| Date |
Title |
Summary |
| DD12 Levee Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Issues Page | ||
| LJK DOCUMENTS | ||
| 4/24/2013 | SKAGITRIVERHISTORY.COM TRANSCRIPT OF APRIL 24, 2013 PUBLIC HEARING Before the Skagit County Hearing Examiner, RE: SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PL12-0144 | Margaret Fleek:
“It has, the goal is not a substantial change in the effects of flooding, the
railroad bridge is the big barrier and we’re just trying to make the levees
really solid and wide and then, uh, increase it to meet
the Corps of Engineers’ 25-year standard.” John Schultz: “So in the project the levee will be raised sometimes a foot, sometimes three feet, sometimes four feet. But the plan submitted to FEMA must have four feet because that’s three foot of freeboard. In other words, once we reach a certain flood level – the 100-year in this case – the Corps and FEMA require another three feet above that for safety factor ... “Doing what we can do now with our own resources to protect our own people. So that’s really what this is all about.” |
| 5/12/2013 | Hearing Examiner Cover Letter, Re: Public Recording/Transcript of Public Hearing in re Shoreline Development, Substantial Development Application PL12-0144 | “This letter is neither a pro or con letter re the above listed project. Rather this is to advise you of a situation that could have appeal implications on your decision no matter what you decide. We requested a copy of the electronic copy of the above listed hearing. An electronic copy as required by Rules of Public Procedure for Hearings as promulgated pursuant to SCC 14.06.240(8). ... As you can readily ascertain beginning on page 29 at approximately 1:14:03 into the hearing the recording goes virtually blank except for your microphone. This condition last until approximately Page 44, 2:37:21 into the hearing. That’s a loss of approximately 1 hour and 23 minutes of lost testimony. This lost testimony impacts both the applicant and the people who spoke against the project. In fact there is no testimony of individuals who spoke against the project.” |
| 6/12/2013 | SkagitRiverHistory.com Partial UNOFFICIAL Transcript of June 12, 2013 Public Hearing Before the Skagit County Hearing Examiner, Re: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit PL12-0144 With LJK Footnotes | 86 LJK footnotes added to the Hearing Examiner transcript. |
| 9/2/2013 | Participant Larry J. Kunzler’s Memorandum In Support of Appellant City of Sedro-Woolley’s Appeal | “I want to put to rest any objection by Respondent that I don’t have standing to submit a Memorandum in Support of Sedro-Woolley’s Appeal. I have been participating in this fiasco of a project since my comments on the DEIS therefore my standing and right to participate is unquestionable and undeniable. If the Respondent is allowed to continue not only to artificially flood upstream property owners let alone their own district and the City of Burlington, and that result is attributable to the approval of the permit by Skagit County then every taxpayer in this Valley will become an aggrieved party.” |
| 3/10/2014 | Intervenor Motion to Recuse/Disqualify Hearing Examiner | “To state it in rule form as it applies to land-use decisions, the appearance of fairness doctrine is that, when a hearing “or other contested case proceeding” is held by a local legislative body, planning commission, hearing examiner, zoning adjuster, board of adjustment, or other local body in connection with an individual application for official action, the action taken as a result of such hearing is void if the conduct of the hearing or circumstances surrounding it would make it appear to a reasonable person who was informed of the facts that one or more of the members of the body may have acted out of improper motives. To state this in layperson terms if a disinterested party looking from outside the window in would feel that the hearing was unfair then that is an issue that must be addressed. Such is I believe the instant case.” |
| 3/17/2014 | Intervenor Motion to Disqualify Applicant Expert nhc Due to Conflict of Interest | “The issue presented before us is whether or not an engineering firm can work both sides of a conflict and not be considered a conflict of interest.” |
| 4/9/2014 | Audio of Hearing Examiner Motions Hearing on Dike District 12 Shoreline Substantial Permit | Audio recorded by SkagitRiverHistory.com of the
Skagit County Hearing Examiner's Motions Hearing on Remand of Dike District 12's
Shoreline Substantial Permit PL12-0144. See also: UNOFFICIAL Transcript of April 9, 2014 Motion Hearing Before the Skagit County Hearing Examiner, RE: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Pl12-0144 |
| 6/1/2014 |
Attached hereto is an “Unofficial” Transcript
of the April 9, 2014 Skagit County Hearing Examiner Motion Hearing. The
tape of the hearing was made by myself since the County’s recording equipment
has proven to be unreliable on more than one occasion. The recording was
transcribed by SkagitRiverHistory.com. After the initial transcription we
listened to the recording six more times for accuracy purposes. Where the
recording was weak and we could not understand or had to guess at what the
person said we inserted the word “Unintelligible”. We have
published a link to the audio itself which can be found
here. If anyone feels
they can do a more accurate transcript please feel free to give it a go. |
|
| OFFICIAL EXHIBITS | ||
| 4/24/2013 | Exhibit 1: Skagit County Planning Findings of Fact for DD12 Skagit River Levee Enlargement/Staff Report | “PROJECT DESCRIPTION “This project is an eastern extension of the levee maintenance project initiated by the City of Burlington, and Skagit County Dike, Drainage and Irrigation District No. 12, intended to increase flood protections for the City of Burlington. Skagit County Dike, Drainage and Irrigation District No. 12 propose to enlarge both the width and the height of the existing Skagit River levee along the 1.53 mile long project site. The project extends from the Burlington City limits at Gardner Road north to the terminus of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad on Lafayette Road in the North. The elevation at the top of the levee will be increased by approximately 4 feet in height and the toe or base of the levee will be increased by approximately 60 feet in width. The widening of the dike will be limited to an area landward of the existing levee toe. The purpose of the improvements is for structural reinforcement of the levy system to prevent a failure during elevated flood events.” See also: 4/24/2013 Exhibit 30: Skagit County Hearing Examiner Notice of Public Hearing for 9 AM, Wednesday, April 24, 2013, 4/21/2013 LJK Comments on Skagit County Planning and Development Services Findings of Fact re the Shoreline Substantial Development Application PL12-0191 |
| 6/14/2012 | Exhibit 2: DD12 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application | “This project and application is submitted by Skagit County Dike, Drainage and Irrigation District No. 12. This Application for Permit is made for maintenance/elevation maintenance, repair, post-flood repair, backsloping, critical facility protection, installation of keyways, sheet pile walls, restoration, and to improve the existing Levee within Dike District 12 to conform to the plan, standards and specifications of the "City of Burlington and Dike District No. 12 Levee Certification Project."” |
| 6/19/2012 | Exhibit 3: Project Routing Form from Skagit County Assessor | Skagit County Planning Routing Form, 2nd page lists parcels & tax account numbers. |
| 3/3/2011 | Exhibit 4: Site Plans for DD12 Levee Improvements | 11 pages of structural plans of Dike District 12's Levee Certification improvements. |
| 7/9/2012 | Exhibit 5: Skagit County Planning Notice of Development Application | “Notice is hereby given that on July 9, 2012, Dike District No. 12 filed an application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to increase the size of the existing dike between Gardner and Lafayette Road. Dike District No. 12 proposes to increase the height of the existing dike by 4 feet higher which would result in an increase of the base of the dike by approximately 60 feet. All improvement to the dike would extend landward of the existing dike and would not encroach into the currently existing riparian buffer of the Skagit River.” |
| 7/8/2010 | Exhibit 6: Final Environmental Impact Statement/FEIS To Adopt A Strategic Program for Comprehensive Flood Hazard Mitigation in the Burlington Urban Area and Adjacent Land With A Range of Structural and Non-Structural Components | “Over 3.5 million square
feet of commercial and industrial construction and over 1400 dwelling units have
been built between 1995 and 2008, based on the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) adopted in 1985. Only 216 acres of vacant land are available within the
City Limits. Because of the growth since 1995, the need
to protect the existing urban built environment against the Base Flood is very
important for the economic vitality of the community.” |
| 7/8/2010 | Exhibit 6A: Enlargement from SEPA Final EIS 7/8/10 by City of Burlington | Enlarged maps of City of Burlington hydrology projections. |
| 11/8/2012 | Exhibit 7: Wetlands Site Assessment: Dike District 12 Levee Certification | “Graham-Bunting Associates (GBA) have conducted a site investigation and prepared the following assessment addressing regulated wetlands relative to levee modifications being proposed by Dike District 12. The report includes a characterization of existing conditions, project description, review of existing resource data sources, a summary of our investigative procedures and findings, wetland rating and mitigation recommendations consistent with Section 14.24.230 of the Skagit County Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO).” |
| 2/27/2013 | Exhibit 8: Fish and Wildlife Assessment by Graham Bunting for Dike District 12 Levee Certification | “The proposed project may affect but is not likely
to adversely affect. Puget Sound Chinook salmon. Chinook migrate through the
action area as out migrating juveniles and returning adults, however the project
will occur landward of the existing levee and is not anticipated to impact the
riparian buffer zone beyond the existing baseline. “The Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance identifies the "Protected Review Area" as lands within the floodway, riparian habitat zone and the channel migration area. Although the project is not proposed for the floodway or channel migration area it is within the Riparian Habitat Zone which is defined as the area within 250 feet of all waters of the State (as defined under WAC 222-16-031) within the Special Flood Hazard Area.” |
| 12/28/2012 | Exhibit 9: Dike District 20 Comments | “The Commissioners of Dike District #20 hereby make known their opposition to the granting of the permit to Dike Distict #12 to raise their dike by four feet as proposed. We believe that Dike District #12''s raising their dike by four feet will result in additional water being forced into the Nookachamps Basin when a flood event occurs, thereby causing more damage than would occur without it.” |
| 12/28/2012 | Exhibit 10: DeVries Dairy LP Comments | “We object to the raising of the Dike Dist. #12''s dike by four feet, since in a flood event it will force additional water into the Nookachamps basin and cause greater damage than already occurs during a flood.” |
| 4/22/2013 | Exhibit 11: Skagit County Public Works Skagit River General Investigation Project Manager Comment Letter | “The Skagit River General Investigation (G.I.) involves a basin-wide comprehensive approach to flood risk management. A preferred alternative has not been selected for the G.I. and therefore, from the G.I. perspective, it hasn't been determined how this proposal fits within that framework. Uniformity in levee heights, levee raises in place, and an increased level of protection for urban areas are currently being analyzed in the G.I. process.” |
| 4/22/2013 | Exhibit 12: Skagit Conservation District Letter, RE: Public Comment on Shorelines Permit Application PL12-0144 [Dike District 12 Levee Expansion] | “While the public notice describes the proposed project as an “…extension of the levee maintenance project initiated by the City of Burlington …,” the project in fact represents a significant expansion of the levee system. Raising the levee will exacerbate flooding upstream in the Nookachamps at river flood stages that exceed the existing levee elevation.” |
| 4/23/2013 | Exhibit 13: Dike District 20 Secretary ltr to Hearing Examiner | “The increase in the height of the levee by 4 feet would certainly adversely affect the conditions in Dike District 20 by pushing more water into the Nookachamps Basin.” |
| 4/23/2013 | Exhibit 14: Sedro Woolley City Attorney Letter to H/E | “Project...will have the unintended consequence of backing the water onto SW properties, including the Sedro-Woolley Waste Water Treatment Plant and United General Hospital.” |
| 4/24/2013 | Exhibit 15: Concrete Nor'West support ltr to H/E | Has Concrete Nor'West ever not supported a project that will make them money? |
| 4/24/2013 | Exhibit 16: Narrative of John Semrau in Support of Permit Application | “The County portion of the Project requires import of fill totaling 178,425 cubic yards. Of this quantity, 86,000 cubic yards have already been permitted leaving 92,425 cubic yards to be permitted to raise the levee top. SEPA requirements for this fill quantity have been included and covered by the Final EIS.” |
| 4/24/2013 | Exhibit 17: ZIP OF SEMRAU DOCUMENT DUMP CD | This is all 88 documents submitted put in a ZIP file as if the documents were on the CD. Many of which of questionable relevance. 396 MB. |
| 6/20/2012 | Exhibit 18: City Government of Burlington Planning Findings, Staff Report and Minutes | “Public hearing on Shoreline Substantial Development permit for Dike District #12 for maintenance, elevation maintenance, repair, post-flood repair, backsloping, critical facility protection, installation of keyways, sheet pile walls, restoration and to improve the existing levee within the city limits of Burlington and Dike District #12 to conform to the plans, standards and specifications of the City of Burlington and Dike District # 12 Levee Certification.” |
| 1/12/2012 |
Exhibit 19: Skagit River Flood Risk Management Study Hydraulic Effectiveness of Measures FINAL DRAFT |
“This report describes analysis of the hydraulic
effectiveness of various measures proposed for management of floods in the lower
Skagit River basin, focusing on conditions at and downstream from Sedro‐Woolley.
The intent of the work is to identify those measures which hold promise for
improving flood management and for which additional more detailed analysis is
warranted. Hydraulic effectiveness is defined for current purposes as the impact
of the proposed measure on flows and water levels in the Skagit River (including
the North and South Forks) upstream and downstream from the measure location,
and the impact on spill from the river channel onto the floodplain.” See also: nhc Presentation to SC FCZD AC, Re: Skagit River Flood Risk Management General Investigation Hydraulic Effectiveness of Measures |
| 5/2/1997 | Exhibit 20: Skagit Surveyors & Engineers Benchmark Certifications for Halverson | Survey of flood heights during 1995 flood event in Nookachamps/Sterling area. |
| 4/21/2013 | Exhibit 21: LJK Comments on Skagit County Planning and Development Services Findings of Fact re the Shoreline Substantial Development Application PL12-0191 | These comments submitted to the Hearing Examiner re Dike District 12 plans to raise their levees 4 feet. |
| 4/26/2013 | Exhibit 22: Semrau ltr to H/E re opposition to County request for project delay | “I want to express our opposition to the verbal request by Skagit County for this project to delay work until after the GI Study is completed. ... Development in Burlington continues because flood protection is expected.” |
| 4/26/2013 | Exhibit 23: Semrau ltr to H/E re "False Accusations" | “The accusations during the hearing and in written testimony that Dike District 12 has been performing wok without permit are false.” |
| 4/29/2013 | Exhibit 24: Semrau ltr to H/E re effected parcel numbers | “The Assessor does not have to correctly track ownership of the district in order to assess taxes correctly; therefore it is never a high priority to them.” |
| 4/29/2013 | Exhibit 25: City of Burlington Letter to H/E | “The issues raised by some individuals that testified in opposition to issuance of this permit have already been addressed in the EIS. The proposed levee work under this Shoreline Permit constitutes a critical maintenance and upgrade, and is intended to make the levee more solid. The levee segment proposed for maintenance and upgrade is in the most vulnerable location subject to a potentially devastating failure. The fact that the levee height will be increased as a part of this project is not new; regardless of the outcome of the Corps of Engineers General Investigation, the levees need to be at least this tall to provide a reasonable degree of flood protection. The precise level of protection the upgraded levees will provide has yet to be finalized due to unresolved differences between various models that predict how much water will arrive in a flood event.” |
| 4/30/2013 | Exhibit 26: Original DD12 Attorney Letter to H/E | The original John Schultz letter with typos |
| 4/30/2013 | Exhibit 27: USACE ltr to H/E urging him to approve permit | “...but it is also important for levee sponsors to continue operation and maintenance of their existing facilities.” |
| 5/1/2013 | Exhibit 28: DD12 Letter | See Exhibit 28A: DD12 Attorney Amended ltr to H/E re Supplemental Comments for the correct letter w/ LJK comments. |
| 4/30/2013 | Exhibit 28A: DD12 Attorney Amended ltr to H/E re Supplemental Comments | “...it was apparent that these comments contained personal attacks, hyperbole, opinionated criticism, and false and defamatory accusations against the Applicant.” |
| 5/1/2013 | Exhibit 29: E-mail by Former Burlington Public Works Director | “It is significant that this project does not propose to add any upstream length to the existing levee. This is significant because the flood modeling shows that if the levee's northwest terminus does not change, then there is no significant impact on upstream water surface levels compared to the existing condition.” |
| 4/24/2013 | Exhibit 30: Skagit County Hearing Examiner Notice of Public Hearing for 9 AM, Wednesday, April 24, 2013 | “Skagit County Dike,
Drainage and Irrigation District No. 12 propose to enlarge both the width and
the height of the existing Skagit River levee along the 1.53 mile long project
site. The elevation at the top of the levee will be increased by
approximately 4 feet in height and the toe or base of the levee will be
increased by approximately 60 feet in width.” See also: 4/24/2013 Exhibit 1: Skagit County Planning Findings of Fact for DD12 Skagit River Levee Enlargement, 4/21/2013 LJK Comments on Skagit County Planning and Development Services Findings of Fact re the Shoreline Substantial Development Application PL12-0191 |
| 6/12/2013 | Exhibit 31: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: CONTINUANCE OF PUBLIC HEARING | “This hearing continues the public hearing held on April 24th, 2013 for the eastern extension of the levee maintenance project initiated by the City of Burlington, and Skagit County Dike, Drainage and Irrigation District No. 12, intended to increase flood protections for the City of Burlington. Skagit County Dike, Drainage and Irrigation District No. 12 propose to enlarge both the width and the height of the existing Skagit River levee along the 1.53 mile long project site. The elevation at the top of the levee will be increased by approximately 4 feet in height and the toe or base of the levee will be increased by approximately 60 feet in width. The widening of the dike will be limited to an area landward of the existing levee toe.” |
| 6/12/2013 | Exhibit 32: Presentation Notes of John Semrau | Speaking notes of John Semrau at Hearing Examiner Hearings. “Essentially you have a levee improvement project that proposes to minimize upstream and downstream impacts on existing conditions, while maintaining or enhancing current levels of flood protection and achieving FEMA accreditation of a segment of levee. Most of the new height is freeboard required in order to certify the levees to the current level of protection.” |
| Exhibits 33 & 34 contain personal information and are address lists to Dike District 12 constituents. Hence not posting here. | ||
| 6/1/2000 | Exhibit 35A: Golder Associates Letter to LJK | Analysis of mystery mud on Dike District 12 property: “The hand specimen is composed of a yellowish gray/weakly indurated, silt size, nonplastic, monolithologic sediment. Apparent glass shards are visible under a 10x hand lens. No stratification was observed. Based on these observations, the sample appears to be a volcanic ash deposit or tephra.” |
| 11/2009 | Exhibit 35B: Geotechnical Investigation and Levee Analysis: City of Burlington and Dike District 12 Levee Certification Project (AKA Golder Report) | “This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation and levee analysis for the City of Burlington and Dike District 12 Levee Certification Project located in Burlington, Washington. The purpose of this geotechnical investigation was to evaluate the existing levees and provide geotechnical engineering recommendations regarding improvements to the existing levees and constructing new levees. The levee is to provide flood protection to the city of Burlington and nearby areas from a 1 00-year flood event of the Skagit River. A further purpose of the improvements will be to receive accreditation by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).” |
|
6/5/2000 |
Exhibit 35C: Skagit River Flood Control Committee Meeting Minutes |
“Kunzler then presented a short presentation on the volcanics of the Skagit River floodplain. He had been contacted by flood committee Chairman Chuck Bennett about some strange “mud” Chairman Bennett found while working on a keyway project in the vicinity of the Burlington Sewage Treatment Plant. Kunzler had the mud analyzed by geologist who found the mud to be “volcanic tuff” or more commonly known as pure volcanic ash. The geologist determined that the material was not stratified, meaning the material was deposited in one event.” |
| 6/19/1981 | Exhibit 35D: Mt. Vernon ltr to FEMA re Floodway Designation | “If the designated floodway included all of our existing dikes, would we be able to maintain the dikes, repair the dikes or increase the dikes as needed or would we be precluded from doing so by including them in the designation?” |
| 7/17/1981 | Exhibit 35E: FEMA response to MV 6/19/1981 ltr | “...if a floodway is designated in the future and the dikes are included in that zone, you would be able to maintain and repair the dikes to their present profile elevations. Raising the dikes is another matter. Hydraulic studies of the river have shown that increasing the height of the dikes would cause an increase in flood levels upstream. On that basis, your ordinance would have to prohibit such improvements.” |
| 3/24/1982 | Exhibit 35F: FEMA ltr to Burlington re floodway designations | “Essentially, we have ruled out floodways developed either through conventional equal conveyance methods or through unsteady state flow modeling at this time. Instead, we have decided to build on and refine your thoughts regarding density criteria, in conjunction with establishing a minimum floodway that will encompass the channel and overbank areas including levees.” |
| 4/2/1982 |
Exhibit 35G: Memorandum for Record re Dames & Moore Study |
Floodways should be delineated on FEMA maps as showing only the main channel and the levees on the inside toe (the protected side) of the levees. Dames & Moore to determine density floodway amount of land to be set aside for 100 yr flood. |
| 12/1982 | 100 year flood determined to be 240,000 cfs at Sedro-Woolley. 110,000 cfs assumed to stay in channel. 130,000 cfs assumed to flow overland. Assumed 86,000 cfs flowing to Padilla Bay and 44,000 cfs flowing to Skagit Bay via the Samish basin. I-5 will ultimately be overtopped. Used Mannings "n" values of .045 to .06. Recommended 10% of floodplain could be developed using density floodway method until flood waters would be raised 1 foot. | |
| 12/15/1983 |
Exhibit 35I: FEMA letter re development restrictions |
FEMA informs Dept of Ecology that since a regulatory floodway had not been designated that 60.3(c)(10) would have to be enforced before local or state permits could be issued for building permits. |
| 2/1/1984 |
Exhibit 35J: FEMA letter re denial of appeal filed on Burlington FIS |
This letter explains why the appeal of the Burlington FIS was denied by FEMA. Regulations only require FEMA to use available topographic data. Lands within and including the Skagit River levees were designated as floodways. Unlikely that historical depth of floodwaters would be repeated. |
| 4/9/1984 | Exhibit 35K: Washington State Department of Ecology Letter to FEMA re FIS | “A levee failure anywhere in the area from Burlington to Mt. Vernon would be devastating, since the approach used by FEMA assumes no levee failures or overtopping through this reach.” |
| 5/22/1984 |
Exhibit 35L: FEMA letter re Dept. of Ecology appeal ignored |
FEMA performed hydraulic analysis "as if the levees did not exist". Flood elevations were determined on an "average amount" basis. Letter continually refers to "uncertainty" as to where the levees will break as justification for what they did. |
| 11/1/1984 | Exhibit 35M: Letter from FEMA to Skagit County Planning |
“Concerning conveyance areas, we agreed that the work Bob Boudinot is doing to designate secondary drainage channels, such as the Gages Slough, as areas for which building cannot occur, as well as designating areas adjacent to such channels as areas in which buildings must be elevated using post, pier, pile, or column techniques, would be desirable and would probably comply with the encroachment provision found at Section 60.3(c}(10) when combined with the additional strip available along the levees discussed in the previous paragraph.” |
| 10/10/1996 | Exhibit 35N: USACE MFR Re: Skagit River Levee Repairs | “As long as any repairs we make to the Skagit
River levees replace them in kind, we comply with the standard. If we raise the
levees or add material to their riverbank or landward sides, then in my opinion,
we must conduct an analysis to comply with the standard.” See also: FEMA letter re denial of appeal filed on Burlington FIS |
| 2001 | Exhibit 35O: LJK E-Mails With FEMA Region X Official, RE: NFIP Policy Enforcement and Floodways | “You are right about the land use authority, however, FEMA decisions or lack thereof have a tremendous impact on how local decisions are made. FEMA carries the "big stick". You can throw local communities, like Burlington, out of the NFIP for failure to enforce the NFIP. You have not done so, what you have done is "reward" Burlington by lowering flood insurance rates.” |
| 1995 | Exhibit 35P: Graphic Summary of Increases in 1990 Flood Levels Due to Levee System | Hydraulic analysis graphic prepared by
nhc showing
increases in flood levels in the Nookachamps/Sterling areas due to the placement
of the levees. This document was submitted by plaintiffs in the Halverson vs
Skagit county lawsuit. See
 re: how the hydraulic study was prepared. Subsequently the study was presented to the Skagit County Commissioners, Skagit County Hearing Examiner, Skagit County Planning and Public Works Department, City of Burlington, DD12, and the Sedro-Woolley Mayor.. |
| 7/3/1984 | Exhibit 36: FEMA Flood Insurance Study, City of Burlington, Washington | “For the Skagit River proper, the levees confining the channel and adjacent areas have been designated as floodways. In the vicinity of Whitmarsh Road and the old U.S. Highway 99 Bridge (Garl Street), the most landward levees were used to establish the floodway boundary. The purpose of these floodway designations is to preclude any encroachment which would reduce the capacity of the river channel or jeopardize the integrity of the levee system.” |
| 3/19/2013 | Exhibit 37: Map of Dike/Drainage Assessment | Document shows dike
districts in adjacent area. Document unreadable. See also: Skagit County Diking Districts Map |
| 4/24/2013 | Exhibit 38: SKAGITRIVERHISTORY.COM TRANSCRIPT OF APRIL 24, 2013 PUBLIC HEARING Before the Skagit County Hearing Examiner, RE: SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PL12-0144 | Margaret Fleek:
“It has, the goal is not a substantial change in the effects of flooding, the
railroad bridge is the big barrier and we’re just trying to make the levees
really solid and wide and then, uh, increase it to meet
the Corps of Engineers’ 25-year standard.” John Schultz: “So in the project the levee will be raised sometimes a foot, sometimes three feet, sometimes four feet. But the plan submitted to FEMA must have four feet because that’s three foot of freeboard. In other words, once we reach a certain flood level – the 100-year in this case – the Corps and FEMA require another three feet above that for safety factor ... “Doing what we can do now with our own resources to protect our own people. So that’s really what this is all about.” |
| 2/11/2014 | Exhibit 39: Skagit County Commissioners Letter to Hearing Examiner, Re: Hydrology | “The parties should use the most recent hydrology data set accepted by the Corps, not the Corps hydrology used for the 2010 FEIS. This is due to the fact that the most recent hydrology data set incorporates information that has been collected since the issuance of that FEIS.” |
| Other Documents From Exhibit 21 | ||
| 11/08/1984 | Transcript of Burlington City Council Meeting November 8, 1984 |
“Lastly there is the FLOODWAY which in the case of Burlington is only the area that runs landward of the dike by fifty feet. When you’re landward of the dike and your looking towards the river essentially nothing can be built from that distance to the river.” (Steve Ladd, City Planner) |
| 9/6/2002 | Memorandum thru Deputy Commander, Seattle District for Commander, Seattle District re: IR Audit Report NWS-IR 2002-09 |
There have been many of us that have wondered for
almost a decade now why our Federal partners started giving Skagit County the
cold shoulder around the same time |
| 9/2006 | Angry Citizen: The Realities of Flood Control in Skagit County | The severity of the flooding of the Skagit River in the lower valley is not an Act of God but an act of DD12. |
| 2/25/2007 |
This index is a compilation of 30 newspaper articles from the Skagit Valley Herald concerning the 1979 Levee Improvement Project. It should be considered must reading for all city, county, and Federal employees that were not part of the 1979 project and are currently working on the flood control issue on the Skagit River. |
|
| 12/17/2008 | Figure 4 of Report on Mount Vernon Flood Protection Project Geotechnical Assessment, Mount Vernon Washington |
Most of West Mount Vernon is lahar deposits. |
| 11/2010 | DRAFT Skagit River Flood Risk Reduction Study, Environmental Without-Project Condition Report |
“Two volcanoes, Mt. Baker and Glacier Peak, are located in the upper watershed.
Previous eruptions of Glacier Peak have generated lahars
that traveled through the Skagit River to Puget Sound. Mt. Baker eruptions have
deposited pyroclastic and lahar material in the Baker River watershed, but have
not deposited substantial volumes material in the Skagit River floodplain
(Gardner et al. 1995). Future large eruptions could form
thick fills of lahars and pyroclastic-flow deposits in the upper valleys near
the volcano. Lahars from Glacier Peak could reach the delta, or there could be
induced flooding due to temporary damming of watercourses in the upper
watershed. Subsequent incision of volcanic deposits could fill riverbeds farther
downstream with sediment for many years after the eruption, thereby affecting
the capacity of stream channels and locally increasing flood heights (Waitt et
al. 1995). These effects would be especially significant for the extensive
low-lying areas of the Skagit river floodplain and delta. Although not a
direct volcanic hazard, the increased susceptibility of lowland areas downstream
of volcanoes to earthquake generated liquefaction is enhanced by the thick
deposits of volcanic lahars, sand, gravel and generally saturated conditions in
many of those areas.” ... “Today, the majority of the riparian zones below Sedro-Woolley are either entirely devoid of trees or consist of sparse, narrow, and patchy strips of small to medium sized cottonwood, willow, and alder. Approximately 48 miles of levee participate in the PL 84-99 program and are therefore subject to the Corps levee vegetation maintenance requirements. The riparian vegetation that is downstream of Sedro-Woolley is located on these levees. This required vegetation removal results in the majority of the banks being covered with grasses and invasive species (i.e. blackberry, knotweed, and reed canary grass). Upstream of the delta, 32 miles (62 percent) of the mainstem channel edge was hardened with riprap within about 200 feet of the channel’s edge.” |
| APRIL 9, 2014 MOTION HEARING | ||
| 3/10/2014 | Intervenor Motion to Recuse/Disqualify Hearing Examiner | “To state it in rule form as it applies to land-use decisions, the appearance of fairness doctrine is that, when a hearing “or other contested case proceeding” is held by a local legislative body, planning commission, hearing examiner, zoning adjuster, board of adjustment, or other local body in connection with an individual application for official action, the action taken as a result of such hearing is void if the conduct of the hearing or circumstances surrounding it would make it appear to a reasonable person who was informed of the facts that one or more of the members of the body may have acted out of improper motives. To state this in layperson terms if a disinterested party looking from outside the window in would feel that the hearing was unfair then that is an issue that must be addressed. Such is I believe the instant case.” |
| 3/17/2014 | Intervenor Motion to Disqualify Applicant Expert nhc Due to Conflict of Interest | “The issue presented before us is whether or not an engineering firm can work both sides of a conflict and not be considered a conflict of interest.” |
| 3/20/2014 | City of Burlington's First Motion In Limine and Motion to Strike | “Even assuming, arguendo, that there is some modicum of relevancy to prior hydrology reports, the probative value of such reports is far outweighed by its prejudicial aspects. Additional information regarding the Skagit River hydraulics and hydrology continue to emerge as things such as topography, hydrologic modeling, and other factors continue to be refined. The continued evolution of the science and data is the reason that the Board of County Commissioners directed that the most recent hydrology as approved by the Corps of Engineers be utilized, and not modeling that was performed years ago. Any reference to past hydrology is outdated, of little relevance, will confuse the issues, and such evidence and should be excluded.” |
| 3/20/2014 | Dike District 12 Motion of Skagit County Dike, Drainage and Irrigation District No. 12 to Strike Pursuant to CR12(f), Rules of Procedure for Hearings; and Motion in Limine | “These comments about a current Dike District Commissioner, whose identity can be easily ascertained by this implication, are unfounded, and unnecessary. With no evidence, Intervenor seeks to unreasonably defame the character of an opponent in these proceedings in order to take advantage of his right to make comments in these proceedings. By implying that the Permit is being obtained for benefit by a public official, who is employed by a land developer, in any other context would be libelous and inappropriate. DD12 would request that the Hearing Examiner strike lines 4 through 12 on page 17 of Intervenor's Motion to Recuse/Disqualify Hearing Examiner.” |
| 4/2/2014 | Hearing Examiner Memorandum on Conduct of Hearing on Motions | Order of motions to be “orally argued in a hearing commencing at 1 p.m. on April 9, 2014 at 1800 Continental Place, Mount Vernon, in the Board of Commissioners Hearing Room.” |
| 4/2/2014 | Response by City of Sedro-Woolley to the City of Burlington's Motion In Limine | “The remand hearing should be conducted in accordance with the remand order issued by the Commissioners, including the clarification letter. So, the most current Corps hydrology is what should form the basis for the modeling. To hold otherwise would be to completely disregard the point of the remand.” |
| 4/3/2014 | Hearing Examiner Memorandum on Addition of Commissioner's Letter to Record of Hearing | “At the remand Prehearing Conference held on
January 28, 2014, the Examiner expressed his intention to seek clarification of
the Remand Order herein with respect to the term “Corps hydrology.” The
Commissioners responded by letter dated February 11, 2014, a copy of which was
sent to the remand parties. The Examiner hereby admits this letter to the record
herein as Exhibit 39.” See Also: 2/11/14 Skagit County Commissioners Letter to Hearing Examiner, Re: Hydrology |
| 4/3/2014 | Intervenor City of Burlington's Response to Intervenor Kunzler's Motion to Disqualify Applicant Expert nhc Due to Conflict of Interest | “In making this argument, Intervenor Kunzler fails to supply an answer to the question of what constitutes a conflict of interest? And the answer to that question is that a conflict of interest is something quite different than the facts and circumstances described in Intervenor Kunzler's motion.” |
| 4/3/2014 | Intervenor City of Burlington's Response to Intervenor Kunzler's Motion to Recuse/Disqualify Hearing Examiner | “After participating in a hearing before Hearing Examiner Dufford, Intervenor Kunzler now seeks to have Hearing Examiner Dufford recuse himself, or otherwise disqualified from serving as hearing examiner in a remand proceeding. But Intervenor is unable to identify, and does not allege, any instance of actual bias on the part of Hearing Examiner Dufford. To the contrary, now that Intervenor has read Hearing Examiner Dufford's decision after the initial hearing, Intervenor is simply dissatisfied with the outcome.” |
| 4/3/2014 | Response of Skagit County Dike, Drainage and Irrigation District No. 12 to Intervenor Kunzler’s Motion to Disqualify Expert nhc | “Intervenor Kunzler alleges a conflict of interest against NHC, the Applicants retained consultant and expert, based on the argument that NHC had performed hydrology work for upstream property owners, in the Halverson lawsuit,, and subsequent consulting contracts with Skagit County, the Army Corps of Engineers, and now DD 12 and the City of Burlington. He alleges that somehow NHC did not notify prior parties of a conflict of interest, or present parties in this permit remand regarding the fact that they had provided engineering work for other entities, and that this constitutes a conflict of interest Intervenor apparently disregards the fact that these projects were at different times since 1995, involved different areas of the Skagit River, the engineering consultation involved different scopes of work, that it was common knowledge amongst all of the various pa1iies that NHC had provided engineering, and without any allegation that there were any conflicts of interest.” |
| 4/3/2014 | Response of Skagit County Dike, Drainage and Irrigation District No. 12 to Intervenor Kunzler's Motion to Recuse/Disqualify Hearing Examiner | “Intervenor has cited no alleged personal interest that disqualifies the
Hearing Examiner, as well as no basis for the appearance that the Hearing
Examiner has prejudged any of the issues. In fact during this process, involving
difficult and complex issues and hydrology evidence, the Hearing Examiner, in
particular in his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, had an excellent
grasp and knowledge of these complex issues and evidence which enabled him to
render a decision which fairly and comprehensively addressed the issues in the
case. Intervenor, however, does not agree and will not accept the decision. He
now seeks to recuse and disqualify the decision-maker.” |
| 4/4/2014 | Intervenor Reply to DD12 and City of Burlington Motions to Strike and Motions In Limine | “All evidence should be heard. The Hon. Examiner may weigh that evidence in reaching his decision. The granting or denial of a motion in limine is within the discretion of the trial court (in the instant case the hearing examiner), subject only to review for abuse. The motion should be denied if a proper ruling depends upon a factual background to be developed at trial (i.e. the hearing). Credibility is a matter for the trier of fact to determine, after direct and cross-examination. In short, applicant’s motions are an attempt to preclude the truth to be known by the public for evidence that is already in the record of the city of Burlington and the Hon. Examiner. Any legitimate objection to said evidence has long since passed. Their motions in limine should be denied in their entirety.” |
| 4/9/2014 | Audio of Hearing Examiner Motions Hearing on Dike District 12 Shoreline Substantial Permit | Audio recorded by SkagitRiverHistory.com of the
Skagit County Hearing Examiner's Motions Hearing on Remand of Dike District 12's
Shoreline Substantial Permit PL12-0144. See also: UNOFFICIAL Transcript of April 9, 2014 Motion Hearing Before the Skagit County Hearing Examiner, RE: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Pl12-0144 |
| 4/9/2014 | Drowning In Spin | A presentation to the Hearing Examiner on the Dike District 12 Levee Substantial Development Permit regarding serious questions about how DD12 operates and the influence of a local developer. |
| 4/9/2014 | Overview of Intervenor Motion to Recuse/Disqualify Hearing Examiner | An explanation why the Skagit County Hearing Examiner overseeing the permit should recuse himself. See also: Intervenor Motion to Recuse/Disqualify Hearing Examiner |
| 4/24/2014 | Exhibit List as of April 24, 2014 | List prepared by the Skagit County Hearing Examiner's Office and transmitted April 24, 2014. |
| 4/24/2014 | Hearing Examiner Memo RE: Transcripts | “The presence of gremlins in the works has been
confirmed by the fact that the Motion Hearing on
April 9, 2014, was not successfully recorded. I am advised that this
problem has been solved and that there should be no problem with recording
future proceedings in this case. As to the Motion Hearing, the Examiner's view
is that no transcript is required. The session was entirely given over to legal
argument and was not evidentiary. The positions of the parties were made clear
by briefing. The Examiner has memorialized his rulings in a separate Order.
However, another transcript matter remains open --the matter of an accepted
transcript for the second hearing session conducted on June 12, 2013, Intervenor
Kunzler submitted an unedited, unannotated version as Exhibit A to his Reply to
DD12 and City of Burlington Motions to Strike and Motions in Limine, dated April
4, 2014 [SkagitRiverHistory.com
Unofficial Transcript of June 12, 2013 Public Hearing Before the
Skagit County Hearing Examiner, Re: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
PL12-0144 without hyperlinks, footnotes or highlighting.]
If the other parties are agreeable, this clean version could be made an exhibit
and included in the record. Otherwise, the Examiner will ask the County to see
to the preparation of a transcript for the June 12, 2013 session from the tapes
then made.” |
| 4/24/2014 | Hearing Examiner Rulings on Prehearing Motions | List of motions presented and the Hearing
Examiner's rulings. Hearing Examiner also ruled, “1) Whether the applicant
should have sought permits for actions taken in the past is irrelevant, as are
the motives of the applicant in seeking a Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit. The issue at hand is compliance of the project now proposed with the
applicable Shoreline Master Program. ... 5) The limitation of
testimony in the remand hearing to the remand issues applies to public testimony
as well as testimony presented by the parties.” |
| 4/24/2014 | City of Burlington City Attorney Letter to Hearing Examiner, RE: Dike District No. 12 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit PL 12-0191 Memorandum to Parties dated April 24, 2014, RE: Transcripts | “We believe that issues concerning the transcript
may only be avoided by having the transcript prepared by a court reporter,
licensed by the State pursuant to Chapter 18.145 RCW and Chapter 308-14 WAC. We
therefore urge the Examiner to request Skagit County to prepare a transcript in
compliance with these laws.” |
| 4/25/2014 | Dike District 12 Attorney Letter to Hearing Examiner, RE: Dike District No. 12 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit PL12-0191 Memorandum to Parties dated April 24, 2014, RE: Transcripts | “DD12 strongly objects to having Mr. Kunzler
prepare any transcript to be used in the proceedings, because he has
demonstrated that he cannot do so in a fair, and accurate manner. We had
suggested at the hearing, and would now suggest again that the County have the
preparation of the transcript be with an unbiased, disinterested transcriber.” |
| 5/4/2014 | Mea Culpa Response to Dike District 12 Attorney Letter to Hearing Examiner, dated April 25, 2014, RE: Transcripts | “I have learned some valuable lessons from this experience. Among them never prepare an annotated transcript with hyperlinks and footnotes before you prepare just a plain version. Since two out of the three transcripts were an attempt to appease Mr. Shultz and save the taxpayers money, a concept that seems to be beyond the comprehension of government employees, I have decided to delete two of the transcripts from my web page and just use the “Unofficial annotated version.” |
| 6/1/2014 |
Attached hereto is an “Unofficial” Transcript
of the April 9, 2014 Skagit County Hearing Examiner Motion Hearing. The
tape of the hearing was made by myself since the County’s recording equipment
has proven to be unreliable on more than one occasion. The recording was
transcribed by SkagitRiverHistory.com. After the initial transcription we
listened to the recording six more times for accuracy purposes. Where the
recording was weak and we could not understand or had to guess at what the
person said we inserted the word “Unintelligible”. We have
published a link to the audio itself which can be found
here. If anyone feels
they can do a more accurate transcript please feel free to give it a go. |
|
| 6/30/2014 | Graham-Bunting Associates Letter, Re: Remand Pertaining to the Closed Record Appeal (PL13-0265) Of Hearing Examiner approval of Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (PL12-0191)- Item c. | “Federal representatives have been party to
project development for many years and more recently attended public meetings
and hearings relating to the project. Lacking a request for additional
biological information from a federal agency of jurisdiction, it would appear
that the analysis submitted by the district provides sufficient detail to
address the ESA pursuant to Skagit County requirements.” See also: 7/7/2014 Hearing Examiner Letter Attached Letter/Current State of Affairs |
| 7/7/2014 | Hearing Examiner Letter Attached Letter/Current State of Affairs | “Since time is marching on, I would appreciate word from the District about where we are in getting the data needed for the remand hearing.” |
| SKAGIT COUNTY PLANNING FILE DOCUMENTS | ||
| 1982 | Postglacial Volcanic Deposits at Glacier Peak, Washington, and Potential Hazards from Future Eruptions | “Eruptions and other geologic events at Glacier Peak volcano in northern Washington have repeatedly affected areas near the volcano as well as areas far downwind and downstream. This report describes the evidence of this activity preserved in deposits on the west and east flanks of the volcano. ... Future eruptions at Glacier Peak similar to those of postglacial time could affect people and property downstream and downwind from the volcano. Pyroclastic flows and lahars would affect valleys near the volcano. Lahars and floods could affect areas at low elevation along valley floors and in the Puget Lowland west of the volcano.” |
| 8/22/1983 |
FEMA letter re floodway designation of Gages Slough |
This letter discusses why FEMA felt it could not designate Gages Slough as a floodway. Cascade Mall hydraulic study could not be supported by any scientific or technical data. Section 60.3c would be part of local ordinances which would require hydraulic analysis of fill in the Burlington area. |
| 11/1/1984 | Letter from FEMA to Skagit County Planning |
“Concerning conveyance areas, we agreed that the work Bob Boudinot is doing to designate secondary drainage channels, such as the Gages Slough, as areas for which building cannot occur, as well as designating areas adjacent to such channels as areas in which buildings must be elevated using post, pier, pile, or column techniques, would be desirable and would probably comply with the encroachment provision found at Section 60.3(c}(10) when combined with the additional strip available along the levees discussed in the previous paragraph.” |
| 1/30/1991 | Dept. of Community Development Letter to DD12 re Flood Permits | “Your flood damage repair project activities are subject to compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). ... It is the responsibility of the applicant to comply with all local regulations and to pursue the request for the permits required.” |
| 3/2009 | Angry Citizen: Comments on Burlington Draft Environmental Impact Statement | LJK Comments on the Burlington Draft Environmental Impact Statement on levee improvements. |
| 6/28/2012 | Skagit County Planning Pre-Development Meeting Documentation | Six pages of pre-development review. County staff wanted to, among other things, “determine if wells w/in 1000 ft could be impacted by flooding or water mounding.” The Skagit County Floodplain Manager on page 5 noted, “Based on the information provided, a shoreline substantial development permit is required.” On page 6, Skagit County Public Works noted, “a fill & grade permit will be required.” |
| 1/2/2013 | E-mails between Skagit County Planning & Public Works on DD12's Levee Maintenance Permit Request | “I thought it might be wise to inquire about your knowledge and the County's position on the proposed action.” |
| 1/4/2013 | Planning Dept ltr to John Semrau from John Cooper | “As the proposed change in the dike configuration may result in hydraulic impacts on the south side of the River as well as the north, please provide hydraulic modeling the south side of the Skagit River including the Nookachamps basin.” |
| 1/8/2013 | E-mail to Skagit Planning fm John Semrau re review of modeling | “The January 2012 report by nhc is on the CD under the subdirectory FCD AC Mtg.” |
| 1/14/2013 | Semrau ltr re Septic Decommission Site | “...4 buildings need to be removed...” |
| 1/25/2013 | SES ltr to Planning Dept re Well Log Inventory | “There were 16 wells log references found within 1000 feet of the project.” |
| 6/12/2013 | Recording of June 12, 2013 Skagit County Hearing Examiner Hearing | Recording of the June 12, 2013 Hearing Examiner Hearing, which included Dike District 12's Shoreline Substantial Development Permit PL12-0144 request starting at 21:30. A transcript is currently being prepared. |
| 6/12/2013 | Annotated Exhibit List | List of 37 exhibits given to the Hearing Examiner. |
| 6/12/2013 | OFFICIAL Skagit County Hearing Examiner's Office Prepared Transcript | 103 page official transcript prepared by Allen R. Emerson & Associates for the Skagit County Hearing Examiner's Office. |
| 6/28/2013 | Skagit County Hearing Examiner Notice of Decision Shoreline Substantial Development Permit PL12-0191 | “Similarly, citizen testimony asserted that raising of this dike will violate Federal flood control standards. The Examiner's jurisdiction here is limited to SMA compliance under State law.” |
| 7/2/2013 | City of Sedro-Woolley Notice of Appeal | “The Hearing Examiner erred by not requiring, as a
condition of permit approval, additional studies to show the effects of the
proposed project on the City of Sedro-Woolley, and also not requiring any
additional protective measures designed to eliminate, or at least ameliorate,
the concerns raised by the City of Sedro-Woolley. In addition, the Examiner
erred by finding that the project will not interfere with or prejudice the GI
study (Finding #24).” See Also: Dike District 12 Levee Substantial Development Permit Issues Page |
| 8/15/2013 | Appellant Memorandum | “At the hearing before the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Semrau stated that the forecasted effects on base flood elevation due to the project would be a tenth of a foot increase (using the middle of the road hydrology estimate as set forth in the EIS (see EIS page 57; Hearing Transcript at pages 19-20). Using the Corps of Engineers numbers, which are more conservative, results in an increase in base flood elevation of .4 feet, at Sterling, not too far from the Sedro-Woolley Wastewater Treatment Plant, and also United General Hospital. Hearing Transcript, page 20.1t is likely that at the end of the day, the Corps numbers will control. Hearing Transcript, at page 21.” |
| 8/20/2013 | NOTICE OF CLOSED RECORD HEARING: Closed Record Appeal Hearing PL13-0265 to review the Hearing Examiner Shoreline Substantial Development Permit recommendation #PL 12-0191 | At 10:30 AM, August 20, 2013, the Skagit County
Commissioners will hear a, “Closed Record Appeal Hearing PL13-0265 to review the
Hearing Examiner Shoreline Substantial Development Permit recommendation #PL
12-0191 for the Dike Drainage and Irrigation District No. 12 proposal to expand
the width and increase the height of the existing dike along the Skagit River
located between Gardner and Lafayette Roads east of Burlington.” See also: Dike District 12 Levee Substantial Development Permit Issues Page |
| 8/26/2013 | Respondent's Memorandum In Response and In Opposition to Appeal | “Recently. DD 12 has reached out to the City of Sedro-Woolley regarding their concerns, but rather than engaging with DD12 in constructive dialogue and planning, has chosen to appeal the permit, and request that the permit approval be reversed and all flood work stopped. This is a permit which has received the approval of the Hearing Examiner, City of Burlington, the Skagit County Planning Department, the Army Corps of Engineers. and along with several engineering firms and environmental consultants. Instead the City of Sedro-Woolley seeks to deny the permit and, stop work until issues are again re-studied longer term. All the while, the Skagit River visits with is annual threat of devastation. The Appellant isolates itself. This is not a prudent or proactive policy of flood protection. It should be rejected in this appeal.” |
| 8/30/2013 | Appellant's Reply Memorandum | “Clearly, the District has the right and the duty to protect its constituents. Nobody is arguing with that. But, in spite of the platitudes set forth in the FEIS and quoted by the District (see Response Memorandum, page 6), and despite the undoubted fact that the District is not seeking to intentionally flood Sedro-Woolley, still it is contended that there has been much less attention paid to protecting upstream citizens from flooding then there has to prevent flooding to Burlington's retail core.” |
| 9/2/2013 | Participant Larry J. Kunzler’s Memorandum In Support of Appellant City of Sedro-Woolley’s Appeal | “I want to put to rest any objection by Respondent that I don’t have standing to submit a Memorandum in Support of Sedro-Woolley’s Appeal. I have been participating in this fiasco of a project since my comments on the DEIS therefore my standing and right to participate is unquestionable and undeniable. If the Respondent is allowed to continue not only to artificially flood upstream property owners let alone their own district and the City of Burlington, and that result is attributable to the approval of the permit by Skagit County then every taxpayer in this Valley will become an aggrieved party.” |
| 9/11/2013 | Closed Record Appeal of Submitted by the City of Sedro-Woolley Appeal PL#13-0265 of the Hearing Examiner’s Decision, Dated June 28, 2013, Regarding Skagit County Dike, Drainage and Irrigation District No. 12 Request for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit No. PL12-019 | Direct link to Skagit21 coverage of the Sedro-Woolley City Government appeal of the Dike District 12 Substantial Shoreline Permit. |
| 9/24/2013 | Resolution Pertaining to the Closed Record Appeal (PL13-0265) Of Hearing Examiner Approval of Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (PLl2-0191) | “The Board hereby remands this matter to the
Hearing Examiner for consideration of the following: “a. DD12 shall present analysis of the actual effects of the levee modifications envisioned under the Shoreline Permit, applying Corps hydrology, comparing actual pre-project conditions and post-project conditions, taking into consideration and depicting (i) upstream impacts to the City of Sedro-Woolley and environs as well as the Nookachamps Basin, including but not limited to impacts to United General Hospital and the Sedro-Woolley wastewater treatment plant; and (ii) downstream impacts. “b. DDl2 shall provide analysis of the pathway and volume of water that will be diverted outside the main river channel in a 1OO-year flood event before and after the Project, applying Corps hydrology. “c. In considering this Shoreline Permit, the Hearing Examiner shall analyze, consider and render specific findings that document compliance with the County's obligations under the NMFS bi-op.” |
| 9/24/2013 | Video of Decision Regarding Closed Record Appeal Submitted by the City of Sedro-Woolley Appeal PL#13-0265 of the Hearing Examiner’s Decision, Dated June 28, 2013, Regarding Skagit County Dike, Drainage and Irrigation District No. 12 Request for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit No. PL12-019 | Video of the decision of the Skagit County Commissioners on the Closed Record Appeal of Sedro-Woolley against Burlington's permit request to expand its levee. Please visit the appropriate Issues Page for more information. |
| 3/19/2014 |
Skagit County Hearing Examiner Memorandum RE: Record of Hearing to Date |
“The transcript of oral testimony is automatically a part of the record of every case. In this matter, Intervenor Kunzler discovered the recording difficulties in the first session while attempting to transcribe those proceedings. He has provided the Examiner with a partial transcript showing what he was able to capture of that initial proceeding. In order to clear up at least some of the questions raised by this situation, the Examiner has determined to admit the partial transcript submitted by Mr. Kunzler as an exhibit herein for reference by the parties.” |
| 5/22/2014 | nhc Memo, RE: Hydraulic Effects of Proposal to Improve Dike District 12 Levee from SR-20 to the BNSF Bridge | “The HEC-RAS model was calibrated based on the historic floods shown above, but
these floods were all significantly smaller than the 100-year flood being used
to evaluate the project. The Flo2D model of the floodplain is not calibrated
since there is insufficient flooding data on the floodplain to do so. We have
not included any emergency flood fighting measures
that may or may not be performed in practice. Additionally,
there is uncertainty in the magnitude of the 100-year
flood, as it was derived from a weighted-average approach from a range of
possibilities, and it makes no attempt to account for effects of future
climate change.” |
| 7/23/2014 | Hearing Examiner Memo Transmitting May 22nd Memo | “Enclosed please find documentation
recently received by this office from Dike
District #12. In the days to come, the Hearing Examiner will provide to the
parties a date for a pre-hearing conference. I have scanned the materials
received in order to deliver them to you quickly.” See also: 5/22/2014 nhc Memo, RE: Hydraulic Effects of Proposal to Improve Dike District 12 Levee from SR-20 to the BNSF Bridge, 7/7/2014 Hearing Examiner Letter Attached Letter/Current State of Affairs |
| 7/30/2014 | Hearing Examiner Announcement of a Pre-Hearing Conference | A Hearing Examiner Pre-Hearing Conference has been scheduled for the Dike District 12 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit request PL12-0191 at August 13, at 10 AM at the Board of Commissioners Hearing Room. |
| 10/31/2014 | Hearing Examiner Scheduling Order for Remand Proceedings | “A. DD12 shall present analysis of the actual
effects of the levee modifications envisioned under the Shoreline Permit,
applying Corps hydrology, comparing actual pre-project conditions and
post-project conditions, taking into consideration and depicting (i) upstream
impacts to the City of Sedro Woolley and environs as well as the Nookachamps
Basin, including but not limited to impacts to United General Hospital and the
Sedro Woolley wastewater treatment plant; and (ii) downstream impacts. “B. DD12 shall provide analysis of the pathway and volume of water that will be diverted outside the main river channel in a 100-year flood event before and after the Project, applying Corps hydrology.” |
| 1/7/2015 | Appellant City Of Sedro-Woolley's Reply to Skagit County Staff Report |
“The bottom line is that the project at issue cannot be viewed as necessary, or integral, to the GI study, as that process is far from over. In addition, if the instant project is built prior to completion of the GI Study, the options available as part of that process will have been unnecessarily limited;
it is extremely unlikely that the levee alterations as sought by Dike District 12 would be reversed once built. In sum, to go forward with the instant project in advance of the completion of the comprehensive GI Study would be putting the proverbial cart before the horse. ...
It is apparent that the response to remand
considerations (a) and (b) support Sedro-Woolley's contention that the proposed
project will simply divert floodwater from Burlington and Mount Vernon, to
upstream areas. There has been little or no mitigation proposed by Dike District
12 for this increase in flood waters to areas that have historically not flooded. In addition, as Sedro-Woolley has argued previously, the proposed project should not proceed in isolation from the actions taken resulting from the GI Study, whatever the final form of those actions may be. |
| 1/7/2015 | Intervenor City of Burlington's Joinder in Skagit County Dike, Drainage and Irrigation District No. 12's Responses to Skagit County's Findings of Fact | “In this motion, Intervenor City of Burlington
adopts said Responses and incorporates by reference as if fully realleged
herein, Dike District No. 12's Responses filed in this action.” |
| 1/7/2015 | Intervenor City of Burlington's Joinder In Skagit County Dike, Drainage and Irrigation District No. 12's List of Witnesses To Be Called At Time of Hearing | “In this motion, Intervenor City of Burlington
adopts said list of witnesses and incorporates by reference as if fully
realleged herein, Dike District No. 12's list of witnesses filed in this
action.” |
| 1/7/2015 | DD12 List of Witnesses to be Called at Time of Hearing | Among other witnesses will be John Semrau, P.E.;
Malcolm Leytharn, Ph.D., P.E.; City of Burlington officials, and Cathie
Desjardin, “an employee of the Anny Corps of Engineers in the Seattle District,
Emergency Management Division.” |
| 1/7/2015 | DD12 Applicant/Respondent Dike Dtstric1 No. 12's Response To Skagit County’s Findings of Fact | “Unless there can be some immediate approval by
NMFS that the County has adequately consulted, the applicant Dike District 12
wou1d move the Hearing Examiner for a continuance of this hearing date to allow
additional time for the County, NMFS, and parties to resolve this issue and to
present to the Hearing Examiner clear evidence that item number c) on
the BCC Remand Order bas been satisfied.” |
| 1/14/2015 | Sedro-Woolley Witness & Exhibit List | Sedro-Woolley will call three witnesses and one exhibit - the Skagit County staff report with attachments. |
| 1/29/2015 | Hearing Examiner Order Granting Applicant's Amended Motion for Continuance | “The Applicant/Respondent, Skagit County Dike,
Drainage and Irrigation District No. 12, has filed an amended motion (with
supporting affidavit) requesting the hearing dates be stricken and that this
matter be re-set for hearing at a future time. Appellant Sedro-Woolley concurs
in the motion. The Examiner finds that good cause has been shown for granting
the motion. Accordingly, the hearing dates of
February 4, 5 and 6 are stricken and the matter is continued until the parties
advise that the matter is ready to be brought on for hearing.” |
| 2/2015 | Notice of Public Hearing | “The Skagit County Hearing Examiner will hold a
public hearing on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday February 4, 5, & 6, 2015, in
the Board Of County Commissioners Hearing Room, 1800 Continental Place, Mount
Vernon, Washington, At the Hour Of 9:00 A. M. ... Appeal #PL13-0265 of the
Hearing Examiner's Decision by the City of Sedro Woolley of
Shoreline Substantial Development permit application #PL12-0191 filed by Skagit
County Dike, Drainage and Irrigation District# 12 for the expansion of the
existing dike along the Skagit River between Gardner and Lafayette Roads, east
of the City of Burlington.” See also: 1/29/2015 Hearing Examiner Order Granting Applicant's Amended Motion for Continuance, Dike District 12 Levee Substantial Development Permit Issues Page |
2/12/2018 |
Settlement Agreement Between Burlington, Dike District 12 and Sedro-Woolley |
“The parties to this Agreement have expressed a willingness to negotiate and reach agreements to avoid costly litigation and land use appeals regarding future projects in favor of a more collaborative and coordinated approach on future projects and flood impacts, if possible, while retaining abilities of each entity to protect their jurisdictions.” |