8 responses to “Should the Duck Hole dam be rebuilt?”

• 

  Jeff September 25th, 2011 at 11:37

  Duck hole was one of those special places in the Adirondacks that drew people back time after time. That will no longer be the case now that the dam is gone. What people fail to see with the strict regulations pertaining to the wilderness areas is that you are discouraging much needed tourism in the area. That pertains to lack of trail maintenance and removal of lean-to’s also.

• 

  Paul September 15th, 2011 at 14:27

  Bill, After I looked back at the comments I see that perhaps the ASLMP has references specifically to dams. I think (at the very least in spirit) the document probably considers a “new” dam to be one where there has never been such an impoundment. Not this particular case. With that said I see no practical reason to replace the dam.

• 

  Paul September 15th, 2011 at 13:56

  Bill, does this mean that we cannot re-construct any of the other structures that were destroyed on Wilderness land? The hiking bridges across the brooks in and around the John’s Brook valley for example?

• 

  Bill Ingersoll September 14th, 2011 at 19:01

  Basically, what I’m really getting at is not the distinction between “replace” and “reconstruct,” but rather the distinction between an “existing dam” versus a “new dam.”

  Based on the photos, the logs and rocks from the old dam that are currently sitting in the Cold River seem to have no impact on the level of the new pond whatsoever. In fact, it looks like the outlet of the new Duck Hole pond flows *down* over some small rapids before passing the ruins, which means that if there is still some navigable water there, it’s not because they are being impounded by a man-made structure.

  If there is zero water impoundment, then we can safely conclude that the old dam was effectively destroyed by Irene. It no longer exists or functions as a dam. By my understanding of state land policy, its validity as a conforming structure under the SLMP has come to an end.

• 

  Mike Sands September 13th, 2011 at 15:41

  I would love to hear the debate about the difference between “replacement” and “reconstruction.” Are these terms clearly defined in the SLMP?

• 

  Bill Ingersoll September 13th, 2011 at 13:36

  Not to stymie others from commenting, but this is the SLMP provision on dams in Wilderness:

  “– existing dams on established
  impoundments, except that, in the
  reconstruction or rehabilitation of such
  dams, natural materials will be used
  wherever possible and no new dams will be
  constructed”

  Like I said, I plan to visit Duck Hole soon to see the site with my own eyes and make my own assessment. However, based on the photos I’ve seen, it appears that the old structure was shattered beyond repair. The SLMP provides only for the “reconstruction or rehabilitation” of the dam, not its replacement. If the existing logs could be reassembled in some way, that would be an allowable “reconstruction” I suppose.

  But I suspect the only way to restore the pond to pre-Irene levels is to build a replacement dam, and I can see no way except through a play in semantics that such an effort could be permitted under the SLMP… regardless of my own personal opinion.

• 

  Phil September 13th, 2011 at 13:11

  Bill, that’s an interesting argument. I’d like to hear what the other side has to say about that. Is there no grandfather clause that allows DEC to rebuild pre-existing structures?

• 

  Bill Ingersoll September 13th, 2011 at 11:41

  I plan to revisit Duck Hole in the near future, to see what the storm has revealed and to personally assess what remains of the dam.

  However, based on the photos I’ve seen of the site, it appears that the dam was damaged beyond repair. Therefore, the only way to restore the former pond is to construct a new dam… an action that is expressly forbidden under the State Land Master Plan.

  If so, and with all due to respect to those who supported dam restoration, it would seem that this debate has been settled definitively.