Snowmaking Pond & Irene

[HowieT2]

http://news.alpinezone.com/100921/

recovery sounds good so far.
Tin-is this the pond you've spoken of in the past needing to be dug out more???

will the restoration be to pre Irene specifications or something else?

Is this the kind of damage which some federal dollars are available for?

BTW-while the property damage is terrible and without minimizing its effects on people's lives, it's pretty miraculous that no one in the MRV was killed.

[Tin Woodsman]

http://news.alpinezone.com/100921/

recovery sounds good so far.
Tin-is this the pond you've spoken of in the past needing to be dug out more???

will the restoration be to pre Irene specifications or something else?

Is this the kind of damage which some federal dollars are available for?

BTW-while the property damage is terrible and without minimizing its effects on people's lives, it's pretty miraculous that no one in the MRV was killed.

I think that's the one. Judging by the referencde to re-filling to "pre-flood depth", my guess is that they are just trying to put it back like it was. The descriptions of the repair sound fairly costly and are certainly unbudgeted, so I'd be surprised if they used this as an opportunity to spend more money digging it out deeper. I think that in the past, Win has mentioned the ultimate solution being to dig new ponds and that they had scouted locations for same. I wonder how those locations came through this event.

[HowieT2]

I think that's the one. Judging by the referencde to re-filling to "pre-flood depth", my guess is that they are just trying to put it back like it was. The descriptions of the repair sound fairly costly and are certainly unbudgeted, so I'd be surprised if they used this as an opportunity to spend more money digging it out deeper. I think that in the past, Win has mentioned the ultimate solution being to dig new ponds and that they had scouted locations for same. I wonder how those locations came through this event.

I would guess the incremental cost of digging a little deeper is minimal. I mean, once you have the permitting done and the equipment there, how much more can it cost. and some of, if not all the cost may be reimbursed by insurance or federal disaster funds.

[gostan]

Unfortunately, the necessary permitting process to expand the snowmaking pond will definitely not allow for an expansion for this winter.........and maybe, if the permitting process started now, not even for next winter. Stormwater management and environmental impact studies that would likely be required to expand the pond are controversial, costly, time consuming and fraught with "nimby" issues.

Based upon the pictures, videos and telephone calls with friends all up and down Vermont, the fact that the snowmaking pond is rebuildable for this winter is certainly a godsend!

[HowieT2]

Unfortunately, the necessary permitting process to expand the snowmaking pond will definitely not allow for an expansion for this winter.........and maybe, if the permitting process started now, not even for next winter. Stormwater management and environmental impact studies that would likely be required to expand the pond are controversial, costly, time consuming and fraught with "nimby" issues.

Based upon the pictures, videos and telephone calls with friends all up and down Vermont, the fact that the snowmaking pond is rebuildable for this winter is certainly a godsend!

correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the normal permits required for gravel removal have been suspended by the governor. and if they are digging out the sediment, how would anyone know what the level was immediately prior to the storm.

[Hawk]

I went down there this past weekend. Yes there is only one snowmaking pond and it is right near the Kingsbury Steel bridge and behind Macs. You would be amazed at the amount of material that river redistributed. We are very lucky that the pond wasn't a total loss. I think that Sugarbush got permission to rebuild what was there but like Stan says, making it bigger is a really big deal. I think that I am greatfull that we will have any snowmaking at all.

I am just amazed that the river totally changed locations in many places. When any of you get a chance go down to riverside park which is about a 100 yds south of the bottom of the access road on the Left. The river nearly cut the park in half. You have to see it for yourself.

[HowieT2]

I went down there this past weekend. Yes there is only one snowmaking pond and it is right near the Kingsbury Steel bridge and behind Macs. You would be amazed at the amount of material that river redistributed. We are very lucky that the pond wasn't a total loss. I think that Sugarbush got permission to rebuild what was there but like Stan says, making it bigger is a really big deal. I think that I am greatfull that we will have any snowmaking at all.

I am just amazed that the river totally changed locations in many places. When any of you get a chance go down to riverside park which is about a 100 yds south of the bottom of the access road on the Left. The river nearly cut the park in half. You have to see it for yourself.

We were at riverside park the week before the storm and then checked it out afterwards. unbelievable.

I dont know understand why you all think it is a major project to make the pond deeper than it was. They are going to dredge it anyway and haul out the sediment. Dont they just need to dig a little deeper?

[Brew Ski]

We walk around the snowmaking pond almost every weekend all year. When the spring thaw occurs, the river floods into the pond,...every year. When we have big rain storms, the river floods into the pond, almost every time. Howie is not off the mark here, since Irene washed away much of the gravel retaining wall between the river and the pond, they need to dredge out the pond. While dredging it out, dredge deeper. There is no reason to make the pond "bigger". That is to say, the circumference of the Pond as measuring its width and length are fine as is. Permitting would prevent Sugarbush from making the pond longer and or wider, but not dredging it deeper to make more holding capacity.Moreover, because the river floods into the pond several time each year anyway, it seems to make sense to Raise the height of the retaining wall a few feet which accomplishes two important aspects. First, it reduces the chance of flooding river to overflow its banks into the pond and in fact reinforces the pond for the next major storm. Second it would make the pond deeper and therefor increase holding capacity. Honestly, it seems like an ideal situation to improve snowmaking capacity and improve the conservation of neighboring lands and trails.

[gostan]

We were at riverside park the week before the storm and then checked it out afterwards. unbelievable.

I dont know understand why you all think it is a major project to make the pond deeper than it was. They are going to dredge it anyway and haul out the sediment. Dont they just need to dig a little deeper?

I wish it was that easy. The potential flaw in simply digging the pond a bit deeper is that this is very likely a violation of the original/existing permit that allows the pond to exist, and a violation could allow any abutter or other person with standing to enjoin the use of the pond on a temporary basis, until authorities determine no violation, or, if there is a violation, curative steps are taken to comply with original permit or modify the permit. Typically, the original permit speciifically states how much water can be held and there is a design plan and an as-built plan submitted to local and state environmental departments confirming construction controls. Remember that a holding pond can/does affect the flowage of water runoff of all abutting properties. Yes, this does harken back to the western movies of my youth when range wars occurred over water and cattle.

We have a situation in a Town in Massachusetts where we have an ongoing railroad project that is bringing hundreds of jobs to the Blackstone Valley area where abutter and a conservation commission member have called in the Army Corp. of Engineers because they could not get the State to stop what we are doing rightfully and legally.

Unfortunately, expanding the snowmaking pond should be simple, but there are just far too many regulations and too many lawyers looking fow ways to pay for seasons' passes.

[Hawk]

I will preface this with the statement that I am not an expert on VT State environmental law but can only regirgitate what someone told me. Stan is correct. They have a permit for a retaining pond of a certain size that holds a certain amount of water. This is all based on historical data from average water flow over many years. Any increase in size would require further study, permits, approvals, public scrutny, etc., etc. In reality, I think they were having issues with sedimentation and a decreased capacity to begin with. This would have been something that would have needed a permit to resolve. I am not sure if this was in the works or not, just something I heard. If there is anything good that came out of this horrible event is that they can now fix the pond and put it back to where it was.

So no Howie they can not dig it a little deeper. They can only put back what they had. I would think a hefty fine on top of the cost of rebuilding the pond is not what they are looking to do right now. Not to mention destroying the good relationship with the state they aready have.

Steve

[HowieT2]

Thanks for the info. But as you said, they should be able to clean it out to the original permitted specifications, which is more than its condition immediately prior to Irene.

[gostan]

Howie,
Absolutely! And, soon the pond will be repaired and cleaned out to its' original specs, and then it will not be too long before we can all talk about something more fun like 2011-12 snow faill predictions or when snowmaking will begin in earnest. Too early to think about opening day.

[HowieT2]

Wasn't one of the reasons to upgrade to this new software, to reduce spam. It was never an issue before, and now it's out of control. There must be something wrong with the membership process. Whatever it is, it needs to be fixed.

[noski]

Wasn't one of the reasons to upgrade to this new software, to reduce spam. It was never an issue before, and now it's out of control. There must be something wrong with the membership process. Whatever it is, it needs to be fixed.

+1, I was thinking the same thing.... There is more now than there was before.

[Tin Woodsman]

+1, I was thinking the same thing.... There is more now than there was before.

The SPAM has become an issue more than it was before, though I don't think it's at critical levels yet - still annoying though. This is a function of automating the approval process somewhat whereas before Greg has to manually approve all applications. On the one hand, we've seen a bunch of new members join. On the other, many of those members appear to be SPAM-bots. We'll try to stay on top of it as best we can and I'll reach out to Nick to see what else can be done.