This report provides the results of a detailed Level II analysis of scour potential at structure CHESTH01180053 on Town Highway 118 crossing the Williams River, Chester, 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 southeastern Vermont. The 20.8-mi² drainage area is in a predominantly rural and forested basin. In the vicinity of the study site, the surface cover is predominantly suburban while the right bank upstream is pasture. There is a house on the right bank downstream and VT 103 runs parallel to the river along the left bank. In the study area, the Williams River has an incised, straight channel with a slope of approximately 0.005 ft/ft, an average channel top width of 64 ft and an average bank height of 7 ft. The channel bed material ranges from sand to boulder with a median grain size (D₅₀) of 58.0 mm (0.190 ft). The geomorphic assessment at the time of the Level I and Level II site visit on September 17, 1996, indicated that the reach was stable. The Town Highway 118 crossing of the Williams River is a 43-ft-long, one-lane bridge consisting of one 40-foot steel-beam span (Vermont Agency of Transportation, written communication, April 6, 1995). The opening length of the structure parallel to the bridge face is 37.6 ft. The bridge is supported by vertical, concrete abutments with wingwalls. The channel is skewed approximately 5 degrees to the opening while the computed opening-skew-to-roadway is 10 degrees. A scour hole 0.5 ft deeper than the mean thalweg depth was observed at both abutments during the Level I assessment. Scour protection measures at the site include: type-3 stone fill (less than 48 inches diameter) along the left bank upstream and downstream and type-2 stone fill (less than 36 inches diameter) along the entire base length of the upstream left wingwall, at the upstream end of the left abutment, and at the upstream end of the 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 is 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 was 0.0 ft. Abutment scour ranged from 5.8 to 6.8 ft at the left abutment and 9.4 to 14.4 ft at the right abutment. The worst-case abutment scour occurred at the incipient roadway-overtopping 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.