On Wednesday, February 22 at 6pm, at the Media Borough Parlor Room, area residents will have an opportunity to hear from the PA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in a Public Informational Meeting about the planned partial breach of Broomall’s Dam, currently scheduled for April 30th.

The partial breach will reduce the safety hazard of the orphaned dam which is in severe disrepair.

However, the partial breach will render the road impassable to pedestrians and bicycles in addition to cars for two years or more, until the proposed dam reconstruction is complete. With no parties yet willing to claim ownership of the current or proposed dam, it is uncertain how long this pre-construction phase will last.

Temporary Pedestrian Bridge?

Friends of Glen Providence Park has requested Media Borough Council to consider the construction of a temporary pedestrian bridge during this pre-construction phase. We feel it is in the best interest of Media Borough and Upper Providence to maintain this connection.

Why maintain the connection:

• Safety: We are concerned that people will attempt to find a way to cross the breach that is unsafe.
• Economics: Many people walk to Media for shopping and great events like Dining Under the Stars. Some people commute to work from UP to Media on foot — across Broomall’s Dam on 3rd Street!
• Community: 3rd Street is a valuable connection between Upper Providence and Media neighbors and activities.
• Best Practices: It is a PennDOT recommendation in their Design Manual to continue pedestrian access during construction (Chapter 6.14, Pedestrian Facilities and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 2012.).
• Time: 2-3 years is a long time to have this connection broken.

If you’d like to see a temporary pedestrian bridge, please come to the meeting and make your voice heard.

In addition, it is our understanding that the 3rd Street entrance to the park will be closed while the DEP is removing the dam, which is expected to take about 60 days.

Be informed! You can read an overview and history of the 3rd Street Project, with links to past articles, in the menu above. And you can learn much more about the 3rd Street project and Broomall’s Dam, and find detailed information about the partial dam removal by reading our past articles in the Dam/Bridge Category – and by exploring the Tags – on the right.

Friends of Glen Providence Park continues to support dam removal and stream restoration with an environmentally sensitive connection between Upper Providence and Media, which will minimize damage to the park. 

Responding to the decision by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) to breach Broomall’s dam by June of 2016, Timothy Stevenson, Design Portfolio Manager for District 6 of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), announced that PennDOT was not willing to fully fund the reconstruction of the dam if the alternate option of building a bridge proved to be less expensive.

In an e-mail sent to PennDOT contractor Sidney New on October 16, 2015, and copied to Media Borough and Delaware County, Mr. Stevenson noted that the project’s draft environmental document identified two primary needs: 1) addressing transportation network deficiencies and 2) resolving unsafe dam conditions. “The DEP’s proposed action [to breach the dam] should resolve the second need for the project, leaving only the first need to be addressed,” wrote Stevenson.

Citing a lack of adequate funding to address all of the region’s current bridge repair needs, Stevenson stated “…I cannot approve additional expenditures beyond what is needed to address the transportation network deficiencies…should the cost [of dam replacement] exceed the cost of a bridge, I can only see A-183 funds [Local Bridge Funds] being applied to a prorated portion of the total project costs.”

Click to read the entire October 16 email from PennDOT.

In a subsequent telephone conversation with a representative of the Friends of Glen Providence Park, Mr. Stevenson confirmed PennDOT’s intention to only provide prorated funding for the amount of the cheapest option (e.g. if dam replacement cost $3 million dollars and constructing a bridge cost $2 million dollars, PennDOT would only pay out $2 million. The same formula would apply if dam replacement proved to be cheaper than constructing a bridge).

Mr. Stevenson’s e-mail leaves many questions unanswered. 1) What bridge design will be used as the basis for a cost comparison with dam reconstruction? 2) Who will conduct an independent cost analysis? 3) If a cost analysis did determine that building a bridge was the less expensive option, would a dam still be constructed? 4) If yes, which party (or parties) would pay the balance between PennDOT funding and the full cost of dam replacement?

The Friends of Glen Providence will be seeking answers to these and other questions that arise regarding the now uncertain funding plan for the Broomall’s dam project.

Friends of Glen Providence Park continues to believe that dam removal, stream restoration, and a community conversation regarding an environmentally sensitive bridge between Media Borough and Upper Providence Township is the best course of action.

The PADEP communicated their intention to breach the dam at a meeting on Wednesday, October 14 between representatives of Delaware County, Media Borough, Broomall’s Lake Country Club, and the PADEP. That meeting was to resolve issues surrounding who would sign as owner(s) for the Emergency Action Plan(s) for Broomall’s Dam, which is to plan for public safety in the event of an accidental dam failure. The meeting was also to address other responsibilities surrounding the operation and maintenance of Broomall’s Dam.

As we previously reported, Media Borough voted in July not to sign the EAP as owner. Hall reported tonight that there is “still some wordsmithing about responsibilities under the EAP,” the “terms are not worked out,” and “no one has set ink to paper” to sign as owner.

According to Hall, while the dam is temporarily breached, there will be no foot traffic across Broomall’s Run to and from Upper Providence. There might also be restrictions in the north end of Glen Providence Park. This may last a few years, until construction of the new dam is complete – and according to an update from Schnabel Engineering this April, construction on the new dam would likely begin in 2017 or 2018.

We would like to learn more about this project, including environmental impacts to Glen Providence Park and Broomall’s Run, whether there will be access to Glen Providence Park from the entrance at 3rd & West Streets, and whether there is any way to create access for pedestrians to cross to and from Upper Providence. As we learn the answers to these questions, we will post updates.

You can read about and see pictures of the proposed 1.1 acre construction area for the new dam, including the approximately 2/3 acre of Glen Providence Park that would be buried under earthfill, in our 1.1 Acre Photojournal.

The Friends of Glen Providence Park continues to support dam removal, stream restoration and a local discussion of an environmentally-sensitive bridge between Media Borough and Upper Providence.

Broomall’s Dam on Third Street is often called a “bridge.” In fact, it is a high hazard dam with a road on top of it. Some people focus exclusively on reopening the road while ignoring the economic, environmental, and public safety consequences of replacing and maintaining a high hazard dam.

Replacing Broomall’s Dam is:

• UNSAFE
A newly constructed dam will be classified as “Level 1 High Hazard.” This classification has nothing to do with the dam’s condition. It means that dam failure could result in the loss of human life and extensive property damage.

No matter how much care is taken during construction, a 29 foot tall earthen dam has inherent risks. Do we really want a high hazard dam above a public park where our neighbors, children and families will be at risk?

• UNNECESSARY
Most taxpayer funded dams are built for a compelling public purpose such as producing electricity, storing a large volume of drinking water, or providing public recreation. Replacing Broomall’s Lake dam will provide NO public benefit at all.

• UNFAIR
Supporters of replacing Broomall’s Dam want to spend up to $4 million of taxpayers’ money to preserve a small lake for a private Country Club. At the same time, replacing the dam will permanently damage a section of a public park and a stream. Spending public dollars for private gain and public loss is unfair.

Removing the dam would settle these issues once and for all, replacing a burden with a gift for future generations.

Friends of Glen Providence Park wants our public officials to:

• REMOVE the dam
The leadership of the Friends of Glen Providence Park is calling to remove – rather than replace – Broomall’s Dam. Removing the dam will preserve valuable natural wetlands and allow for reforestation of the north section of the park.

Across Pennsylvania and the United States, dams are being removed and streams are being restored as an economic and environmental best practice. Removing the dam is the best economic, environmental, and public safety policy.

• RESTORE the stream
Before Judge Broomall built a dam on his property in 1883, the stream of Broomall’s Run flowed unimpeded to Ridley Creek.

Removing the dam will restore Broomall’s Run to its natural state, allowing for improved water quality, greater connectivity for wildlife, and healthy sediment flow.

The restored stream will descend 29 feet in a series of natural waterfalls, creating a babbling brook surrounded by trees – a beautiful setting for both the park and the Country Club.

• RECONNECT neighbors
We don’t need to replace the dam to connect Media and Upper Providence; we can remove the dam and build a bridge for that purpose.

Friends of Glen Providence Park supports an environmentally sensitive design that connects the two municipalities and encourages a community dialogue about bridge options.

This is the text of the flyers that Friends of Glen Providence Park distributed around Media Borough in the summer of 2013. For the text of the dam removal flyer we distributed in winter 2012, click here. 

Learn more about:

Broomall’s Dam history and news on our website, using the Categories, Tags and Search feature to the right, and menu bar above, for information including:
– Our position on dam removal
– Documentation of the 1.1 Acre of park that would be destroyed by dam replacement

Dam removal locally and nationally at www.americanrivers.org

The Third Street Project on the Media Borough website: www.mediaborough.org/publicworks

Prior to this ruling, on September 20, 2012, Media Borough Council had approved a plan to replace the dam and construct a roadway that provided one lane for pedestrians and bicycles and one lane for automobiles with one-way traffic from Upper Providence into Media.  The plan also allowed for Emergency vehicles to have two-way access to serve both Media and Upper Providence. BLCC then filed a Petition for Contempt that sought a ruling from Judge Proud to force the Borough to construct a roadway with two lanes for two-way automobile traffic.  Instead, the Judge ruled that the Stipulation was “based entirely on the agreement of the Parties” and that such agreement did not in fact exist.  BLCC’s challenge to the basis of the agreement caused Judge Proud to revoke his previous Order.*

With the Stipulation Agreement revoked, Media Borough is no longer legally obligated to replace a high hazard dam that will destroy 1.1 acres of park land including valuable natural wetlands, permanently bury over ½ acre of park land under earthfill, and preclude reforestation of the north section of the park.  Across Delaware County, Pennsylvania, and the United States, dams on streams and rivers are being removed rather than replaced unless there is a compelling public benefit.  Spending nearly $4 million dollars of tax payers’ funds on replacing Broomall’s Lake Dam will not produce electricity, provide drinking water, or preserve a public recreation site.  The only purpose of this project is to preserve a private lake for a Country Club.  We don’t believe that is a compelling enough reason to damage a section of a historical public park.

From the first time that the engineer’s plans for the Third Street project were presented to the public in the summer of 2011, many residents in Media and surrounding communities expressed serious concerns about the environmental and recreational impact of the project on the County’s historic Glen Providence Park.  In fact, over 500 residents from Media Borough and nearly 300 residents from other municipalities signed a petition favoring a pedestrian and bicycle-only greenway at Third Street. Additionally, a Media Borough Council-sponsored public opinion survey of over 600 Media residents and business owners indicated strong support for dam removal and stream restoration.

The Friends of Glen Providence Park vigorously advocated for the positions of dam removal and stream restoration and building a greenway during the months leading up to the decisive vote by Media Borough Council on May 17, 2012.  Citing a legal obligation to abide by the 2011 Stipulation Agreement, Borough Council voted 5-2 to replace the dam and reestablish a roadway for vehicular traffic. Accepting that Borough Council was legally bound by the Stipulation Agreement, the Friends of Glen Providence Park eventually supported the compromise of replacing the dam and building one-lane, one-way roadway for automobile traffic as a good-faith effort to limit the environmental impact of the project.  However, BLCC rejected this compromise and filed a Petition for Contempt against Media Borough.  As a result, the Stipulation Agreement was revoked and all parties have been forced to reconsider their positions.

In order to protect the public park, the leadership of the Friends of Glen Providence Park is again calling for dam removal and stream restoration.  We also support exploration of how to create an environmentally sensitive connection between Media and Upper Providence. In order to protect public safety, we oppose any agreement or legal action that fails to resolve the core issue of ownership of the high hazard dam.  If no party is willing to accept ownership of a high hazard dam, then millions of dollars of tax payers’ funds should not be risked to build one in our community.

* It is our understanding that Judge Proud has not ruled on a motion filed by BLCC to reconsider his decision, and in March, BLCC filed an Appeal in Commonwealth Court.  

After more than one year of researching, advocating, educating, and organizing for the removal of Broomall’s Lake dam and establishment of a pedestrian and bicycle only greenway (with access for emergency automotive vehicles), the Friends of Glen Providence Park is supporting the recent compromise decisions on the Third Street project made by Media Borough Council.

When the proposed design for the Third Street project was first made public in June, 2011, it became clear that the new, significantly larger dam would not replace what was there, but would cover with earthfill over 1/2 acre of valley in Glen Providence Park, destroying significant wetlands and requiring the removal of more than 70 trees in over one acre of the park.  Aiming to preserve the peaceful, recreational atmosphere that had developed on the closed segment of Third Street since its closure 16 years ago, and determined to protect the beautiful, natural habitat at the north end of the park, Friends of Glen Providence Park was founded and began its work to preserve and protect Delaware County’s oldest park- through citizen science, historical research, volunteer work days, nature walks, and advocating for better options for the Third Street project.

Despite our earnest efforts, on May 17, 2012, the Council voted 5-2 to reconstruct the dam and re-establish a roadway open to automotive vehicular traffic over the top of the dam.  Then, on September 20, 2012, Council voted 4-3 to instruct PennDOT and the project engineers to design a 28-foot-wide passageway on the crown of the dam that would include a one-way traffic lane for automobiles entering Media from Upper Providence and an equal area for non-automotive traffic that could accommodate pedestrians and cyclists.

The thoroughfare will include a buffer between the automotive vehicular and non-automotive vehicular lanes, as well as required shoulders on each side.  Emergency automotive vehicles will be granted authority to cross the automotive roadway in both directions.  A landscape architect will be engaged.

We want to be clear that our organization continues to believe that removing the dam and establishing a pedestrian-bicycle only greenway, with access for emergency automotive vehicles, is the best solution for Glen Providence Park, park users, and for the community as a whole.  We also believe that the weight of community opinion leans in our direction, as demonstrated by the report on public opinion issued by the Council’s own Citizen Advisory Committee on the Third Street Project.

Even so, we recognize that Council’s votes reflect a compromise solution that complies with the legal stipulation entered into with Broomall’s Lake Country Club and Delaware County, reduces by roughly 3,600 square feet the impact on the park as compared to the original reconstruction design, addresses key safety concerns about emergency vehicle access and the hazard of entering Media from Ridley Creek Road/Baltimore Pike, and offers a reasoned resolution to the divisive issue of whether to prioritize automotive or pedestrian-bicycle traffic on the Third Street thoroughfare. Given that the project goes forward as outlined, and that implementation strictly complies with the laws protecting the environment and public safety, the Third Street project should be viewed as an asset to our community.

Our members look forward to working with Council, the project’s landscape architect, and other community stakeholders to create a unique, attractive, and welcoming gateway into Media for people cycling, driving, and walking.  Some of the additional amenities we hope to see incorporated include traffic calming surfaces and safety signage, low impact lighting, benches, stone planters and historic-looking fencing as an alternative to chain link fencing. The Friends of Glen Providence Park has also expressed a preference for using local labor and recycled materials, including stone and wood available on-site.

Compromises never completely please everyone and – at times – they please no one.  While the compromises crafted by our Council fall considerably short of our vision, we understand that they do address other legal, financial, and social concerns and they do represent a reduction in environmental impact over the original design. In the spirit of moving forward on this long-debated matter, uniting with the widest possible majority of residents, and fulfilling our mission of protecting and enhancing the entire park, the Friends of Glen Providence is announcing its support for the decisions of Media Borough Council regarding the Third Street Project.

Steering Committee, Friends of Glen Providence Park

Friends of Glen Providence Park, after carefully doing research and weighing the evidence, has decided to fully support dam removal and stream restoration as the most promising option for the resolution of the 3rd Street Project. But the question on everyone’s mind seems to be:

What would Broomall’s Lake look like if it became Broomall’s Run again?

Look upstream, look downstream. You see a babbling brook, a creek, surrounded by woods and rocks. There are some wetlands, which are precious birthing grounds for turtles, frogs and fish. You see trees such as Sycamore, Tulip Poplar, American Beech, Oaks and Maples. You see shrubs like Witch Hazel and Spicebush. (Yes, there are some invasives…more on that later.) Some experts think that there are some natural waterfalls, undoubtedly smaller than the man-made one, because of the significant drop at the dam. Apparently, pre-dam, the same area was where people forded the creek, hinting that there may be bedrock beneath the dam somewhere.

Contrary to common belief, dam removal and stream restoration does not ultimately result in horrible mud flats and mosquitos. Nature finds equilibrium and sediment runs downstream while plants get seeded. With some help from restoration experts, some tree planting and perhaps some earth moving, things return to a “new normal.” In fact, it’s more like the “old normal,” before the dam was built.

Going with nature, by removing the dam and restoring the stream, will save a great deal of money and effort. When humans go against nature, it’s always costly. Right now, Broomall’s Lake needs expensive dredging because it is filling up with sediment. Why is it filling up with sediment? Because there is not supposed to be a lake or dam.

And what about that sediment? According to American Rivers regional experts, sediment in Pennsylvania’s old dams is rarely dangerously toxic, though it’s not spa-worthy mud.

And the State of Pennsylvania and American Rivers both know a thing or two about dam removal, stream restoration and management of sediments. Pennsylvania is the country’s leader in dam removal, probably because we are a large old state with a lot of old, old dams. American Rivers has been assisting public and private entities to clean up their waterways across the country. If you think Broomall’s Dam is a big project, look at the recent removal of Elwha Dam.

Here’s an example of before and after photographs, courtesy of American Rivers:

Dunkard Creek, PA before and after dam removal

Finally, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection has a compelling slide show about Pennsylvania dam safety, with some great before/after comparisons.

The Friends of Glen Providence Park advocates learning more about dam removal and stream restoration to determine if this is right for the 3rd Street Dam.

Here is what we have learned so far: 

– Dam removal is an option supported by PennDOT and the PA Department of Environmental Protection. Both PennDOT and the PADEP have funded dam removal when they find it appropriate, for various safety, environmental and economic reasons.

– Pennsylvania is the national leader in dam removal: According to Laura Craig of American Rivers, Pennsylvania has removed approximately 250 of 1,000 total dams removed so far in the United States.

– Locally, dams are being removed from Ridley, Chester and Darby Creeks: American Rivers is working with Delaware County and the PADEP to remove 4 outdated dams along Darby Creek, as part of Delaware County’s Greenway Plan for the Darby Creek Watershed. There is information on the CRC Watersheds website about the removal of  the Irving Mill and Sharpless Dams on Ridley Creek, and the planned removal of two dams on Chester Creek.

Facts about dam removal:

– Costs much less than repair, saves taxpayer dollars: Dam removal generally costs 1/3 of estimated reconstruction costs.  In the case of the 3rd Street Dam, the last estimate for replacement of the dam was for over $3.2 million. Laura Craig of American Rivers, a national leader in dam removal, has given an initial estimate that the dam removal and stream restoration at 3rd Street would cost under $1 milllion. This does not include the cost of a bridge, which could range from a pedestrian/bike bridge to a two-lane roadway.

– Best environmental practice for outdated dams and lakes: Dams affect water quality, fish and animal habitat, sediments and streambanks, and when dams serve no functional purpose, their negative impacts often outweigh any benefits.  For more information, read the Small Dam Removal in Pennsylvania Fact Pack by the Pennsylvania Organization for Watersheds and Rivers.

– Eliminates safety risks and public liability: Safety and liability concerns are usually the primary factor influencing decisions to remove dams.

– Prevents dam maintenance costs: this is self-explanatory.

– The process includes streambank restoration and replanting of native trees and plants: Laura Craig indicated in her presentation that native shrubs, grass and trees would be planted as part of stream restoration and stream bank stabilization.

What about the 3rd Street Dam?

– Dam removal would drain Broomall’s Lake and return the area to its pre-1883 condition: We have not found any photographs of Broomall’s Run before the dam was built, so we cannot know exactly how that would look. The stream would be similar in size and appearance to the existing stream both upstream and downstream of the current dam. But there is a 30′ elevation drop from above to below the dam, so any resulting stream would have some natural falls to make that descent.

– The lake is private property with no public recreational or functional uses: The lake is the private property of Broomall’s Lake Country Club. The lake was once used for swimming, but there has been no swimming since the 1960’s when the Club’s swimming pools were installed.

– Without costly dredging, the lake will become a marsh: When the lake was formed in 1883, it was over 30′ deep, but due to sedimentation it is now approximately 8′ deep. While no one can say how long it would take, experts who have looked at the dam, including Laura Craig of American Rivers and Borough Engineer Robert Johnston, agree that Broomalls’ Lake will continue to fill in and become a marsh, in as soon as 10-15 years.

– Dam removal would be least damaging to Glen Providence Park: Schnabel Engineering indicated that the area to be filled with landfill for a new dam would extend 70′ out from the current dam wall, along a length of  300 to 400′– this is .48 to .64 acres. Beyond that area, trees will need to be cleared so that construction vehicles can access the site- according to Larson Design Group, this total area within the “limits of disturbance” is 1.11 acres. For dam removal, the base of the dam would still need to be accessed, but it should not need a larger access area than for building a dam, and there would be not be the loss of up to .64 acres to landfill. This creates an estimated “limit of disturbance” of less than 1/2 acre.  Furthermore, with dam replacement, no trees would be allowed within 10′ of the base of the dam– extending the permanent impact to the park.  With dam removal and stream restoration, there would be no such restriction, rather the stream banks and wetlands would be allowed to be in a natural state.

The Friends of Glen Providence Park supports an expert site assessment to determine if dam removal is right for 3rd Street.

In March, the Council-appointed Citizens Advisory Committee will mail a survey to Media Borough residents, business owners and property owners to solicit their opinions on the 3rd Street Bridge/Dam project.  It is important to understand all of the options being considered for the project in order to have an informed opinion.

Do you still have questions?  So do we!  Join us at the Community Meeting to Address Media’s Third Street Dam Project on March 5:

– Laura Craig of American Rivers will explain dam removal and stream restoration.

– John Harrison of Schnabel Engineering will explain the proposed design for dam replacement.

– You will have an opportunity to ask questions, voice your opinion, and complete a survey- whether or not you are a Media Borough resident, business owner or property owner.

Sources:

(also linked above)

American Rivers
Chester-Ridley-Crum Watersheds Association
Delaware County Open Space, Recreation and Greenway Plan
The Academy of Natural Sciences
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Small Dam Removal in Pennsylvania: Free-Flowing Watershed Restoration by Pennsylvania Organization for Watersheds and Rivers

Media Borough website: 

Larson Design Group’s Drawings for Construction of Third Street 
Media Borough meeting with PennDOT on 11-4-2011
Presentation by Laura Craig of American Rivers on Dam Removal at the 2-13-2012 CAC Meeting
Schnabel Engineering 1998 Design Alternatives Report
Third Street Dam Citizens Advisory Committee Purpose and Scope of Activities