Bridging Theory and Practice Since 1974

Tag: Water

The Fight to Save a Small-Town Bridge: Reflections on Infrastructure, Placemaking, and Community Engagement

By Ruby Brinkerhoff

Sometimes an old bridge is just that. An old bridge. Nothing much to talk about, often beneath our feet and our wheels, but rarely the object of direct attention, let alone debate. Tucked away in the Delaware Valley, nestled between two sides of the Delaware River, the Milanville Bridge has connected New York and Pennsylvania since its original construction date in 1902. As people take up aging infrastructure as a national conversation with increasing urgency, the conversation gains a great amount of relevance in local contexts. Examples of aging infrastructure, no matter how seemingly small, demonstrate the impact infrastructure decisions have on communities and how a small-town bridge can become symbolic in ways far superseding simply getting from point A to point B. 

Milanville, Pennsylvania, part of Damascus Township, is a small village with about 600 residents. There is one general store with an attached post office and narrow, winding roads that cut into the hills and along the river, twisting along the embankments and through the countryside as if they were streams themselves carrying us back and forth from our destinations. The Milanville Bridge, also known as the Skinner’s Falls Bridge, is one of several bridges spaced out along the river, serving the local population and the considerable number of tourists that flock to the area every year to escape New York City, enjoy the countryside, and use the river recreationally. One of the most popular swimming spots, known as Skinner’s Falls, lies just downstream from the Skinner’s Falls bridge. This destination becomes relevant to the conversation in two ways: what happens upstream affects what happens downstream, and as with all bridges, we want to know where they lead to. 

Photo Credit: Veronica Daub, The River Reporter, 2021

The Milanville Bridge, beyond its own historical significance, connects people to the economic vitality of Milanville. The Upper Delaware River corridor once built its economy on the extraction and transportation of coal and timber and felt a brief kiss of death with propositions for natural gas drilling in the area. Times have changed: the river itself is now the economic resource. The area increasingly caters to the tourist economy, with renewed interest from New Yorkers leaving the city at the advent of COVID-19. The river, and subsequently Skinner’s Falls, is a recreational money-making powerhouse, attracting many people to the natural scenic beauty and the glories of a well preserved, “clean” river (we won’t talk about the recent micro-plastic studies here).

The bridge, though intact, remains closed to traffic. Over the past ten years, the bridge has undergone some emergency repairs, reopened for periods of time, but would quickly close again with “in critical condition” branded onto it without remission. Earlier this year, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) began a Planning and Environmental Linkages Study, which is “used to identify transportation issues and environmental concerns, which can then be applied to make planning decisions,”[1] also known as a survey and a comment period. Used as a tool to address processes required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Linkages Study intends to look at how the bridge is used and what the needs of the local community are before fully developing a process and plan of action for the bridge.  

The Environmental Linkages study commenced with a rather, shall we say, passionate town meeting. PennDOT hired AECOM, a private consulting firm, to conduct the studies and planning necessary for the Skinner’s Falls Bridge Project, which they have been dutiful to attempt. The town meeting revealed three choices: decommission the bridge; restore the bridge to its historical integrity as a one lane, Baltimore through Truss style by repairing the super and substructure; or replace the bridge with a brand-new two-lane bridge, graded for 40 tons, accommodating the weight of vehicles such as full-size fire trucks, tracker trailers, construction vehicles, and dump trucks.  

Approaching this community with AECOM’s version of “a collaborative and integrated planning approach” quickly became tinder for activism around saving the bridge.[2] It is easy and at times justified to feel that the community engagement techniques used for projects like this drip of tokenism (in reference to Arnstein’s ladder for planning folks).[3] AECOM’s invitation to become an “advisor” to the planning committee appeared to fall short of desiring real input from community members. The survey and the comment period were good starting points, but many people felt the comment period was too short and the survey was lacking.  

Concerning the options presented by PennDOT, decommission the bridge you say? How hopeless! Expand the bridge to a two-lane bridge weighted for commercial traffic? There is a joke in Pennsylvania, taken very much at PennDOT’s expense: If you are driving straight on a PA road, you are definitely drunk. The roads on either side of this bridge run through Historic Districts, are winding with sharp turns and patches sloping down towards the creek embankments. The roads simply are not graded for increased traffic across a two-lane bridge. The tourist destination downstream of the bridge hosts a patch of rapids that could very easily be disturbed by increased construction and displacement of water and materials upstream.  

Beyond the practical considerations of engineering and feasibility, what do we want the bridge to symbolize? What do we want the bridge to do? The community is known for its activism and eventual victory over the proposal of natural gas drilling in the area.[4] People are extremely protective of the Delaware River, which is not only significant economically, but ecologically and as the watershed for New York City’s drinking water.[5] AECOM walked into the front door of a quiet town in the sticks with a survey in hand, perhaps thinking it would appease the requirements for community engagement without too much of an issue, yet they found internationally acclaimed environmental activists sitting at the table demanding a deeper and more critical conversation about the impact these decisions can have on community vitality and morale.  

The comment period that was originally scheduled to end in May was extended to June at the urgent request of many community members. Local newspapers published articles, a local organization known for its role in the Anti-Fracking movement came forward and created new community engagement opportunities, providing people with updated information and ways to get involved.[6] The community conversation seemed to come back to the idea that we are talking about more than just a piece of infrastructure. We are discussing the present and future of how we create vibrant rural and regional areas. The Northeastern corner of Pennsylvania and sections of New York across the river have always served as important natural corridors and respite from the city. In planning, we often discuss the metastasizing of cities, the urban sprawl which has crawled into our laps as one of planning’s most pressing issues. The Milanville Bridge, with its unassuming stature, has renewed the dialogue about preservation for many people in the area. What is worth preserving and what will we choose to alter in pursuit of growth, or opportunity, or economic development? Who gets to make that decision, and how do you ensure the inclusion of local voices, especially in areas that are often spoken about as if “no-one lives here”?    

Survey results are in from AECOM. 286 people responded to the survey with additional numbers of comments sent separately to AECOM via email. AECOM’s report implies that many people who left comments via the survey noted rehabilitation of the bridge as a theme, as well as the importance of the bridge as a nationally registered historic place.[7] The future of the bridge relies heavily on funding and what meets the bottom line of infrastructure needs. However, as the national conversation around aging infrastructure continues to unfold, deciding the future of the Milanville Bridge is a touchstone issue to examine.


[1] PennDOT. Skinner’s Falls Bridge PEL Study FAQ.

[2] PennDOT. Skinners Falls Bridge Project.

[3] Arnstein, S. (1969.) A ladder of citizen participationJournal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216–224.

[4] Mok, Aaron. (2021). The Delaware River Basin Commission Bans Fracking. The Sierra Club.

[5] American Rivers. Delaware River.

[6] Damascus Citizens for Sustainability.

[7] PennDOT. Skinners Falls Bridge PEL Study Public Survey Results.


Ruby is a rising second year master’s student in the Department of City and Regional Planning. Ruby specializes in land use and environmental planning, with a sustained interest in food systems, climate change, and equitable access to resources. Ruby received a dual bachelor’s degree from Guilford College in Biology and Religious Studies. She loves playing music, exploring North Carolina, and owning a lot of books that she never reads.


Edited by: Elijah Gullett

Featured Image courtesy of: Owen Walsh, The River Reporter, 2020

Grace Lake and the Sinkhole of 1986: A Remediation Plan and 30-year Saga of Grass Roots Involvement

Central Florida, encompassing the area between Daytona and Tampa, contains numerous lakes—and many sink holes, which occur due to the weakening and collapse of the supporting layer of limestone beneath the ground surface. In fact, it is understood that a majority of the lakes in this area (“sink hole alley”) were formed as sink holes appeared and filled with ground water from the large underlying aquifers.

In April of 1986, a sinkhole appeared at the edge of a small lake known as Grace Lake, located next to Interstate 4 about 20 miles north of Orlando.  The initial depression and opening was around 10 ft. in diameter, and it was able to reduce the 14 acre lake to a small pond in a matter of days.  As described here, it would then take 31 years for the sink hole to naturally plug itself, but, in the interim, lake residents would spend countless hours trying to find ways to restore the lake, and learned much about urban planning and the importance of community involvement in the process.

Kamrath1

Early view of Grace Lake Sink Hole. Photo Credit: Mark Kamrath

In the beginning, in the immediate aftermath of the sinkhole’s appearance, residents did everything from using a shovel and dumping yard debris to fill the sinkhole (then, 10 feet in diameter) to contacting the local home owners’ associations and the county government.  Residents held meetings and tried to come up with a solution, but no one could come up with a structured approach to filling the sinkhole and restoring the lake.

For a couple of years, the lake did fill and there was hope that the sink hole had repaired itself.  However, in 1988, the sinkhole reopened and grew in size, causing the lake to again disappear.  This time, and for nearly three decades, only the heavy annual rains associated with the rainy season (June through October) would cause the lake to partially fill, only to drain again as the level of the Floridan aquifer went through its annual cycle.

During this period, there was stepped-up levels of grass-roots activity aimed at getting the attention of the local government (Seminole County) authorities to address the situation.  Not only were the residents disturbed by the loss of their lovely lakeside environment, and property values, but there was, fortunately, much more to it on a larger scale.

Since Grace Lake is part of the Seminole County storm water drainage system, and receives considerable runoff from the Interstate, the continuous drainage of the lake directly into the aquifer, a primary source of drinking water, was felt to be a serious concern.  This environmental and public health issue was to become the main driving force behind the effort to restore the lake.  (Note: In Florida, drainage of ground water into the aquifer is not that uncommon, and is part of the aquifer recharging process, but allowing a large sink hole to act as a “drainage well” in a drainage basin next to a busy interstate highway, as was the case here, was believed to be a violation of the relevant water management regulations.)

In 2001, local residents contacted the Seminole County Department of Public Works and the St Johns River Water Management District to learn more about the lake’s health and to inquire about a way to restore it. Contact was also made with the Department of Environmental Protection and the Florida Department of Transportation.  During this process, residents met with engineers, hydrologists, and other experts and came to the conclusion that more study of the lake was needed.

In 2004, after much discussion, about 30 residents of the North Ridge and North Cove subdivisions, which are located around the lake, raised enough money to commission a geotechnical study that would assess the lake’s hydrology and propose an engineering solution to remediate the sinkhole and restore the lake. That study was conducted by Devo Engineering of Orlando. It concluded that the repair of the sink hole was technically and economically feasible, and recommended a rather straightforward method to plug it.

Armed with their engineering study, residents returned to both Seminole County and the St. Johns River Water Management District asking for them to act.  For one reason or another, the county engineers did not feel that it was their responsibility.  The Water Management District told us that the first step in the process of implementing the engineers’ recommendations, whoever was going to do it, was to file an application for an “Environment Resource Permit”.  So, as instructed, the necessary paperwork was obtained, and the application process was started, making use of the talents of a recently retired engineer in the local group.  However, it was not long before it became clear that the type of data and analysis, including computer modeling of the local drainage basin, as was required to complete the application, would be out of reach for the small group of local residents involved.

It also became evident that, one way or the other, the local group would have to find a way to effectively apply pressure on the county officials so that they would accept the sink hole, and the drainage of raw untreated runoff from the lake into the aquifer, as their responsibility.  It was then that one of the home owners, who was well-connected to local political circles, was able to get the attention of key county officials.  This, in turn, cleared the way for a contingent of residents to appear before the Board of County Commissioners to present their case, and, at the end, obtain some indication that the county would take over the permitting process, and take on the job of repairing the sink hole and restoring the lake.

After some delay, and regular “reminding” by local residents, the county hired their own engineering consultants to conduct the necessary modeling and come up with a design for the repair.  Initially, the county’s approach was much more complicated and expensive than originally recommended by the residents’ engineer. It provided for concrete structure with an overflow gate that was intended to maintain a maximum lake level to avoid downstream flooding. But, after further analysis and several design iterations, the county engineers finally adopted the original relatively simple and cheaper approach to plugging the sinkhole, and finally budgeted the funds to implement the fix.

Overall, this process took approximately 10 years to complete, due to numerous delays, an economic recession, budget cuts, and other factors, including, it is believed, reluctance on the part of the county storm water engineers to lose a substantial amount of storm water storage volume, which the sink hole had provided by causing the lake to empty in the first place.  It turns out that such reticence to giving up that much valuable storage volume was well founded.

During the period of 2013-2015, the county legal department put an additional hurdle in the way of progress by requiring signed easements from each home owner located on the one side of the lake where there didn’t already exist a county “drainage easement”.  Unfortunately, the process of obtaining these easements became totally bogged down, and, even with a door-to-door campaign to convince reluctant home owners to sign, again caused a long delay in the project.

However, an unexpected change in project management at the county level resulted in a rethinking on this legal requirement, and the need for the easements was finally rescinded in the fall of 2015.

At the same time, in October-December, 2015, as Grace Lake was expected to recede (as it had been doing regularly for some 27 years prior), so that the work could commence, it was surprisingly observed that the level of the lake hardly went down at all.  In fact, as some unusual heavy fall rains fell, Grace Lake even reached its historical outfall level, where it overflows though a conduit under the Interstate roadway.  This conduit leads to a portion of the lake that was cut off from the main body of the lake when the interstate was built in the 1960s.  This, in turn, caused flooding of a local church school’s soccer field, which happened to be installed in this cut-off part of Grace Lake.   As might be expected, a consequence of this was that much blame was placed on the county for “fixing the sink hole and causing the flooding”.  Of course, this happened in spite of the fact that the work to repair the sink hole never started.

At this point, the county, with the help of lake residents, began to monitor lake levels closely, and, since the lake water level hardly fell in spite of the return of the dry season, it was determined at the start of the summer, 2016, that the sinkhole had naturally plugged itself, and the project was removed from the list of active county capital improvement projects.

At the end of the summer of 2016, and near the official end of the hurricane season in Florida, Hurricane Matthew arrived dumping 9 inches of rainfall over night, and, with Grace Lake being nearly full at the time, it again caused threats of downstream flooding.  Once again, complaints arose that the county was at fault for not preparing adequately for such an event.  The loss of storm water storage volume that Grace Lake once provided caused all downstream retention ponds to reach unprecedented levels, and near flooding conditions.

Then, during the summer of 2017, continuous heavy summer rains caused Grace Lake to reach its outflow level by the end of July.  So, the lake offered no help to the storm water drainage system when, on September 10, Hurricane Irma arrived with its record levels of rainfall.  Grace Lake water levels peaked at more than 4 ft. above its outflow level, flooding many yards around the lake and causing flooding to downstream retention ponds, yards and streets.  In one downstream neighborhood, residents had to drive through a foot or more of water flowing across the road to get to their homes.  And once again, the county was called upon to help, and pumps were use to move water from one pond to the next in an attempt to alleviate the flooding.

All of this because the Grace Lake sink hole had repaired itself, and removed many acre-feet of storage for the storm water.

Not only that, but the return of Grace Lake has led to a new set of problems for residents and various agencies to grapple with, especially in regard to the appearance of hydrilla and other noxious aquatic weeds that would eventually choke the lake if left untreated.  Debate among residents occurred in regard to the best way to treat Grace Lake following various environmental guidelines.  The most heated debates concerned the degree to which the recommended herbicides should be used safely, combined with the introduction of a limited population of sterile “grass carp” to control the weeds. Eventually, enough resident support was obtained to form an MSBU (Municipal Services Benefit Unit) to pay for the Seminole County Lake Management Program to treat the lake, but only after much effort to educate residents about its benefits and the County Commissioners voted to approve the MSBU.

So, 30-plus years after the appearance of the Grace Lake sink hole, and the beginning of a decades-long saga of ground-roots involvement with local government agencies to repair it, Grace Lake is currently near full, under treatment for aquatic weeds, and is part of the Florida Lake Watch program at the University of Florida.

Kamrath2

Sunset over Grace Lake. Photo Credit: Harry Jaeger

 

About the Authors: Harry Jaeger and Mark Kamrath

Harry Jaeger is a retired engineer, born, raised and educated in New York City, moved to Florida 30 years ago with relocation of his job with Westinghouse Power Generation from Pennsylvania.  He has been involved in Grace Lake sink hole story for 25+ years, and was instrumental in development of program with local county to that lake for invasive species of aquatic weeds.
Mark Kamrath is a Professor of English at the University of Central Florida. He moved to Orlando 21 years ago from Nebraska. He joined the Northridge Home owners association as part of an effort to remediate Grace Lake. He enjoys Florida’s local springs and many beaches, and likes to travel abroad when he is not doing research or teaching. 
Featured Image: Sunset over Grace Lake. Photo Credit: Harry Jaeger.

Stormwater and the Stadium: How Carolina Became More Resilient and Sustainable

During the drought in 2002, it became clear that UNC-Chapel Hill would need to improve water conservation efforts on campus. In addition to viewing water conservation as a good business practice and good for the environment, Carolina also began to think of it as a means to make the University more resilient to drought and supply disruptions.

In 2009 the University invested in the construction of several innovative systems that would allow it to reduce potable, or drinkable, water use. One such system collects wastewater that would be discharged through creeks off campus, provides additional treatment and disinfection, and then pumps the water to campus. This reclaimed water is used to flush toilets and irrigate campus landscaping, and it is also used in the cooling towers for the University’s chilled water plants, which provide air conditioning to most campus buildings. Additionally, chiller plants at UNC Hospitals, which use 90 million gallons of water per year, are served by the system. Both the UNC campus and UNC Hospitals are now more resilient to drought and supply disruptions, which in turn benefits the entire community.

In the Fall of 2016, under Chancellor Carol Folt’s leadership, UNC-Chapel Hill furthered its commitment to environmental stewardship with the launch of the Three Zeros Environmental Initiative, consisting of three goals — water neutrality, zero waste to landfills and greenhouse gas neutrality.

Thanks, in part, to the important work done in 2009 in response to the drought, Carolina is already water neutral by one measure- the University uses less water than falls on campus annually. The infrastructure in place reduces potable water use on campus and helps to recycle stormwater and treated wastewater.

024916_fb_gt_unc_homecoming104

Reclaimed stormwater is used to irrigate Kenan Stadium at UNC. Photo credit: Jon Gardiner/UNC-Chapel Hill.

Walking around campus, you would never know that one of the many ways that UNC-Chapel Hill reduces water usage is through cisterns that collect and hold rainwater. Buried underground on campus, these enormous cisterns can hold up to 350,000 gallons of water.

There are several cisterns that collect rainwater across campus. There are two cisterns installed under the historic quad in front of Hanes Hall, one beneath the parking lot at Boshamer Stadium, another beneath the Bell Tower, which serves Kenan Stadium, and also under the lawn at the FedEx Global Education Center. At the former Bell Tower parking lot, an integrated, non-potable water system features a comprehensive water management strategy. Rainwater that falls on the roof of the Genome Sciences Building is stored in a lined, stone-filled cistern. This roof water, once treated with UV and salt electrolysis, is used to flush toilets in the Genome Sciences Building, and to irrigate the Kenan Stadium football field and the surrounding landscapes.

At UNC, reclaimed water irrigates several National Collegiate Athletic Association grass fields, using 10 million gallons of water per year. This water is also used to irrigate the turf at Boshamer Baseball Stadium, Anderson Softball Stadium, and Fetzer Soccer Stadium.

“By August 2018 we plan to have all of our fields on reclaimed water,” said Casey Carrick, director of athletic grounds and turf management. “We can save a lot of money since using reclaimed water is a fraction of what it costs to use potable water, and reclaimed water is close in minerals to the potable water. There isn’t any odor.”

The reclaimed water system was initially put in place as a collaborative project between the University and Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) as a water conservation project that would save costs for the University and expand the water supply capacity for the community. The proximity of the UNC campus to OWASA Reclaimed Water plant saves OWASA energy in cleaning potable water. UNC Athletics was able to benefit from the new lines running from the OWASA plant and began using the same water for field and turf irrigation.

“We don’t want to impact services to the community,” Carrick said. “By using reclaimed water, we’re helping the town become more drought resistant and leaving more potable water for the surrounding areas.”

Not only does using this system reduce the amount of potable water used by the campus annually, but reclaiming the water also recycles the fertilizer and avoids sending nutrients downstream, improving the water quality in the Jordan Lake.

Using reclaimed water is not the only net-zero water practice put in place within Athletics. Low flow fixtures are used in showerheads and toilets in multiple athletic facilities across campus.

“The greater benefit of the Three Zeros Initiative is being felt throughout our region,” said Brad Ives, associate vice chancellor of campus enterprises and chief sustainability officer. “Whether it is working with Athletics to improve water quality downstream through reclaimed water, or collecting rainwater for the athletic fields, this partnership is having a direct impact on improving North Carolina’s environmental footprint.”

In addition to using less potable water, Carolina also maintains the goal of improving water quality for water exiting campus. The recently completed Battle Grove restoration project turned a piped stream behind McIver residence hall into a beautiful, thriving brook. Not only is it beautiful, but it functions as a way to remove excess nutrients from the water before it flows off-campus, and provides a living-learning laboratory for students.

The UNC Energy Services Stormwater Management group was awarded a grant with which they will be able to retrofit the pond at the Outdoor Education Center and reduce sediment and nutrients in runoff sent to Chapel Creek, which eventually empties into Jordan Lake. Reducing nutrient runoff from campus will improve the quality of Jordan Lake, which has been a goal of the State.

Carolina hopes to move forward in all aspects of the Three Zeros Environmental Initiative through a variety of projects. In the coming year, the University will reduce coal use at its cogeneration facility and will implement a solar storage project at Carolina North. For more information about the Three Zeros Initiative, visit the Three Zeros Environmental Initiative website.

About the author: Olivia James is the Communications Manager for Campus Enterprises at UNC-Chapel Hill, as well as the Three Zeros Environmental Initiative.

Featured image: Panoramic view of UNC Bell Tower. Photo credit: Jon Gardiner/UNC-Chapel Hill.