State dam-safety staff advise repair, O&M and limited funding options for Haley Pond (Rangeley) dam

State dam-safety staff joined a local committee meeting to review inspection findings and options for the Haley Pond dam in Rangeley, urging routine operations and modest repairs while flagging limited public funding for non–high-hazard dams.

MEMA Director of Operations and Response Steve Mallory and MEMA engineer Anna Papparajder told the committee the dam’s emergency action plan (EAP) is up to date but recommended several near-term repairs and operational controls. ‘‘I am the director of operations and response for MEMA,’’ Mallory said when introducing the agency’s team. Papparajder said, ‘‘I will say when I reviewed the file and the EAP, I was very pleased to see that the EAP was updated and actionable.’’

Why it matters: committee members face a tradeoff between preserving the pond for recreation and neighborhood character and reducing downstream flood risk. MEMA emphasized life-safety and property protection as the overriding priorities for dam work.

What MEMA recommended and offered - Follow the written inspection recommendations: test the EAP and ‘‘test the gate 1 cycle during the February’’ runoff window; clear brush and root growth from riprap before winter; and prepare a remedial action plan for concrete, riprap and embankment settlement. MEMA staff offered to share an O&M template and examples used by other dam owners. - Prioritize practical operational controls. Mallory told the group that simple maintenance ‘‘mow the lawn and clear out the riprap’’ can prevent erosion and root-ball failures and urged a usable operations-and-maintenance plan that delegates responsibilities. - Seek targeted engineering help. MEMA said it can provide a vetted list of five engineering firms experienced in dam work and will review proposals from the town.

Funding and regulatory context MEMA staff said public funding for retrofit or redesign is limited except for high-hazard dams; most available public grants have supported dam removal. Mallory noted recent legislative activity and named two bills, LD1382 and LD1848, that were passed by the legislature but subsequently tabled; he said those measures included provisions to increase staffing and to set up a municipal bond bank that could offer financing, possibly with forgiveness features. ‘‘We worked really hard to get those 3 bills passed, and they have passed. So, we’re just waiting on that,’’ Mallory said.

Regulatory approvals for changes (including lowering levels or removal) are administered by Maine DEP and typically involve other agencies such as fish and wildlife and, where infrastructure is involved, DOT. MEMA advised coordinating any proposals with DEP and DOT early in planning.

Community concerns and options discussed Residents and committee members raised two recurring concerns: summer recreation and dock access if the pond level is lowered, and the town’s limited budget for major structural work. One resident said, ‘‘my vote would be to just repair the dam as the report had suggested,’’ reflecting local preference to retain the pond’s character.

MEMA and residents discussed lower-cost operational upgrades such as installing a transducer or electrical gate controls to allow remote or automated operation before storms; MEMA cautioned that specialists are needed and costs can vary. For some projects, nonprofit partners have funded removals when ecological benefits are clear, but MEMA said that route is not a reliable source for retrofit funding.

Next steps and action taken MEMA agreed to provide follow-up materials: contact information at DEP, the names and numbers of a DEP contact (Laura Pay was named), an O&M template, and the list of five engineering firms the agency commonly recommends. The committee agreed to coordinate outreach with DEP and DOT and to narrow the scope of work. The group moved and seconded a date for a follow-up meeting and approved meeting on Jan. 6 by voice vote.

What remains unsettled MEMA will provide the template and contacts for DEP and vetted engineers; the committee must decide the policy lake level to anchor an O&M plan and determine whether to pursue small operational improvements, a retrofit project or, less likely, removal. Cost estimates and a preferred technical approach were not specified and will require engineering proposals and potential capital planning.

The committee adjourned after thanking MEMA staff; members said they will reconvene with MEMA/DEP contacts and circulated materials prior to the Jan. 6 meeting.