Tri County planners flag small‑bridge and culvert vulnerabilities and discuss regional funding options
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Planners spent significant time on the engineering and funding challenges for small bridges and culverts: sediment removal at Pine Hill, designing for extreme events, PennDOT constraints and an example $5 local use fee in Cumberland County that Perry County does not have.
Planners at a Tri County commission meeting focused on vulnerabilities in small bridges and culverts, urging regional coordination and engineering analysis to address heightened flood risks.
Unidentified Speaker C described recent extreme storm events and urged that small culverts be designed to accommodate larger discharges than historically used, saying designers should "back your way into it" by modeling forces that move large particles and sizing protections accordingly. The speaker noted FEMA 100‑year metrics are changing and that designs based on older return‑period assumptions may underperform.
Discussion turned to practical solutions and funding. Unidentified Speaker C recommended removing about two feet of upstream sediment at the Pine Hill culvert to restore storage and tying a culvert under Pine Hill Road directly into the downstream receiving channel (Fishing Run). Unidentified Speaker B pointed to Cumberland County's $5 local use fee as an example fund source for addressing bridges in the 8–20 foot span category, and suggested Perry County would need to rely on general funds because it does not have the fee.
Speakers also flagged permitting and institutional constraints: PennDOT standards limit modifications along certain state routes, DEP can object to multiple small openings because of debris concerns, and the Army Corps told the group railroads generally cannot be treated as levees without evaluation. The conversation repeatedly emphasized engineering review, local champions to move projects forward, and using existing downtown or EDC plans to prioritize interventions.
The commission did not take formal action; staff and planners agreed to continue investigations and to consider inter‑county examples for funding approaches.