Design team outlines phased 30% plan for Jackson Dam, recommends data collection and public steering process

Consultants working with the Caledonia County Natural Resource Conservation District presented a proposed 30% design and task list for the Jackson Dam site and urged the Select Board to authorize phased technical work and a public steering process.

The consulting lead (identified in the meeting as an SLR consultant) described a data‑collection program that would include cross‑sectional surveys with permanent reference pins, targeted sediment sampling for heavy metals and PCBs, and—in response to regulator feedback—asbestos testing for disturbed sediments. The consultant said the surveys and samples would let the team update hydraulic models and compare “dam in” and “dam out” scenarios to quantify downstream flood impacts and guide options.

"We have done a lot of thinking kind of through our initial look," the SLR consultant said, adding that the data would inform whether sediment removal is necessary and how any alternatives might perform downstream. The consultant emphasized the need to coordinate with state and federal regulators and noted that DEC water‑quality certification and other permitting steps are likely to be required.

Emily of the Caledonia County Natural Resource Conservation District said she will seek grant funding to cover the work and asked the board for an expression of interest to support fundraising. "My engine would be to raise the funds to cover this," Emily said, adding that funders’ expectations could shape whether a full dam‑removal design is required. She and the consultants described breaking tasks into smaller chunks so fundraising could cover initial phases.

Board members pressed on timing and on whether the town would be committed to removal if it funded early work. The consultants said initial tasks—survey, sampling and updated hydraulic modeling—are necessary to present realistic alternatives to the public and regulators; if the public later decides removal is not appropriate, that information would still have value. The consultants also recommended exploring a permanent drawdown permit or staged drawdown that could allow vegetation to establish on exposed sediments before any large‑scale removal.

The presenters proposed that most task list items could be completed within roughly a year so the town would have the technical information to make an informed choice. They cautioned that some permitting steps and final designs could change depending on funder conditions and regulator feedback.

Next steps discussed at the meeting included asking the presenters to provide a short letter or statement summarizing commitments and an estimated timeline (to help with fundraising), continuing the public process with a steering committee, and returning to the board with a clearer funding ask at a future meeting.