A wonderful piece of history showing depths of the river, height of the 1906 flood event, location of the Balls Riffle Ferry, pioneer farming family residences, location of the 1897 and 1907 channels, as well as surveys of land elevations.  Notice all depths are based on Low Low Water (i.e. different then sea level today).

This report relied heavily on the unpublished 1923 Stewart Report (See Stewart 1923 Report -- Retyped Version) and the people of Skagit County have been paying for it ever since.     ". . .the levees, to protect as much land as possible, were placed too close to the river on both sides, thus unduly restricting the channel.  A flood volume exceeding about 140,000 cfs below Sedro Woolley is likely to cause a breach in the levees.  A volume in excess of this, if retained in the floodway by higher levees, would endanger the bridge of the Great Northern Railway. . ."  . . .  "Floods of from 210,000 to 220,000 cfs may be expected about once every 25 years."  . . . "Diversion of the river would be possible at some point below Sedro Woolley, the diversion channel to run generally west into Padilla Bay."  . . .  Discharge and other data of value in connection with a study of plans for flood control are found in USGS WSP's and in an uncompleted report on Skagit River floods prepared by Mr. J.B. Stewart, of the USGS, jointly for that bureau and Skagit County, a copy of which has been furnished this office.  . . .  "No freight boats now go above Mount Vernon."  . . . "The Skagit River delta contains some of the richest farming land in the State."  100 year flood at Sedro-Woolley = 264,000 cfs.  500 year flood = 321,000 cfs. 

NOTE:  See also Notice and Minutes of Public Hearing In Connection With Preliminary Examination of "Skagit River, Washington, With A View To The Control Of Its Floods" Directed By Flood Control Act of May 31, 1924; Robert E.L. Knapp, Skagit County Engineer, Testimony for 11/26/1924 Hearing; H.L. Willis, Skagit River Improvement Committee Chairman Testimony for 11/26/1924 Hearing.

" . . .local interests are now unable to provide the required cooperation and that no modification of the physical features of the project will so reduce the cost to local interests as to make it possible for them to supply the required cooperation at this time."  (pg 1) 

". . .the February 1932 flood at The Dalles was measured as 147,000 second-feet, with a run-off during the 3 days of highest discharge of 602,000 acre-feet. It has been estimated that, if Shannon and Diablo reservoirs had not been in operation, the crest discharge at The Dalles would have been about 182,000 secondfeet, . . . (¶50 pg 18)  1940 LAND VALUES as determined in 1930 =". . .an average of $208 an acre." (¶56 pg 30)  The spring flood of 1894, which destroyed crops valued at $1,500,000, prompted the settlers to extend their system of dikes. The flood of 1897 washed out the roadbed of the Great Northern Railway between Burlington and Sedro-Woolley, flooded part of Mount Vernon, and caused a heavy loss of livestock and property above Concrete. The flood of 1906 caused a loss of $250,000.. The discharge at Sedro-Woolley during the 1897 flood was slightly greater than for the flood of 1906, so the damages resulting from the 1897 flood were probably on the order of $300,000. The flood of 1909 caused damages conservatively estimated at $1,500,000. It ruined many farms, destroyed several hundred head of livestock and washed out many miles of dikes and drainage ditches ,. The Great Northern Railway embankment between Burlington and Mount Vernon was washed away and serious damage done to the State highway, That part of Mount Vernon west of the river was entirely flooded.  (¶59 pgs 30-31)  River Improvement Fund -- "The work done by Mr. Stewart was also paid for from this fund."  On March 2, 1937 " . . . county officials stated that the county's financial position was such that it would be impossible at that time for the county to furnish the local cooperation required for the construction of the Avon By-pass as authorized under the existing project."  (¶77 pg 39)  It is estimated that a channel from Sedro-Woolley to Skagit Bay via the North Fork of Skagit River, adequate to carry safely a discharge of 220,000 second-feet, would require the excavation of approximately 56,000,000 cubic yards of material, and the acquisition of about 3,000 acres of agricultural land for right-of-way. (¶103 pg 47)  "...these same flood waters, under present conditions, reach Padilla Bay after flowing overland, . . ."  (¶110 pg 49)

NOTE TO REVIEWER:  This is a very poor copy of the original and very difficult to read.  It helps to enlarge it to 125-150%.  This document looked at the history of a navigation project between Mt. Vernon and Concrete originally authorized by Congress on May 13, 1947.  The final results are in this report as well as a lot of statistical history on logging and local businesses.

"Tug operators advised that a 100-ft channel width and a 6 foot depth would be sufficient for foreseeable navigation requirements." (¶13) ... Approx 1,520,000 CY of material would be dredged. (¶15 & 21)  Estimated that annual maintenance dredging would consist of 380,000 CY.  (¶22b)  Two mills at SW sell annually, an average of 10,500,000 board-feet of lumber to the US Army. (¶27)  Total annual benefits of barge canal would be $592,000. (¶28)  Annual cost $474,000. (¶29) Amt needed to complete study $45,000. (¶30) The Skagit River navigation study has been authorized and intermittently underway since 1947 In view of this fact ... an effort should be made to complete the study as soon as practicable.  ... $15,000 needed to complete the study be allocated early in fiscal year 1964. (¶31)

100 yr flood at Sedro Woolley 239,000 cfs. . . . The existing levee system rests on a foundation of silts and sands common to the delta area. Differential heads of water in flood flow periods result in seepage through levee embankment and levee foundations, causing boils and blowouts that flood adjacent croplands.  . . .  The semi-pervious foundation conditions preclude any general raising of levees without extensive broadening of the levee sections, construction of cutoffs to reduce seepage and relocation of the road systems adjacent to the levee system. . . . Widening the Skagit River to carry flood flows is also infeasible. To achieve the same results as the Bypass and levee and channel improvements would produce, the channel would have to be widened from 300 to 600 feet from the downstream limits of Sedro Woolley to the mouth of the river, a distance of over 20 miles.  . . . The possibility of substantially increasing existing levee heights was opposed by the City Engineer of Mount Vernon and representatives of diking districts because of the hazard of underseepage and blowouts through porous foundation materials.  . . .  Representatives of the Washington State Department of Game and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service stated that the proposed levee and channel improvements would not adversely affect the runs of anadromous fish in the Skagit River, . . . The Avon Bypass project for flood control was endorsed by the Washington State Departments of Conservation, and Commerce and Economic Development, the Skagit County Board of Commissioners, the Skagit County Flood Control Council, the City Engineer of Mount Vernon, and local residents. The Chairman of the Skagit County Board of Commissioners stated that the people and taxpayers of Skagit County could be assured that they would have the right to vote on funding of local cooperation requirements for the project.  . . .  Opposition to the Bypass project was expressed by representatives of Fire District No. 6 and Diking District No. 12 on the grounds that the Bypass cost would be excessive and would sever both districts and make access difficult.  A petition signed by 740 persons was presented by a citizens' group that opposed the Bypass and any plans to modify the Bypass for other purposes.

A comprehensive plan, completed in 1971, called for increasing Skagit River flood control through use of reservoir capacity provided by Puget Sound Power and Light Company's Upper Baker hydroelectric power project in addition to the 16,000 acre-feet of storage space now available during the winter flood season. The detailed feasibility investigation being completed by the Corps of Engineers was in follow-up to the comprehensive study and undertaken under the same authority.  . . .  Land use zoning, development restrictions, flood proofing and early flood warning are flood plain management elements of this alternative which would be continued by Skagit County and the State of Washington.  . . . Baker Lake would be lowered to provide a total of 74,000 acre-feet of flood control storage between 15 November and 1 March each year.  . . .  Although increased flood control capability has the potential of creating increased development pressure on flood plain lands, especially those close to urban areas and those now protected by dikes and levees, this pressure is expected to be minimal.  . . . However, the application of stringent flood plain management techniques and flood plain zoning by Skagit County, as called for in the recommended plan, should reduce the likelihood and severity of such losses.  . . . The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service late in the study asked that flood control drawdown occur earlier than necessary for flood control in order to benefit Baker Lake salmon production.  This earlier drawdown would increase power losses and, therefore, would have to be justified by fishery enhancement benefits. No current provision exists in the FPC license for such a project operation change.  Because of this and the lack of data on fish production, the Corps study did not evaluate the early drawdown proposal.  . . .  Detailed engineering, economic and environmental impact studies were conducted over the past 2 years . . . Land use. The increased flood protection provided by this alternative (additional 58,000 ac ft storage) would not be sufficient to allow relaxation of current restrictions on intensive developments in flood hazard areas. Therefore, no effect on land use is expected.

COMMENTS RE ADDITIONAL STORAGE

False sense of security. Encourages development of flood plain for uses incompatible with flooding.  (Sierra) Would create a false sense of security which could induce continued building in floodprone areas. (R. Hammond, SWCD)  . . .  Not enough protection. Only corrects about 8 percent of the total flood damage of the basin. (Dept. Ecol.) Watershed above Upper Baker includes less than 7 percent of area of the Skagit at Mt. Vernon and about 10 percent of runoff volume. This degree of control would be small under severe conditions.  (SWCD)  . . .  Storage will increase. The additional flood storage could make the difference between the (a) disaster or high river stage. (PNWWA) Additional flood storage at Upper Baker will not adversely affect the environmental values of Skagit Valley. (EPA) It is only a start on the overall control program for Skagit, and its benefits will more than justify the costs.  (SWCD)

“The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District (USACE), in cooperation with Skagit County, is preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for a proposed flood-risk management General Investigation (GI) Study for the Skagit River Basin from Ross Lake to the river mouth at Skagit Bay. This study was requested by Skagit County because of the potential for significant flooding on the Skagit River.
“An initial notice of intent (NOI) for this project was originally published in the Federal Register on November 20, 1997, for a Skagit River Flood Damage Reduction Study (62 FR 62019). Since the original NOI was issued in 1997, the study has evolved to meet new challenges and include ecosystem considerations associated with Puget Sound Chinook salmon and bull trout species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). On July 29, 2011, an additional NOI was published, recommencing the scoping process (76 FR 45543) (see Appendix A). The purpose of this most recent NOI was to provide opportunity for additional public input and ensure that the study still accurately reflects stakeholder resource issues and concerns.”

UPDATED “This final Scoping Summary Report for the Skagit River General Investigation Study has been revised to include a comment letter from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that was inadvertently excluded from the October 2011 Scoping Summary Report. Revised text is italicized. ... Address environmental justice in the EIS. ... Consider a natural processes alternative as one of the alternatives in your range of reasonable alternatives.  Develop and disclose project specific standards of significance.”

See also: 11/26/2011 www.SkagitRiverHistory.com Comments on October 2011 Corps Scoping Summary Report