Avon Bypass Issues Page

Date	Title	Summary
Avon Bypass Issue

7/17/2005	Historical Record of the Avon By-Pass Proposal (1921-2004)	This document was first created in July 2002. It has now been supplemented with the historical newspaper articles concerning this issue. The bottom-line is that Skagit County has never been able to afford this project.

9/26/1922	GNRR letter and Robert Herzog Report (1st Avon By-Pass Proposal)	This report is significant in that it was the first study devoted entirely to the Avon By-Pass concept and it was authored by private enterprise.
10/6/1922	Hogeland letter to GNRR President	Acknowledges breaking of levees saved bridge. Felt that when levees were improved they would lose bridge. Wanted to build bypass.
10/16/1936	Map and Plans of 1936 Avon Bypass Proposal	Map showing proposed location as well as structures planned to aid creation of Avon Bypass. Idea included widening what is known today as 3-Bridge Corridor between Burlington & Mt. Vernon.
11/10/1936	Letter to GNRR President (re opposition to By-Pass)	Avon By-Pass project to cost $1,832,000. Locals said they couldn't afford it. NPRR wanted taxpayers to pay for improvements to their bridge.
3/10/1937	Letter to GNRR President	Tells President of March 2nd meeting in which By-Pass plan was "quite unfavorable" amongst those in attendance due to the cost of the project. Felt plan would be "indefinitely postponed".
8/19/1952	Letter to Division Engineer	Declares Avon By-Pass "Inactive".
6/8/1955	GNRR Chief Engineer letter	Corps of Engineers reported that the By-Pass proposed in 1936 did not meet their minimum cost benefit ratio.
12/16/1955	Minutes of Meeting of Skagit County Chapter, Puget Sound Flood Control Council	Serious discussion amongst all dike and drainage district regarding potential Fir Island dredging cutoff project involving “Valentine Bend” and revetment work.
2/8/1961	Summary of Public Hearing on Flood Control	The Bypass project was favored by the Dept of Game and Fisheries because it would have no effect on the existing Skagit River fishery resources.”
2/8/1961	Public Hearing on Flood Control for the Skagit River Basin, 8 February 1961	“I am particularly interested in securing information on the nature and scope of the flood control improvements desired; the problems and difficulties encountered under the present conditions, and the proposed developments which would utilize the desired improvements that you would suggest.” (Col. Young, US Army Corps of Engineers)
9/5/1962	BOC letter to Corps re Avon Bypass	County formed committee re Avon Bypass project.
10/2/1962	Letter to Division Engineer re Avon Bypass	Total construction cost were estimated to be $19,000,000 with a $4,000,000 local share.
8/23/1963	Letter to GNRR President	Avon By-Pass again being considered. GNRR concerned about involvement of Milo Moore (Fisheries Director) in development scheme in Fidalgo and Padilla Bays.
9/17/1963	MFR re 8/26/63 Corps meeting with locals re Avon Bypass	The Corp attended a meeting in Burlington with approximately 50 residents owning property in the vicinity of the proposed Bypass. Opposition to the project was based on cost, considered it a “pork barrel project” and that it would not eliminate flooding.
10/21/1963	Letter to Westland re Avon Bypass	Corps advised Westland that there was no outstanding opposition to Avon Bypass.
10/31/1963	Corps Internal Memorandum re Cost of Avon Bypass	$23,202,000 with a local share of $4,141,000
11/1963	Objections to Avon Bypass by Swinomish Indian Tribal Community	“Salmon fishing is the major source of livelihood for the Swinomish Indians, and denial or deprivation thereof would cause great hardship.”
11/22/1963	Corps Avon Bypass Plan Informational Bulletin	Plan would create a 8 mile long cold clear lake. U.S. Fish and Wildlife developed resident trout fisheries in Bypass. Minimum flow of 100 cfs required. Lower section of Bypass would be used for migratory fish rearing.
12/16/1963	U.S. Army Corps letter to BCC re Avon Bypass and local cooperation	“The Avon Bypass, together with minor levee improvement downstream of the Bypass, would increase flood protection in the area below Burlington for a flood with recurrence of once in 30 years. For the 1951 flood the Bypass would have lowered flood stages 3 to 5 feet in the Skagit River and 2 to 4 feet in the North and South Forks of the Skagit River.”
1/31/1964	Corps letter to Senator Jackson re Avon Bypass	“The present level of flood protection in the delta area is once in 3 to 10 years. The cities of Mt. Vernon and Burlington now have only 5 to 8 year protection.” The cost benefit ratio was 2 to 1.
3/30/1964	Corps letter to Senator Jackson re Avon Bypass	Corps justifies Avon Bypass plan despite local opposition. Stated that 180,000 cfs flood was a 30 year event. In 1990 & 1995 we had 157,000 cfs and they called that a 35 year event.
2/17/1965	MFR re Corps meetings in Burlington re Avon Bypass	Corps held "secret" meeting with two county commissioners and dike districts before meeting with Burlington City council. Was assured of County cooperation. Dike District 12 was opposed to Bypass. Cost made project prohibitive.
9/7/1965	Corps letter to Congressman Meeds re Avon Bypass	Extensive letter justifying the Bypass concept. Addresses why dredging won't work and setback levees too expensive.
2/7/1966	MFR re levee raising instead of Avon Bypass	Corps explored the possibility of abandoning the Avon Bypass in favor of increased levees. The County engineer had “no objections” to a levee alternative if the “blowout problem” could be solved.
6/14/1966	MFR re Alternatives to Avon Bypass	The most feasible alternative to the Avon Bypass and downstream levee and channel improvement was found to be raising of existing levees. The cost was estimated at $27,400,000. That cost was $4,682,000 less than the Avon Bypass and downstream levee improvements which had soared from the original cost of $9,600,000 to $32,082,000.
8/9/1966	Letter to GNRR President	Letter discusses how Avon By-Pass plan would impact their bridges.
8/13/1966	MFR re meeting with Skagit County re Avon Bypass	The Commissioners stated that the maximum contribution that Skagit County could make toward the proposed $6,000,000 local contribution was $2,000,000. This would be accomplished by a 2-mill levy on current property assessments. The Commissioners would only support the Avon Bypass project if it was approved by the voters and the diking districts would have to sponsor the project for the County.
8/23/1966	MFR re status of Avon Bypass Plan	Corps twisted arm of State Government to threaten Skagit County with withdrawal of State "band-aid" approach to flood control unless they move forward on flood control. "Skagit County facing a flood control crisis due to lack of a county-wide flood control plan.
8/25/1966	Corps letter to County re Avon Bypass Plan	Letter clearly shows frustration factor Corps had in dealing with Skagit County. "In effect, it appears that Skagit County is facing a crisis in their planning not only for maintenance of the existing levee system but for attaining a higher level of flood protection in the valley."
9/6/1966	BOC letter to Corps re Avon Bypass	County backs out of commitment to Avon bypass project. "Considering the inadequate time element and the lack of interest in flood control at this particular time, it is our decision not to place a bond for local matching funds on the November ballot."
9/18/1969	BCC letter to U.S. Army Corps re: assurances of local cooperation for the Avon Bypass Project	“Eighteen (18) years have transpired since the last major flood. The public interest in flood control is complete apathy. ”
8/2/1999	DOE Ltr to USACOE Seattle District re: GI Study -- Concerns over Swinomish Bypass Impacts on Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve	Although the final nail in the coffin of a Bypass concept was not to come for several years (See County e-mail killing diversion channel efforts), this letter was the beginning of the end of one of the more responsible flood control alternatives.
2/23/2001	County e-mail to Corps	“I would also like you to inform the group of the plan to involve Ron Thom and a little about his background.” (NOTE: Dr. Ronald Thom, who leads the Coastal Assessment and Restoration technical group at the Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory in Sequim, Washington, has over 35 years of experience as an estuarine and coastal ecologist, and fisheries biologist. It was eventually Battelle’s estimate for the ell grass study that sunk the By-Pass proposal. See 12/20/2002 e-mail
10/22/2001	Letter fm Governor to BCC re Skagit Process for flood issues	“. . . this river poses one of the greatest threats of flood damage in the western United States, and I am pleased that you have invited the Department of Ecology to participate in your efforts. . . . any flood bypass proposal must address decisions concerning future land use of the existing floodplain, as well as design features critical for fish habitat. In addition, it must consider transportation corridors and impacts upon stream flow, existing water rights, and the Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve.”
12/10/2001	BCC letter to Corps in response to NMFS letters	“The Bypass Alternative favored by the County is estimated by the Corps to cost approximately $221 million and would displace less than 150 families with a local cost share of approximately $79 million. The Levee Setback Alternative preferred by the federal agencies has a price tag of $290 million and would displace more than 450 families with a local cost share of approximately $98 million. The increased real estate costs are a 100/o obligation of the local sponsor. This is a significant increase in both the number of local families displaced and the amount of local cost share for a rural county of our size. The Levee Setback Alternative will be analyzed during the Environmental Impact Statement; however, unless other financial partners present themselves, this option is not affordable to Skagit County.” . . . “The long list of mitigation and restoration suggested by the Agencies at this early stage indicates their unwillingness to look at this as a realistic project with budget and schedule constraints- 'We view the list as a mild form of extortion required to get agency endorsement of the project.”
1/22/2002 1/25/2002 1/30/2002	LaConner Resolution Burlington Resolution Sedro-Woolley Resolution	Resolutions by local cities endorsing efforts by County Commissioners with respect to flood damage reduction projects, specifically the Swinomish By-Pass diversion channel.
11/20/2002	MFR for USACE Re: Policy and legal issues created by a diversion alternative that directs floodwater to the Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (PBNERR) and CZMA	“The purpose of this memorandum is to discuss whether the designations of a Marine Protected Area and a National Estuarine Research Reserve impose protections on Padilla Bay that would be relevant to a diversion alternative which directs floodwaters to PBNERR. After careful review, it is the legal opinion of this office that the designations enjoyed by Padilla Bay present significant legal issues with regard to the viability of the proposed diversion alternative.” See also: 12/20/2002 County e-mail killing diversion channel efforts
12/20/2002	County e-mail killing diversion channel efforts	Say, could you look at the attached memo, and let me know what you think? By way of background: after our last "executive" meeting with the Seattle District COE staff, it was apparent to Public Works staff that the emphasis on the flood bypass part of the proposed flood project was sinking this thing like an anchor on the Titanic. Federal resource agencies are dead set against it, Tribes are killing it with faint praise, and our local cities are ambivalent at best. In short, we are continually trying to carry the baggage on this project, attempting to sell it, and those who will be most negatively affected by the floods are mostly sitting back and watching. In addition, we are at a good transition point in the project, because we now know the makeup of our own County Commission. Also, the Corps is working (very slowly) in crafting a new Project Management Plan which will call for studying the effect of the bypass on the eelgrass of Padilla Bay. The study will be done by the smart (and sheltered) people of Battelle Labs, and cost $2 million. Or so. What the heck, cost is no object. We think that study will say: armagedden is at hand if the bypass goes forward. Further, the Corps in their brilliance had one of their under informed attorneys write a legal decision that basically said we're toast if we don't handle the whole Padilla Bay issue with kid gloves (i.e., poor money into studies). Given all this, we in Public Works want to change the focus of the discussion. That focus would be getting the 100-year flood through the "3 bridge" corridor, which is the constriction that exists now which will force water to jump the river east of Burlington . As you can see from the outline, I believe if we focused on this as "Phase I" of the flood project, then we might be able to actually get something done. And at a much reduced federal construction cost.