U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Open-File Report 2019–1008

Prepared in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration

Bridge Scour Countermeasure Assessments at Select 

Bridges in the United States, 2016–18
Cover:

Banner:

T-LiDAR survey being conducted during the November 2015 site visit at the Grand River near McFall, Missouri (site ID 011). Photograph 

by Richard Huizinga.

Top left:

Conducting Wolman pebble count on riprap on left bank at the Wapsipinicon River near Wheatland, Iowa (site ID 031). Photograph by 

Richard Huizinga.

Top right:

Photograph showing singlebeam bathymetric survey being conducted during the June 2016 site visit using Trimble S6 total station 

scanner at the Blackfoot River near Bonner, Montana (site ID 016). Photograph by Taylor Dudunake.

Bottom:

High-resolution bathymetric point cloud and T-LiDAR data obtained by Richard Huizinga during the August 2018 site visit at the Upper 

Iowa River near Dorchester, Iowa (site ID 030).
Bridge Scour Countermeasure Assessments at Select 

Bridges in the United States, 2016–18 

By Taylor J. Dudunake, Richard J. Huizinga, and Ryan L. Fosness

Prepared in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration

Open-File Report 2019–1008

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

DAVID BERNHARDT, Acting Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

James F. Reilly II, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2019 

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth,

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit

https://www.usgs.gov/ or call 1–888–ASK–USGS (1–888–275–8747). 

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications,

visit https://store.usgs.gov.

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may

contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items

must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Dudunake, T.J., Huizinga , R.J., and Fosness, R.L., 2019, Bridge scour countermeasure assessments at select 

bridges in the United States, 2016–18: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2019-1008, 12 p., 

https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20191008. 

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)
iii

Contents

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction................................................................................................................................................................. 1

Purpose and Scope.................................................................................................................................................2

Description of Study Area........................................................................................................................................2

Methods......................................................................................................................................................................6

Site Selection ..........................................................................................................................................................6

Scour Countermeasure Assessments .....................................................................................................................7

Site Photographs and Field Form .......................................................................................................................7

Bathymetric and Topographic Data.....................................................................................................................7

Particle-Size Analyses ........................................................................................................................................9

Scour Countermeasure Assessment Data..................................................................................................................9

Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................11

Acknowledgments.....................................................................................................................................................11

References Cited......................................................................................................................................................11

Figure

Figure 1. Map showing sites of the assessment of scour-related countermeasures at representative bridges 

throughout the United States, 2016–18 ..................................................................................................................... 2

Tables

Table 1. Description of approved sites, assessment category, and post-countermeasure hydrologic summary 

with collected data throughout the United States, 2016–18....................................................................................... 3

Table 2. References for various data-collection techniques of category 1–9 sites ................................................... 8

Table 3. Survey sites and links to particle-size analysis data for the assessment of scour-related 

countermeasures at representative bridges in United States, 2014–2018............................................................... 10
iv

Conversion Factors

Inch/Pound to International System of Units

Multiply By To obtain

Flow rate

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

Length

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Datums 

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). 

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

Elevation, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.

Abbreviations

AEP annual exceedance probability

DOT Department of Transportation

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

MBES multibeam echo sounder 

NBI National Bridge Inventory

NWIS National Water Information System

OFR Open File Report

RI recurrence interval

RTK-GNSS real-time kinematic-global navigation satellite system 

SBES singlebeam echosounder

T-LiDAR terrestrial light detection and ranging technology

USGS U.S. Geological Survey
1 

Bridge Scour Countermeasure Assessments at Select 

Bridges in the United States, 2016–18 

By Taylor J. Dudunake, Richard J. Huizinga, and Ryan L. Fosness

Abstract

In 2009, the Federal Highway Administration published Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 23 

(HEC-23) to provide specific design and implementation guidelines for bridge scour and stream 

instability countermeasures. However, the effectiveness of countermeasures implemented over the past 

decade following those guidelines has not been evaluated. Therefore, in 2013, the U.S. Geological 

Survey, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, began a study to assess the current 

condition of bridge-scour countermeasures at selected sites to evaluate their effectiveness. Bridge-scour 

countermeasures were assessed during 2016–2018 after additional sites were added following a similar 

study. Site assessments included reviewing countermeasure design plans, summarizing the peak and 

daily streamflow history, and assessments at each site. Each site survey included a photo log summary, 

field form, and topographic and bathymetric geospatial data and metadata. This report documents the 

study area and site-selection criteria, explains the survey methods used to evaluate the condition of 

countermeasures, and presents the complete documentation for each countermeasure assessment. 

Introduction

On April 5, 1987, 10 people lost their lives as a result of the failure of a New York State 

Thruway bridge over Schoharie Creek (Lumia, 1998). The cause of the failure was erosion of the 

channel bed material, or scouring, under pier 3, which supported two of the five bridge spans (National 

Transportation Safety Board, 1988). According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 

scouring around bridge foundations is the most common cause of bridge failure (Federal Highway 

Administration, 2012). This risk can be mitigated by implementing effective bridge-scour 

countermeasures.

Bridge-scour countermeasures minimize risk to public transportation infrastructure by reducing 

sediment scour at bridges. Countermeasures can be defined as structures incorporated into a highwaystream crossing system that control or minimize harmful stream instability and/or bridge-scour (Federal 

Highway Administration, 2009). In 2009, the FHWA published the Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 

23 (HEC-23; Federal Highway Administration, 2009) to provide specific design and implementation 

guidelines for bridge scour and stream instability countermeasures. However, the effectiveness of 

countermeasures implemented over the past decade following FHWA HEC-23 guidelines has not been 

evaluated. Therefore, in 2013, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the FHWA, 

began a study to assess the current condition of bridge-scour countermeasures at 20 select sites across 

the United States. The FHWA will use these site-specific assessments to evaluate the effectiveness of 

bridge-scour countermeasures described in the HEC-23 design guidelines. 
2 

Purpose and Scope

This report summarizes countermeasure site assessments conducted in 2016 through 2018 at 

selected sites across the United States. Site assessments included reviewing countermeasure design 

plans, summarizing the peak and daily streamflow history, and a site survey to document the existing 

site and countermeasure. This report presents the complete documentation for each countermeasure 

assessment. Dudunake and others (2017) summarizes the initial phase of this project and included 

countermeasure assessments for 14 bridge sites. This report summarizes the second phase of a longer 

term study (Dudunake and others, 2017). 

This report documents the study area and site-selection criteria, explains the survey methods 

used to evaluate the condition of countermeasures, and presents site assessments summarizing the 

countermeasure condition. 

Description of Study Area

The study area in this report includes 20 bridge sites in 8 States: Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, 

Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina (fig. 1, table 1). These bridge sites 

vary in river and bridge size, magnitude of flow, and type of countermeasures. 

Figure 1. Map showing sites of the assessment of scour-related countermeasures at representative bridges 

throughout the United States, 2016–18. 
3

Table 1. Description of approved sites, assessment category, and post-countermeasure hydrologic summary with collected data throughout the 

United States, 2016–18.

[Year countermeasure installed: Countermeasure installation data not documented for each day, month, or both. Abbreviations: NBI, National Bridge Inventory; 

dd, decimal degrees; ft3

/s, cubic feet per second; AEP, annual exceedance probability; CT, Connecticut; IA, Iowa; ID, Idaho; IL, Illinois; MO, Missouri; MT, 

Montana; NJ, New Jersey; PA, Pennsylvania; SC, South Carolina]

Site 

No. NBI structure No. Site name Latitude (dd)

Longitude 

(dd)

Survey 

category

Representative 

streamgage

Year 

countermeasure 

installed

Peak-flow 

post-countermeasure

(ft3/s)

Year of peak flow 

post-countermeasure

Peak-flow,

post-countermeasure, AEP

(percent)

005 000000000019340 Snake River at 

Ferry Butte 

Road (W 500 

S), Bingham 

County, ID

43.1269 -112.5133 1 13069500 2002 28,700 2011 120

006 000000000019275 Snake River at 

Shelley West 

River Road (E 

1250 N) near 

Shelley, ID

43.3767 -112.1694 1 13060000 2002 32,300 2011 110

010 000000000047594, 

0000000000475

95

Perkiomen Creek 

and Mill Race 

at Salford 

Station Road 

(SR 1024) near 

Perkiomenville, 

PA

40.2984 -75.4574 8 01473000 2012 26,600 2011 2

011 7583 Grand River at 

Rte-A (P0250) 

near McFall, 

MO

40.1128 -94.2975 4 06897500 2001 55,000 2007 1

012 000000000010536 West Branch 

Brandywine 

Creek at 

Strasburg Road 

(SR 3062) near 

Coatesville, PA

39.9467 -75.7800 8 01480617 2008 7,000 2014 10
4

Site 

No. NBI structure No. Site name Latitude (dd)

Longitude 

(dd)

Survey 

category

Representative 

streamgage

Year 

countermeasure 

installed

Peak-flow 

post-countermeasure

(ft3/s)

Year of peak flow 

post-countermeasure

Peak-flow,

post-countermeasure, AEP

(percent)

013 05018 Byram River at 

Sherwood Ave 

(05018) at 

Greenwich, CT

41.0609 -73.6775 8 01212500 2010 1,700 2011 10

014 P00007043+06661 Bitterroot River at 

US-93 near 

Hamilton, MT

46.1987 -114.1684 8 12344000 2004 12,000 2009 10

015 S00370000+05361 Bitterroot River at 

Bell Crossing 

near Victor, 

MT

46.4435 -114.1242 3 12350250 2004 13,700 2011 20

016 I00090110+01981 Blackfoot River at 

I-90 at Bonner, 

MT

46.8717 -113.8869 3 12340000 2004 17,200 2011 4

018 P00049027+05411 Beaverhead River 

at MT-41 at 

Twin Bridges, 

MT

45.5443 -112.3325 8 06023100, 

06026500

2009 3,100 2011 110

020 P00013093+06931 Jefferson River at 

MT-2 near 

Three Forks, 

MT

45.8969 -111.5963 8 06036650 2008 17,700 2011 4

021 I00090278+08571 Madison River at 

I-90 near Three 

Forks, MT

45.8986 -111.5237 8 06041000 2004 8,050 2011 10

027 L56788012+07001 Yellowstone 

River at Hwy 

312 at Huntley, 

MT

45.9039 -108.3186 3 06214500 2008 73,700 2011 4

028 000000000009360 Smith Branch at 

S-126 (Clement 

Rd) at 

Columbia, SC

34.0350 -81.0600 6 02162093 1998 5,030 2015 <0.2
5

Site 

No. NBI structure No. Site name Latitude (dd)

Longitude 

(dd)

Survey 

category

Representative 

streamgage

Year 

countermeasure 

installed

Peak-flow 

post-countermeasure

(ft3/s)

Year of peak flow 

post-countermeasure

Peak-flow,

post-countermeasure, AEP

(percent)

029 000000000009547 Black River at 

US-52 at 

Kingstree, SC

33.6633 -79.8367 4 02136000 1998 83,700 2015 <0.2

030 000000000013660 Upper Iowa River 

at IA-76 near 

Dorchester, IA

43.4215 -91.5088 4 05388250 2001 38,000 2016 0.2

031 000000000020740 Wapsipinicon 

River at US-30 

near 

Wheatland, IA

41.8296 -90.8119 4 05422000 2000 37,200 2014 1

032 000000000031680 Old Man's Creek 

at IA-1 near 

Iowa City, IA

41.6066 -91.6624 6 05455100 2007 13,900 2013 2

033 1308153 Yellow Brook at 

NJ-34 at Colts 

Neck 

Township, NJ

40.2950 -74.1746 8 01407290 2008 2,030 2011 0.2-1

034 0216157 Saddle River at 

NJ-17 at 

Ridgewood, NJ

40.9851 -74.0909 8 01390500 2009 6,770 2011 0.2-1

1

Estimate affected to unknown degree by upstream regulation.
6

Methods

To date, there has been no comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of the long-term 

performance of bridge-scour countermeasures provided by Federal Highway Administration (2012).

This study focused on collecting data to assess the current condition of different bridge-scour 

countermeasure types, mainly armoring structures (riprap, articulated blocks, concrete armor units, and 

gabion mattresses). Photographs, field forms, topographic surveys, and bathymetric surveys were

collected at the selected sites. The following sections outline the methods used to complete these tasks. 

Site Selection

The FWHA and the USGS selected 20 bridges for this study from the National Bridge Inventory

(NBI) and State Departments of Transportation databases using the following criteria:

1. The site had bridge-scour countermeasures in place that were designed according to HEC-23 

guidelines.

2. The site was near an existing USGS streamgage with a daily and peak streamflow record.

3. The site had experienced a significant streamflow event since the countermeasure was installed.

Criterion 1. Although the study objective was to assess the quality and overall effectiveness of 

countermeasures designed to FHWA HEC-23 guidelines, some exceptions were made for sites with 

installed countermeasures designed to earlier versions of FHWA guidelines. Site 031, Wapsipinicon

River at US-30 near Wheatland, Iowa, is one example of this exception. The extensive details provided 

in the bridge-scour countermeasure plans and bridge structure plans for this site made it a sufficient 

candidate for this study. In addition, the riprap countermeasures installed at the site in 2000 remained 

present around main channel piers even though it experienced several substantial floods since 

installation.

Criterion 2. Daily and peak streamflow data were evaluated for a representative streamgage to 

review the flood history after countermeasures were installed. Drainage area adjustments described in 

Ries (2007) were used to better estimate at-site flow conditions when a USGS streamgage and bridge 

site were not colocated but were on the same stream. Historical streamflow observations and flood 

frequency statistics were obtained from the USGS National Water Information System (U.S. Geological 

Survey, 2016a) and the USGS StreamStats Web application (U.S. Geological Survey, 2016b). Annual 

peak flow and instantaneous data were reviewed to determine the three highest unique observed peak 

flows since scour countermeasures were installed. Criteria for selecting unique peak flows are described 

in Novak (1985).

Criterion 3. Peak flow frequency statistics were reviewed for the representative streamgage

using published statistics to determine if the bridge site experienced a significant streamflow event since 

the countermeasure was installed. Sites that experienced streamflows exceeding the 4-percent annual 

exceedance probability (AEP) (25-year recurrence interval) since countermeasure installation were 

considered significant and were included in this study. As defined by the American Society of Civil 

Engineers, the recurrence interval (RI) is the average interval of time within which the given flood will 

be equaled or exceeded once (American Society of Civil Engineers, 1953). The published statistics for a

colocated or nearby streamgage were used to determine the exceedance probability of each flood event 

after countermeasure installation. Peak-flow frequency statistics were determined using a weighted 

estimate from PeakFQ and StreamStats. Site 015, Bitterroot River at Bell Crossing near Victor, MT, is 

one example of when weighted estimates were used. Alternatively, at-site statistics were determined

using PeakFQ and Bulletin 17B estimates when published statistics were not available (Veilleux and 
7

others, 2014) or when peak flows exceeded the published regression limits. This method was necessary 

for both sites in South Carolina due to extreme flooding in 2015. Drainage area adjustments were used 

for peak flow frequency statistics when the streamgage and bridge were not colocated (Ries, 2007). The 

flood history was particularly important when assessing the effectiveness of designed countermeasures. 

An additional criterion for identifying significant streamflow events was considered for bridges 

located in mountainous regions because the stream power and complexity of hydraulics in high-gradient 

streams can cause scouring at streamflows less than the 4-percent AEP. A site was selected when the 

bankfull discharge (typically 1–2-year RI) produced scouring comparable to the 4-percent AEP event 

given a specific set of basin characteristics (Holnbeck and McCarthy, 2009). Most of the selected sites 

in Montana met this bankfull discharge criterion and were considered to have experienced a significant 

streamflow event.

Scour Countermeasure Assessments

Site Photographs and Field Form

All site surveys included collecting detailed site photographs and completing a field form

summarizing site characteristics. The field team collected photographs of the bridge structure, 

surrounding floodplain, and visible countermeasures. Photographs were documented in an annotated 

photo log for each site. A field form derived from Cinotto and White (2000) were completed to describe 

the surrounding floodplain, channel characteristics, bridge substructure, and the countermeasures. These 

photographic and textual descriptions may assist in future modeling efforts and survey site analyses.

Bathymetric and Topographic Data

The 20 sites selected for countermeasure assessments represented hydraulically and 

geographically diverse environments (fig. 1, table 1) and were divided into 9 survey categories based on 

specific site characteristics including depth and turbidity of water and type of riparian vegetation (tables 

1 and 2). Bathymetric and topographic data were collected at each site according to appropriate methods

for the survey category (table 2).

Survey categories 1 and 2 include sites requiring a manned boat to survey across large bodies of 

water (table 2). At the time of survey, depths at these sites generally exceeded 15 ft, suitable for using a 

multibeam echosounder (MBES) to acquire bathymetric data. Category 1 survey sites had clear water at 

the time of survey; allowing a gridded camera to be used to collect underwater images around the 

countermeasure if needed. Category 2 survey sites generally had turbid water that was unsuitable for 

underwater images.

The MBES provides high-resolution bathymetry data around submerged countermeasures. 

Coupled with real-time kinematic global navigation satellite systems (RTK-GNSS), the MBES is more 

advantageous than a single-beam echosounder (SBES), acoustic Doppler current profilers (ADCP), or 

other sounding methods because it provides greater coverage of the streambed to capture the bathymetry 

of the waterbody (Weakland and others, 2011). 
8

Table 2. References for various data-collection techniques of category 1–9 sites.

[MBES, multibeam echo sounder; T-LiDAR, terrestrial light detection and ranging technology; SBES, single beam 

echosounder; RTK-GNSS, real-time kinematic global navigation satellite system]

Category Data collection technique Reference

1/2 MBES Wood and others, 2012; Fosness, 2013; Huizinga, 2015

Gridded camera Explained in report

T-LiDAR Kimbrow and Lee, 2013; Kimbrow, 2014; Brenner and others, 2016

3/4 SBES Snyder and others, 2016

MBES Wood and others, 2012; Fosness, 2013; Huizinga, 2015

Gridded camera Explained in report

T-LiDAR Kimbrow and Lee, 2013; Kimbrow, 2014; Brenner and others, 2016

Total station/RTK-GNSS Rydlund and Densmore, 2012; Wood and others, 2012

5/6 Total station Wood and others, 2012

T-LiDAR Kimbrow and Lee, 2013; Kimbrow, 2014; Brenner and others, 2016

7 T-LiDAR Kimbrow and Lee, 2013; Kimbrow, 2014; Brenner and others, 2016

8 RTK-GNSS Rydlund and Densmore, 2012

Basic bathymetric survey Mueller and Wagner, 2003

9 RTK-GNSS Rydlund and Densmore, 2012

All Basic countermeasure 

assessment field forms

Cinotto and White, 2000

Motion-compensated and tripod-based terrestrial light detection and ranging technology (TLiDAR) captured high-resolution topography data for areas above the water surface and below the 

estimated peak flow stage. T-LiDAR technology uses rapidly moving laser pulses transmitted from the 

instrument. The pulses are reflected off the subject(s) and back to the instrument, which calculates the 

distance of the returned pulse based on the incoming velocity (Kimbrow and Lee, 2013). T-LiDAR data 

were generally collected around the super-structure, surrounding floodplain, bridge abutments, and piers 

that might be visible from the boat. Where vegetation was abundant in the area above water, RTKGNSS topographical survey methods were used. The RTK-GNSS surveys followed the techniques and 

methods described in Rydlund and Densmore (2012).

Underwater gridded camera systems were used to collect photographs at gridded locations 

around the piers and other submerged countermeasures when possible. Visual samples were used to 

qualitatively assess the effects of aggradation, degradation, embeddedness, and the current condition of 

the countermeasure. This method excelled in deep-water conditions where SBES systems could not 

provide sufficient data resolution and MBES was not available. However, the camera systems were only 

useful in clear water conditions.

Category 3 and 4 survey sites (table 2) had water conditions that were shallower than categories

1 and 2 survey sites, roughly 5–14 ft deep. At these sites, bathymetric data were collected with SBES or 

ADCP mounted to boogie-boards, small boats, and/or by wading. MBES, T-LiDAR, and RTK-GNSS 

were used to obtain topographic data as applicable. Sidescan technology and (or) underwater gridded 

cameras also were used in similar situations as conditions allowed. Category 3 survey sites had clear 

water at the time of survey, whereas category 4 survey sites were turbid.
9

At categories 5 and 6 survey sites (table 2), the water depth was less than 4 ft and a boat could 

not be used, so wading techniques were used instead. Surveyors used RTK-GNSS and total station to 

obtain bathymetric data and T-LiDAR, RTK-GNSS, or total station scanner systems were used to 

acquire topographic data. Category 5 survey sites had no vegetation that disturbed data collection,

whereas obstructing vegetation existed at category 6 survey sites.

If the stream channel was dry, the site was classified as category 7 (table 2) and T-LiDAR was 

used to obtain all data. Category 8 survey sites (table 2) were similar to categories 3 and 4 survey sites, 

but were generally shallower than 4 ft deep. Additionally, category 8 survey sites did not require 

detailed structural, bathymetric, or topographic surveys using T-LiDAR or MBES. Category 9 survey 

sites (table 2) were less than 4 ft deep and did not require a bathymetric survey. Similar to category 8 

survey sites, category 9 sites did not require detailed structural, bathymetric, or topographic surveys 

using T-LiDAR or MBES. Base-level assessment data included photo documentation with cross-section

bathymetry data and RTK-GNSS topography data (Mueller and Wagner, 2003). These basic crosssection and countermeasure survey data will provide sufficient detail to conduct countermeasure 

assessments.

Particle-Size Analyses

Particle-size analyses were conducted for 21 sites with riprap countermeasures (table 3). Twelve 

of those sites are from the present study and nine of those sites are from the first phase of the project, 

detailed in Dudunake and others (2017). These analyses included Wolman pebble counts or highresolution bathymetric surveys to estimate above and below-water gradation of in-place riprap. Wolman 

pebble counts were conducted using methods developed for riprap by Federal Highway Administration

(2008). Dimensions of riprap particles were measured to develop a grain-size distribution curve and will 

assist FHWA in verifying countermeasure design guidelines. High-resolution bathymetric surveys were 

conducted when wading techniques were not possible. By adjusting survey equipment settings, a highresolution, centimeter-scale bathymetric survey output was produced to assist FHWA determine riprap 

extent, individual rock sizes, and riprap gradation. 

Scour Countermeasure Assessment Data

Countermeasure assessment results were processed, compiled, and published in a USGS Data 

Release for 20 sites (table 1) in Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey,

Pennsylvania, and South Carolina (Dudunake, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5066/F7WW7G4W). Site 

information for each bridge included a compressed file containing countermeasure plans, a detailed

photograph log, and completed field form. Geospatial data includes all topography and bathymetry data 

collected and associated metadata. Site survey data includes an additional particle-size analysis for the 

21 sites described in table 3. A complete summary of geospatial data and countermeasure design plans, 

photo summaries, and field forms are available in Dudunake (2018).
10 

Table 3. Survey sites and links to particle-size analysis data for the assessment of scour-related countermeasures at representative bridges in United 

States, 2014–2018.

Site 

No. NBI structure No. Site name

Particle-size analysis data available at 

https://doi.org/10.5066/F7WW7G4W

0011 500086, 500087 Apalachicola River at I-10 (SR 8), near Chattahoochee, FL siteID-001_ApalachicolaRiver_I10_highres_multibeam_bathymetry.zip

0031 K0932 Mississippi River at US-54, (K0932) at Louisiana, MO siteID-003_MississippiRiver_US54_highres_multibeam_bathymetry.zip

0041 1936 Mississippi River at I-155 (A1700), near Caruthersville, MO siteID-004_MississippiRiver_I155_highres_multibeam_bathymetry.zip

0071 33175 (097- 0003/0004) Wabash River at I-64 (097- 0003/0004), near Grayville, IL siteID-007_WabashRiver_I-64_highres_multibeam_bathymetry.zip

0081 A0906 Thompson River at MO-6 (A0906) near Trenton, MO siteID-008_ThompsonRiver_MO-6_wolman_pebble_count.zip

0091 A4584 Fox River at US-61 (A4584) near Wayland, MO siteID-009_FoxRiver_US-61_wolman_pebble_count.zip

010 000000000047594, 

000000000047595

Perkiomen Creek and Mill Race at Salford Station Road (SR 1024) 

near Perkiomenville, PA

siteID-010_PerkiomenCreek_SR-1024_wolman_pebble_count.zip

011 7583 Grand River at Rte-A (P0250) near McFall, MO siteID-011_GrandRiver_Rte-A_wolman_pebble_count.zip

012 000000000010536 West Branch Brandywine Creek at Strasburg Road (SR 3062) near 

Coatesville, PA

siteID-012_BrandywineCreek_SR-3062_wolman_pebble_count.zip

015 S00370000+05361 Bitterroot River at Bell Crossing near Victor, MT siteID-015_Bitterroot_BellCrossing_wolman_pebble_count.zip

016 I00090110+01981 Blackfoot River at I-90 at Bonner, MT siteID-016_Blackfoot_I90_wolman_pebble_count.zip

020 P00013093+06931 Jefferson River at MT-2 near Three Forks, MT siteID-020_Jefferson_ThreeForks_wolman_pebble_count.zip

0231 P00081024+0.962 Judith River at MT-81 near Lewistown, MT siteID-023_Judith_wolman_pebble_count.zip

0241 S00300000+0.2001 Musselshell River at S-300 at Ryegate, MT siteID-024_Musselshell_wolman_pebble_count.zip

0261 P00003101+0.8001 Two Medicine River at US-89 near Browning, MT siteID-026_TwoMedicine_wolman_pebble_count.zip

028 000000000009360 Smith Branch at S-126 (Clement Rd) at Columbia, SC siteID-028_SmithBranch_S-126_wolman_pebble_count.zip

029 000000000009547 Black River at US-52 at Kingstree, SC siteID-029_BlackRiver_US-52_wolman_pebble_count.zip

030

2

000000000013660 Upper Iowa River at IA-76 near Dorchester, IA siteID-030_UpperIowaRiver_IA-76_wolman_highres.zip

031 000000000020740 Wapsipinicon River at US-30 near Wheatland, IA siteID_031_WapsipiniconRiver_US-30_wolman_pebble_count.zip

032 000000000031680 Old Man's Creek at IA-1 near Iowa City, IA siteID_032_OldMansCreek_IA1_wolman_pebble_count.zip

034 0216157 Saddle River at NJ-17 at Ridgewood, NJ siteID-034_SaddleRiver_NJ17_wolman_pebble_count.zip

1

Site detailed in Dudunake and others (2017).

2

Wolman pebble count and high-resolution bathymetry acquired.
11

Summary

With the completion of bathymetric and topographical data collection, FHWA will investigate 

the value of their countermeasure design guidelines by simulating conditions using computer modeling 

analyses and the acquired survey data. A final project report will be written to summarize 

documentation, interpretive details, and countermeasure assessment data following the completion of 

the project. With the use of these surveys and scour modeling, engineers will be able to design better 

bridge-scour countermeasures to withstand changing stream environments using new estimates of 

countermeasure effectiveness.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their appreciation to the Departments of Transportation in Connecticut, 

Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina for providing 

necessary data for each of these sites. Finally, we thank our USGS colleagues Pete Cinotto, Justin Boldt, 

Tom Suro, Steve Holnbeck, Sean Lawlor, Jarrett Ellis, Ben Dietsch, Justin Krahulik, Brenda Densmore, 

Jessica LeRoy, Rich Akins, Ben Rivers, and Ben Sleeper for their assistance with fieldwork, logistical 

support, and overall management of this project. 

References Cited

American Society of Civil Engineers, 1953, Report of the subcommittee on the joint division committee 

on floods: American Society of Civil Engineers Transactions, v. 118, p. 1220-1230.

Brenner, O.T., Hapke, C.J., Lee, K.G., and Kimbrow, D.R., 2016, Terrestrial-based lidar beach 

topography of Fire Island, New York, June 2014: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 980, 

https://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ds980.

Cinotto, P.J., and White, K.E., 2000, Procedures for scour assessments at bridges in Pennsylvania: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-64, 210 p.

Dudunake, T.J., 2018, Geospatial data for bridge scour countermeasure assessments at select bridges in 

the United States, 2016–2018: U.S. Geological Survey data release, 

https://doi.org/10.5066/F7WW7G4W.

Dudunake, T.J., Huizinga , R.J., and Fosness, R.L., 2017, Bridge scour countermeasure assessments at 

select bridges in the United States, 2014–16: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2017-1048, 10 

p., https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20171048.

Federal Highway Administration, 2008, Federal Lands Highway Field Materials Manual, Appendix B: 

FLH Test Methods, item FLH T 521-08, Standard method of test for determining riprap gradation by 

wolman count, https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/materials/fmm/documents/fmm-2008.pdf.

Federal Highway Administration, 2009, Bridge scour and stream instability countermeasures—

Experience, selection and design guidance—Third edition, volume 1: Hydraulic Engineering Circular, 

no. 23, Publication No. FHWA-NHI-09-111, 256 p.

Federal Highway Administration, 2012, Evaluating scour at bridges (5th ed.): Hydraulic Engineering 

Circular, No. 18, Publication No. FHWA-HIF-12-003, 340 p.

Fosness, R.L., 2013, Bathymetric surveys of the Kootenai River near Bonners Ferry, Idaho, water year 

2011: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 694, 26 p. 
12

Holnbeck, S.R., and McCarthy, P.M., 2009, Monitoring hydraulic conditions and scour at I-90 Bridges 

on Blackfoot River following removal of Milltown Dam near Bonner, Montana, in Burns, S.E., 

Bhatia, S.K., Avila, C.M.C., and Hunt, B.E., eds., Proceedings of 5th International Conference on 

Scour and Erosion: San Francisco, California, American Society of Civil Engineers, 11 p.

Huizinga, R.J., 2015, Bathymetric and velocimetric surveys at highway bridges crossing the Missouri 

and Mississippi Rivers on the periphery of Missouri, June 2014: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2015–5048, 81 p., https://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20155048.

Kimbrow, D.R., 2014, Mobile terrestrial light detection and ranging (T-LiDAR) survey of areas on 

Dauphin Island, Alabama, in the aftermath of Hurricane Isaac, 2012: U.S. Geological Survey Data 

Series 855, https://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ds855.

Kimbrow, D.R., and Lee, K.G., 2013, Erosion monitoring along the Coosa River below Logan Martin 

Dam near Vincent, Alabama, using terrestrial light detection and ranging (T-LiDAR) technology: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5128, 7 p., 

https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/5128.

Lumia, Richard, 1998, Flood of January 19–20, 1996, in New York State: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 97–4252, 61 p., 

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri974252.

Mueller, D.S., and Wagner, C.R., 2003, Field observations and evaluations of streambed scour at 

bridges: Federal Highway Administration Publication FHWA-RD-03-052.

National Transportation Safety Board, 1988, Collapse of New York State Thruway (1-90) bridge over 

the Schoharie Creek, near Amsterdam, New York, April 5, 1987: Washington, D.C., National 

Transportation Safety Board report NTSB/HAR-88/02, 169 p.

Novak, C.E., 1985, WRD data reports preparation guide: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 85-

480, 331 p., https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1985/0480/report.pdf.

Ries III, K.G., 2007, The national streamflow statistics program: A computer program for estimating 

streamflow statistics for ungaged sites: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 4-A6, 37 p.

Rydlund, P.H., Jr., and Densmore, B.K., 2012, Methods of practice and guidelines for using surveygrade global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) to establish vertical datum in the United States 

Geological Survey: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 11, chap. D1, 102 p. with 

appendixes.

Snyder, A.G., Lacy, J.R., Stevens, A.W., and Carlson, E.M., 2016, Bathymetric survey and digital 

elevation model of Little Holland Tract, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2016‒1093, 14 p., https://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161093.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2016a, National Water Information System—Web interface: U.S. Geological 

Survey Web site, accessed December 6, 2016, at https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2016b, The StreamStats program: U.S. Geological Survey Web site, accessed 

November 18, 2016, at https://water.usgs.gov/osw/streamstats/.

Veilleux, A.G., Cohn, T.A., Flynn, K.M., Mason, R.R., Jr., and Hummel, P.R., 2014, Estimating 

magnitude and frequency of floods using the PeakFQ 7.0 program: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 

2013–3108, 2 p.

Weakland, R.J., Fosness, R.L., Williams, M.L., and Barton, G.J., 2011, Bathymetric and sediment facies 

maps for China Bend and Marcus Flats, Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake, Washington, 2008 and 2009: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3150, 1 sheet.

Wood, M.S., Skinner, K.D., and Fosness, R.L., 2012, Bathymetry and capacity of Blackfoot Reservoir, 

Caribou County, Idaho, 2011: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3229, 1 sheet.
Publishing support provided by the U.S. Geological Survey

Science Publishing Network, Tacoma Publishing Service Center

For more information concerning the research in this report, contact the

Director, Idaho Water Science Center

U.S. Geological Survey

230 Collins Rd

Boise, Idaho 83702-4520

https://www.usgs.gov/centers/id-water
Dudunake and others—Bridge Scour Countermeasure Assessments at Select Bridges in the United States, 2016–18—Open-File Report 2019–1008

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)

https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20191008