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.

At the Special Meeting, one of the requests of Friends of Glen Providence Park was for Media Borough Council to conduct a peer review of the 3rd Street dam and bridge design.

What is peer review:

While this is a foreign concept for most of us, peer review is common in engineering. As John Harrison of Schnabel Engineering said at the Special Meeting on Oct. 13, all projects have some form of peer review done, and ours is no exception, as PennDOT will conduct a technical peer review of the design to make sure that it is, first and foremost, safe. The kind of peer review that we are requesting is more specific the environmental impact of the dam.

Who does peer review:

We would like the Borough to contract an independent design review to look at how to reduce the destruction of park land in the dam design. Our cursory inquiries have strongly suggested that there are, in fact, some possibilities worth exploring, and we feel that a professional expert’s opinion is worth the money. Some design alternatives might come to light that reduce the impact on the park and reduce costs.

Why do peer review:

We need this sort of review because Media Borough did not ask Schnabel Engineering to minimize the impact on the park when they first contracted them in 1998. This may have been an implicit part of the understanding, but there is no statement on record declaring preservation of the park as a goal or need. With a long-term structure like a dam, which may last 100 years or more, it is important to investigate all the options thoroughly, especially when impacting historic public park land.

Who pays for peer review:

Of course, money is an important question. While John Harrison mentioned a cost of $40,000 for a design peer review, our understanding is that the cost would be markedly less, more to the tune of $10,000 or less. The Borough would have to pay for this out-of-pocket, but this is a small fraction of the $250,000 the Borough is spending on design fees as well as the $4+ million price tag. This is not ‘free money’ that is funding this bridge, by the way. All of Pennsylvania taxpayers are funding this bridge.

In sum:

Because the initial goal of the Borough was simply to replace the road, and not reduce the impact on the park, we feel that an independent design review is a prudent path for Media Borough and Delaware County to choose. The expense is minimal relative to the costs of the project, and should the review reveal cost savings as well as a means to save park land, a peer review would be invaluable. Regardless of the findings of an independent review, Media Borough can move forward more confidently with an expert second opinion.