This report provides the results of a detailed Level II analysis of scour potential at structure MTHOTH00120063 on Town Highway 12 crossing Russell Brook, Mount Holly, 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 (FHWA, 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 Green Mountain section of the New England physiographic province in south-central Vermont. The 3.6-mi² drainage area is in a predominantly rural and forested basin. In the vicinity of the study site, the surface cover is forest upstream and downstream of the bridge.

In the study area, Russell Brook has an incised, sinuous channel with a slope of approximately 0.0263 ft/ft, an average channel top width of 29 ft and an average bank height of 3 ft. The channel bed material ranges from cobbles to boulders with a median grain size (D₅₀) of 97.1 mm (0.318 ft). The geomorphic assessment at the time of the Level I and Level II site visit on October 4, 1995, indicated that the reach was stable.

The Town Highway 12 crossing of Russell Brook is a 29-ft-long, one-lane bridge consisting of a 26-foot steel-stringer span (Vermont Agency of Transportation, written communication, March 21, 1995). The opening length of the structure parallel to the bridge face is 23.5 ft. The bridge is supported by vertical, concrete abutments with wingwalls. The channel is skewed approximately 40 degrees to the opening while the computed opening-skew-to-roadway is 35 degrees.

During the Level I assessment, it was observed that the upstream left wingwall footing was exposed 0.2 ft, in reference to the mean thalweg depth, and the upstream end of the left abutment was exposed 0.1 ft. The scour protection measure at the site was type-2 stone fill (less than 36 inches diameter) along the upstream end of the upstream 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 Davis, 1995) for the 100- and 500-year discharges. 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 0.1 ft. The worst-case contraction scour occurred at the 100-year discharge. Left abutment scour ranged from 4.4 to 5.7 ft. Right abutment scour ranged from 11.3 to 12.2 ft. The worst-case abutment scour occurred at the 500-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 Davis, 1995, p. 46). 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.