Directory of Documents

Directory of Documents

Downloadable Readers

Larry Kunzler Generated Documents/Reports

Date	Title	Summary
	1815-1939 Draft Timeline Index of Historical Events	The indexes were prepared between 1996 and 1997. They are an attempt at showing significant events in our history using documentation obtained through PDA and FOIA review of government documents. Since these indexes were created I have obtained thousands of documents that still need to be reviewed.
	1940-1949 Draft Timeline Index of Historical Events
	1950-1959 Draft Timeline Index of Historical Events
	1960-1969 Draft Timeline Index of Historical Events
8/11/2002	History of Flood Control Projects Studied	Document lists the flood control studies and the main theme looked at in each study.
9/10/2003	1990 Flood Analysis -- The Big Picture	The documents were created from USGS flow records and Corps of Engineers log records kept during flood events. They clearly show the disastrous impacts of the way PSE operates Lower Baker Dam on downstream property owners. 1995 was done first in real time and then with 12 hours deleted from the Mt. Vernon column to show the impacts of decisions made by PSE and the Corps. The Corps of Engineers may not have any liability for the way they operate Upper Baker and Ross Dams however PSE does not enjoy the same immunity. With Dike District Commissioners and City mayors talking class action litigation it would seem to be in the best interest of PSE stockholders for them to provide storage and/or at least change their operating procedures during flood events.
9/10/2003	1995 Flood Analysis -- The Big Picture Real Time
9/10/2003	1995 Flood Analysis -- The Big Picture 12 hrs deleted in MV column
11/1/2003	2003 Flood Analysis -- The Big Picture
1/24/2004	James E. Stewart Field Notes	The documents were created from the field notebook used by Mr. Stewart in 1922-1923 and from documents obtained from USGS files that were used to write the Whitepaper which follows.
1/30/2004	Index To Stewart Documents
2/14/2004	James E. Stewart Skagit River Flood Reports And Assorted Documents: A Citizen Critical Review Whitepaper Whitepaper Appendix E	This 52 page research paper was written to analyze just exactly what Mr. Stewart did in his 1923 report. The overall conclusion reached is that we should abandon his work product as Skagit County and the Corps recommended in 1924, and utilize the 80 years of gage records we have at The Dalles.
3/26/2005	Quips & Quotes	Originally published as Chapter 2 of my book however over the years a few more quotes were added along the way. It will be added to from time to time as meaningful quotes concerning the flood issue are located. Many are expected to be used from the historical newspaper articles.
4/8/2005	FEMA -- The Total Failure Package	This paper deals with the failure of FEMA to enforce its regulations and promoting growth in the floodplain.
4/18/2005	County Commissioner Memo re Future of Flood Control	On April 12, 2005 I attended a public meeting where staff presented where the County is with respect to their flood control project. At the end of the meeting I was asked by the Chairman to submit a written memo on what I had observed and what direction I thought the County should go.
5/1/2005	History of Countywide Flood Control Districts (see also County Documents)	Using the Historical Newspaper Article Index I pulled out just the articles that dealt with the historical formation of countywide flood control zone districts.
5/15/2005	Historical Floods Of The Skagit River (1892 through 1951)	This is perhaps the most comprehensive collection of historical information on individual flood events of the Skagit River ever assembled. 98% of this document comes from direct quotes obtained from local newspapers.
6/12/2005	Historical Rainfall & Its Impact on Floods (1896-1969)	The purpose of this document is to look at historical articles and try and determine how much rain it takes to create a flood on the Skagit River. The best answer to the question of how much rain it takes is “It depends.”
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.
11/24/2005	A Historical Tribute To Charles M. Dwelley (1929-1970)	A tribute to the former editor and publisher of the Concrete Herald. This paper is a collection of a few of the words of wisdom from Mr. Dwelley. You can obtain further historical family information on Mr. Dwelley at http://www.stumpranchonline.com/ and http://www.skagitriverjournal.com.
12/3/2005	Skagit River History	This paper is an attempt to document some of the history of the Skagit River according to mostly government documents obtained from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. On occasion it will also contain information obtained from local historical newspaper articles. It is a factual issue oriented paper addressing the log jams, boat traffic, commerce, logging, agriculture, dam building, flood events of the “early days” and much more.
12/4/2005	Letter to FEMA from Larry Kunzler re: Skagit Hydrology Study	This letter was prepared in response to the letter written by Colonel Debra M. Lewis to FEMA re: hydrology analysis.
12/26/2005	Observations of JES (James E. Stewart) Work Product	This paper was created primarily from transcripts of Mr. Stewarts field notebook and a set of handwritten notes found in his files. It is further documentation that supports the usage of the 80 years of gage records rather then the estimates submitted by Mr. Stewart of the 1897, 1909, 1917 and 1921 flood events in determining the 100 year flood flows on the Skagit River.
1/22/2006	Historical Facts - What Have We Learned	Document highlights some of the facts we have uncovered due to historical research.
2/5/2006	Historical Dredging On The Skagit River (1920-1966)	This document looks at 46 years of Skagit County history, 20 of which actual dredging (sidecasting method) was being done. It explores all the reasons local people wanted it done and all the reasons the Corps of Engineers says it cannot be done for flood control purposes.
2/5/2006	Flowage Easements	This paper was originally authored in 1996. Skagit County may wish to consider this as a possible avenue to pursue for impacted property owners affected by any proposed flood control project.
3/19/2006	Historical Dam Building And Their Impacts On Floods - PDF (1924-1969) (Word Version)	This document was also prepared using the historical information obtained from local newspaper articles. It documents the construction of the dams and their impacts on flood events.
4/24/2006	DC Trip Experience	My reflections on my trip to Washington D.C. Wherein I got to watch my federal government do what they do best... which is absolutely nothing.
5/7/2006	Declaration of Fred W. Slipper	Mr. Slipper's declaration documents the fact that not all of the homes in Hamilton had water in them in 1921 (See 12/24/21 C.H.) and that the house he grew up in only had water in it in 1921 to the depth of a couple of inches until the 1990 flood when it had 16 inches.
6/18/2006	Stewart 1923 Report -- Retyped Version	This is a retyped version of Mr. Stewart's 1923 work product. The only changes that were made were the font was changed from Courier 10 to Times New Roman 12 and the spacing was changed from double space to 1.5 in order to save space. Footnotes were added to indicate handwritten notes that appeared on the original presumably from Corps of Engineers employees. NOTE: You can do word searches on this document.
6/18/2006	Narrow Canyons	This assemblage of pictures is to document how narrow the canyons are where the dams were built in order to emphasize the probability and likelihood of these areas being subject to serving as collection points for major flood blockages due to log jams, landslides, ice jams or debris flows all of which could have contributed to the Indian legend floods of 1820 and 1856 just like The Dalles contributed to either the 1897 or 1906 flood as documented in Mr. Stewart's field notes. (See 11/19/1896 SCT, 3/5/1936 C.H. and James E. Stewart Field Notes.
6/18/2006	Letter to FERC in Response to DEIS	This document was filed with FERC in response to FERC's Relicensing efforts on the Baker River Dams and their Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Through the use of graphics produced by this website it is hoped that FERC, the Corps and PSE can see the minimal environmental impacts and maximum flood control impacts additional storage can mean to the taxpayers of our country.
7/23/2006	James E. Stewart Skagit River Flood Reports And Assorted Documents: A Citizen Critical Review Whitepaper, Updated and Republished	Two years worth of additional research culminated in this now 90 page document. All of the "new" information gathered further supported the conclusions reached when the paper was originally published in 2004. Reasons the Stewart data should be rejected include but are not limited to: Doesn’t conform to local history; Report is in conflict with Stewart’s handwritten notes and field notebook; WSP 612 (1929) and WSP 1527 (1961) both use Stewart’s 1918 and 1923 data. (You can’t get to the 1923 figures by using 1918 data.); Reports (1923 and 1961) were never completed; Stewart paid directly by Skagit County not USGS (Skagit owns his work product); No measurements taken between Baker River and The Dalles; Stewart’s work product rejected by Corps of Engineers in 1924 and 1951; Determination of “N-factor” at Sedro-Woolley inappropriate for The Dalles something Mr. Stewart himself was concerned about.
8/1/2006	Letter to Congress re: Storage behind Baker Dams	Letter tries to show Congress that the storage behind the Baker Dams is a reasonable, responsible, economical and much needed action for effective flood control in Skagit County.
9/22/2006	Stewart July 1918 Skagit River Flood Report - Retyped	This is a retyped version of Mr. Stewart's 1918 work product. Footnotes were added to explain terms and indicate handwritten notes that appeared on the original. NOTE: You can do word searches on this document.
9/22/2006	1961 Stewart-Bodhaine Report - Retyped	This is a retyped version of Water Supply Paper 1527 (WSP 1527). The only changes were those of formatting and two footnotes were added to explain technical details. NOTE: You can do word searches on this document.
12/27/2006	ISYS QUERY BPA	This document represents all references to the BPA contained in the 28,000 electronic documents in our database. It clearly shows that the BPA does not want to pay for flood control for Skagit County. Given the enormous impact the dams have on flood damages, this outrageous position of yet another federal agency involved with the flood control issue should be condemned by all.
1/7/2007	ISYS QUERY FLOODWAY	One of the most contentious issues in 2007-2008 will be the placement of a floodway in the lower valley in accordance with the NFIP regulations. This documents represents a small sampling of historic documents that address this issue. As the documents clearly show a floodway designation was in fact made in the 1980's however was never enforced.
1/27/2007	17B Analysis	This document analyzes the guidelines contained in the Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, commonly referred to as 17B as they apply to using the Stewart data in computing flood flow analysis on the Skagit River.
4/15/2007	LJK Analysis of the NHC Skagit River Hydrology Draft Report	Overall, while the document could use some tweaking, it is the best analysis of the historical flood flows ever performed on the Skagit River.
6/26/2007	Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement	Proposed agreement for Plan B involving power-sharing among governing bodies of Skagit County.
7/20/2007	Why Dredging Won't Work	Channel 300-800 ft. wide, 100 year floodplain 5,280-15,840 ft. (1-3 miles) wide, how deep do you think the ditch has to be? Updated to add slides showing how much cubic yards were taken out of the Skagit and about the ships dredging the Skagit and removing snags "for navigational purposes".
11/17/2007	Preliminary Historical Investigation of East Concrete and Crofoot Addition Flood Levels	Submission to nhc of potential properties in Concrete and other locations for forensic investigation to find actual flood levels.
12/04/07	Historic Flood Flows of the Skagit River	This document list the flood events and the recorded flows. I first put this together in 1991 when I authored Skagit River Valley The Disaster Waiting To Happen. Most of the information came from the 1979 Corps of Engineers GDM used for the 1979 Levee Improvement project proposal. I have updated the document each time we had another flood event. It is sort of a running record of flood events on the Skagit River.
1/15/2008	Why Crofoot Matters	One-page explanation that explains why a forensic investigation of Crofoot Addition in Concrete is appropriate to resolving conflicting hydrology.
1/27/2008	Concerns about Pacific International Engineering (PIE)	Cited newspaper research concerning PIE's project history.
6/23/2008	Skagit River Reports (Past studies, reports, documents)	This document identifies the examinations, reports, studies, GDM, and other documents written about the Skagit River and was updated with 34 new reports spanning between 4/9/2003 and 2/28/2008. Most of these documents I have copies of and am willing to make available upon request. The original list of Jan. 24 1999 was compiled with Corps of Engineers assistance.
6/2008	Historical Record of Fish Related Issues (1897-1969)	“If the Salmon is to ever reach their historic levels in the Skagit River we must employ better logging and agricultural practices, curtail urban drainage and pollution, re-create the natural estuaries, increase spawning habitat areas, do a better job of regulating the flows from the dams and severely curtail the placing of nets in the river. I absolutely believe that unless these practices are instituted the Skagit Salmons demise is not only apparent but guaranteed. We will have no one to blame but ourselves.”

Back to the top

LJK Presentations

All PowerPoints now converted to Adobe Acrobat PDF format.

Date	Title	Summary
1/16/1998	Basic River Facts	Over the years I have given over 200 presentations to Universities, High Schools, Elementary Schools, federal, state and local government agencies, citizen organizations, and elected officials. The ones listed on this web page are reflective of what those presentations have contained.
5/16/2004	Presentation to LaConner High School (Volcanic History, Flood History, Stewart Report)
2/14/2005	Presentation to Skagit County Commissioners on Historical Newspaper Articles 1895-1969
9/13/2005	Northwest Regional Floodplain Managers Association (NORFMA) Presentation 2005 - PDF
3/7/2006	James E. Stewart Work Product Goes to D.C. - presentation given to legislative aides, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and FEMA in Washington D.C. - PDF
11/16/2006	AWARE which addressed historical flooding, river migration, flood and fish projects, farming and the future of flood control in Skagit County
6/26/2007	Plan B Presentation - Presentation to Skagit County Commissioners urging formation of a flood agency and excise sales tax to be used specifically for flood project construction.
12/20/2007	Speak Up! Speak Out! - Doris Brevoort of Mr. Vernon WA interviews Larry Kunzler, long time Skagit Valley resident, who has for 30 years studied the history of flooding in Skagit Valley, and how land use and development policies have impacted efforts to control flooding.

Back to the top

HISTORICAL NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Date	Title	Summary
10/02/2005	1800s-1919 Master Index Articles	In the summer of 2004 I was contacted by Dan Berentson and asked to assist him in reviewing all the historical Skagit Argus newspaper articles for flooding stories. That project quickly grew into reviewing the Burlington Journal, Courier Times, Concrete Herald and Skagit Valley Herald archives as well. Out of all the projects I have been involved in and all the papers I have authored none have given me more satisfaction and sense of accomplishment then putting together these decade-by-decade indexes of historical articles. The index includes over 900 articles from the 5 newspapers arranged in chronological order.
	1920-1929 Master Index Articles
	1930-1939 Master Index Articles
	1940-1949 Master Index Articles
	1950-1959 Master Index Articles
	1960-1969 Master Index Articles
5/17/2005	Recognition from the American Public Works Association	Helped Skagit County Government win "Project of the Year" award.
6/13/2005	Recognition from the Skagit County Commissioners	Skagit County Commissioners issued plaque awards for our involvement with the Historical Skagit River Flood Research.
Summer 2005	American Public Works Association - Washington State Chapter Newsletter	Awards ceremony.
8/10/2005	Skagit County Government 1997-current Skagit Valley Herald articles index	My webmaster helps keep this website together for Skagit County Government indexing Skagit Valley Herald online articles from 1/1/1997 to, as of the latest update, 8/10/2005.
10/2006	2006 Skagit County Government Flood Awareness Newsletter	Article regarding historical newspaper archive and web site by Skagit County Government.
2/25/2007	1979 Levee Improvement Project Historical Index	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.
5/27/2007	1981-1984 FEMA-BFE Flood Research	Compilation of articles describing the FEMA flood insurance base flood elevation and floodway determination made by FEMA in 1984.

Back to the top

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTE FE RR DOCUMENTS

Date	Title	Summary
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.
10/11/1922	GNRR Vice President letter	Acknowledges "enormous size" of floods however due to "infrequency" and "short duration" thought locals had more to lose then railroad so didn't want to get "overly" involved due to probable cost to railroad.
12/20/1923	Letter to GNRR Vice President (re flood control status)	NPRR sent Herzog to Corps public meeting in Mt. Vernon. He reported, "Nothing of any importance transpired." Corps only interested in navigation improvements not flood control.
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".
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.
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.
9/7/1965	Letter from GNRR Ass't Engineer	Avon By-Pass cost soared to $23,940,000. $1.5 million was for improvements to GNRR bridges.
8/9/1966	Letter to GNRR President	Letter discusses how Avon By-Pass plan would impact their bridges.
11/11/1966	Letter to GNRR President	Letter attaches 11/8/66 Seattle PI article re: $5,804,000 levee improvement project approved by Congress and President Johnson. No indication in any record that project was ever constructed.

Back to the top

Corps of Engineers Documents

Date	Title	Summary
12/11/1897	Capt. Harry Taylor Annual Report	In this report Capt. Taylor observes that the local Dike Districts are disorganized and have put the levees way too close to the edge of the river. Also, he compares the height of the 1897 flood as compared to the 1896 flood. His statements cast further dispersions on the accuracy of the 1923 Stewart Report.
9/19/1911	Corps Map of Hamilton Vicinity	Corps maps shows depth of river in Hamilton same in 1911 as it is today.
11/26/1924	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	The majority of the historical documents I have obtained have came from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. While I have many differences with the Corps especially on how they turned their back on the people of Skagit County with respect to obtaining more storage behind Lower Baker Dam while they were negotiating secretly on behalf of the BPA, I have nothing but compliments to their legal department and many staff people on the free access they allow the public to review their documents unlike USGS which destroys or denies the public access to their documents. The 1924 documents clearly show that the Corps as well as Skagit County rejected Mr. Stewarts work product which begs the question, if it wasn’t good enough in 1924 why are we still using it in 2004?
11/26/1924	Robert E.L. Knapp, Skagit County Engineer, Testimony for 11/26/1924 Hearing
11/26/1924	J.O. Rudene, Skagit County Property Owner Testimony for 11/26/1924 Hearing
11/26/1924	H.L. Willis, Skagit River Improvement Committee Chairman Testimony for 11/26/1924 Hearing
4/22/1949	Letter to Skagit County re importance of Dalles Gage	Letter documents the importance of the gage at The Dalles in Concrete.
2/01/1950	Report on Derivation of Standard Project Flood	“Standard project flood was determined to be 440,000 cfs. … The standard project flood was derived for natural river conditions and assumes no regulation by the dams.”
2/21/1952	Appendix to Report on Survey for Flood Control of SKAGIT RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, WASHINGTON	Excellent description of the Standard Project Flood and current (as in 1952) potential dam sites.
8/19/1952	Letter to Division Engineer	Declares Avon By-Pass "Inactive".
1/6/1960	MFR re meeting with Skagit County Officials	The Colonel informed the group that the Corp anticipated “a new Congressional resolution authorizing the Corps to make a restudy of the Skagit River flood control problem".
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.”
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.
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
11/22/1963	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.
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.
3/1/1966	Supplement to Review Report on Flood Control and Other Improvements on Skagit River, Wa., Corps of Engineers, Seattle District	Report address a myriad of flood control options including dredging, widening channel, dredging the mouth of the river and levee raising.
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.
8/13/1966	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."
1/17/1980	MFR re changes needed to 1979 Levee Improvement Project (GDM)	MFR documents changes needed to the 1979 Corps GDM for the 1979 Levee Improvement Project
1/17/1980	Colonel Moraski Ltr re winding down of 1979 Levee Improvement Project	Colonel Moraski Letter to Headquarters re the winding down of the 1979 Levee Project due to local voter rejection of the project.
9/8/1980	MFR re meeting in Skagit County re Floodway Designations	MFR documents 9/3/80 meeting in Skagit County re Floodway Designations. Impacts of filling in Burlington on Port property discussed. Burlington worried about “no-growth mandate.” Suggestion was made to let the Flood Control Advisory Committee come up with floodway designation. Corps concerned about filling around the Sterling Hill area. Burlington not sensitive to the filling problem.
12/5/1980	Ltr to Corps from FEMA re Floodway Designations	Letter states probable failure points (PFP) not reliable for designating floodways. Decision made to use 1972 overtopping of entire levee system.
12/10/1980	MFR re Floodway Designation Methodology	MFR documents discussions between Corps, FEMA and Skagit County re proper method of designating floodways. 1972 study vs. 1000 foot setback from levees discussed.
5/27/1981	MFR re Floodway Designation help from HEC	MFR discusses “density” floodway study being financed by FEMA and getting help from HEC in California on floodway problem for lower Skagit Basin.
6/8/1981	Ltr to Mt. Vernon re Level of Protection for Urban Areas	Letter explained to Ron Maynock, Mt. Vernon Building Official, current levees only provided 11-17 year flood protection. 100 yr protection for Urban areas insufficient for flood control projects and Corps must use SPF (Standard Project Flood or 500 yr protection).
6/9/1981	MFR re Floodway Designations	MFR documents discussions between Corps and FEMA re floodway designations. Equal conveyance method in lower valley politically unacceptable. FEMA not considering lost storage effects in FIS. Density floodways considered. 40 acre lot size in County could accomplish same thing as density floodway. Corps needed more detailed topography. Potential development between Burlington and Mt. Vernon could eliminate floodway and cause damming effect upstream. Suggested using “C-10” language in FIS.
4/19/1988	Conversation Record re Reactivation of 1979 Levee Project	The document memorializes conversation between Corps and Mt. Vernon City Engineer John Wiseman re reactivation of the 1979 Levee Improvement Project. What is somewhat amazing about this document is that 17 years later two Skagit County men would be at the same organization meeting receiving an award for a Historical Project and we still do not have a flood control project. Corps wanted resolutions from County and Cities requesting reactivation of levee project.
6/7/1988	MFR re meeting on reactivation of 1979 Levee Project	MFR announces a meeting to discuss reactivation of the 1979 Levee Project as well as a meeting with the City of Mt. Vernon to discuss a project just for the City of Mt. Vernon.
7/7/1988	MFR re meeting with City of Mt. Vernon	MFR documents meeting with City of Mt. Vernon. Levees raised and strengthen since middle 1970’s. Blamed the “Hill People” for the overwhelming vote against the 1979 Levee Project. Truth of the matter is that even the City of Burlington voted against it. City officials appeared to be overwhelmed by the complexity of flood control projects. Any project to protect just downtown Mt. Vernon would have adverse impacts in other areas of the river.
7/28/1988	Conversation Record re Mt. Vernon request to reactivate 1979 project	Documents conversation wherein City of Mt. Vernon decided to ask Corps to reactivate the 1979 Levee Project. Corps volunteers to draft letter for Mt. Vernon. (See 9/22/88 letter from Mt. Vernon)
9/29/1988	MFR re meeting with Mt. Vernon re reactivation of 1979 Levee Project	Corps attended meeting wherein Mt. Vernon officially asked Corps to reactivate the 1979 Levee Project. Told City Engineer that the earliest they could start would be 1991. Corps talked to County Engineer who stated that the County preferred to have residents “push them” into requesting flood control project.
5/31/1991	MFR re amounts of material "dredged" out of the Skagit River	This MFR documents the historical “dredging” performed by the Corps. In reality the Corps never really dredged anything. The process was called “side-casting” which put the sand obtained from the bottom of the river up on the river banks where it proceeded to be washed back into the river during the next freshet.
8/27/1993	MFR re cumulative impacts of fill from County BNRR bridge area project	MFR clearly documents the Corps refusal to do a cumulative impact analysis of fill in the floodplain.
2/29/1996	Corps Ltr to Tribal Representative Wasserman	First suggestion that flood control should be combined with ecosystem restoration. Past study efforts have failed because of the high cost of desired project features and/or studies.
4/16/1996	Memorandum for Record (MFR), responses to questions from Skagit County..	"Literature review (general). This needs to be the first task completed, and a report should be generated to illustrate scoping changes as a result of findings. Existing studies should be utilized as much as possible." . . . U.S. Fish and Wildlife. How is this report utilized? There appears to be some duplication between this report and the FWCA report. Part of the confusion is because there are two units of FWS that are being dealt with, the Fisheries Research Office (FRO), and the Ecological Services Office. FRO or their agent (most likely the Skagit System Cooperative) would conduct the fish studies.
4/16/1996	Agenda for Skagit Flood Control & Ecosystem Restoration Study Coordination Meeting	Official Corps document showing the name of the Skagit Project as including "Ecosystem Restoration".
4/17/1996	MFR SUBJECT: MEETINGS ON SKAGIT FLOOD CONTROL STUDY	These minutes show the wish list of the participants on that day. Among many other things that have not been accomplished are the following: A 3 year study; A study cost of $2.5 to $3.0 M; Look at relocation of highway 20; Look at incorporating other purposes such as recreation trails; Consider up river communities; Don’t recommend a project so large it requires a vote of the citizens of Skagit Co- stay within the limit of the Commissioner’s authority. Now why wouldn't anyone want the people of Skagit County to vote on the project?
8/1/1996	Risk-Based Analysis for Flood Damage Reduction Studies	Corps of Engineers manual that "describes and provides procedures for risk" of "exposure to a chance of injury or loss" "and uncertainty" "in choice of the hydrologic, hydraulic, and economic functions" "for Corps of Engineers flood damage reduction studies."
10/15/1996	Wynn Letter to Leonard Halverson	"I also realize that for every change man makes to a river's levee system, a change in the river may result."
1/5/2004	Hydrology Presentation re: Skagit River	While this presentation would be a lot more accurate if they were using the 80 years of gage records at The Dalles in Concrete instead of the Stewart “estimates” it is a very good presentation on the seriousness of the Skagit River flood issue.
12/01/2004	Skagit County Public Works Director Letter to Corps of Engineers Seattle District, Re: Skagit River Flood Reduction Project	Request to Corps "to work within the framework of the FERC NEPA process to meet its NEPA responsibilities regarding the flood control elements of the settlement agreement" and independent review of the Pacific International Engineering (PIE) hydrology & hydraulics (H&H) model of the Skagit River.
1/3/2006	Risk Analysis for Flood Damage Reduction Studies	"This regulation provides guidance on the evaluation framework to be used in Corps of Engineers flood damage reduction studies."
2/18/2006	Seattle District Corps of Engineers Press Release	Once again, no money in Corps budget for Skagit County.
12/11/2006	Corps of Engineers Levee Certification Requirements	Document addresses questions which have arisen as to the policy governing levee certification by USACE for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), particularly as regards the application of risk analysis.
1/24/2007	Skagit River Flood Damage Reduction Study Presentation	Presentation in Adobe Acrobat PDF by Linda Smith, Project Manager and Ted Perkins, Hydraulic Engineer regarding Skagit River Basin hydrology and options for further flood control.
2/22/2007	Skagit River Basin, Washington Revised Flood Insurance Study - Draft Hydraulics Summary	Latest Corps of Engineers Hydraulic Study for FEMA Flood Insurance Maps.
2/27/2007	Presentation by Col. Mike McCormick to Skagit County	On February 27, 2007 the new District Commander Colonel Mike McCormick came to town with his Corps staff and the staff pretty much gave the attached presentation. It was perhaps staffs most embarrassing performance to date. They didn't even know the name of the Skagit Project. (See page 5) (See also 4/16/96 entry above.) Staff totally rejected any more work on the hydrology issue stating flatly, "We're done with that." "We're using our hydrology." To date they have spent $6,600,000 and have accomplished almost nothing and they want another 3-4 million dollars to complete their study over the next 7 years. (See pages 10-12)
8/9/2007	Skagit River Revised Flood Insurance Study Levee Scenario Discussion	PowerPoint presentation (converted to PDF) by Ted Perkins, Hydraulic Engineer for the Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District
2/14/2008	Corps of Engineers Seattle District Flood Risk Assessment	5-page discussion of the flood risk for the Pacific Northwest and notes that, "Heavy, intense rainfall is the primary driver of flooding. Snow melt, from rain on snow, does not increase the risk of major flooding, but can affect the severity."

Back to the top

Baker River Dam Storage

All documents in this section show records of investigations and attitudes towards providing flood control storage behind Upper and Lower Baker Dams over the years.

Date	Title	Summary
1/23/1950	Letter to Puget Power from Corps of Engineers	Corps of Engineers felt flood control storage in Lake Shannon was "worthwhile" looking into. Methods suggested was to either raise Lower Baker or to lower lake level. Important to remember is that Upper Baker Dam was not constructed until 1959.
2/15/1966	MFR re: Corps Investigation of Existing Baker Sites	Corps approximates that Baker River dams could not provide 100 yr protection. Would require 90,000 acre feet to control 200,000 cfs flow. However, could control 50 yr flood (180,000 cfs) by providing 50,000 acre feet of storage. Would require considerable study to determine power loss.
9/21/1967	Corps Memorandum re Lower Baker River Storage Projects	Corps admits investigation into Lower Baker dam storage has only been "on a very preliminary basis". Gross storage capacity of Lake Shannon 160,000 acre feet. 142,400 ac ft being used for power production. Upper Baker dam gross storage is 298,000 ac ft and utilizes 220,000 ac ft for power production. Important to note is that at this time only Upper Baker provided 16,000 ac ft of storage however both dams had major impacts on flood flows. Corps recognizes that 28,500 ac ft of storage was available behind Lower Baker in Lake Shannon for flood control. Flood prevention benefits would far exceed the cost of power reductions.
12/13/1967	Corps Memorandum re Preliminary Report on Baker River Regulation	Corps investigated 3 scenarios. 1-drafting Upper Baker to 720.6 ft to provide 16,000 ac ft of storage. 2-drafting Upper Baker to 709.8 ft to provide additional 50,000 ac ft of storage (current requirement 707.9 by Nov. 15th). 3-drafting Upper Baker to 701.3 to provide additional 84,000 ac ft of storage. In all 3 scenarios Lower Baker was kept at elev. 437 which is 1 1/2 ft below being full. "In all cases, with the exception of 2 years in #3, Upper Baker could refill by the end of April."
7/23/75	Corps draft letter to Rep. Meeds re Flood Control Projects	Corps recommended additional 58,000 ac ft of storage. Trade offs of power generation for flood control are economically and environmentally feasible.
9/15/76	Corps Draft "Read Ahead" for Meeting with Rep. Meeds	Documents 1975 flood event damages at $3,247,000. Had Upper Baker additional storage (more than 16,000 ac ft) been in effect at that time, could have saved taxpayers $520,000.
6/1977	Partial Corps Report on 1975 Flood Event	Documents Upper, Lower Baker Dam and Ross Dam operation during 1975 flood event. Ross Lake stored 104,000 ac ft or 87% of allocated 120,000 ac ft. Baker Lake was 19 ft below full pool at start of flood event. Lake Shannon was 1.5 ft below full pool. In 14 hrs Lake Shannon filled. At peak of flood PSPL was dumping 24,800 cfs into Skagit. Storage used in Baker Lake was 53,900 ac ft or 37,900 ac ft more then they were required to do.
7/11/1977	Corps Letter to Skagit County	Congress authorized an additional 58,000 ac ft of storage behind Upper Baker dam. Would reduce flooding during "major events". Ltr also addresses possible "deauthorization" of the Avon By-Pass project and the possible construction of a levee improvement project which would give lower valley 11 year protection with 3 feet of freeboard.
9/9/1977	Corps Memorandum re Additional Storage	Documents SCL plans for Copper Creek Dam and possible dams on Newhalum and Thunder Creek. States that PSPL had no plans to provide additional storage behind Baker River Upper Baker or Lower Baker dams.
8/14/2001	Informational Briefing	Document provided talking points and concerns re informational briefing on Skagit River project. Corps main concern on FERC Relicensing process was that they had limited funds $300,000 to devote to studying Upper Baker storage and FERC process. Corps felt risk was that BPA could pull out of funding flood storage and that FERC could delete current storage requirement. 20 yr compensation agreement with PSE expired in 2000.
8/9/2004