River Bank Erosion

Case Study: The Trans Canada

Highway Bridge at Beaver River,
Glacier National Park

Introduction
The Beaver River is
incising the bank near the
eastern abutment of the
bridge of the Trans
Canada Highway
The implications of this
potentially include a wash
out of the TCH, which
would be devastating to
transportation, tourism
and the BC economy

Background: River Bank Erosion

What causes river
bank erosion?
2 main mechanisms:
Bank scour
Mass failure

What is bank scour?

The direct removal of
bank materials by the
action of flowing
water and the sediment
it carries
Flow rate is a major
factor

What is mass failure?

A section of the bank
slides or falls into the
river (collapse or
slumping)
Common with
undermining of the toe
of the bank

Contributing factors to erosion:

Flooding
Land use and stream management
Clearing of river bank vegetation
River straightening
Rapid flow drop after flooding
Saturation of banks from non-river sources
Redirection and acceleration around
infrastructure or debris in the channel
Intense rainfall events
Bank soil characteristics (easily erodible, poor
drainage)

Affects of erosion at a bridge

Case Study:
River bank erosion of Beaver River at
the Trans Canada Highway Bridge

What we did
Why did we do this?
History of the area
Observations and Methodology
Assessment
Flow measurements
Discharge measurements
Pebble count
Sediment collection and sieve analysis
Aerial photo review
Historical climate and discharge trends
Results
Field results
Lab results
Conclusions
Implications

Our purpose
Why is the river eroding the bank?
How fast is the bank being eroded?
What are the implications of this bank
erosion?

Background history
CPR first built railway through here in 1885
The Rogers Pass section of highway was
completed in 1962
Highway dips into the Rocky Mountain
Trench (east of Rogers Pass)
Trench created by a major fault, limestone
of the Rockies to the east and metamorphic
rocks of the Selkirks to the west

More background
TCH is a major transportation corridor
Through traffic in GNP increases by about
1-2% annually

TCH thru traffic 1960 to 2001 (Parks Canada)

The Beaver River

A tributary of the Columbia River

Main source is the Beaver Glacier in GNP
Mouth is at the Kinbasket Lake
Total drainage basin = 1,150 km2
Max discharge in 1985 (429m3/s on May
20th)
Major flood in July 1983

Drainage area
of the Beaver
River

Bridge History

Bridge length = 42 metres

Single abutment mid-span
Concrete
Age unknown, possibly
original (1962) but has
more recent characteristics
(adapted for snowplows)
Some armouring on east
side

Major Field Observations

Site Diagram

Major Field Observations

Assessment

Field Methods: Flow measurements

Pooh sticks
Large error associated with
method
More accurate methods:
Weir
Flow meter
Dye testing

Field Methods: Discharge estimates

Measurement of channel width
and depth to get a cross-section
Channel width - tying a rock to
the end of the measuring tape
and throwing it across the
channel
Channel depth wading in
where possible, otherwise
guessing
Large error associated with
these methods
Need waders, measuring tape
and ruler take depth
measurements at intervals to
get an idea of bed morphology

Field Methods: Pebble count

Established transects along point bars upstream and near
the bridge
Sampled approx every 5 metres along transect, measuring
3 axes of 10 random pebbles
Should have conducted at more locations, and one
downstream

Field/Lab Methods: Sediment

collection & sieving
Collection of 3 samples at eroding
bank
Near water level, in organic layer, above
organic layer

Subject samples to standard set of

sieves
Weigh each sub-sample
Should have used
hydrometer for silts
and clays

Lab Method: Aerial photos

Acquired aerial photographs from 1986,
1994 and 2004
Attempted to measure movement of channel
meanders, point bars and banks
Unfortunately, most photos were at too
small of a scale

Lab Method: Historical climate

and discharge trends
Examined maximum instantaneous discharge
records for the WSC site Beaver River at Mouth
Compared discharge events to precipitation levels
over the same time period
Goal: to determine the impact of non-precipitation
sources on discharge
Too many possible causes of discharge variation

Results: Assessment
Rapid Assessment of Channel Stability
Stability Indicator
Bank soil texture and
coherence
Average bank slope
angle
Vegetative bank
protection
Bank cutting
Mass wasting or bank
failure
Bar development
Debris jam potential
Obstructions, flow
deflectors and sediment
traps
Channel bed material
consolidation and
armouring
Shear stress ratio
High flow angle of
approach to bridge
Bridge distance from
meander impact point
Percentage of channel
constriction
Total
Overall Rating (R )

Rating

Weight

Weighted
Value

0.6

3.6

11

0.6

6.6

8
9

0.8
0.4

6.4
3.6

9
6
11

0.8
0.6
0.2

7.2
3.6
2.2

0.2

1.8

3
8

0.8
1

2.4
8

0.8

1.6

10

0.8

2
-

0.8
-

1.6
56.6
Fair

Ratings
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor

Values
Overall R
(1-3)
R < 32
(4-6)
32 <= R < 55
(7-9)
55 <= R < 78
(10-12)
R >= 78

Results: Flow measurements

Flow Rate Estimations

Flow Rate (m/s)

2.5
2

1.95

1.5
1.30
1

1.14

0.5
0
Upstream of bridge

Just before bridge

Downstream of bridge

Location

Notice a decrease in flow rate from upstream of the bridge

to downstream
Possibly due to channel deepening or widening or
subsurface flow
Likely due to crude methodology

Results: Discharge estimates

From estimated cross-section and estimated
velocity:
Discharge = 19.99 m3/s

Compare with WSC hydrometric data for Sept 10

to 11th
Ratio of average discharge over 2 days to the
drainage area = 33.38 m3/s : 1150 km2
and ratio of discharge over 2 days to OUR
drainage area = x : 437 km2
X = 12.68 m3/s
We were a little off

Percent (%)

45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0

38.6

8.7

2.000

4.6

4.6

4.8

4.7

4.6

4.5

4.7

1.700

1.400

1.000

0.710

0.595

0.500

0.355

8.2

0.125

12.0

0.075

<
0.075

0.8m from
surface
Highest amt
muds, some
very coarse
sand

Sieve Size (mm)

Sample B
35.0

28.6

Percent (%)

30.0
25.0
20.0
13.4

15.0
10.0

5.4

5.2

5.3

6.2

6.0

5.6

5.5

6.1

2.000

1.700

1.400

1.000

0.710

0.595

0.500

0.355

0.0
0.125

1.2m from
surface, in
organic layer

12.6

5.0
0.075

<
0.075

Mainly muds,
some very fine
sand

Sieve Size (mm)

Sample A
35.0

1.7m from
surface

31.3

30.0
Percent (%)

Results:
Sediment
sieve
analysis

Sample C

25.0
20.0

16.1

15.0
10.0
5.0

4.7

4.7

4.7

4.8

4.8

4.7

4.8

5.2

2.000

1.700

1.400

1.000

0.710

0.595

0.500

0.355

14.3

0.0

Sieve Size (mm)

0.125

0.075

<
0.075

Highest amt
of very fine
sand

Results: Pebble counts

Pebble Count for Upstream Bar
57

50
38

40
30
20
10

0
< 3 (medium pebble)

> 3 < 6.4 (large

pebble)

> 6.4 < 26 (cobble)

> 26 (boulder)

Grain Size (cm)

Pebble Count for Bar Closest to Bridge

Number of Pebbles

Show slight
difference
downstream
Likely due to
change in flow
Need more
locations for this
data to truly be
useful

Number of Pebbles

60

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

75
58

6
< 3 (medium pebble)

1
> 3 < 6.4 (large
pebble)

> 6.4 < 26 (cobble)

Grain Size (cm)

> 26 (boulder)

Results: Aerial photo analysis

1994
1986

2004

Results: Aerial photo analysis

Evidence of bar migration and change in
river morphology
A gross estimate of rate of erosion based on
aerial photos
We couldnt calculate one

Results: Historical climate/drainage data

Beaver River (at mouth) - Flow and Precipitation
450

700

400
600

350
500

400

250

200

300

150
200
100

100
50

0
1988

1991

1994
Year

1997

2000

2004

Total Precipitation (mm)

Discharge Rate (m 3/s)

300

WSC
Discharge
Rate
Average
relationship
Annual
Precipitation*
Golden

Represents
glacial input to
discharge
Evidence of
other factors
influencing
discharge other
than
precipitation

Conclusions
Why is the river eroding the bank?
Due to river meander aggravated by high
flow events in summer months, less-cohesive
bank material, debris obstructions, poor riprap
construction

How fast is the bank eroding?

Changes noted in the aerial photos but nothing
directly related to the current erosion

Conclusions
What are the implications?
Undermining of bridge construction
Wash out of TCH
Closure of TCH would have huge impact on
tourism (especially in summer months during high
flow periods)
economy (main route from BC to the east)

References

Fahnestock, R.K., Morphology and Hydrology of a Glacial Stream White River, Mount Rainer
Washington (1963), Geological Survey Professional Paper 422-A
Lagasse, P.F., Schall, J.D., Richardson, E.V., Stream Stability at Highway Structures Third Edition,
(2001), National Highway Institute, US Department of Transportation, Publication No. FHWA NHI
01-002
Woods, J.G., Glacier Country, (2004), Friends of Mount Revelstoke and Glacier, BC, ISBN 0-921806-16-7
http://www.wsc.ec.gc.ca/hydat/H2O/index_e.cfm?cname=WEBfrmPeakReport_e.cfm
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/trends/Table_1.cfm?T=CSD&PRCODE=59&GeoCo
de=39019&GEOLVL=CSD
http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/trafficData/tradas/inset3.asp
http://www.transcanadahighway.com/britishcolumbia/TCH-BC-E5.htm
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/archives/national_park/mcr_0219?maxwidth=800&maxheig
ht=800&mode=navigator&upperleftx=4160&upperlefty=464&lowerrightx=7360&lowerrighty=3664
&mag=0.125
Google Earth
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/files/OGL98036.jpg&
imgrefurl=http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/DisplayImage.cfm%3FID%3D202&usg=__KiKSL2f
QG-t5i2scmDiz4iWGsxI=&h=400&w=393&sz=69&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=cGZW6haL7ve7M:&tbnh=124&tbnw=122&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dudden%2Bwentworth%2Bscale%26um%3D
1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-ca:IE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7GGLR%26sa%3DN
http://www.pc.gc.ca/docs/v-g/bc/glacier/pd-mp/sec8/page1_E.asp
www.arcc.osmre.gov/HydroToys.asp
http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/hydraulics_lab/workshops/flowmeasurementworkshop_files/swoff
er.jpg