This report provides the results of a detailed Level II analysis of scour potential at structure ROYATH00920029 on Town Highway 92 crossing the First Branch White River, Royalton, Vermont (figures 1–8). A Level II study is a basic engineering analysis of the site, including a quantitative analysis of stream stability and scour (U.S. Department of Transportation, 1993). Results of a Level I scour investigation also are included in Appendix E of this report. A Level I investigation provides a qualitative geomorphic characterization of the study site. Information on the bridge, gleaned from Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTAOT) files, was compiled prior to conducting Level I and Level II analyses and is found in Appendix D.

The site is in the New England Upland section of the New England physiographic province in central Vermont. The 101-mi² drainage area is in a predominantly rural and forested basin. In the vicinity of the study site, the surface cover is pasture upstream and downstream of the bridge.

In the study area, the First Branch White River has an incised, sinuous channel with a slope of approximately 0.001 ft/ft, an average channel top width of 81 ft and an average bank height of 9 ft. The channel bed material ranges from sand to bedrock with a median grain size (D₅₀) of 1.18 mm (0.00347 ft). The geomorphic assessment at the time of the Level I site visit on July 23, 1996 and Level II site visit on June 2, 1995, indicated that the reach was stable.

The Town Highway 92 crossing of the First Branch White River is a 59-ft-long, one-lane bridge consisting of a 57-foot steel-stringer span (Vermont Agency of Transportation, written communication, March 23, 1995). The opening length of the structure parallel to the bridge face is 52.2 ft. The bridge is supported by vertical, concrete abutments with wingwalls. The channel is skewed approximately 20 degrees to the opening while the opening-skew-to-roadway is zero degrees.

A scour hole 4.0 ft deeper than the mean thalweg depth was observed in the upstream channel during the Level I assessment. The only scour protection measure at the site was type-2 stone fill (less than 36 inches diameter) along the upstream left and right wingwalls, the left abutment and downstream left wingwall. Additional details describing conditions at the site are included in the Level II Summary and Appendices D and E.

Scour depths and recommended rock rip-rap sizes were computed using the general guidelines described in Hydraulic Engineering Circular 18 (Richardson and others, 1995) for the 100- and 500-year discharges. In addition, the incipient roadway-overtopping discharge was determined and analyzed as another potential worst-case scour scenario. Total scour at a highway crossing is comprised of three components: 1) long-term streambed degradation; 2) contraction scour (due to accelerated flow caused by a reduction in flow area at a bridge) and; 3) local scour (caused by accelerated flow around piers and abutments). Total scour is the sum of the three components. Equations are available to compute depths for contraction and local scour and a summary of the results of these computations follows.

Contraction scour for all modelled flows ranged from 0.0 to 4.1 ft. The worst-case contraction scour occurred at the incipient roadway-overtopping discharge, which was less than the 100-year discharge. Left abutment scour ranged from 12.9 to 15.4 ft, where the worst-case abutment scour occurred at the 500-year discharge. Right abutment scour ranged from 14.5 to 15.0 ft, where the worst-case abutment scour occurred at the 100-year discharge. Additional information on scour depths and depths to armoring are included in the section titled “Scour Results”. Scoured-streambed elevations, based on the calculated scour depths, are presented in tables 1 and 2. A cross-section of the scour computed at the bridge is presented in figure 8. Scour depths were calculated assuming an infinite depth of erosive material and a homogeneous particle-size distribution.

It is generally accepted that the Froehlich equation (abutment scour) gives “excessively conservative estimates of scour depths” (Richardson and others, 1995, p. 47). Usually, computed scour depths are evaluated in combination with other information including (but not limited to) historical performance during flood events, the geomorphic stability assessment, existing scour protection measures, and the results of the hydraulic analyses. Therefore, scour depths adopted by VTAOT may differ from the computed values documented herein.