would likely be the least expensive, would be to continue to repair the existing bridge and look at options for enhancing it. Some of those options considered are adding an additional span (likely another bailey bridge or two longer ones), a low level crossing, moving the existing span across the new channel or repairing the roadway and realigning the creek back beneath the existing bridge. Of these options, we would suggest investigating adding an additional span or possibly reusing the existing substructure to install two new, longer bailey-type bridges."

"Low level crossings typically require frequent maintenance (any high flow will mean the roadway is closed and leave drift, the road likely gets closed during spring flows due to ice jamming, etc.), environmental agencies very seldom will approve low level crossings and are actively trying to remove existing ones. The size of culverts required, the amount of concrete and rock protection to protect them make them cost prohibitive. Low level crossings are also designed for only 10-15 years of service."

Environmental concerns also have to be factored into any plan, according to the WSP report.

"As has been evident historically, repairing the road and attempting to direct flow beneath the existing structure has been temporary and costly. Relocating the existing span over the new channel location may be physically possible, but from both a hydraulic and environmental point of view it would still be perceived as constricting the channel and be a short term solution. Environmental agencies tend to look at the history of a structure and are critical of short term solutions. Repairs may be permitted once but not multiple times. Should the MD prefer a short term solution, the most favorable would be to relocate the existing span but there would likely be resistance from Environment."

After some discussion of three options presented by WSP, the third option , a movable "jimbob" bridge to span the gap became the focused of discussion. Councillor Fred Schoening asked questions about how a Jimbob bridge might accommodate farm equipment for access. Councillor Garry Marchuk asked questions about excavating the river bed to provide a channel to matched the water flow. "I would suspect that the cost it would take to do that is as much, if not more (as replacing the bridge), and I suspect more than that, said WSP's Jim Bester. "Yeah, you could put it back under there (the channel). I wouldn't recommend it, because I think you would be fighting a river," Bester added.

"The substructure is about $200,000 bucks for this," Bester said. "Your abutments are where your biggest cost is." Bester said it would cost close to $100,000 to remove the old bridge.

"What is traditionally the space you try to leave under a bridge like this, like a Jimbob bridge, so that you have a maximum amount of flow and out-go there?" asked councillor Schoening. "That one there, I would say it's about 8 feet," replied WSP's Russel Pinchak. "That's fairly traditional, for a bridge over that size of a river. If you get six foot clearance in a 100 foot wide, that's a lot of water. Six to eight feet, I think, will do the job."

"This thing has been done to death, studied to death, and repaired many times," Bester added. "It's a low volume bridge. You can't design for that use for maximum. He said a Jimbob bridge is versatile and could be moved a later date, if so desired. "It's an asset."

Councillor Terry Yagos summed up the estimated cost for installing a Jimbob bridge as $550,000, including the removal of the old bridge. "How long does it take to get this bridge up?" he asked. "Is this a two year bridge project, or a couple of months?" Bester indicated it would take an estimated two to four months. Councillor Schoening asked if the old bridge could be reused elsewhere. "Yes."

"Is there any hope of getting that done this year?" asked Reeve Hammond. "You've got October, November December, three months. Yeah, it could be done," Bester replied. "The beauty of this is that it is a delivery model. There's not a whole of of erection to be done."

Councillor Grant McNab said he wanted to make a motion to tender the contract work for a Jimbob bridge "As soon as we could, I think we should start." Councillor Schoening agreed in principle, saying "The fact that we can go ahead with it at this point in time, and get it done this year is something that we have to really seriously look at." Schoening did caution that "If the tenders come in too high, we'll have to revisit it."

Council unanimously agreed to ask for tenders for the installation of a 100 foot jimbob bridge, including new substructure, rip-rap, and engineering, at an estimated cost of $460,000. Once the tenders have been submitted the issue is to return to council for discussion.

Related story:  Washed out road a concern for Twin Butte area landowner