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.

PennDOT confirmed funding of the project the previous week, so Schnabel is now working on updating the dam design. Larson Design Group will design the roadway, box culvert, and stormwater system that goes under road. Schnabel and Larson will work together, and consult with the PA Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), PennDOT, and the Army Corps of Engineers on various aspects of the project.

Wetlands

Schnabel will seek approval from the Army Corps and PADEP of the wetlands mitigation site. Because wetlands in Glen Providence Park would be destroyed* for the dam construction project, it is required that a comparable area of wetlands be established elsewhere (referred to as “wetland swapping”). Schnabel proposes converting the upstream part of the park’s pond, and the flat area upstream of that, into a wetland (as we have written about in Upcoming Changes: Pond & Wetlands).

Aesthetics

A landscape architect from Larson will work on the aesthetics of the new dam. Mr. Harrison indicated the new spillway (waterfall) will not be that visible, but that the box culvert on the downstream side will be a big structure and very visible – they plan a design using form liners so that any exposed concrete looks like stone. They also propose black metal fencing as a more attractive alternative to a cyclone fence to protect the 20 foot drop. The PA DEP does not allow any trees or shrubs on the dam slope, so the fence and large culvert would be quite visible within Glen Providence Park and from the Third Street park entrance. There may be opportunity for public input into the aesthetics.

Time frame

• According to Larson, the design process should take 18 months from now to final design – which would take us to October 2016.
• Then Schnabel says the DEP will take 6 months to a year for approval, which would put final approval sometime between April and October 2017.
• According to a June 13, 2011 PA Fish & Boat Commission Letter, “any construction activities affecting the waterway should take place between April 15 and October 15 in order to allow turtles to avoid the project area while they are active.”
• Depending on the timing of PADEP approval, construction could start as soon as April 2017, or as late as April 2018 – likely finishing in 2018 or 2019.
• Council asked Schnabel to give a brief status of the project monthly that could be posted on the Borough website.

*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.

In the past couple of months, information has come forward that has shifted the possibilities for the 3rd Street Bridge and Dam. It is very clear that something must be done, and soon; the dam was declared unsafe in 1980 by the Army Corps of Engineers, and has been closed to traffic since 1996. For the public and especially those living downstream, it must be dealt with as soon as possible.

Up until recently, it was believed that PennDOT (Pennsylvania Department of Transportation) required that the dam be rebuilt and the road be restored and opened to automotive traffic. Recent interactions with PennDOT have revealed that this is not the case, and in fact, Media Borough, the “project sponsor,” may declare whatever goals they see fit, as long as the safety issues with the bridge are resolved.

To the best of our knowledge, there are four possible options that the PennDOT (and local) funding would permit, noting that there are variations and creative options within these four broad categories:

1. Replace the dam, reconstruct an automotive road. This is the current plan on the table, incorporating a two-lane road. It is possibly the most expensive and environmentally damaging plan, but maintains Broomall’s Lake and allows the greatest amount of transportation access between Media and Upper Providence.
2. Replace the dam, create a greenway for pedestrians and bicycles, possibly that is open to emergency vehicles. This would maintain Broomall’s Lake and the parklike atmosphere between the lake and Glen Providence Park, while allowing passage between Media and Upper Providence.
3. Remove the dam, build an automotive bridge. Dam removal and stream restoration tends to be a less expensive option, often 2-3 times less expensive. Environmentally, dam removal can be disruptive in the short term, but will overall cause much less damage to the park and will restore the stream to its natural course. It will improve water quality. All dam maintenance and ownership issues are resolved when there is no dam. There are many factors specific to Broomall’s Dam that can only be addressed by an expert. Building an automotive bridge, however, would be costly and have significant maintenance costs.
4. Remove the dam, create a pedestrian and bicycle bridge, or greenbridge. This would potentially incorporate the cost savings and environmental benefits of removal, while maintaining a transportation connection between Media and Upper Providence.

As far as we understand, PennDOT would fund 80% of any of these four options. The rest of the money would come from local grants like that provided by Senator Pileggi.

Friends of Glen Providence Park wants to minimize damage to the park and create a pedestrian and bicycle greenway, to preserve and enhance the park for those who use it recreationally, and for those who live there — the wildlife. (The park was founded as an arboretum and bird sanctuary, after all.) We are currently working to understand the pros and cons of dam removal vs. replacement of the dam, particular to the 3rd Street Dam and Glen Providence Park.

Media Borough, Delaware County and Broomall’s Lake Country Club have also signed a stipulation agreement that seems to include replacing the dam and rebuilding a “roadway.” We acknowledge that the stipulation is a different challenge than PennDOT funding, and one that can probably only be handled by the signatories and their legal counsels.

That said, the stipulation was signed under false assumptions that PennDOT would only fund dam and bridge reconstruction, and that PennDOT was in charge of the project. It is now clear that Media Borough is in charge of the project, and PennDOT will fund any option that restores the public safety of the Third Street Bridge. Is it time to consider all the options? We think so. 

Check back regularly for updates and information as we do our research.

What are your priorities and concerns for Glen Providence Park and the Bridge/Dam?

This greenway is newly-approved, connecting Montgomery County and Manayunk by rehabilitating the stately-but-abandoned Manayunk Bridge. The intention is to create an “aerial park” for pedestrians, cyclists and folks who just want to relax and enjoy the fantastic views from the historic bridge, and connect MontCo’s Cynwyd Heritage Trail with Manayunk’s Ivy Ridge Trail. The result will create a new destination for locals, and an important link in the Philadelphia campaign to create 120 miles of continuous greenway for commuters and recreational pursuits.

PennDOT has awarded the project $1.3 million through the Pennsylvania Community Transportation Initiative and has insisted on a fast-track completion by 2014. This aerial park will be the first of its kind in the Delaware Valley, and has numerous collaborators, from the City of Philadelphia to the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia. It’s a truly cross-community effort that looks to be creating a spectacular new way to enjoy the outdoors.

We imagine that the 3rd Street Greenway would not be as ambitious nor as expensive, but also could be a positive project for many in our community. We can see how a greenway enhances Delaware County, Upper Providence and Media with a pedestrian and bike-friendly transport route, but also increases the appeal of Glen Providence Park and Broomall’s Lake as outdoor “destinations” right near a vibrant arts and cultural community.

For more info about the “aerial park”, check out the stories here, here and here.