Directory of Documents
Downloadable Readers
Skagit Flood Advisory Committee Team (Skagit FACT) Documents
WASHINGTON STATE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION
| 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 | ||
| 1995 | 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. |
| 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. 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. |
| 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 | |
| 11/23/2008 | 2008 Flood Analysis -- The Big Picture | |
| 1/11/2009 | January 8, 2009 Flood 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
|
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 |
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. |
| 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.” |
| 09/14/2008 | LJK Comments on Aug. 18, 2008 Corps of Engineers Presentation |
“Corps understatement at meeting, “Doing anything with us is kind of complicated.” ” |
| 09/29/2008 | LJK Proposed Modifications to the Goals and Objectives of the Skagit River Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan |
Proposed modifications with all
additions are in blue, all deletions in red |
| 12/14/2008 | 1925 Metsker's Atlas - Annotated With James E. Stewart Locations |
Metsker Maps of Skagit River basin from Burlington to Rockport annotated with known locations where, according to his field notebook, James E. Stewart surveyed for flood elevation marks in 1922. |
2/16/2009 |
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. |
| 4/20/2009 | Measures 4 & 5 - Nookachamp and Hart Slough Storage Issue Paper Presented to Advisory Committee |
“I take great issue with the following verbiage that I am assuming was handed out at the Dike and Drainage Sub-committee: “The Nookachamps floodplain historically has provided various levels of natural storage, depending on the magnitude of the flood peak and shape of the hydrograph, to significantly reduce flood peaks.” (Source: Skagit River Flood Reduction Feasibility Study, PIE April 2006) The truth of the matter is that there is very little that is “natural” about the storage in the Nookachamps.” |
| 7/19/2009 | FCZD AC Draft Recommendations With Cost Estimates Provided by LJK | Proposed fast-track Advisory Committee measures could cost in excess of $150 Million dollars. |
| 7/19/2009 | Potential Sales Tax Revenue for Flood Control Measures from 2005-2008 | If Skagit County had instituted a half-cent sales tax (.005) in the year 2005, we could have raised in excess of 42 million dollars for flood control. |
| 8/10/2009 | El Nino, La Nina & Normal Flood Years -- 1900-2004 | Document compares El Nino to La Nina and our normal flood years. The document shows us that almost all of our major flood events happened in so-called normal years. |
| 10/31/2009 | Levee Failure and Tidal Analysis of the Mount Vernon Gage | Research into whether or not levee failures downstream or tides impact the Mount Vernon gage at the 3-bridge corridor. |
| 11/16/2009 | LJK Funding Options | Six page handout for the November 16, 2009 SC FCZD AC meeting on funding options for flood control. |
| 12/27/2009 | The Decade of “Paralysis of Analysis” in Documents | In order to prepare for a look back at the
last decade we took all the documents published on this web site from
1/1/2000 until 12/31/2009 and put them in chronological order,
regardless of their author, into one document. As always, when you put
documents into chronological order they tell you a story. (See Angry Citizen December 2009) |
| 1/10/2010 | Chapter 6 CFHMP LJK Final Draft | 33 pages of flood history documentation of the Skagit River. |
| 1/19/2010 | Handout to Jan. 19, 2010 SC FCZD AC Meeting | 7 page handout on actual flood conditions in Crofoot's Addition to the south of Concrete. |
3/7/2010 |
Retyped for clarity and emphasis 8/14/1953 Corps document. See Seattle District Office Ltr re: Flood Control Requirement and Operating Procedure for Ross Reservoir, Skagit River, Wash. for original document. |
For this document we took the original 8/14/1953 document, retyped it verbatim and added emphasis, footnotes, and a flood CFS table to show what the Corps was studying. The document shows us that among many other things, the Corps used the Sedro-Woolley Stewart figures to compute the Ross Dam storage requirements, this despite the fact the Stewart data wasn’t published yet, and presents a serious question as to why they discarded the Stewart Concrete figures before 1924; if the 1909 flood happened today it would carry approximately only 185,000 CFS not the 220,000 CFS Stewart estimated; and the Corp recommended storage only “start” to be accomplished on November 1st even though 24% of the flood events “studied” happened in October. This document is a must read for everyone interested in storage issues for the Skagit River. |
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. | |
| 07/11/2008 | PDF of Slides in Hearing re: Clear Valley Farm Wetland Banking Proposal - Testimony before Skagit County Hearing Examiner in opposition to Clear Valley Farm wetland banking proposal. | |
| 10/20/2008 | Sterling Dam Presentation - Short presentation on the Sterling Dam between Burlington and Sedro-Woolley. | |
| 11/27/2008 | November 2008 SC FCZD AC Discussion Documents - Arguments for/against staying in the Corps GI process. | |
| 01/20/2009 | Skagit River Dredging: The Perception vs. The Truth - Short presentation for the Jan. 20, 2009 Skagit County Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee on the history of dredging and why dredging won't work. |
| Date | Title | Summary |
| 10/02/2005 |
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 from the 5 newspapers arranged in chronological order. | |
| 5/17/2005 |
Helped Skagit County Government win "Project of the Year" award. | |
| 6/13/2005 | 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. |
| 10/2006 |
Article regarding historical newspaper archive and web site by Skagit County Government. |
|
| 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. |
|
| 5/27/2007 |
Compilation of articles describing the FEMA flood insurance base flood elevation and floodway determination made by FEMA in 1984. |
| 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 |
Acknowledges breaking of levees saved bridge. Felt that when levees were improved they would lose bridge. Wanted to build bypass. | |
|
10/11/1922 |
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 |
Corps of Engineers reported that the By-Pass proposed in 1936 did not meet their minimum cost benefit ratio. | |
|
8/23/1963 |
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 |
Avon By-Pass cost soared to $23,940,000. $1.5 million was for improvements to GNRR bridges. | |
|
8/9/1966 |
Letter discusses how Avon By-Pass plan would impact their bridges. | |
|
11/11/1966 |
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. |
| Date | Title | Summary |
| 12/11/1897 |
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 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 | “I would like to emphasize the point, that Mr. Knapp brought out in his paper, that before any highly scientific plan can be prepared for the protection of this valley from floods, it is necessary to have more authoritative information than we now have as to the amount of water carried by the river in time of floods. ... The information that was collected by Mr. Stewart and given in his report to the committee was excellent so far as the dots that he had to work upon permitted, but that data was necessarily more or less inaccurate.” Colonel W. J. Barden, Colonel, Corps of Engineers Seattle District Engineer |
| 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 | |
| 5/1/1928 | Corps of Engineers Skagit River Report to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors |
See paragraph #43 on page 2 - the same measures discussed in 2008 and 2009 were discussed 80 years ago. |
| 10/16/1936 | Map and Plans of 1936 Avon Bypass Proposal | Map showing proposed location as well as structures planned to aid creation of Avon Bypass. Idea included widening what is known today as 3-Bridge Corridor between Burlington & Mt. Vernon. |
| 4/22/1949 |
Letter to Skagit County re importance of Dalles Gage |
Letter documents the importance of the gage at The Dalles in Concrete. |
| 1/7/1950 |
Letter to Skagit County Government Requesting Flood Fight Mapping |
“The Seattle District is reviewing its maps of the Skagit Valley in
order to incorporate therein data which might be of assistance during
flood-fighting operations.” See Also: 1/7/1950 Reply to Corps Request for Flood Fight Mapping |
| 1/11/1950 |
Corps of Engineers Involvement in Skagit River Flood Control Affairs | “It appears unlikely that any project can be recommended in which the local cost will be small, and therefore if effective control of floods is to be realized in the Skagit Valley, a good measure of local financial support is needed.” |
| 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.” |
| 2/15/1950 |
Elevations of Skagit River Gages | NGVD 29 levels for Skagit River gages. |
| 5/24/1950 |
Letter to Skagit County Farm Bureau, Re: Dredging | “There has been very little additional material deposited in the river during the past 18 years between the south and Mt. Vernon. ... Dredging a cut-off at the mouth of the North Fork or dredging an outlet along the present path of the river from the south to deep water cannot lover flood stages at that point below the stage which would be experienced at high tide with normal flows.” |
| 1/24/1951 |
Letter to Congressman "Scoop" Jackson, Re: 12/26/1950 Letter from Skagit County Farm Bureau |
Discussion of various diking projects for Skagit River. See Also: 12/26/1950 Skagit County Farm Bureau Letter to Congressman Henry "Scoop" Jackson |
| 2/16/1951 |
Dike Dist. Letter to Seattle District Engineer, Re: Plans to dam off Dry Slough | “It has come to the attention of the commissioners that there is a project considered in your office to dam off Dry Slough at the point of "intersection" of this slough with the north fork of the Skagit. We must advise the engineer that the undersigned commissioners are in opposition to such a procedure and desire to place our objection on record and to request a hearing in the event the proposal is further pursued.” |
| 2/28/1951 |
Skagit River – Rough Estimate of Flood Damages from Sedro-Woolley to Mouth of Skagit River | This is a wonderful historical document drafted for the purpose of computing the 1951 flood damages however it also contains detailed information on the floods of 1949, 1932, and 1921. What it clearly shows us is the reliance on the James E. Stewart data 10 years before it was published. |
| 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.” |
| 2/8/1961 | Public Hearing on Flood Control for the Skagit River Basin, 8 February 1961 |
“I am particularly interested in securing information on the nature and scope of the flood control improvements desired; the problems and difficulties encountered under the present conditions, and the proposed developments which would utilize the desired improvements that you would suggest.” (Col. Young, US Army Corps of Engineers) |
| 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. |
| 12/16/1963 | U.S. Army Corps letter to BCC re Avon Bypass and local cooperation | “The Avon Bypass, together with minor levee improvement downstream of the Bypass, would increase flood protection in the area below Burlington for a flood with recurrence of once in 30 years. For the 1951 flood the Bypass would have lowered flood stages 3 to 5 feet in the Skagit River and 2 to 4 feet in the North and South Forks of the Skagit River.” |
| 1/31/1964 | Corps letter to Senator Jackson re Avon Bypass | “The present level of flood protection in the delta area is once in 3 to 10 years. The cities of Mt. Vernon and Burlington now have only 5 to 8 year protection.” The cost benefit ratio was 2 to 1. |
| 3/30/1964 | Corps letter to Senator Jackson re Avon Bypass | Corps justifies Avon Bypass plan despite local opposition. Stated that 180,000 cfs flood was a 30 year event. In 1990 & 1995 we had 157,000 cfs and they called that a 35 year event. |
| 2/17/1965 | MFR re Corps meetings in Burlington re Avon Bypass | Corps held "secret" meeting with two county commissioners and dike districts before meeting with Burlington City council. Was assured of County cooperation. Dike District 12 was opposed to Bypass. Cost made project prohibitive. |
| 9/7/1965 | Corps letter to Congressman Meeds re Avon Bypass | Extensive letter justifying the Bypass concept. Addresses why dredging won't work and setback levees too expensive. |
| 2/7/1966 | MFR re levee raising instead of Avon Bypass | Corps explored the possibility of abandoning the Avon Bypass in favor of increased levees. The County engineer had “no objections” to a levee alternative if the “blowout problem” could be solved. |
| 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." |
| 1974 | 1974 Notes on Burlington Ring Dike | 1974 preliminary plan for ring dike around City of Burlington. |
| 07/12/1974 | MFR: LaConner Flood Problems | 1974 discussion of potential installation of a ring dike around La Conner. |
| 4/29/1975 | Corps letter to County re request to undertake preconstruction engineering studies for the authorized Skagit River Levee and Channel Improvement Project | “...Flood plain management as now implemented by both your county and the State of Washington, Department of Ecology. has given us confidence those residing in the flood plain are. and will continue to be aware of the actual flood risk, and that development is regulated, consistent with this risk.” |
| 5/25/1977 | Executive Order 11988 | Executive Order from the Carter Administration that among other things, agencies “shall consider alternatives to avoid adverse effects and incompatible development in the floodplains. ” |
| 8/31/1977 | Corps Letter to County re studies of the Levee & Channel Improvement Project. | “There has been extensive development in the Burlington-Sedro Woolley area since our flood control studies in 1964, and flood protection for this area now appears to be urgently needed.” |
| 12/06/1979 | Corps Letter to Skagit County Commissioners discussing future of flood control after voter rejection | “You indicated that the voters rejected Proposition 2 on flood control because they were reluctant to approve a raise in taxes, were dissatisfied with the proposed plan, or a combination of both.” |
| 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 | Skagit Flood Control & Ecosystem Restoration Study (AKA GI Study) Coordination Meeting Minutes | Official Corps document showing the
name of the Skagit Project as including "Ecosystem Restoration".
“The primary purpose of the meeting was to clarify Corps’ understandings about sponsor’s expectations and then begin working on the study details. Before the Corps of Engineers works with the County to rescope the study, we need to clearly understand what the Local Sponsor(s) hope to get out of the study/project process, including both flood control and ecosystem restoration features. How much are potential Local Sponsors willing to commit to this study? How much are the Local Sponsors willing to pay for “the project”?” |
| 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." |
| 2/6/2002 | Scope of Work: Geomorphology and Sediment Transport Study of Skagit River Flood Hazard Mitigation Project | “Physical modifications to the channel and floodplain may interrupt or change ongoing geomorphic processes. Similarly, geomorphic processes may affect the function and effectiveness of the proposed flood hazard mitigation project. The geomorphic assessment and sediment transport analysis will provide a basis for evaluating the potential interactions between ongoing geomorphic processes and each alternative for flood hazard mitigation.” |
| 4/17/2002 | Features of Basic Skagit River Damage Flood Reduction Alternatives (No Mitigation) | “The existing levees will be removed and setback. Existing levee maintenance standards will be followed with regular mowing of the levees.” |
| 2/28/2003 | [GI Study/Skagit River Feasibility Study] Project Update E-mail from Seattle District |
E-mail chain explaining Corps process. “Mitigation might also be required under the
Endangered Species Act or the Clean Water Act. If the mitigation
features are necessary to get the permit or concurrence they might be
shifted into the basic project features account. The reason is that the
project cannot legally be built without these features.” |
| 5/2/2003 | May 2, 2003 Skagit River Feasibility Study Status Report |
“Two weeks of computer run time, together with verification, will be
required to then produce the new flood inundation maps for 10-, 25-,
50-, 75-, 100-, 250-, and 500-year events. With the lead hydraulic
engineer scheduled for a conference in Portland next week, we anticipate
having the existing condition model outputs available during the last
week in May.” That's May of 2003. It's now November of 2009. Where are the flood inundation maps? |
| 5/15/2003 | Pentac Environmental Memo, Re: Draft Scope of Work for the Phase II of the Geomorphology and Sediment Transport Study of Skagit River Flood Hazard Mitigation Project Skagit County, Washington | Update on geomorphology study. |
| 6/6/2003 | June 6, 2003 Skagit River Feasibility Study Executive Committee Status Report | “The existing condition hydraulic models (UNET and FLO-2D) have undergone independent technical review (West Consultants, Inc). Levees throughout the system were recently field inspected and reanalyzed based on new survey data, resulting in significant changes in probable levee failure and non-failure elevations. This revised information has been inputted to the hydraulic models. Accordingly, new inundation maps for the 10-, 25-, 50-, 75-, 100-, 250-, and 500-year events are now being formatted and are scheduled to be completed this week.” |
| 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." |
| 5/01/2008 | Skagit River Basin, Washington Revised Flood Insurance Study Hydraulics Summary | “The simulations performed represent a fixed bed analysis so erosion and sedimentation in the floodplain are not modeled. Culverts under roads are also not modeled. The reason that culverts are not modeled for overland flow is that the capacities of the culverts are small compared with the overbank discharge. The FLO-2D model does not contain any sea dike failure scenarios and do not account for pump stations or any other flood fighting techniques to reduce the flood damage.” |
| 8/2008 | Corps and County Flood Study Cost |
Listing of where our money has been spent. |
| 8/18/2008 | Skagit River Flood Damage Reduction Study Preliminary Measures Presentation |
PDF of 123-slide presentation to August 2008 Skagit County Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee explaining potential options to reduce the Skagit River Flood Risk. Video is also available from Skagit21. |
| 10/31/2008 | Letter to County from Corps re: financial info on GI Study |
Shows what the Corps spent their time and money on during 4th quarter fiscal year 2008. |
| 11/21/2008 | Col. Wright Letter to LJK, Re: Comments on Corps GI Process |
“Thank you for taking the time to provide us with your comments on the Skagit River General Investigation Preliminary Measures. The team is evaluating all of the comments and responses will be posted. . . . The team intends to use the comments in refining the 37 preliminary measures and combining the best measures into alternatives and a recommended plan.” |
| 6/2009 | Skagit River H&H Technical Review Summary | An Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District summary of Skagit River Hydrology & Hydraulics. |
| 6/17/2009 | Corps of Engineers Historic Discharge Position Summary | “The City of Burlington has stated that the accepted discharges of the historic floods are statistically extremely unlikely. Statistically, this would be all the more reason to include them, as we are defining the magnitude of the expected extreme events. However, we are not just dealing with statistics; we are dealing with a large river and the weather systems that drive its flood peaks. This means we have climate cycles, such as the Pacific Decadal Osolation, El Nino, and climate change, which influence our flood events. Other rivers in the Pacific Northwest also experienced floods of record during the same time period as the historic Skagit River floods.” |
| 6/17/2009 | Skagit River Flood Damage Reduction Study Hydrology Background |
Overview of Corps of Engineers Seattle District's attempts to address Skagit River hydrology. |
| 7/2/2009 | MFR: Skagit Basin Hydrology Technical Discussion | “USGS notes that there is potential for inaccuracy for these floods. Data from USGS is accepted by the Corps without corps reproducing the same data.” |
| 7/10/2009 | Memo Re: NHC/PIE investigation Recommendations | “We find that the PIE and NHC investigations into High Water Marks (HWM’s), survey results, and HEC-RAS modeling provide less than compelling evidence that the USGS historic flood peaks should be adjusted downward. The following suggestions describe how the investigations could be strengthened. It should be noted that these suggestions, if adopted, may improve the quality of the results, however they may not result in compelling evidence that would justify revising the four historical flood peaks.” |
| 7/24/2009 | Draft Executive Order of Obama Administration for Floodplain Management | “Floods have caused a greater loss of life and property and have devastated more families and communities in the United States than all other natural hazards. Despite the expenditure of billions of tax dollars trying to manage floodwaters and guide wise use of floodplains, flood damages continue to increase and every year billions are spent in response to flood disasters. In addition, natural floodplains contain numerous inherent values that are of great importance to the Nation. The federal government must therefore strengthen its commitment to reducing the loss of life and property caused by floods and to protecting and restoring the natural resources and functions of floodplains.” |
| 8/2009 | Skagit River Flood Risk Management and Ecosystem Restoration Project Feasibility Study (aka GI Study) Feasibility Scoping Meeting Read-Ahead Report | Documentation of “technical studies and findings of the Skagit River Flood Risk Management and Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study ... to study flood risks in the Skagit River Basin and to evaluate the feasibility and justification of alternative flood risk management alternatives.” The report also “evaluates opportunities to pursue ecosystem restoration.” |
| 9/2009 |
Skagit River Flood Risk Management
and Ecosystem Restoration Project Feasibility Study Project Management Plan
- DRAFT Revised September 2009 (aka G.I. Study) |
“The purpose of the evaluation and screening of measures is to methodically narrow down the range of individual project elements so that funding and analysis is focused on those measures that have the highest potential to qualify as a Federal interest. A Federal interest for flood risk management measures is determined by a positive benefit-to-cost ratio, environmental acceptability, engineering feasibility, acceptable risk, and acceptable socio-economic impacts.” |
| 9/16/2009 | Agreement for Flood Control and Replacement Power Between Corps of Engineers & Puget Sound Energy (Amendment at Amendment No.1 Agreement For Flood Control And Replacement Power) | “Puget shall operate the Upper Baker Development to provide (i) 16,000 acre feet of flood control storage space between October 15 and March 1 and (ii) an additional 58,000 acre feet of storage space between November 1 and March 1 of each operating year during the Tenn. Such flood control operations shall be at the direction of the Corps on terms and conditions to be mutually agreed upon by the Corps and Puget.” |
| 10/14/2009 | Letter re: Request to Revise Water Control Manual | “A final EIS for the Baker River Hydroelectric Project was issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on September 8, 2006. As noted in the EIS, the Corps cannot take advantage of any earlier storage provisions in the license or additional storage beyond that contained in H. Doc 95-149 (as authorized by P.L. 89-298) until it completes a study and receives Congressional authorization for taking such additional action (see EIS at 3-52).” |
| 10/08/2009 | Amendment No.1 Agreement For Flood Control And Replacement Power (An amendment to Agreement for Flood Control and Replacement Power Between Corps of Engineers & Puget Sound Energy) | “Puget shall operate the Upper Baker Development to provide (i) 16,000 acre feet of flood control storage space between October 15 and March I and (ii) an additional 58,000 acre feet of storage space between November 15 and March 1 of each operating year during the Term. Such flood control operations shall be at the direction of the Corps on terms and conditions to be mutually agreed upon by the Corps and Puget. It shall be the intent of this Agreement to comply with the flood control objectives specified in House Document No. 95-149, while minimizing spill at the Upper Baker Development to the extent that it is feasible. ” |
| Date | Title | Summary |
| 1/23/1950 | 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 | 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 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 recommended additional 58,000 ac ft of storage. Trade offs of power generation for flood control are economically and environmentally feasible. | |
| 9/15/76 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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. | |
| 5/8/2002 | Biological Assessment of Proposed Interim Conservation Measures for Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Pending Relicensing |
“Construction of an extensive system of levees and revetments, in combination with flood control by the Skagit and Baker Projects has allowed continued development of the former floodplain. Land uses such as agriculture, urban and residential development, and construction of infrastructure (roads, bridges, drainage systems) have permanently altered the valley landscape. The operation and maintenance of existing flood control facilities by Skagit County is dependent on flood control operations by the upstream hydroelectric projects.” |
| 3/7/2003 | Tribal Concerns about the Reanalysis of Storage in Upper Baker | “Larry Wasserman … expressed concern that the Corps would only look at the economic/flood benefits in making our recommendation and not at the potential environmental impacts.” |
| 5/21/2003 | Responses to Questions Posed by Mr. Mike Sato on May 2, 2003 Regarding the Status of the Skagit River Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Feasibility Study | “A very preliminary assessment was completed in April and has demonstrated that there could be additional flood control benefit that could be provided with additional storage at the Baker River reservoirs. However, the assumptions of the analysis need to be refined, and the proposed modifications better defined before the study proceeds to a full hydraulic and economic benefit analysis as well as undertaking NEPA scoping and environmental evaluation, as well as preparing engineering design modifications and cost estimates.” |
| 5/30/2003 | Corps of Engineers Responses To Questions Relating to Implementation of Additional Flood Control Storage at Baker River Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2150 | “In any event, a decision document submitted by the Corps’ Seattle District office would be required to support the recommendation for authorization for the Corps to operate Upper Baker for additional flood control storage. This decision document would have to demonstrate a Federal interest in additional flood control storage at Upper Baker ... [and thus would] have to demonstrate that the recommended plan is economically justified (i.e., flood damage reduction monetary benefits exceed project costs). The recommended plan would have to be demonstrated to be consistent with protecting the Nation’s environment, pursuant to national environmental statutes, applicable Executive Orders and other Federal planning requirements.” |
| 6/9/2003 | Scope of Work for Skagit River Flood Damage Reduction Feasibility Study’s Baker River Dams Storage Evaluation | Research into finding maximum utilization of Baker River Dams’ flood storage capabilities. |
| 5/28/2004 | Draft Biological Opinion for Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation for the Baker River Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2150). NOAA Fisheries Consultation No. 2002/01040. |
Dam storage “is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Puget Sound chinook salmon.” |
| 8/9/2004 | Seattle District Corps of Engineers Letter to FERC, Re: Baker River Project, Project Number P-2150-033 | Corps requests "to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the environmental documentation" of the Baker River Project, Project Number P-2150-033. |
| 11/24/2004 | Baker River Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2150 -Baker River Hydroelectric Project Comprehensive Settlement Agreement |
“The Settlement Agreement is a negotiated compromise worked out among the parties concerning extensive protection, mitigation and enhancement measures for the Project that address aquatic, terrestrial, recreational, cultural, and other resources. The Settlement Agreement reflects a consensus of all active participants in the relicensing, in regard to a wide variety of issues identified through the alternative licensing process.” |
| 12/21/2004 | Army Corps of Engineers reply to FERC Comprehensive Settlement Agreement |
"Without the completion and Congressional approval of the GI study, the Corps does not have the authority to regulate any additional storage at Upper or Lower Baker Dam." "...The Corps considers this section of Article 107 as a place holder for possible future action." |
| 12/22/2004 | Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife reply to FERC Comprehensive Settlement Agreement |
"We have participated in numerous meetings since 1999 regarding the relicensing
of this hydroelectric facility. In the past year alone, we have attended more
than 105 Baker River Project relicensing meetings to address issues associated
with wildlife, fish, recreation, and the language of the settlement agreement."
. . . Because the additional flood storage requires several significant approvals outside of the authority of the Federal Power Act before it will become a reality, it is WDFW’s view that the proposed license language for additional flood storage is a place holder that allows for a future possibility of an action by the Corps." |
| 12/22/2004 | Puget Sound Energy reply to FERC Comprehensive Settlement Agreement | "PSE acknowledges the dispute between the County and other Parties regarding the NEPA process for Proposed License Article 107(b). It acknowledges that the Settlement does not determine such process. However, that omission is customary for flood control provisions under the control of the ACOE, which generally does not participate as a party in any relicensing proceeding, including settlement. The Parties did not purport to determine the ACOE's process on its behalf. Notwithstanding this process dispute, PSE fully supports the Settlement as drafted, signed by the Parties, and filed with the Commission as being a truly comprehensive settlement agreement." |
| 12/22/2004 | Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe reply to FERC Comprehensive Settlement Agreement |
"Our intent in drafting this article matches that expressed
during the meeting by PSE, that Article
107 is a placeholder to show the intent of the relicense group to strive
to achieve 29,000 acre-feet of flood storage at lower Baker Reservoir through
the process established be the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)." "Throughout the relicense process the ACOE staff has been consistent in stating that additional flood storage at lower Baker Reservoir would only be considered as part of the Skagit Basin Flood Study." . . . "Given the disparity of the two processes, the language of Article 107 that addresses changes to the flood control regime must be read as a placeholder that shows the intent of the relicense participants to strive to achieve 29,000 acre-feet of additional storage at Lower Baker Reservoir, but only through the established ACOE process. Agreement to Article 107 by the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe was conditioned on the understanding that Skagit County recognized that additional flood control would have to follow the ACOE process and that Skagit County was committed to the ACOE process." . . . "...the Settlement does not include any environmental Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement measures for additional flood control. This is because the environmental effects have not been identified. It is our expectation that these measures would be part of the ACOE process. While additional flood control was not scoped or studied, relicense participants were willing to include a place holder license article solely to address the concerns of Skagit County and provide them certainty that there would be support for striving to achieve additional flood control through the ACOE process." |
| 12/22/2004 | Swinomish Tribal Community reply to FERC Comprehensive Settlement Agreement | |
| 12/23/2004 | Skagit County Government reply to FERC Comprehensive Settlement Agreement | The plain text of the proposed flood control license article and related provisions included in the Settlement make it clear that it is the intention of the Settlement signatories that Proposed License Article 107 ("Article l07') and Article 106(L) govern flood control operations at the Baker River Project for the entire term of the new license. Therefore, Article 107 is not a "placeholder," "interim," or "temporary" flood control license article, and there is no language anywhere in the Settlement that supports such a characterization. The Commission should give no credence to unsupported after-the-fact claims that the flood control provisions of the Settlement are a "placeholder." |
| 12/28/2004 | Upper Skagit Indian Tribe reply to FERC Comprehensive Settlement Agreement |
"In regards to the issues raised by FERC staff during the technical conference of December 8, 2004 the Tribe believes that license Article 107 represents the intent of the parties as it relates to the proposed additional 29,000 acre feet of storage for flood control. It was the Tribe's understanding that all of the parties to the Agreement would work together in order to achieve the additional 29,000 acre feet of extra flood storage. The main concern as it related to this goal from the Tribe's perspective was the effect that such storage would have on the down stream flow regime. After reviewing the proposal it was determined by all parties that the additional flood control would not have a negative impact on the proposed down stream flow regime and as such the Tribe's concerns were satisfied." |
| 01/03/2005 | Corps of Engineers Seattle District Response to Comment Letters to the Comprehensive Settlement Agreement | "If FERC includes the addition of29,000 acre-feet of storage at Lower Baker Dam as part of the license review for the Baker River Project, this would significantly complicate and delay the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA) review for the license." |
| 02/14/2005 | Letters to local elected officials and Congressional Delegation by Skagit County Public Works Director | "As the letter states, we are deeply concerned about the letters the Corps of Engineers has submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), suggesting that the additional flood control storage at the Lower Baker Reservoir is a mere "place holder" in the new license to be issued to Puget Sound Energy for the Baker River Hydro-Electric Project. . . . The new license, once issued by FERC, will be in place for up to 45 years and we need to ensure that adequate provisions for flood control are included and not delayed by the Corps process for many years, or even decades" |
| 10/17/2008 | FERC License for Puget Sound Energy Baker River Dams |
Official terms of Federal Energy Regulator Commission license to Puget Sound Energy to operate Baker River Dams. |
| 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 | “I would like to emphasize the point, that Mr. Knapp brought out in his paper, that before any highly scientific plan can be prepared for the protection of this valley from floods, it is necessary to have more authoritative information than we now have as to the amount of water carried by the river in time of floods. ... The information that was collected by Mr. Stewart and given in his report to the committee was excellent so far as the dots that he had to work upon permitted, but that data was necessarily more or less inaccurate.” Colonel W. J. Barden, Colonel, Corps of Engineers Seattle District Engineer |
| 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 | |
| 3/02/1937 | Report of Public Hearing |
“The farmers have tilled the soil up close to the banks of the river; the dikes are built there, and the problem of dredging presents a situation where there is no place adequate to waste the sand that is taken from the river bed. In other words, it will result in an attempt to confine to too narrow an area the volume of water that must escape. That was faulty planning, or lack of planning at the start. But the expenditures have been made and the farmers are attempting from their own pockets to keep that situation intact and improve it.” [R. V. Welts, Chairman, Skagit County Planning Council] |
| 4/12/1949 | Minutes on Public Hearing on Skagit River, Washington, Relating to Navigation |
“What we have now is a two-edge sword. The Skagit River is a real benefit to us, and on the other hand it is a constant hazard.” [Mr. Nordmark, Anacortes Chamber of Commerce] |
| 2/08/1961 | Public Hearing on Flood Control for the Skagit River Basin, 8 February 1961 |
“I am particularly interested in securing information on the nature and scope of the flood control improvements desired; the problems and difficulties encountered under the present conditions, and the proposed developments which would utilize the desired improvements that you would suggest.” [Source: Colonel R.P. Young, Corps of Engineers] |
| 3/22/1978 | Public Meeting on the Skagit River Levee and Channel Improvement Project |
Meeting to discuss potential Corps projects for the Skagit River originally authorized in 1966 by Congress and to receive citizen input. See also 3/23/78 SVH for a meeting summary. |
| 6/17/1979 | Transcript of Public Hearing |
“To me, to live in a flood plain and act shocked when the floods come is ridiculous. To live in the flood plain without raising the buildings is ridiculous and to expect taxpayers all over the country to pay the bills because some folks in Skagit Valley just didn't build their town right, is obsured [absurd]. If you are going to spend $55 million plus $88,000.00 a year on management costs we had better get a solution to the problem and the most recent June 1979 brochure which you got there is a list of alternatives, only four lines in this brochure are used to gloss over the only alternative that I feel that would bring a long-term solution to this flood damage problem. That would be rezoning, flood-proofing and raising the structures.” [Source: Bruce Stroker, Big Lake Resident] |
| 3/13/1963 |
Documents concerning “calculated” flood damages from Skagit River flooding events. |
| Date | Title | Summary |
| 7/15/1946 |
Congressman Henry "Scoop" Jackson Letter to Corps of Engineers, Re: Application to Increase Ross Dam Height and Request for Flood Control |
“As you will note, the Skagit County Planning Commission and the Board
of County Commissioners have requested that any grant of right to
increase the height of the Ross Dan be granted only upon the condition
that the upper 15 feet of the dam, as either completed or partially
completed be reserved as storage for flood waters and for flood control
purposes.” Note: Upper 15 feet of full pool translates into 170,741 acre-feet of storage. As of 2/2010, Ross Lake has 119,629 acre-feet of flood control storage. |
| 9/26/1946 |
Seattle District Corps of Engineers Letter, re: Ross Dam Flood Capacity Needs | “From the tabulation in paragraph 4, it can be seen that 100,000 to 200,000 acre-feet of storage would control the winter floods of record on the upper Skagit.” |
| 11/20/1946 |
Acting Chief of Engineers for the Army Corps of Engineers Letter to Federal Power Commission, Re: Third Step in the Construction of the Ross Dam | “Studies by our District Engineer, Seattle, Washington, indicate that 300,000 acre-feet or more of capacity would be required to control floods comparable to the historical floods of 1851 and 1856, although a reserve capacity of approximately 200,000 acre-feet during the period 1 November to 1 April would have controlled floods of record since 1909.” |
| 1/16/1947 |
Seattle District District Engineer Corps of Engineer Letter to North Pacific Division, Re: Skagit County Planning Commission Meeting on Flood Storage, Ross Dam, Skagit River, Washington | “Several members of the committee objected to the proposed flood control reservation of 200,000 acre-feet from 1 November to 1 April on the grounds that, although the amount of storage was adequate, the period suggested did not include the usual early fall high water in October, nor the snow melt high water in April. In historic times neither of those high waters has exceeded bank-full stage of Skagit River, and anticipated reservoir operations are such that flood storage reservation in the months of October and April would reduce the prime power output of the plant. Nevertheless, the representative of Seattle City Light stated that the City would have no objections to reserving 200,000 acre-feet of flood storage from 1 October to 1 May of each year.” |
| 4/29/1947 |
Federal Power Commission Order Authorizing Amendment of License [to complete Ross Dam] | “Upon installation of the spillway gates it is provided that during the period November 1 to April 1 200,000 acre-feet of storage space in Ross Reservoir shall be reserved by the licensee for flood control and utilized as prescribed herein.” |
| 12/27/1948 |
Seattle City Light Letter, Re: Amendment of License - Project No. 553 - Third Step of Ross Dam | Request due to inadequate data, incomplete dam & powerhouse construction and also “the position that the Skagit Project bears to regional power development rather than an isolated project.” |
| 1/26/1950 |
Col. Itschner Ltr to Seattle Department of Lighting/Seattle City Light on Ross Dam Storage |
“The value of flood storage at Ross was recently demonstrated during the
November 1949 flood when river stages at Mount Vernon were reduced by an
estimated three feet through the fortunate availability of sufficient
storage above Ross Dam.” See Also: 1/7/1950 Reply to Corps Request for Flood Fight Mapping: At “the peak of the Nov. 27-28 flood... The dikes at Mount Vernon were about 1.5 or 2 feet above the peak at most places, with weak spots developing near Avon.” |
| 2/8/1950 |
Corps Seattle District Ltr to North Pacific Division, Re: Standard Project Flood, Skagit River Basin, Washington | “From the hydrograph on Plate 4 and considering 200,000 acre-feet available in Ross Reservoir for reduction of floods, it is calculated that the peak inflow of 97,000 second-feet could be reduced to a constant outflow of about 25,000 second-feet. The Skagit River Report may present data to indicate that a reduction to zero outflow for a short period may be better for flood control, but in any case it is evident that the Ross Reservoir, will be able to accomplish a substantial reduction of flood flows.” |
| 7/17/1950 |
Seattle City Light/Department of Lighting Letter to Corps of Engineers, Re: Costs of 200,000 Acre-Feet of Ross Dam Storage & Discharge Capability Past Gorge Diversion Dam | “The Department has made a study of the operations of the reservoir to effect flood control in the amount of 200,000 acre-feet to be made available continuously from December 1 through February 15 of each seasonal year. In this study it was assumed that the Skagit River plants would be operated as a part of the Northwest Power Pool.” |
| 8/13/1953 |
Ltr to USACE Corps District Office in Portland fm USACE Seattle District Office re: Flood Control Requirement and Operating Procedure for Ross Reservoir, Skagit River, Wash. | This document provides descriptive detail into how
the USACE determined to lower the required 200,000 acre feet originally required
for flood control storage down to 125,000 acre feet. “All discharges of more
than 65,000 second-feet at either Sedro Woolley (1908
through 1923) and Concrete (1924 to date)
occurring in October, November, and December were studied.” See also: Retyped for clarity and emphasis 8/14/1953 Corps document. |
| Date |
Title |
Summary |
| 5/9/1980 |
Floodway Meetings with Skagit County, Burlington, Hamilton, and Lyman |
Split floodways, equal conveyance floodways, growth in the City of Burlington, floodway between Burlington and Sterling Hill all were discussed at these meetings. |
| 3/25/1981 |
SVH Article re floodway designation devastation |
Skagit Valley Herald article which quotes FEMA official that if local government cannot agree on floodway designation then the Federal government would do it for them. FEMA would have to use "equal conveyance" method which would "devastate" local economy. Once floodway is picked dike improvements and dike construction would be prohibited. |
| 11/17/1981 | FEMA investigating Burlington sewer project. Letter addresses 1 ft rise requirement in Burlington. City must adhere to requirements of CFR 60.3(c)(10). | |
| 7/8/1981 | Letter discusses building restrictions in floodways. | |
| 3/24/1982 | FEMA open to discussion of "density floodway". Local people thought keeping open 25% of parcel of property would be enough. FEMA refers to amount as "admittedly arbitrary" and "considerably understates" amount of land needed to pass 100 year flood. | |
| 4/2/1982 |
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. | |
| 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. |
| 12/15/1983 |
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 |
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. |
| 5/22/1984 |
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. |
| 6/18/1984 |
MFR re Final Coordination Meeting (1 foot rise part of NFIP) |
Only 16 people attended the public meeting. CFR Section 60.3(c)(10) or cumulative impact=1 foot rise regulation clearly was part of local flood ordinances. Bud Norris was the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners. |
| 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.” |
| 2/20/1987 |
FEMA letter re BNRR fill in Gages Slough |
FEMA actually enforced CFR 60.3(c)(10) prohibiting BNRR from putting fill in Gages Slough. Unfortunately they never enforced having BNRR remove the fill they had already placed in Gages Slough. This is an excellent example of how the NFIP in Skagit County should have been enforced. See FEMA -- The Total Failure Package. |
| 3/8/1991 |
SVH Article re Burlington developments |
This article shows all of the developments that were either started or completed during January 1989 through March 1991 in the Burlington area. To my knowledge only the Cascade Mall performed a hydraulic analysis of its impacts on flood flows and that study was later declared as not being "supported by any scientific or technical data." (See 8/22/83 FEMA letter above.) |
| 4/17/1991 | Letter in response to Skagit River: The Disaster Waiting to Happen | "What we ended up with on the floodplain maps for the Lower Skagit, was nothing to plaster technical journals with. It was a compromise, between the need to assure a high enough level of awareness of the potential flooding danger almost everywhere in the Delta, and the need to be fair to those who live there and wish to continue to do so, such as by constructing new buildings." |
| 4/2003 |
Appendix H to Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners |
FEMA specifications to consultants regarding new National Flood Insurance Program map procedures. |
| 5/13/2004 | Region X Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance | The template of what a good local flood damage prevention ordinance should look like at least through FEMA eyes. |
| 9/2005 | NFIP Insurance Report as of September 2005 |
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) spreadsheet for Skagit County as of September 2005 for premiums, coverage amounts, total claims since 1978 and payouts for flood damages (Doll). |
| 2/2006 | Current FEMA Elevation Certificate and Instructions | Instructions and form for Letter of Map Amendment; Expires Feb. 28, 2009. |
| 2/10/2006 | An Evaluation of Flood Frequency Analyses for the Skagit River, Skagit County, Washington | The "evaluation of flood frequency analyses for the Skagit River" by Will Thomas, Jr. for the Michael Baker, Jr. firm. |
| 5/26/2006 | Carl Cook of FEMA Memo to Skagit County Council of Governments (SCOG) | Carl L. Cook, Jr., Mitigation Division Director of the Region X office explains the process of the flood elevation maps. |
| 9/29/2006 | FEMA letter to Mt. Vernon Mayor Bud Norris | FEMA dismisses Mt. Vernon's concerns over the consultation process required by law. |
| 10/16/2006 | FEMA letter to Skagit River Impact Partnership | FEMA again reneges on its commitment to the people of Skagit County to review documentation concerning correct hydrology for the Skagit River. |
| 2/12/2007 | FEMA response to Hamilton Smith House Report | FEMA applauds Burlington's efforts to "assist" in gathering information for the new FIS maps and promises (like those have never been broken before) to add it to the record (and if the past record is any indication they will completely ignore it). |
|
2/28/2007 |
Policy Statistics and Loss Statistics |
"In the last 29 years FEMA NFIP has paid out $11,481,288." |
| 2/28/2007 | MFR: Lower Skagit River hydraulic modeling of levee systems |
Memorandum describing methodology to be used for new flood insurance maps. |
| 2/28/2007 | MFR Attachment: Map of failure scenarios |
Map showing how floodplain would be impacted by levee failures in FEMA model. |
| 3/5/2007 | Letter of Review & Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Mount Vernon Downtown Flood Protection Alternatives |
“The DEIS makes several references to a
“comprehensive strategy for reducing flood risks throughout the basin,”
yet the City is already proceeding with an independent project proposal
outside of the broader investigation. Additional information is needed
as to how the proposed alternative will integrate with the concurrent
basin-wide flood control evaluation process.” (See also 8/12/2008 City of Mount Vernon Ltr and 3/5/2007 Letter Re: Mount Vernon Downtown Flood Protection Project) |
| 4/2007 | Living Behind Levees | FEMA explains how they assess levees and integrate that assessment into their flood insurance maps. |
| 4/2007 | The NFIP and Levees: Frequently Asked Questions | Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) put out by FEMA and the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regarding levees and levee certification. |
| 4/2007 | The NFIP and Levees: An Overview | FEMA explains how levees are assessed and says, "Levees are designed to provide a specific level of protection. They can be overtopped or fail in larger flood events. Levees also decay over time. ... When levees do fail, they fail catastrophically. The damage may be more significant than if the levee was not there. For all these reasons, FEMA urges people to understand their flood risk." |
| 4/18/2007 |
Wash. D.C. FEMA letter responding to Mount Vernon re SRIP letter to FEMA Director |
Besides warmed over oatmeal and giving a whole new meaning to the federal definition of "expeditiously" the letter says basically nothing and is a tribute to FEMA's inability to address local concerns. |
|
5/15/2007 |
FEMA 2007 Skagit County Outreach PowerPoint Presentation |
Latest presentation from FEMA re new BFE figures |
|
5/21/2007 |
Common Questions & Answers Pertaining to the Skagit River FIS |
FEMA Q&A regarding the Skagit County
Flood Insurance Study. |
|
5/24/2007 |
FEMA Presentation to Burlington Chamber of Commerce Town Hall by Ryan Ike |
PowerPoint presentation given by Ryan Ike to the Town Hall put on by the Burlington Chamber of Commerce defending FEMA and explaining the flood insurance maps. |
| 9/2007 | United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) Audit: FEMA’s Management and Oversight of Payments for Insurance Company Services Should Be Improved | Why GAO Did This Study: Extraordinary recent flood events raise serious questions about the solvency of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). |
| 9/5/2007 | FEMA Ltrs to City of Burlington and City of Mount Vernon on independent flood insurance rate mapping for the two cities. | "...maps will contain the authoritative data that has been generated, reviewed, and approved by the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and FEMA with input from other local entities." |
| 2/2008 | Proposed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for Determining 100-year Flood Elevations | Proposed framework for 3 judge panel to address all evidence as to what a 100-year flood would be on the Skagit River. |
| 2/11/2008 | Skagit River System Cooperative Letter to Ryan Ike, Re: FEMA mapping process for Skagit Valley | Skagit River System Cooperative (SRSC) opposes 3 judge panel and states, "We are confident that FEMA has used the best available science to this point in the process." |
| 2/26/2008 | FEMA Letter to Mayor Bud Norris of Mount Vernon, Re: 3 Judge Panel | "After evaluating the proposed scope, effect, panel selection (procedures), and anticipated outcome, FEMA finds several significant issues that preclude agreement to the MOA. In summary, we believe the submitted MOA violates public due process, presumes that FEMA will not provide an unbiased adjudication, and sets an unnecessary precedence for deviating from established federal regulations . . . We are also concerned that the list of parties signing this MOA is not inclusive, yet the expected outcome of the MOA would be applied to the entire geographic area." |
| 3/10/2008 | Disaster News: FEMA Report Shows Mitigation Saves Money | "Mitigation work in the Centralia area after the 1996 floods saved a estimated $1.9 million in residential home damage in the December 2007 floods, a new Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report concluded." |
| 3/27/2008 | FEMA Letter to Skagit County Commissioners |
FEMA announces upgrade of FLO-2D software and that the Corps of Engineers "recently discovered the historic data necessary to convert the data for the Skagit River near Concrete for water years 1924-1944 to unregulated conditions." |
| 6/16/2008 | WASH DC COMPLAINT against new FEMA BFE figures | Complaint filed, FEMA backs down within 12 hours. |
| 6/16/2008 | Government of DC Exhibits |
Seven pages of exhibits showing how the Government of the District of Columbia attempted to cooperate with FEMA. |
| 9/22/2008 | Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Consultation Final Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for the Implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program in the State of Washington Phase One Document – Puget Sound Region |
“The primary element of FEMA’s minimum criteria that affects listed salmonids and their habitats is the requirement to elevate structures so that the lowest floor of construction is at or above the BFE (the discussion in this paper focuses on riverine examples, but there are similar standards for coastal areas). The placement of fill in the floodplain displaces salmonid habitat, and the associated development results in the placement of additional fill to support infrastructure and in increased pollution, stormwater runoff, vegetation removal, and other adverse effects..” |
| 10/21/2008 | Letter to Mount Vernon Mayor Bud Norris, re: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Biological Opinion (BO) of National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) |
“We all have a legal responsibility to ensure our actions do not cause a take (harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct) to threatened or endangered species. Under Section 9 of the ESA, actions or decisions enacted by you and your officials are subject to this prohibition regardless of federal involvement. Additionally, any person can be subject to criminal or civil penalties for causing a take. NMFS considers the issuance of floodplain development permits without addressing the impacts on listed species or their critical habitat as a take under the Endangered Species Act.” |
| 12/01/2008 | Letter to Burlington, Re: Community Assistance Visit (CAV) for Participation in the NFIP | “In summary, there are a few questions regarding the implementation of the NFIP in the City of Burlington; however, the overall feeling is that the city is doing a good job implementing the provisions of the program.” |
| The below three presentations were given at the Round Table Discussion hosted by the University of Washington Disaster Topics Multi-Hazard Round Table on Jan. 22, 2009. | ||
| 1/22/2009 | Safeguarding Coasts and Floodplains for Fish, Wildlife and People |
National Wildlife Federation (NWF) explains why they sued to reform FEMA in an era of climate change. NWF states their prime motivation as the existence of a “NFIP subsidy fueling harmful development of coastal and floodplain habitats”. |
| 1/22/2009 | NMFS BiOp on FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) |
The National Marine Fisheries Service claims among the effects of the NFIP are that it “Allows fill and levees (no insurance) and development”. The presentation also states what in their opinion FEMA must do going forward in its administration of the NFIP. |
| 1/22/2009 | ESA and the National Flood Insurance Program |
“FEMA recognizes and acknowledges the importance of preserving critical salmon habitat and believes that the NFIP’s core mission of reducing flood risks to life and property are not mutually exclusive.” |
| 6/23/2009 | Letter Re: Mount Vernon Downtown Flood Protection Project |
“We encourage the City of Mount Vernon to work with other communities to
submit one comprehensive Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) that
includes all existing and proposed flood protection projects for the
Skagit River. In order to meet all the requirements of 44 CFR,
communities along the Skagit River should not finalize their levee plans
until they have collaborated on levee project designs and effects and
incorporated the results of the USACE flood damage reduction feasibility
study. The processing of this CLOMR is hereby suspended until these
steps can be taken.” (See also 3/5/2007 Letter Re: Mount Vernon Downtown Flood Protection Project and 8/12/2008 City of Mount Vernon Ltr) |
| 10/08/2009 | Letter to City of Mount Vernon, WA Requesting More Data for CLOMR | “On the basis of the information submitted to date, we have identified additional data needed to process this CLOMR. The data required to complete our review, which must be submitted within 90 days of the date of this letter, are listed in the enclosed summary.” |
| 12/15/2009 |
Cover Letter to Preliminary Flood Insurance Study: Skagit County, Washington and Incorporated Areas | “The Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has produced the DFIRM and FIS report in countywide format, which means that flood hazard information for the entire geographic area of the county, including both incorporated and unincorporated areas, is presented. The flood hazard information presented on the DPIRM includes Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA's), which are the areas that would be inundated by the flood having a I-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood); Base Flood Elevations (BFEs); and regulatory floodways, which are the areas that must be kept free of encroachment so that the base flood can be carried without significant increases in flood levels.” |
| 12/15/2009 |
Preliminary Flood Insurance Study: Skagit County, Washington and Incorporated Areas | “This study has developed flood-risk data
for various areas of the community that will be used to establish
actuarial flood insurance rates and to assist the community in its
efforts to promote sound floodplain management. Minimum floodplain
management requirements for participation in the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) are set forth in the Code of Federal
Regulations at 44 CFR, 60.3.” (See also: 2009-12-16 KING 5 Clip) |
| 12/15/2009 |
Press Release: Skagit County Receives Preliminary Flood Maps | “After officials have had 30 days to study the preliminary maps, FEMA will assist with a comprehensive public awareness campaign and a series of open houses to explain the ramifications of the new maps. At the conclusion of the public outreach process, a series of legal notices will begin a 90-day appeal period through which residents and property owners who believe the proposed flood maps contain errors can submit additional scientific or technical information through their community officials to FEMA.” |
| 12/18/2009 |
Correction to the Skagit County, Washington and Incorporated Areas FIS Report dated December 15, 2009 | “On December 15, 2009, we sent you the Skagit County, Washington and Incorporated Areas Flood Insurance Report (FIS) . A recent review of the report has determined that Tables 4, 5 and 8 were incorrect.” |
| 12/23/2009 |
Press Release: Skagit County Preliminary Flood Maps to be Re-Issued | “Local government officials brought mapping and cartography issues to the attention of the agency. While FEMA remains confident in the underlying flood hazard data, the issues being brought forward are troubling and warrant the reissuance of the maps. “FEMA’s intention is to produce the most accurate flood insurance maps possible,” said Dennis Hunsinger, Acting Regional Administrator for FEMA Region 10. ” |
| 2/8/2010 |
FEMA Letter to City of Sacramento on Illegal Development Permits | “NFIP participating communities are required to enforce floodplain management regulations that meet minimum NFIP criteria. Failure to develop a corrective action plan that remediates the known violations, will result in a finding that the City's floodplain management program is not compliant with NFIP criteria; and, therefore, the City is ineligible for the CRS Program.” |
| 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 | “I would like to emphasize the point, that Mr. Knapp brought out in his paper, that before any highly scientific plan can be prepared for the protection of this valley from floods, it is necessary to have more authoritative information than we now have as to the amount of water carried by the river in time of floods. ... The information that was collected by Mr. Stewart and given in his report to the committee was excellent so far as the dots that he had to work upon permitted, but that data was necessarily more or less inaccurate.” Colonel W. J. Barden, Colonel, Corps of Engineers Seattle District Engineer |
| 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 |
|
| 3/02/1937 | Report of Public Hearing |
“The farmers have tilled the soil up close to the banks of the river; the dikes are built there, and the problem of dredging presents a situation where there is no place adequate to waste the sand that is taken from the river bed. In other words, it will result in an attempt to confine to too narrow an area the volume of water that must escape. That was faulty planning, or lack of planning at the start. But the expenditures have been made and the farmers are attempting from their own pockets to keep that situation intact and improve it.” [R. V. Welts, Chairman, Skagit County Planning Council] |
| 4/12/1949 | Minutes on Public Hearing on Skagit River, Washington, Relating to Navigation |
“What we have now is a two-edge sword. The Skagit River is a real benefit to us, and on the other hand it is a constant hazard.” [Mr. Nordmark, Anacortes Chamber of Commerce] |
| 2/08/1961 | Public Hearing on Flood Control for the Skagit River Basin, 8 February 1961 | “I am particularly interested in securing information on the nature and scope of the flood control improvements desired; the problems and difficulties encountered under the present conditions, and the proposed developments which would utilize the desired improvements that you would suggest.” [Source: Colonel R.P. Young, Corps of Engineers] |
| 3/22/1978 | Public Meeting on the Skagit River Levee and Channel Improvement Project |
Meeting to discuss potential Corps projects for the Skagit River originally authorized in 1966 by Congress and to receive citizen input. See also 3/23/78 SVH for a meeting summary. |
| 6/17/1979 | Transcript of Public Hearing |
“To me, to live in a flood plain and act shocked when the floods come is ridiculous. To live in the flood plain without raising the buildings is ridiculous and to expect taxpayers all over the country to pay the bills because some folks in Skagit Valley just didn't build their town right, is obsured [absurd]. If you are going to spend $55 million plus $88,000.00 a year on management costs we had better get a solution to the problem and the most recent June 1979 brochure which you got there is a list of alternatives, only four lines in this brochure are used to gloss over the only alternative that I feel that would bring a long-term solution to this flood damage problem. That would be rezoning, flood-proofing and raising the structures.” [Source: Bruce Stroker, Big Lake Resident] |
| 06/14/1981 | Burlington City Council Partial Public Hearing Transcript in re Flood Insurance Ordinance |
“The Dames and Moore study discusses some kind of limitation on densities for development to allow flood flows through the area. I think that’s the big issue. When the city prepares an ordnance, does there have to be a limitation on density? If so, what form will that limitation take? Should the limitation be uniformly applied? I don’t know the answers to those and I assume that you don’t either. We need to know those answers in order to write a good ordnance.” (Pete Shanin, Chairman of the Burlington Land Use Committee) See also Dames & Moore Report ) |
| 07/06/1982 | Skagit County Commissioners Minutes | “Bob [Boudinot] ... mentioned that Gages Slough is the principal drainage way for the City of Burlington's storm drainage system. The city has had many problems in management and administration of the slough, but there is little they are able to do without a funding source. As the City and County grow the impact on the slough will increase. The City Council is aware of the problem and is interested in finding a solution. In the past the County has attempted to establish a Sub Flood Control Zone and this has not been successful because the people on the upper end were opposed to it.” |
| 11/01/1983 | Skagit County Commissioners Minutes | Discussion about putting a pump into Gages Slough. |
| 11/01/1983 | Complete Transcript of Gages Slough Discussion | Skagit County Commissioner: “We don't want to inherit the water or the responsibility for handling the water for future development that we would have no control over.” |
| 4/5/1984 | Transcript of Skagit County Planning Dept. Meeting with FEMA, DOE & Burlington addressing Flood Insurance Study and Gages Slough maintenance problems |
“Our point is that we are stuck. There’s not enough money out there. We’ve got 11,600 flood prone communities out there. Skagit Valley is not the most important one. So they’re reluctant to spend any more money. Compared to the Mississippi the rest of us are peanuts.” (Herb McElvaine, FEMA) |
| 6/14/1984 | Skagit County Partial Transcript of Public Meeting on Flood Insurance Study |
“The problem, is that if you allow indiscriminate development in the floodplain, the problem is the same as what happens when you get into a full bath tub. You get into a bath tub the water goes up. If you build anywhere in the floodplain the water is going to be blocked, diverted, its got to go somewhere and its going to harm other people.” (Chuck Steele, FEMA) |
| 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) |
| 4/8/1997 | Testimony in 1997 Halverson et. al. VS. Skagit County et. al. RE: Impacts of BNSF Bridge | “The basic mechanism is for the river to rearrange its boundary, its bed, by scouring it out and providing space, essentially, for the water to get passed. Despite the apparent obstruction. And this happened most recently in the 1995 flood in the Skagit River, where a pier actually failed, Burlington Northern Railway bridge being scoured, sank and tilted. So it's not an uncommon event. ” |
| 4/23/2008 | Partial Transcript of April 23, 2008 City of Burlington Public Works Presentation to City Council of Mt. Vernon |
“We’re not here tonight to talk about the long term ramifications of these higher base flood elevations, but I’m dismayed by the effect that it is going to have on our tax base. You know, there’s no constituency for maintaining and growing the tax base. I don’t think you’ve run on that platform to get elected, but you know its one of those wonkish things that we all know is incredibly important to our kids and our grandkids to maintain the vitality of our economic basis.” [Chal Martin, City of Burlington Public Works Director] TV10 video also available. |
| Date | Title | Summary |
| 1/26/1950 | Letter to Corps from Puget Power |
PSE flatly refused to provide flood control in Lake Shannon due to perceived power shortage in Pacific Northwest. Further demanded taxpayers pay for any studies necessary to study raising of dam. |
| 1/3/1983 |
PSE Letter to Skagit County re Sauk River Dam |
Letter explains Puget Power’s position on new dams proposed for Skagit. Didn’t believe Lower Sauk Dam was “doable” at this time. |
| 2/1989 | Baker Dam Failure Inundation Study |
“The flow produced at Sedro-Woolley by the failure of both Upper and Lower Baker Dams is nearly as large as the maximum observed historic flood of 220,000 cfs on November 30, 1909.” |
| 3/11/2005 | PSE Comments on Report of Steward and Associates re: Environmental Effects of Additional Flood Control on the Baker River and Comments on Report of Pacific International Engineering (PIE) and Alexander Aaron, Inc. (Aaron), both submitted by Skagit County |
PSE comments from their consultants on both environmental effects and flood control operations with respect to additional flood control storage at the Baker Dams. |
| 10/31/2006 | Swinomish Tribe letter to PSE |
Swinomish Tribe against flood control behind Baker Dams. |
| 11/8/2006 | Stephen P. Reynolds Letter to Swinomish Tribal Chairman Brian Cladoosby |
PSE's response to Swinomish letter. |
| 11/16/2006 | Baker River Interim Coordinating Committee DRAFT MEETING NOTES |
Interesting Discussion re last flood event and the future of flood control behind Baker Dams. |
| 2/28/2007 | Notice to PSE from FERC re: Burlington Request for Documents |
PSE notified by FERC that Burlington had requested reports and other documents submitted to FERC. |
| 3/7/2007 | PSE Response to FERC re: Burlington Request |
PSE under the guise of "national security" and not wanting the "general public" to have access to their dam safety records request that FERC deny Burlington's request. |
| 03/2008 | PSE Fish Enhancement Handout |
PSE one-page handout describing their "fish enhancement" efforts. |
| 04/07/2008 | PSE Lower Baker Hydroelectric Project Handout |
PSE handout giving basic facts about Lower Baker Dam and surrounding PSE facilities. |
| 04/07/2008 | PSE Upper Baker Hydroelectric Project Handout |
PSE handout giving basic facts about Upper Baker Dam and surrounding PSE facilities. |
| 05/19/2008 |
Press Release: "PSE’s new Baker River $50 million fish passage system generating success in first few weeks of operation" |
“With more than 200,000 juvenile sockeye already collected, the out-migration is peaking as the second highest total run on record and may be on pace to shatter the existing record” with new PSE fish gulper. |
Mostly documents dealing with storage behind Ross Dam.
| Date | Title | Summary |
| 02/21/1927 | Letter from USGS G. L. Parker to SCL George Holmes Moore |
“We have no reasonable basis for estimating the extreme flood flow of Baker, Sauk, Cascade rivers or Thunder Creek.” The significance of this document is that it shows USGS used Stewart's 1918 report to justify the 1923 report and if you do so, you cannot justify the figures arrived in 1923. |
| 1939 | Portion of the brochure that spoke of the flood control benefits of Ruby (Ross) Dam. People of Skagit County were promised that with the building of the dam to elevation 1725 "all of the ordinary Skagit floods will be rendered entirely harmless." Dam was only raised to 1620 feet. | |
| 5/2/1947 | Federal Power Commission Decision | This document deals entirely with the third step in raising Ross Dam. Flood spillway gates were to be installed by October 1948. State Dept of Fisheries was responsible for fish impacts of dam. Flood control was made part of the requirements to construct the dam to elevation 1620 feet. Authorized 200,000 ac ft of storage by Nov 1st of each year. Flood control release of water was to be started as soon as Concrete gage reached 25,000 cfs (currently 90,000 cfs) |
| 12/27/1948 | Seattle City Light Letter, Re: Amendment of License - Project No. 553 - Third Step of Ross Dam | SCL informs FPC that flood spillway gates are not planned until 1952 when the powerhouse was supposed to be completed. Amount of flood control available "considerably in excess" of 200,000 cfs. due to clearing of timber operations. SCL requested that flood control requirements of FPC order be deleted and subject to a separate amendment so the issue could be further studied. |
| 1/26/1950 | Corps letter to SCL re storage in Ross Lake | Although not yet required to do so, SCL Ross dam provided enough flood control storage during the 1949 flood event to lower the flood levels at Mt. Vernon by 3 feet. It appears from this letter that in January 1950 the Corps had not yet decided on how much storage should be available. (See 3/6/1979 Memorandum) |
| 3/6/1979 | Corps Memorandum re storage in Ross Lake | Corps states that if dam was raised to 1725 feet OR "any appreciable change in the economic development of the valley takes place which would necessitate a lower control flow at Concrete, a maximum of 180,000 ac ft of flood control storage may be required." Corps studies confirmed need for 180,000 ac ft of storage. |
| 12/1981 | Skagit River Dam Failure Inundation Study |
“The flow produced by the failure of Ross Dam is several times larger than the maximum observed historic flood at Sedro-Woolley (220,000 cfs, November 30, 1909). At Sedro-Woolley the maximum historic flood produces a maximum water surface elevation of 50 feet, while the maximum dam failure discharge of 1,740,000 cfs produces a maximum stage of 75 feet at the same location.” |
| Date | Title | Summary |
| 2/11/1911 | This document clearly shows that in 1911 Skagit County hired a consultant to help them decide what to do to handle the flooding of the Skagit River. He clearly tells them that their levees are too close to the edge of the river. This section like the Corps section is expected to grow by leaps and bounds as Skagit County like the Corps has been very cooperative in providing documents for the historical review of the Skagit River flood issue. | |
| 11/10/1922 |
Resolution # 1331 re hiring of River Engineer |
County Commissioner Resolution #1331 which authorized the hiring of a “River Engineer”. The person ultimately hired was James E. Stewart |
| 12/4/1922 | These documents are pages of the Skagit County Journal authorizing payments made to James E. Stewart directly for his work on the Skagit River. Stewart was paid $250 a month in 1922 which translates to $2,800 a month in 2005. | |
| 2/5/1923 | ||
| 2/5/1923 | ||
| 3/5/1923 | ||
| 1/7/1950 |
Reply to Corps Request for Flood Fight Mapping | Through discussing about the Nov. 27-28 1949
flood. At “the peak of the Nov. 27-28 flood... The town of Hamilton
was under 2 to 4 feet of water. The other towns in the valley, Mount Vernon,
Sedro Woolley, Burlington and Lyman were not inundated but at least one,
Burlington was seriously threatened. ... The water was about 3.0 feet below
the top of the dike East of Burlington on Fairhaven St., and was about 1.5
feet below the top of the dike northeasterly of Burlington. The dikes at
Mount Vernon were about 1.5 or 2 feet above the peak at most places, with
weak spots developing near Avon.” See Also: 1/5/1950 Letter to Skagit County Government Requesting Flood Fight Mapping |
| 12/26/1950 |
Skagit County Farm Bureau Letter to Congressman Henry "Scoop" Jackson | Request for four lower Skagit River Basin flood control projects to reduce flood damages. |
| 1/11/1951 |
Skagit County Farm Bureau Letter to US Senator Harry P. Cain | “The Skagit River normally empties into the Sound through many outlets besides its main channel. The Engineers closed several of these outlets thus forcing more water out through the main channel which raised the low rra.ter level at the mouth of the main channel by several feet. The drainage system for the lower Skagit Valley depends on emptying its ditches at low tide with a quick runout and holding high tide back by use of flood gates. The raised level of low water in the main Channel of the Skagit River makes this quick runoff impossible and the drainage system inoperative..” |
| 7/12/1962 | Minutes Skagit County Flood Control Council | Documents meeting between Corps and Flood Control Council concerning Avon By-Pass project new design. |
| 9/5/1962 | BOC letter to Corps re Avon Bypass | County formed committee re Avon Bypass project. |
| 11/1963 | Objections to Avon Bypass by Swinomish Indian Tribal Community |
“Salmon fishing is the major source of livelihood for the Swinomish Indians, and denial or deprivation thereof would cause great hardship.” |
| 9/6/1966 | BOC letter to Corps re Avon Bypass | County backs out of commitment to Avon bypass project. "Considering the inadequate time element and the lack of interest in flood control at this particular time, it is our decision not to place a bond for local matching funds on the November ballot." |
| 1/1968 | Excerpts from the very first Skagit County Comprehensive Plan | This document represents a very good example of when the best laid plans of man go awry. If only the excellent suggestions on land use planning with respect to flood control that were contained within this document were followed, Skagit County and its cities and towns would not be in the predicament that they are now. |
| 9/18/1969 | BCC letter to U.S. Army Corps re: assurances of local cooperation for the Avon Bypass Project | “Eighteen (18) years have transpired since the last major flood. The public interest in flood control is complete apathy. ” |
| 1970s | Flood Control Organizational Structure as it existed in the 1970's | Used to promote the 1979 levee improvement district. |
| 9/1/1970 |
Resolution re Countywide Flood Control Zone District |
This resolution established the Skagit County Flood Control Zone. |
| 4/6/1971 |
BOC letter to Corps re Flood Control Phases |
County established countywide flood control zone. Levee improvement project was tied to Avon By-Pass or upstream storage. Urged Corps to implement flood control storage. |
| 4/1973 | Comprehensive Land Use Planning Alternatives for the Skagit River Floodplain and Related Uplands |
“This planning study represents a unique approach to flood disaster planning in that it examines the consequences of containing development in lieu of the time honored approach of containing the flood.” |
| 5/08/1975 | Skagit County letter to Corps re sponsorship of the lower levee project | “Skagit County does have an established County-Wide Flood Control Zone District which will enable the County to provide financing for its local sponsorship.” |
| 9/13/1977 | Board of County Commissioners (BCC) Letter to Corps re sponsorship of the Levee Improvement Project via the Flood Control Zone District | “As adequate flood protection is urgently needed to protect our urban and farm areas, Skagit County has established a County-wide Flood Control Zone District which will enable the County to provide financing for its local sponsorship.” |
| 1/22/1979 | Duane Kline Budget Director memo to BCC re financing of lower levee project | “It is my belief that the only means available for Skagit County to pay for its share of the lower levee project is to collect said money over and above its current tax levies.” |
| 1/30/1979 |
Letter to Representative Swift from BCC requesting he include authorization for Levee Project in the 1979 omnibus bill | “Since authorization of the Skagit River Levee and Channel Improvement Project in 1966, extensive development has taken place in the lower Skagit Valley; this growth is expected to continue. A higher degree of protection is now cost effective over a greater area than in 1966. The inclusion of the Sauk River into the Wild and Scenic River Act has virtually eliminated the possibility of up-river storage as a mp.ans of flood control for the Skagit Valley. The Levee Project remains as the only acceptable flood protection available. As you are aware, modification of the Levee Project was not passed in the last session of Congress. It is nm., more important than ever that this legislation be prepared and passed in this session of Congress.” |
| 2/13/1979 | Congressman Al Swift Letter to Committee on Public Works & Transportation | “The potential for major flood damage in the Skagit Valley is high. Skagit County, which is primarily an undeveloped agricultural area, suffered six million dollars in damages in the 1975 floods. The County would have suffered far more had it not been for unusual circumstances which required lowering the level of storage behind the dam at Upper Baker lake in anticipation of mud slides cause::i by seismic activity on the mountain. The lower level allowed the increased run-off to accumulate in the lake rather than flood the lower areas as it would have normally. The 1975 flood was a twelve- year flood.” |
| 9/05/1979 | Skagit County Commissioner Press Release re vote on Lower Levee Project | “The Board strongly recognizes the need for a flood control project, but because of the State mandated limitations on revenue, is unable to provide funding from existing revenues and therefore must place this issue before the voters.” |
| 11/19/1979 | Ltr from Senators Jackson & Magnuson re removing Skagit Lower Levee Project from flood bill | “As you know, the Senate Public Works Committee had inserted into S. 730, the Omnibus Water Resources Development Act of 1979, a provision authorizing the Skagit River project. In light of the election outcome, and at your request, we have asked the Committee to delete the provision before the bill is sent to the full Senate as Skagit County does not now have the financial resources necessary for the required local share.” |
| 1981 | The flood control advisory committee met for the first time in December 1980. The committee divided itself into sub-committees and addressed several possible flood control alternatives. Those alternatives were combined into one report. | |
| 11/10/1981 |
BOC Minutes re floodway designations & dam storage |
The minutes reflect the discussion that took place between the BOC and the flood control committee re the 1981 flood control committee report. Most important is the documentation that PSPL had told the flood committee that the Baker Dams already provided 100 year protection. |
| 7/6/1982 | Skagit County Commissioners Minutes | “Bob [Boudinot] ... mentioned that Gages Slough is the principal drainage way for the City of Burlington's storm drainage system. The city has had many problems in management and administration of the slough, but there is little they are able to do without a funding source. As the City and County grow the impact on the slough will increase. The City Council is aware of the problem and is interested in finding a solution. In the past the County has attempted to establish a Sub Flood Control Zone and this has not been successful because the people on the upper end were opposed to it.” |
| 11/01/1983 | Skagit County Commissioners Minutes | Discussion about putting a pump into Gages Slough. |
| 11/01/1983 | Complete Transcript of Gages Slough Discussion | Skagit County Commissioner: “We don't want to inherit the water or the responsibility for handling the water for future development that we would have no control over.” |
| 4/5/1984 | Transcript of Skagit County Planning Dept. Meeting with FEMA, DOE & Burlington addressing Flood Insurance Study and Gages Slough maintenance problems |
“Our point is that we are stuck. There’s not enough money out there. We’ve got 11,600 flood prone communities out there. Skagit Valley is not the most important one. So they’re reluctant to spend any more money. Compared to the Mississippi the rest of us are peanuts.” [Herb McElvaine, FEMA] |
| 6/14/1984 | Skagit County Partial Transcript of Public Meeting on Flood Insurance Study |
“The problem, is that if you allow indiscriminate development in the floodplain, the problem is the same as what happens when you get into a full bath tub. You get into a bath tub the water goes up. If you build anywhere in the floodplain the water is going to be blocked, diverted, its got to go somewhere and its going to harm other people.” (Chuck Steele, FEMA) |
| 5/28/1985 |
Skagit County letter re Flood Control Cost ($529,414) |
Letter shows that Skagit County and the Dike Districts spent $529,414 on flood control projects on the levees in 1985. |
| 7/8/1991 | Skagit County Commissioners letter re Seattle District Corps of Engineers potential closure | "…we would like to stress that the Skagit River is the most dangerous river on the West Coast, …". |
| 12/23/1991 |
Skagit County memo re Flood Fight Policies on Hwy 20 |
Memo from Public Works Dept to County Commissioners re meeting that discussed the County’s flood fighting efforts along Highway 20. County takes back statement made in Clear Lake that no more sandbags would be placed on the BNRR tracks during a flood fight. After 1951 flood BNRR raised tracks 16 to 24 inches. Dike District 12 moving levees in 1956 contributed to higher water on Lafayette Road. Opening up Gages Slough possible solution. |
| 5/10/1993 |
Planning Dept memo re Skagit County flood permits |
Flood control engineer recognizes that all flood control projects are subject to fill and grade permits, Shoreline Management Act, SEPA and must comply with the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. |
| 1996 | Dredging - Frequently asked Questions/Statements |
Questions and answers about dredging of the Skagit River. |
| 4/16/1996 | Skagit Flood Control & Ecosystem Restoration Study (AKA GI Study) Coordination Meeting | “The primary purpose of the meeting was to clarify Corps’ understandings about sponsor’s expectations and then begin working on the study details. Before the Corps of Engineers works with the County to rescope the study, we need to clearly understand what the Local Sponsor(s) hope to get out of the study/project process, including both flood control and ecosystem restoration features. How much are potential Local Sponsors willing to commit to this study? How much are the Local Sponsors willing to pay for “the project”?” |
| 6/19/2001 | DRAFT TABLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR SKAGIT FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION STUDY | List of regulations that flood control projects must comply with. |
| 7/1/2002 | Public Involvement Report for FCAAP Grant Agreement between the State of Washington Department of Ecology and Skagit County | Summary of activities of Skagit County Government educating about the Skagit River Flood Risk. |
| 4/8/2003 | County Agenda for Work session on CFHMP | Agenda for April 8, 2003 CFHMP meeting of Skagit County Government. |
|
4/9/2003 |
PIE Assessment of Additional Flood Control Storage at Baker River Project | PIE recommends in a preliminary report additional flood control in the Baker system. |
| 3/10/2004 | DRAFT Upper and Lower Baker Dams Probable Maximum Flood Study Report | Pacific International Engineering draft of a report projecting a probable maximum flood on the Baker River. |
| 8/11/2004 | Environmental Effects of Additional Flood Control on the Baker River | “This report compares the current operations to the alternative flood control proposal, and analyzes and summarizes the potential environmental effects of implementing the latter. Our analysis shows that the County’s flood control proposal, if implemented, would provide tangible ecological benefits, notably for several species of salmonids that utilize the Skagit River downstream of the Baker River confluence.” |
|
8/27/2004 |
PIE Technical Memorandum: Analysis of Flood Control Storage at Baker River Project | PIE makes, among other findings, that almost $11 million dollars in "annual flood reduction benefits" as well as about 10,000 cfs reduction is possible by maximizing flood control with the Baker River reservoirs. |
| 11/16/2004 |
Draft Evaluation of Flood Peaks Est. by USGS (without Appendices, See Jarrett Review under USGS; See also "Whitepaper" under LJK Documents) |
This document was prepared by Skagit County Public Works consultant Pacific International Engineering and evaluates the accuracy or lack thereof of the James E. Stewart “estimated” flood flows of the 1897, 1909, 1917 and 1921 flood events. (See also LJK Stewart Whitepaper, and USGS Jarrett Report) |
| 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. |
| 1/18/2005 | R20050014 - Declaration of Emergency |
Resolution used to justify emergency fill on Cockreham Island training levee. See R20080250. |
| 4/12/2005 |
Annual Expenditures on Flood Study (how much we have spent -- $6,459,000) |
This document was produced at the 4/12/2005 public hearing on the status of the Skagit River Flood Control Study. It shows the amount of money that the County has expended on the flood control study from 2000 thru 2004. |
| 2/24/2006 | Memorandum to BOC fm County Administrator re: Baker River Storage | PSE expressed it’s willingness to continue to work with Skagit County to find a workable arrangement wherein the Baker Hydro Project could be managed to provide flood control benefits. At the present, PSE is operating the dams to provide flood protection and will continue to operate them while we work to develop a long term solution. |
| 9/2006 | Skagit County Proposed Flood Control Measures | This map shows the locations of "possible" flood control projects Skagit County and the Corps of Engineers are currently evaluating. |
| 9/2006 | Skagit County Proposed Flood Control Measures Briefing Document | This document more fully explains what is being evaluated for flood control projects. |
| 10//2006 | FERC FEIS responses to comments on DEIS | Bottom-line: Flood control still possible but not very probable. |
| 10/12/2006 | Skagit County Supplemental Comments to FERC FEIS | County endorses earlier flood control operations of Upper Baker dam and modifications to Lower Baker dam in order to provide additional flood control storage. |
|
11/6/2006 |
County Commission Letters to Dam Operators | Skagit County Commissioners write to Seattle City Light for its operation of Ross Dam and Puget Sound Energy for their operation of the Baker River Dams during the 2003 flood events and in that context request 180,000 acre-feet behind Ross Dam as well as that, "Puget Sound Energy manage the reservoirs to provide at least 140,000 acre-feet of flood storage in advance of an impending flood event during this upcoming flood season and restrict release from Lower Baker Dam to the absolute minimum beginning at least six hours before a projected flood peak of 90,000 cfs at Concrete." |
|
1/22/2007 |
County Letter to Corps | Skagit County Commissioners respond to Nov. 1, 2006 City of Burlington Letter to Colonel Michael McCormick in defense of nhc and their work product. |
| 1/24/2007 | Skagit River Flood Damage Reduction Study Presentation by Seattle District of the Corps of Engineers | 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. |
| 2/2007 | Skagit River Hydrology Independent Technical Review Draft Report | nhc draft report presented to the Skagit County Commission on March 27, 2007 questioning James E. Stewart hydrology. |
| 3/5/2007 | Skagit County Flood Control Committee Minutes | Committee discussed Skagit Countywide Flood Control District, continuing Smith House investigation in Hamilton, and how to use WSDOT funding. |
| 3/27/2007 | Skagit River Hydrology Independent Technical Review Presentation | PDF of PowerPoint given by nhc to March 27, 2007 re: Historic Hydraulic Analysis. |
| 4/2007 | nhc Skagit River Hydrology Independent Technical Review Final Report | nhc believes "estimates of the peak discharges for the historic flood events of water years 1898, 1910, 1918, and 1922 should continue to be incorporated in analyses of flood hazard and flood hazard management in the Skagit Valley" but also that "Exploratory frequency analyses of the instantaneous unregulated peak flows at Concrete have been conducted with the EMA (Expected Moment Algorithm) software package." Therefore, "an estimated 100-year peak unregulated discharge for the Skagit River near Concrete" at The Dalles should be "of between approximately 240,000 and 250,000 cfs, compared with the current estimate of 284,000 cfs" |
| 4/2/2007 | Skagit County Flood Control Committee Minutes | Committee discussed FEMA Flood Map Review & Schedule, the Baker Dam Shorelines Hearing with the Town of Concrete, Flood Control Assistance Account Program Grants, the Mount Vernon AquaFence and the draft report by NW Hydraulic Consultants. |
| 4/23/2007 | County Letter Responding to Burlington Request for Additional Language in the Skagit River Project Management Plan | Skagit County Commissioners refused to add language to the PMP that would have stated that the Cities and Dike Districts are not endorsing the Corps Hydrology. See 3/22/07 Burlington Resolution . |
| 5/2007 | Skagit County Staff Summary: An Independent Technical Review of Skagit River Historical Hydrology and Hydraulic Analyses by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants |
Handout from May 24, 2007 Burlington Chamber of Commerce Town Hall meeting summarizing the nhc report. |
| 5/19/2007 | Cockreham Island Buy-Out Feasibility Study Executive Summary |
“A benefit cost analysis has established that a buy-out of the Cockreham Island properties is potentially cost -effective. ... Buy-out of the Cockreham Island parcels will not likely occur from one funding source or through one large scale action. It is more likely that a buy-out would occur using multiple funding sources over an undefined period of time.” |
| 5/21/2007 | Commissioners Letter to Jorge Carrasco, Superintendent of Seattle City Light, Re: Skagit River Hydrology Independent Technical Review - Final Report |
Skagit County Commissioners write after receiving final nhc report that "Skagit County now intends to pursue several recommendations made in the report and seek the assistance and cooperation of the USACE, USGS, Puget Sound Energy (PSE) and Seattle City Light (SCL) in doing so (see pages 28-29 for Conclusions and Recommendations)." |
| 5/21/2007 | 2007 Skagit River Bridge Modification & Interstate Highway Protection Project |
"This project is the first element of a comprehensive plan to reduce the flood risk to these areas, including 1-5, SR 20, SR 536, and the Burlington Northern RR. These studies have shown that modifying the existing levees by raising and setting back levees in the project reach is a key component of every flood control measure being considered. This project will complete preliminary engineering studies, an environmental assessment and begin obtaining rights of way." |
| 6/3/2007 | Skagit County Public Works: What Will Flood Control Cost? |
County proposed measures and their costs. |
| 6/4/2007 | Flood Control Funding Options |
Dave Brookings' of Skagit County Public Works presentation to the Skagit River Flood Control Committee. |
| 7/2007 | 2007-07 Public Works Dept Presentation RE: Planning Efforts with Corps of Engineers and FCZD Formation |
See slide 3 for County/Corps cooperative efforts and comparison between 1997 & 2007 estimates. |
| 8/2007 | Skagit County Goals for the Skagit River Feasibility Study with the US Army Corps of Engineers | Wants Corps to focus on Baker revisions. |
| 9/10/2007 | Skagit River Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Project Feasibility Study (a.k.a. "GI Study") Project Management Plan (PMP) |
"The revised PMP identifies Federal and non-Federal funding requirements and assigned responsibility for performing identified studies and activities required to complete the feasibility study phase." Appears Skagit County is proceeding with countywide flood control zone district (property taxes). |
| 10/2/2007 | Resolution R20070486: County of Skagit Proclamation "Flood Awareness Week" | "The Board of Skagit County Commissioners feel that... it is prudent and timely for the general public to be made aware of the threat of the coming flood season, and that the threat of flooding be given the attention necessary that the general public may be protected in the event of a major flood." |
| 10/5/2007 | Invitation to attend the Skagit River Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Project Feasibility Study Executive Committee Meeting |
"The purpose of the Executive Committee is to oversee the Feasibility Study and the project delivery team; therefore, your presence at this meeting is important to the success of the Skagit General Investigation process." |
| 10/8/2007 | nhc Presentation: Skagit River Flood Insurance Study |
Delivery of the speaker aside, this was an excellent presentation
of today's dilemma in Skagit County. Million dollar proposal for
another study should be rejected by electeds. You can watch the presentation via Skagit 21. |
| 10/8/2007 |
Resolution R20070500: A Resolution to Protect the Community's Interests With Respect to Flood Risk Mapping by the Federal Emergency Management Agency |
Skagit County Commissioners decide to intervene in the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map process. |
| 10/9/2007 | Resolution R20070501: A Resolution to Safeguard the Public Welfare by Protecting Property, Life and the Environment in the Floodway | Skagit County Commissioners "hereby orders and direct that the public health, safety and general welfare be safeguarded, and that construction or development within the floodways of the Skagit River be prohibited or restricted to the maximum extent allowed by County". |
| 10/11/2007 | Skagit General Investigation Study Executive Committee Meeting Agenda | Corps of Engineers and Skagit County Government plan on explaining progress on the GI Study, and the $14,465,180 dollar price tag. |
| 10/11/2007 |
Skagit
GI Study Executive Committee Meeting Packet Video of meeting can be viewed at http://skagit.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=129 |
Document purports to establish timeline and cost of new and
improved GI Study. County on hook for over 3 million dollars over next
three years. Schedule admitted to as being "optimistic" as best. #1. Document shows proposed level of authority for Skagit Countywide Flood Control Zone District ("SCFCZD") #1a. Shows everyone that the SCFCZD is controlled by the County Commissioners who have ultimate decision making power. #1b. Shows purpose and number of "Advisory Committee" members (15). Public limited to 3 minute presentations. "Advisory committee will be tasked with funding." #1c. Public Works Dept. staff roles for the SCFCZD. #1d. Technical Committee Rules |
| 11/5/2007 | Skagit River Flood Control Committee Meeting Minutes | Committee discussed the Flood Control Zone District, the GI Study, widening the 3-bridge corridor, preparing for FEMA FIRM appeal, Skagit River gauge finances and emergency response to floods. |
| 11/01/2007 | nhc Review of Skagit River Basin Hydrology Draft Report Existing Condition by PIE |
“This document provides a review of Pacific International Engineering's "Skagit River Basin Hydrology Draft Report - Existing Conditions", August 2007, and its Appendices A through J. The review focuses on PIE's development of unregulated flood frequency curves for the Skagit River near Concrete. Limited review is also provided of regulated flood frequency curves and synthetic flood hydrographs for the regulated condition as developed by PIE.” |
| 12/20/2007 |
Interim Review of US Army Corps of Engineers Lower Skagit River Flo-2d Model by nhc |
“Skagit County has requested that nhc review the Flo-2D model used in the draft Skagit River Flood Insurance Study (FIS) as one part of its overall review of the study. Concerns with the hydrology portion of the study are being separately addressed and will not be reiterated here. Ultimately, it is the base flood elevations determined from the Flo-2D model that are at issue as these will be used to evaluate development potential and determine flood insurance premiums.” |
| 1/7/2008 | Congressman Larsen's letter to FEMA Region 10 re independent panel evaluation of Skagit hydrology | "As you know, my concern throughout this
process is that the most accurate and fair data be used in determining Skagit
County's flood map in order to best protect its residents." The Skagit Valley Herald published a story about this letter in the 9 Jan. 2008 edition. |
| 1/22/2008 | Resolution Directing County Staff to Proceed With Contesting Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-Year Flood Maps | Skagit County Commissioners direct Public Works "to prepare and defend a scientifically accurate hydrology of the Skagit River system before an independent three-member panel" as well as "an interlocal agreement with the City of Mount Vernon and the City of Burlington" for sharing work and costs of such. |
| 5/09/2008 | Commissioners Letter to Mt. Vernon & Burlington Mayors and City Councils, Re: FEMA Flood Review | “Skagit County seeks flood maps based on the best available science, something we have made clear from the outset of our participation in this effort. … We believe this approach will appropriately balance the community's economic interests with the safety of its citizens. Moreover, as public officials, we have an obligation to ensure that the legal actions we undertake have some reasonable probability of success, something made all the more important given the budget constraints imposed by current economic conditions.” |
| 5/19/2008 | R20080250 - A Resolution Relating to Removal of Temporary Emergency Training Levee Extension on Cockreham Island | Skagit County Commissioners decide to remove 600 linear feet from the Cockreham Island training levee. |
| 6/02/2008 | E-mail to Skagit FACT from Will W. Honea, Chief Civil Deputy, Prosecuting Attorney's Office |
"I write to follow up on the issue of additional flood storage, raised during the May 29, 2008 Skagit FACT field trip to PSE’s Baker River Hydroelectric Project." |
| 6/16/2008 | Commissioners' Letter to Burlington Mayor Ed Brunz | “Flood control projects within a river basin are necessarily interrelated Accordingly it is vitally important that the FCZD body furnish holistic flood control recommendations and plans that work for the entire community” |
| 9/2008 | Engineering Analysis of Levee Alternatives – Skagit River Bridge Modification and Interstate Highway Protection Project (a.k.a. Stansbury Report) |
Skagit County Public Works study of widening the 3-bridge corridor. |
| 10/24/2008 | Skagit County Commissioners Letter to PSE |
County Commissioners requests PSE live up to Settlement Agreement and help lobby for GI study funding to provide dam storage behind Upper Baker Dam and Lower Baker Dam. |
| 10/30/2008 | nhc Re-Evaluation of the Magnitude of Historic Floods on the Skagit River Near Concrete - Final Report |
“There is no indication that Stewart was able to tie any high water marks in this reach into eye witness reports of flood levels. We know from experience that identification of high water marks from natural indicators one year after a flood can be quite uncertain. For example, for the same reach of the Skagit below The Dalles, the USGS had difficulty in identifying reliable high water marks from the October 2003 flood in field work conducted nine months after the event (Mastin and Kresch, 2005). In that case, the scatter in high water marks at any particular location was as much as 6 feet.” |
| 11/14/2008 | PSE Obligation to Advance Additional Flood Storage |
“...It is the County's expectation that PSE will proactively and
energetically begin advocating for the 29,000 acre/feet of dedicated additional
flood storage behind the Lower Baker Dam for the life of the new license. |
| 3/2009 | Clippings from the March 2009 Community Report |
“We appreciate the patience of all the participants. At times, it has been slow and laborious, but we are getting there. I sincerely believe that we are on the right track and the committee work being done today will pay huge dividends in the future. We have to stay at the table and get the job done.” |
| 5/2009 | Re-Evaluation of the Magnitude of Historic Floods on the Skagit River Near Concrete - Revised Final Report | “While the current published estimate of the 1921 peak discharge is inconsistent with reported flood levels in the Crofoot Addition, we have been unable to identify the reason for such inconsistency. The currently published discharge estimate was determined by slope-area measurement. The most likely source of error in that estimate is in high water data which were identified in the field about a year after the event. By contrast, the high water data relied on for the revisions proposed in this report are based on a newspaper account published within a few days of the flood.” |
| 2/10/2010 |
Skagit County Commissioners' Letter to Seattle District Corps of Engineers | “We do not believe the uncertainty in the USGS data used in the Corps' hydrology analysis and the new information now available from the work performed by our consultants, has been incorporated into a review. Skagit County requests a technical conference with the Corps, USGS, and FEMA to address these findings and the USGS data used in the Corps' analysis.” |
| Date | Title | Summary |
| 1961 |
1961 testimony regarding flood damages since 1950’s. |
|
| 6/14/1981 | Burlington City Council Partial Public Hearing Transcript in re Flood Insurance Ordinance |
“The Dames and Moore study discusses some kind of limitation on densities for development to allow flood flows through the area. I think that’s the big issue. When the city prepares an ordnance, does there have to be a limitation on density? If so, what form will that limitation take? Should the limitation be uniformly applied? I don’t know the answers to those and I assume that you don’t either. We need to know those answers in order to write a good ordnance.” (Pete Shanin, Chairman of the Burlington Land Use Committee) (See also Dames & Moore Report ) |
| 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) |
| 11/1/2006 | City of Burlington Letter to Colonel Michael McCormick | City of Burlington Public Works Department raises issues with Corps of Engineers hydrology. |
|
Fall/Winter 2006 |
City of Burlington Bulletin | Mayor Gus Tjeerdsma updates the community on the status of flood control. |
| 2/6/2007 | FOIA request to FERC for Non-Public Documents | City of Burlington request meeting notes, telephone notes, and reports from FERC re: PSE Relicensing efforts. |
| 2/8/2007 | Cover Letter to Carl Cook, Director of FEMA Region X |
Letter to Carl Cook by Burlington City Administrator Jon Aarstad stating, "We believe the information we have uncovered in this preliminary investigation casts doubt about the magnitude of the historic flood discharge estimates for the 1909, 1917, and 1921 floods. Therefore, we are submitting this report to you as you proceed with your work to produce new flood plain maps for the Skagit River." |
| Preliminary Investigation into Historic Flood Marks in the “Smith” House |
“The objective of this initial investigation was to find direct evidence of the historic floods within the structure of the “Smith” House.” |
|
|
2/16/2007 |
Col. Michael McCormick Ltr to Chal Martin |
Corps responds to City of Burlington concerns re: hydrology however still refuses to address local concerns. The Corps, however, remains open to the consideration of new technical information that may be developed on this matter. The problem with this statement is that they are still ignoring the importance of the historical data that does not support the technical data. |
| 3/7/2007 | FERC response to Burlington FOIA request |
FERC, seemingly confused, seeks additional advice before they can respond to Burlington's FOIA request. |
| 3/22/2007 | Draft cover letter to Skagit County re: Concerns over Corps GI Study and Draft Resolution addressing flawed historic data being used by Corps hydraulic study |
Burlington will request additional language be submitted in the Corps Project Management Plan to address the lack of consensus on the Corps hydrology issue. |
| 3/22/2007 | Resolution requesting additional language be added to SRPMP addressing flawed historic data being used by Corps hydraulic study. | Skagit County turned down this request. See County Letter Responding to Burlington Request dated 4/23/07. |
| 4/3/2007 |
E-mail from Burlington Public Works Director to Skagit County re comments on nhc study. |
Overall comments were very complimentary of the nhc study. According to Skagit County Public Works only Mr. Martin and myself commented on the nhc study. |
| 4/25/2007 |
E-mail to County expressing concerns over GI process using flawed hydraulic data. |
Burlington Public Works Director expresses doubt that if Corps study is allowed to go forward using flawed hydraulic data that flood storage behind Lower Baker Dam could ever be achievable. Also has concerns over statements made in County Letter Responding to Burlington Request dated 4/23/07. |
|
5/24/2007 |
Burlington Chamber of Commerce Town Hall Meeting FEMA 100 Year Flood Plain Map Study |
Meeting scheduled for May 24 7:00-8:30 PM to discuss new FEMA flood elevation maps which are "in some cases, 8 feet higher then previously thought". |
|
5/24/2007 |
Burlington Chamber of Commerce Agenda and Handout for Town Hall Meeting |
Agenda for "FEMA Flood Mapping: How Will It Affect You?" and handout Flood Hazard Mitigation - The Future of The Skagit Valley. |
|
5/24/2007 |
City of Burlington Public Works and Don Gordon Presentations |
Two of the three PowerPoint presentations given at the Burlington Chamber of Commerce Town Hall Meeting by Chal Martin and Don Gordon regarding the hydraulics and economics of the FEMA flood insurance maps. |
|
5/24/2007 |
National Association of Home Builders Press Release for FEMA 100-Year Flood Plain Map Study Skagit River Basin, Washington Town Hall Meeting |
NAHB press release issued several days before the town hall meeting beginning with, "The National Association of Home Builders continues to be concerned about the speculations and unscientific information employed in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) draft Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for the Skagit River basin. As a result, the plan lacks utility for the audience and use for which it is intended. It is inaccurate and unreliable." |
|
5/24/2007 |
Examples of Deepest Flooding in Mount Vernon and Burlington |
Examples by the City of Mount Vernon and City of Burlington Public Works Departments of FEMA-claimed flood elevations in their cities. |
| 6/4/2007 | Pacific International Engineering Technical Memorandum Hydraulic Analysis – Smith House Flood Stages | "Pacific International Engineering (PIE) performed a hydraulic analysis to estimate the water surface elevations of the Skagit River at the Smith House, located in Hamilton, associated with the magnitude of the 1909, 1917, and 1921 floods as they were estimated by James E. Stewart." |
| 6/7/2007 | Hromadka & Associates: An Independent Technical Review – Comments on Flood Frequency Analyses for the Skagit River, Skagit County, Washington | Hromadka & Associates conducts its own statistical review of the Stewart figures using, among other things, observations at the Smith House in Hamilton. |
| 7/7/2007 | Background Paper: Flawed Analysis is Producing Inaccurate Base Flood Elevation Maps in Skagit County | "The actual flood risk in the Skagit Valley is very serious, but manageable. A flawed analysis by the Corps of Engineers will cause the problem (on paper) to become catastrophic and unmanageable." |
| 7/7/2007 | Discussion Points, Tax Base Spreadsheets: Corps of Engineers' Incorrect Flood Analysis Will Create Unnecessary Long Term Burden for the Community and its School Districts | "Our school districts - which depend on property tax growth to provide reasonably adequate financial resources to educate our kids - will be burdened tremendously and unnecessarily by the results of the Corps' incorrect analysis." |
| 8/2007 | Skagit River Basin Hydrology Draft Report Existing Conditions by Pacific International Engineering (PIE) | "This report presents an update of Skagit River hydrology conducted by Pacific International Engineering (PI Engineering) under an Agreement for Engineering Services authorized in June 2007 by the City of Burlington. The information and results of the analyses presented herein are intended for use in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study (FIS)." |
| 8/9/2007 | Basis of Concern about FEMA's Underlying Technical Analysis of the new Base Flood Maps for Skagit County | City of Burlington prepares seven reasons why the new Flood Insurance Rate Maps should be of concern to Skagitonians, including concerns about accuracy, economic damages and lack of options for further flood control. |
| 8/13/2007 | Memorandum for the Board of Skagit County Commissioners from Chal Martin Re: Comments on USGS 2007 Report | City of Burlington City Engineer makes seven points why the USGS 8/10/2007 report is non-conclusive and possibly incorrect. |
| 8/15/2007 | Hromadka & Associates An Independent Technical Review – Comments on Flood Frequency Analyses for the Skagit River, Skagit County, Washington (Final Report) | Awkward language corrected by Dr. Hromadka. This report clearly shows the statistical improbability of James E. Stewart's claims of CFS at Concrete. |
| 8/17/2007 | WJE Smith House Forensic Report | "At the Smith House, WJE did not observe any evidence to indicate that flood water elevations ever exceeded the finish floor elevation of the house." |
| 9/5/2007 | Ltr to FEMA, Re: Independent Skagit Flood Research |
Cover letters for Mount Vernon-Burlington joint submission of alternative data. |
| 9/5/2007 |
Joint Resolution of the Cities of Burlington and Mount Vernon to use PIE hydrology for FEMA base flood elevation maps |
"The Cities of Mount Vernon and Burlington direct the preparation of Flood Insurance Rate Maps to comply with all provisions of the FEMA Flood Insurance Program (Base Flood Elevation, Floodplain Boundary and Floodway Maps) using the best and most accurate science available, which in the Cities’ opinion is the science performed by Pacific International Engineering". |
| 9/5/2007 | Impacts of an Incorrect Hydrologic Analysis for the Skagit River | Latest presentation by Chal Martin, Burlington Public Works Director, re: federal agencies use of incorrect hydraulic analysis of the Skagit River. |
| 9/5/2007 | Joint Mount Vernon-Burlington letter to US Rep. Rick Larsen, Re: Support for alternative hydrology |
Mayors of Burlington and Mount Vernon request Representative Rick Larsen to endorse their alternative hydrology and flood plain maps. Representative Larsen has made clear though in a recent op-ed that his position was, "I have no comment on the credibility of the studies, not only because my opinion on the science is irrelevant but also because I also have no opinion on that aspect of the debate. All levels of government have to make their own assessment about the studies they use and support." |
| 10/9/2007 | Cities of Burlington and Mount Vernon Notice of Public Meeting Revised Base Flood Elevations Skagit River Hydrology |
Notice of public hearings on flood elevation maps on October 9th and 23rd in Burlington & Mt. Vernon. |
| 11/1/2007 | nhc Review of Skagit River Basin Hydrology Draft Report Existing Condition by PIE |
“This document provides a review of Pacific International Engineering's "Skagit River Basin Hydrology Draft Report - Existing Conditions", August 2007, and its Appendices A through J. The review focuses on PIE's development of unregulated flood frequency curves for the Skagit River near Concrete. Limited review is also provided of regulated flood frequency curves and synthetic flood hydrographs for the regulated condition as developed by PIE.” |
| Fall/Winter 2007 | Burlington Municipal Newsletter: FEMA Flood Mapping and Skagit River Hydrology – Could the Administrative “Cure” be Worse Than the Problem? | City of Burlington Public Works states their case for Pacific International Engineering hydrology. |
| Fall/Winter 2007 | City of Burlington Flood & Natural Hazard Reduction Public Information Bulletin | City of Burlington explains plans for flood protection and issues citizens flood preparedness information. |
| 12/20/2007 |
Interim Review of US Army Corps of Engineers Lower Skagit River Flo-2d Model by nhc |
“Skagit County has requested that nhc review the Flo-2D model used in the draft Skagit River Flood Insurance Study (FIS) as one part of its overall review of the study. Concerns with the hydrology portion of the study are being separately addressed and will not be reiterated here. Ultimately, it is the base flood elevations determined from the Flo-2D model that are at issue as these will be used to evaluate development potential and determine flood insurance premiums.” |
| 04/23/2008 | Update Skagit River Flood Issues |
Latest presentation showing how historical data does not support the USGS, FEMA, and Corps of Engineers hydraulic data. |
| 05/13/2008 | Proposed Memorandum of Understanding | “We believe that the best option for the urban areas is to work toward levee certification, so that credit is given for the levees in FEMA flood hazard mapping as it continues to evolve over time.” |
| 05/14/2008 | WJE Microscopical Studies of Samples from Crofoot's Addition | Technical analysis of soils found within homes of the Crofoot's Addition in Concrete. |
| 06/13/2008 | Scott Thomas E-mail RE: PSE, Additional Flood Storage and Corps GI Process | Burlington City Attorney Scott Thomas responds to Will Honea's e-mail by outlaying concerns about obtaining Lake Shannon storage behind Lower Baker Dam and the Corps GI process. The e-mail has been redacted to remove e-mail addressees and hyperlinks have been added to link to relevant documents. |
| 07/24/2008 | Burlington Public Works Director Update on Skagit Hydrology Issues |
Differences, although adjusted, still remain between Corps of Engineers (226,400 CFS) and locally supported data (178,700 CFS) at Concrete. |
| 08/12/2008 | City of Burlington and Dike District #12 Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on Scope of EIS |
“Goal” is “upgrading appropriate sections of
the existing levees and constructing new levees, or providing other measures as
necessary to result in Certified Levees where appropriate to protect the City of
Burlington's Urban Area. |
| 09/15/2008 | Considerations regarding Partial Accreditation of Dike, Drainage, and Irrigation District 12 Levee System |
A PowerPoint in PDF explaining hydrology research and also how Burlington may address the increased flood elevations. Supplemental material is also included. |
| 10/2008 |
PIE Skagit River Basin Hydrology Report Existing Conditions |
"This report presents an update of Skagit River hydrology conducted by Pacific International Engineering (PI Engineering) under an Agreement for Engineering Services authorized in June 2007 by the City of Burlington." |
| 6/4/2007 |
|
“Pacific International Engineering (PIE) performed a hydraulic analysis to estimate the water surface elevations of the Skagit River at the Smith House, located in Hamilton, associated with the magnitude of the 1909, 1917, and 1921 floods as they were estimated by James E. Stewart.” |
| 10/2008 |
|
USGS Annual peak flow frequency analysis |
| 4/1/2005 |
|
“This technical memorandum presents details and an analysis of the Skagit River watershed rainfall-runoff modeling for the two 1990, the 1995, and the 2003 flood events using HEC-HMS software Version 2.2.2 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2003a), HEC-RAS software Version 3.1 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2004), and HEC-5 software Version 8.0 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1998).” |
| 11/29/2004 |
|
“This technical memorandum presents information on and analysis of the Skagit River Basin flood routing from Newhalem to Skagit Bay, using HEC-RAS modeling software (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004a). A HEC-5 model was also developed and used to facilitate flood control storage operation of existing dams located at the headwaters of the Skagit and Baker Rivers, which are owned and operated by Seattle City Light (SCL) and Puget Sound Energy (PSE), respectively. The HEC-5 model also performs stream flood routing from these dams to the Concrete gage on the Skagit River.” |
| 10/14/2005 |
|
USGS attempted simulation of Skagit River |
| 10/2008 |
|
Hydrographs attempting to recreate 2003 flood in Upper Skagit Basin. |
| 10/2008 |
|
Hydrographs attempting to recreate 2003 flood at Concrete, Sedro-Woolley and Mount Vernon |
| 10/12/2005 |
|
Printout of maximum peak flows of Skagit River at Mount Vernon river gauge |
| 10/2008 |
|
“With regard to research on the historic floods of 1921, 1917, 1909, and 1897 (and even further back to approximately 1856 and 1815), authors of numerous technical reports produced over the years have accessed available historical documentation to add context and perspective to the results obtained by various technical analyses. This appendix will list the documents often cited and provide some discussion of each. This is not a complete discussion but we believe it is important to include a synopsis of the historical documents as an appendix to the main report to provide a point of departure for the user to conduct additional review of the written historical record.” |
| 10/29/2008 | Mayor Brunz Letter to FEMA Region X, Re: Endangered Species Act Compliance Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives |
“In summary, Burlington takes its location in an area that is home to endangered and threatened species very seriously and is directly engaged in a multi-pronged approach to mitigation.” |
| 12/09/2008 | Proposal for an Interlocal Agreement to Pursue Additional Flood Storage | “...One flood measure universally beneficial to every city, town and dike district is additional flood control from the dams.” |
| 1/6/2009 | Synopsis of Skagit River Hydrology Differences Unregulated | Updated for January 2009, this one-page table shows the statistics separating the Corps of Engineers from nhc and PIE. |
| 1/6/2009 | City of Burlington Presentation on Flood Issues and Impacts to Sedro-Woolley |
A 22-slide overview of Burlington's attempts to reduce the Skagit River Flood Risk from correcting the hydrology, improving levees, replacing the BNSF railroad bridge and increasing dam storage. |
| 2/13/2009 |
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 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 |
“The proposed action is to construct 100-year certified levees in appropriate locations, and provide other flood measures as necessary and appropriate based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) final Flood Insurance Study, when this study is adopted following resolution of any appeals. Levee certification with FEMA accreditation is required so that FEMA will include the existence of the levees in their computer model that sets the Base Flood Elevations for Burlington. Without the levees being considered in the modeling, Base Flood Elevations will increase significantly and this is a serious problem in a city that has very small lots and anticipates a substantial redevelopment of much of the City over the next twenty years.” |
| 4/9/2009 | Presentation on Effects of a Certified Burlington Levee on Base Flood Elevations/BFEs |
Eight slides of base flood elevation (BFE) maps on how certified levees for Burlington will lower the BFEs. |
| 6/2009 | Proposal for BNSF Skagit River Bridge Replacement to Reduce Urban Area Flood Risk |
“Built in 1916, this bridge is a hazard to itself and the adjacent levee system. Debris buildup upstream of the bridge in 1995 caused the bridge to fail and almost caused the adjacent left bank levee to fail.” |
| 9/5/2008 |
“The City of Mount Vernon (Dike District 12, Dike District 17) supports Burlington's Freight Rail Assistance application to obtain funding for preliminary engineering work to replace the BNSF Skagit River Bridge. This bridge has been identified in several flood control studies as a significant concern during Skagit River flooding.” |
|
| 9/5/2008 | “Replacement of this bridge will be a necessary measure in any regional flood control project; therefore, we believe forming a partnership now to replace the bridge will be beneficial to BNSF, our local community, the region, and the state.” | |
| 2/12/2009 |
“The Skagit County Board of County Commissioners requests your support for $600,000 in Fiscal Year 2010 for funding the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Skagit River Bridge Replacement Preliminary Engineering. It is our understanding that the City of Burlington has submitted a formal request on this matter and Skagit County supports this request. ” |
|
| 2/24/2009 |
“...Replacing the bridge will significantly improve the capability of the railroad to continue operations during a flood event, providing freight movement even when 1-5, SR-9, and Highway 99 are closed. We believe that a partnership between federal, state, and local governments and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad is the only viable mechanism to achieve these goals.” |
|
| 2/26/2009 | “The concept underlying this request is to provide an economic incentive for BNSF to enter a federal - state - local - BNSF partnership to replace the bridge. This proposal recognizes the public benefit of replacing the bridge to reduce flood risk to the urban areas of Skagit County and keep transportation arterials open during and after a large flood event. It requires BNSF to provide a third of the funding, but also provides a significant incentive for the railroad to do so.” | |
| 2/26/2009 | “On February 17th of this month, local elected officials and staff met with area legislators and a BNSF representative to discuss this proposal. BNSF was noncommittal but willing to give serious consideration to replacing the bridge, should the federal and state contingent authorizations become available.” | |
| 2/27/2009 | “My staff will continue to work with BNSF's technical engineering staff to refine the bridge replacement proposal. It may be possible to come up with a solution short oftota1 bridge replacement, which would save money. ... We recognize getting the money together to replace this bridge is a very difficult prospect, and forming a public-private partnership to replace private infrastructure will not be easy. Nevertheless. we think it may be the best solution. and the timing for the reauthorization bill is now. ” | |
| 2/27/2009 | “Analysis provided in conjunction with the Bridge Modification and Interstate Highway Protection Project ... has confirmed that the BNSF Skagit River Bridge, constructed in 1916, is a hazard during Skagit River floods. Hydraulic modeling shows that during a large Skagit flood event, water surface levels will be above the bottom chords of the bridge girders, making an already dangerous condition of debris blockage, even worse.” | |
| 6/17/2009 |
“1.8 ft is the difference between USGS published and Stewart’s surveyed 1921 HWM elevations.” |
|
| 6/17/2009 | Skagit River Historical Flood Elevations and Peak Flow Estimates | Presentation by City of Burlington & Pacific International Engineering to Wednesday, June 17, 2009 Corps of Engineers Skagit River GI H&H Technical Workshop. |
| 6/17/2009 | Crofoot's High Water Marks (HWMs) | 10 slides about the analysis into what the flood elevations were in Crofoot's Addition, Concrete, WA. |
| 10/25/2009 |
Trip Report, National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies, October 20 - 23, 2009 | “Tuesday evening following the training session, Lorna, John and Chal met with Ed Thomas and Fernando Pasquel of the Michael Baker Corporation (FEMA's technical consultant) and Jennifer Molloy of the EPA. During the course of the day, we had discussed the problem we were having in getting an adequate technical review of our new reports on the Skagit hydrology. At the evening dinner meeting, Fernando (a Vice President of Michael Baker) indicated interest in the topic and said perhaps it would be possible to convene a meeting of technical experts to look at the new reports.” |
| 10/30/2009 |
Skagit River Flood Risk Management and Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study: Comment on the Draft Project Management Plan Revisions dated September 2009 | “The previous PMP included significant resources for studying additional flood storage in the Baker system. The new PMP (September 2009) is a departure from the September 2007 plan, in that the 2007 plan contained specific funding goals for evaluation of additional upstream storage in the Baker hydroelectric project. Page 20 of the 2007 plan indicated funding of $1,505,000 for evaluation of the dams, with $1,055,000 targeted specifically to the Baker · Hydroelectric Project. This focus on additional upstream storage has evaporated in the proposed September 2009 revision. We are concerned about this and would point out that the focus on the Baker storage was included in the September 2007 PMP due to overwhelming support for this concept from the downstream Cities, Towns, and Dike Districts.” |
| 1/21/2010 |
Request for Technical Conference to Resolve Skagit River Hydrology to FEMA | “We would like an opportunity for both FEMA's experts and our experts to sit in the same room, dedicate the uninterrupted and focused time necessary to go through the information, explain and discuss the technical arguments, defend technical positions, and then work together through all of the individual components of the analysis, point by point, to reach agreement.” |
| 2/2/2010 |
State Legislators Request Technical Conference of the Corps of Engineers | “Recent discussions between Skagit County, Mount Vernon, Burlington and Dike District staff with senior Civil Works and Corps of Engineers executives raised the possibility that an expert technical panel/conference could be convened ahead of the milestone Feasibility Scoping Meeting set for the Skagit General Investigation Study this year. Local jurisdictions have committed to help pay travel and per diem expenses for Corps of Engineers experts and other independent experts participating in the conference.” |
| 2/2/2010 |
State Legislators Request Technical Conference of FEMA Mitigation Directorate | “We are writing to urge your support to convene a technical conference March 17-18 in Washington D.C. to exchange information and defend technical positions regarding the Skagit River hydrology, focusing in particular on the historic flood events. The purpose of this conference would be to resolve the Skagit hydrology issue if possible; but if not, build a knowledge base among FEMA's technical experts and staff about the issue.” |
| 2/12/2010 |
Request for Technical Conference to Resolve Skagit River Hydrology to Congressman Larsen | “We have formally requested FEMA convene a 2-day technical conference March 17-18 in Washington D.C. to consider the Skagit River hydrologic analysis, with a specific emphasis on determining the nature of the historic floods of 1921, 1917, 1909, and 1897. So far, FEMA has listened but taken no action. We are requesting your office's involvement to facilitate convening such a conference. We believe this request is consistent with the spirit and intent of FEMA's policy of working with local communities. Further, the situation with the Skagit hydrology is unique, and merits a special focus that this technical conference would provide.” |
| 2/25/2010 |
Burlington Response to USGS Refusal to Attend Technical Conference | “I am not an expert here but as I understand it, the criticism is that the model cannot accurately determine the water surface levels through the Dalles Gorge. Again, I am not an expert, but I must say that this criticism completely misses the point.” |
| Date | Title | Summary |
| 02/26/2009 | Arika Anderson Daniels |
“Currently, this 2.5 acre property is under the jurisdiction of Skagit County and zoned as rural business. When my family purchased the property in 1969 it was zoned commercial/industrial and in 1997, the zoning changed after 50 years to rural business. We have been working ever since to change the zoning back to its original designation of commercial/industrial.” |
| 03/08/2009 | Larry J. Kunzler |
“If the City is successful in someday achieving 100-year certified levees what will the cities policy be with respect to requiring development to be built to what elevation? 100 year flood levels or flat on the ground? The Final EIS should also identify by what means the city perceives are available to "provide incrementally greater protection" and what if any environmental impacts those perceptions would entail.” |
| 03/09/2009 | Bob & Kathi Williams |
“The School District made the ill advised decision to purchase the property in question in spite of advice not to do so. It is prime farmland and h s been (for decades), and continues to be, in active production. To include this proposal as a part of a plan to protect Burlington from flooding is unfathomable. The classification of the land has no impact causing or preventing flooding. It does however, have the frightening potential to make an irreversible negative change our rural/agricultural community.” |
| 03/10/2009 | Rick Major |
“By including in your plan some animal access culverts at highway crossings, you would be providing a safe alternative for small animals to cross under the roadways and another way to control flood movement though the corridor.” |
| 03/11/2009 | United General Hospital |
“If the dike plan being considered is the most effective answer to the flood dilemma of Burlington it would seem reasonable to co-ordinate that project with related planning and projects of the City of Sedro-Woolley, the Dike Districts, Skagit County as well as United and incorporate it into a more regional solution to the problem.” |
| 03/12/2009 | Jerry Burr |
“I am impressed with the work involved and answers they have come up with. With the exception of an addition by Burlington Planner Margaret Fleek that she refers to as switching. Appendix D. Maps Exhibit 4, It concerns switching zoning between land on Peterson road and land on Peacock Lane. When President Obama does this it's called redistribution of wealth. In this case I call it taking, as I own 10 acres in the affected switching area.” |
| 03/12/2009 | Meeting Sign-In Sheet | Attendees to the March 12, 2009 meeting on the DEIS. |
| 03/13/2009 | Gary T. Jones |
“The cumulative impact of protecting Mount Vernon and Burlington Urban Growth Area as allowed by the common enemy doctrine will have impacts on other private and public entities which face a higher risk of levee failure if concurrent action is not taken to reduce the velocity and water surface elevation of a major flood. The Burlington DEIS does not identify a path to salt water for flood water avoided on the Burlington portion of the Skagit flood plain.” |
| 03/13/2009 | Haggen, Inc. |
“Briar owns and Haggen operates a grocery store located at 757 Haggen Drive, and Briar also owns several undeveloped commercial parcels in the immediate vicinity of the store. As a result, both entities have a vested interest in the business climate of Burlington and keep abreast of local planning issues. Haggen and Briar both support and applaud the City's and Dike District #12's decision to construct 100-year certified levees and other flood measures as necessary and appropriate to protect Burlington's urban area from flood hazards and stabilize base flood elevations in the long-term.” |
| 03/13/2009 | Skagit County Government |
“The only meaningful way to consider, analyze and balance these significant adverse impacts on the City's neighbors is to engage in a basin-wide planning process that involves and includes the jurisdictions and entities that are on the receiving end of these impacts, in a manner calculated to produce mutually agreeable, regionally applied mitigation measures and implementation solutions. For this reason, Skagit County is committed to the Corps' General Investigation process and our comprehensive flood planning efforts, which envision a holistic, basin-wide approach.” |
| 03/13/2009 | Skagitonians to Preserve Farmland |
“Our comments at this time are narrowly focused on the proposed UGA expansion request to include approximately 30 acres of prime agricultural farmland within the corner of Pulver Road and Peterson Road for the Burlington Edison School District (B-ESD).” |
| 03/13/2009 | Washington State Department of Ecology |
“Overall, the DEIS is lacking in detail and specificity regarding the impacts of enlarging existing levees and constructing new levees. Levees in Burlington and in the Lower Skagit Delta in general are major physical facilities that have major impacts. But it is unclear from the DEIS just what is being proposed.” |
| 03/23/2009 | Robert & Brenda Apter |
“The best use of this property near Burlington Hill is for additional residential development. The Burlington School District had been interested in putting a new school in that area until it began to consider the Pulver Road area. In fact, the land near Burlington Hill is still a good site for a new school. While additional land would need to be acquired for such a school, discussions were previously held with developer John Ellis to make such an acquisition. John Ellis' property is now in foreclosure, which should allow the School District to acquire the land it needs at a bargain price. In addition, sharing the costs of utilities with a residential developer would benefit both the School District and our property.” |
| 05/21/2009 | Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) | “FEMA did not define a floodway for Skagit River delta communities. The City of Burlington must therefore administer their floodplain ordinance in accordance with 44 CFR 60.3 (c) (10) which states: "no new construction, substantial improvements, or other development (including fill) shall be permitted within Zones Al-30 on the community's FIRM unless it is demonstrated that the cumulative effect of the proposed development, when combined with all other existing and anticipated development will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point within the community.” |
| 6/3/2009 | Dike Districts 3 & 22 | “Based on your confirmation that this is a programmatic EIS and that further environmental review will be done with notice to the Districts before permits and implementation of the plan, the Districts are not commenting further at this time.” |
| 6/8/2009 | Skagit River System Cooperative |
“The DEIS does not analyze the proposed action in the context of comprehensive basin wide flood damage reduction studies. The DEIS recognizes that flood control efforts by the City will likely need to be coupled with other actions under consideration to avoid impacts but provides no direct analysis.” |
| Date | Title | Summary |
|
2/6/1961 |
Letter to the Corps from the City editor of the Concrete Herald |
1961 letter to Corps from Concrete Herald editor re his opposition to Faber Dam site and his support of dredging. |
| 4/9/2007 | Town of Concrete Town Council Meeting Minutes | A councilmember who disclosed having a father-in-law as a Puget Sound Energy employee says "all requirements had been met" for PSE to make modifications to Lower Baker Dam and its accompanying powerhouse - in spite of inadequate flood control. |
| Date | Title | Summary |
| 6/16/1988 | Letter to Corps re flood project just for Mt. Vernon | The City of Mt. Vernon requested the Corps come to a meeting to discuss the feasibility of a flood project just for Mt. Vernon. |
| 9/22/1988 | Letter to Corps re request to reactivate 1979 Levee Project | The City of Mt. Vernon requested the Corps to reactivate the 1979 Levee Improvement Project. |
|
8/20/2007 |
Ltr to Mark Carey, FEMA Region X Director of Mitigation Division, Re: USGS August 13, 2007 presentation on Stewart hydrology revision |
Letter from Esco Bell, Mt. Vernon Public Works Director, requests "FEMA review the submittals made by the Cities of Mount Vernon and Burlington related to the Smith House and by-pass channel at The Dalles." |
| 2/28/2008 | Cultural Resources Assessment for the Mount Vernon Downtown Flood Protection Project |
Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc. takes a look at the history of downtown Mount Vernon in preparation for the city's flood protection project. Excellent research on the history of Skagit County. |
| 5/5/2008 | City of Mount Vernon Flood Management Efforts |
11 slide PDF of Public Works Director Presentation to Skagit County Flood Control Zone District Technical Committee. |
| 6/11/2008 | City of Mount Vernon Downtown and Waterfront Master Plan June 11, 2008 Presentation |
City Government of Mount Vernon's plan to spend $18 Million via various methods of self-taxation to take the historic downtown out of the FEMA 100-year floodplain. |
| 8/12/2008 | Letter Re: City of Burlington and Dike District #12 Determination of Significance | “The City of Mount Vernon is also impacted by Skagit River flooding and concerned with the future changes in base flood elevations resulting from the revised Flood Insurance Rate Maps. It is extremely important for the cities of Mount Vernon and Burlington and the dike districts to continue to work closely together on proposed flood protection measures and ensuring that the correct hydraulic modeling and data are utilized for the purpose of analyzing flood protection measures and for determining base flood elevations in a 100-year flood event.” |
| 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. |
| 02/2009 | Submission to FEMA of the City of Mount Vernon's Request for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision |
“The Applicant includes two requests: 1) submittal of a project design and engineering analysis to substantiate a request to change the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in the historic downtown Mount Vernon area and 2) submittal of a Skagit River Basin hydrology analysis for review as an alternative to the hydrology that FEMA is currently using for the ongoing restudy.” |
| 04/16/2009 | Legislative Letter to Mayor Norris |
“Regrettably, Mount Vernon's specific concerns were not brought forward while the bill was in the House. Further, your concerns did not lead to an amendment in the Senate. We have been working together since you raised concerns, but have ultimately been unable to come to agreement on language that will address your situation while maintaining the base intent of the bill to prohibit expansion into floodplains by cities which have other options available.” |
| 6/30/2009 | Letter Re: FEMA Review (CLOMR) of the Mount Vernon Downtown Flood Protection Project | “The City and its engineers have worked with FEMA for the past several years and more recently within the past 12 months, to insure that the City is following the appropriate steps and process in order to design a flood protection project that can remove downtown Mount Vernon from the 100-year flood plain. FEMA's refusal to take action places Mount Vernon in harm's way for the next flood. Considering the amount of time and effort that the City has put forth in concert with FEMA, FEMA's position is outrageous and insulting.” (See also 2/2009 Submission to FEMA of the City of Mount Vernon's Request for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision) |
| 7/14/2009 | Letter to FEMA Re: FEMA's suspension of the City of Mount Vernon, Washington's Conditional Letter of Map Revision ("CLOMR") Request - City's Reply | “Mount Vernon maintains that FEMA has ... adopted new rules without notice or opportunity to comment by instituting additional requirements or "steps" outside the rulemaking process. These "steps" include (i) requiring the City to wait for federal processes, one of which is beyond FEMA's control and authority (i.e. FEMA's own FIS and the USACE GI process), (ii) a requirement that the City consider in its CLOMR request all potential flood protection measures along the Skagit River no matter how remote or speculative so long as they are a part of the US ACE GI, and (iii) a requirement that the City obtain consensus with other communities beyond its jurisdiction to solve all matters related to flooding along the river in one comprehensive CLOMR in order to ensure that its own CLOMR is reviewed.” |
| 7/15/2009 | Presentation to Mt. Vernon City Council on CLOMR | 40-slide presentation by Mt. Vernon City Attorney Kevin Rogerson as well as Pacific International Engineering (PIE) on why FEMA should approve the CLOMR request. |
| 7/16/2009 | Congressional Delegation Response to June 30 Letter | “As your federal representatives we remain committed to helping local communities in Skagit Valley find a comprehensive and system-wide approach to flood control. Continued communication between the communities and federal agencies responsible for elements of flood control studies and projects is vital for continued progress toward protecting life and property throughout the river system.” |
| 7/23/2009 | City of Mount Vernon Complaint Against Federal Emergency Management Agency |
“Mount Vernon has a right to have its CLOMR request addressed on its merits alone, and cannot be dependent upon the diligence, quality or level of technical expertise of other jurisdictions for a protracted and undefined period of time. Mount Vernon cannot be dependent upon the mere possibility of future flood projects that are remote and speculative. By way of example, one study cited by FEMA is not yet completed; has been ongoing for twelve years; has produced no recommended measures; and, is not currently funded for completion.” |
| 8/17/2009 | Press Release: City of Mount Vernon Withdraws Complaint Against FEMA |
“Since the filing of the action, Mount Vernon has been in continuous communication with FEMA through the agency’s attorneys. Following dismissal of the City’s action, the City understands that FEMA will continue to work on the CLOMR application; review information submitted by the City to date as well as any new information submitted by the City in the future should further information be requested; and, provide technical assistance to the City regarding the CLOMR request.” |
| 10/2009 | Report from the Mayor | “The City's elected officials and staff feel
an urgent sense of responsibility to our community to reduce flood risk
using every means at our disposal. This Project should not be delayed.
Without a viable permanent flood project, Downtown Mount Vernon continues to
face severe flooding during every major flood event.” See also: 10/8/2009 Letter to City of Mount Vernon, WA Requesting More Data for CLOMR, “On the basis of the information submitted to date, we have identified additional data needed to process this CLOMR.” |
| Date | Title | Summary |
| 2/8/1961 | Letter to the Corps from Skagit County Dairy Federation |
1961 letter to Corps from Skagit County Dairy Federation. |
| Date | Title | Summary |
| 2000 | Census Statistics | Town of Hamilton and other upriver areas well below Skagit County, Washington State and national per capita income levels. |
| 2000 | Selected Economic Statistics for the Town of Hamilton | Among other statistics, no family in Hamilton with income higher than $100,000 and over 50% of citizens on some sort of public assistance. |
| 2/2007 | Skagit Floodway Mitigation and Hamilton Relocation Program Fact Sheet |
Fact sheet explaining the legal requirements and many economic benefits of relocating Hamilton out of the floodplain, "FEMA reports that losses to date for the 100 flood affected properties in Hamilton alone cost public programs and the NFIP close to $20 million." |
| 3/10/2008 | March 10, 2008 Hamilton Public Development Authority Survey Results |
Statistical summary of 47 surveys "to provide political decision makers with a snapshot of Hamilton floodway resident’s flood experience, socio-economic situation, and impression regarding town relocation." |
| 3/18/2009 | Draft Hamilton PDA Minutes |
“Lauren Tracy responded that political decision-makers at every level of government want Hamilton relocation to succeed. The Governor and Congressman Larsen don’t want to find themselves on the evening news during the next flood without visible progress they can point to, such as construction underway.” |
| 4/20/2009 | Public Comment to April 20, 2009 Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee |
“In theory, Skagit County Commissioners have had the authority to collect property taxes for the past 39 years for flood control projects and to serve as local match for, but have chosen not to do so.” (Lauren Tracey, Hamilton PDA) |
| 5/20/2009 | Local Revenue Generation for Flood Control | “Mr. Brookings recommended exercising the existing levy authority available to the Flood Control Zone District under RCW 86.15. In addition to this source, Mr. Brookings identified county commissioner authority, under RCW 86.12, to levy a separate property tax for a River Improvement Fund, within which is a dedicated Flood Control Maintenance Account. Both of these sources are available right now in Skagit County and do not require voter approval or state legislative action as some funding sources would require (e.g. sales tax).” |
Testimony to Corps re history of individual districts.
| Date | Title | Summary |
| 1956 | LaConner Area "The Flats" (See also Rundeen 1924 Corps Testimony) | 1961 letter to Corps from Skagit County Dairy Federation. |
| 1961 | Dike District 12 | Document shows private dikes in 1881. Gives further testimony regarding the history of improvements within the dike district. |
| 1961 | Dike District 15 | Only 800 acres in this district. Btwn 1952 and 1959 they spent 38,000 on their levees. |
| 1961 | Dike District 17 | District formed in 1907. Since 1915 only 2 floods broke these levees. 1917 and 1921. 1951 flood overtopped the levee but did not break it. Raised levee 18 inches over 1951 flood level. |
| 1961 | Drainage District 17 | District encompassed 4,680 acres. Wanted to dredge South Fork of Skagit River. |
| 1961 | Dike District 20 | Covers only 650 acres. Levee only high enough to protect from 24 ft river. Noticed 4 ft difference in height of flood waters from bridge corridor to Nookachamps. |
| 3/28/1979 | Corps Notes re Diking District History | Document shows when Dike Districts were organized although it is in conflict with what Dike 17 stated. Also shows what cfs flows the Districts levees could withstand in 1979. |
A 2000/2001 attempt to build consensus and direction for a feasible Skagit River Flood Risk management plan.
|
Date |
Title |
Summary |
|
6/5/2000 |
Skagit River Risk Management Working Group (“WG”) purpose and members identified. First mtg of Working Group to be in July 2000. |
|
|
6/7/2000 |
E-mail explains “The intent of the meeting, I thought, was to start a dialogue with the Padilla Bay folks to 1) ease their fears of flood waters ruining the eel grass beds, and 2) to request the scientific information that indicates that this would indeed happen if flood waters entered Padilla Bay.” |
|
|
6/7/2000 |
“I also talked to Valerie about this working group and she filled me in on the meeting with Ecology. I can't make that meeting but I think you should still go forward with it.” |
|
|
6/11/2000 |
“The information that I took away from this meeting: the whole flood plane is underlain with ten of more feet of this volcanic goop that liquefies in any seismic situation. If Larry is correct, large levee sections would fail in an earthquake situation, especially if under any hydrostatic loading.” |
|
|
6/11/2000 |
The Work Group, that Valerie is heading, will select the alternatives for the feasibility study. This panel is made up of various citizens, local association representatives and numerous government officials. The first scheduled meeting is 26 July. Mike Scuderi and I were asked to be on the committee, but we need Counsels input regarding the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) before we proceed. Department of Ecology and Skagit County are having a meeting 26 June to increase awareness and communication. DoE has voiced opposition to an alternative already, to preserve eelgrass in Padilla Bay. |
|
|
7/14/2000 |
Thank you once again for agreeing to participate in the Skagit Flood Risk Management Working Group. As you all know, our first meeting is taking place next Tuesday, July 18th, at the Farmhouse Inn. |
|
|
7/18/2000 |
Mtg lasted 7 hours. Discussed ground rules and goals. |
|
|
7/18/2000 |
|
|
| 7/18/2000 | Design for building consensus | “Building on the two observations above, it is clear that a key impediment to building consensus and achieving a flood management plan is the lack of understanding of the realities surrounding a 100- year flood. Few people would be willing to vote for funding options that could affect them or even be proponents for risk plans that would involve some compromises without an understanding of the "benefits" to them, their neighborhoods, the region, and the businesses that employ them (and would be inundated in a 100-year flood event). Thus, a key element in the design must be the development of approaches to communicate risk effectively to key target audiences. With a "real world" understanding of 100-year flood -- who and what would be inundated --- we can begin to build a common appreciation in the community, among agencies, and with politicians and stakeholders of the need for a flood management plan. In short, we need to put a face on the 100-year event and convey the consequences of it in powerful, personal terms to key individuals, agencies, and stakeholder groups.” |
|
7/18/2000 |
The first meeting of the Skagit Flood Risk Management Working Group was held on Tuesday, July 18, 2000 from 9:00 AM to 4:00PM at the Farmhouse Inn. . . . Sky indicated that he had spent a lot of time pondering the situations on a number of rivers and, as of late, the Skagit River. He posed a question to the group as to how the valley had gotten itself into the current situation. He speculated that it started with the agricultural community building dikes to protect their crops. As more people moved into the area, the transportation systems in the form of highways and railroads were developed. This encouraged more people to move here. Bridges and cities sprang up and development continued. Dike building continued to the point that we are very reliant on them. Unfortunately, the dikes have a capacity that we know can be exceeded. The dikes of Skagit County can hold the water from a 25 or 35 year flood. Elsewhere, other cities have 500 year flood protection. Sky referred to this phenomenon as “flood hazard creep.” |
|
| 8/26/2000 | LJK E-mail Re: Review of 7/18/2000 Working Group Minutes | “The next meeting should focus on what cannot be done in order the committee doesn't waste any time. The Sauk Dam is out, dredging is out, raising the levees higher is out. That leaves only a "by-pass" concept or lowering the levees to provide for overtopping or moving the levees back.” |
|
9/14/2000 |
|
|
|
9/14/2000 |
Ron Malmgren replied that even if the capacity of the river was doubled by dredging 40 to 50 feet deep with an 800-foot channel width, one would still see a tidal effect at Mount Vernon. Because the tide holds the water back, dredging simply won’t be that helpful. Additionally, the dredged area will be filled in about 5 years and all of the fish habitat will have been destroyed. . . . Questions turned to how much dredging can be done before the integrity of the levees is compromised. Sky replied that one cannot dig below 40 feet. Curt Wylie mentioned that for every foot over flood stage, the river scours a foot deeper into the riverbed. Sky confirmed this statement and added that the river moves around and dredges a hole in the riverbed. When the river slows down it drops its sediment load, which will fill in any holes that were created through dredging. Additionally, clean water flows faster and will pick up more soil increasing the level of erosion. . . . Bob Boudinot asked what distance the levees would have to be setback to accommodate flooding. Ron answered that they would have to be moved 500 to 1,000 feet depending on the capacity. The Burlington Northern railroad is the biggest constriction of the river. Bob noted that it was the shore side spans of the railroad bridge that caused the constrictions and not the piers. Therefore, they should only have to add short spans between the piers close to the shore. . . . Stephen Pierce asked what the benefits of overtopping are. Ron responded that the rural areas get wet and not the urban areas. Chuck Bennett asked if they could develop a plan in which the set backs hold 190,000 to 200,000 c.f.s. and overtopping areas take the rest of the floodwaters. He noted that the set backs are more of a controlled system as opposed to the overtopping. Ron Malmgren informed him that it was possible. |
|
|
9/14/2000 |
Corps PowerPoint Presentation re answers to various questions presented by the WG |
Addresses’ issues like the Mt. Vernon revetment, storage in the Nookachamps, levee setbacks, Gages Slough and dredging. |
| 10/10/2000 | US Fish & Wildlife Planning Aid Letter; Skagit River Flood Feasibility Study | “We have other general concerns about the bypass option, including: 1) a bypass would leave little incentive to breach dikes or do levee setbacks, actions which would benefit fish and wildlife by restoring flood plain processes; 2) a bypass could result in further development and encroachment of the flood plain, since the flooding problem "would be solved." If a bypass alternative made further development of the flood plain more feasible, it would be contrary to the intent of Executive Order 11988, which prohibits federal agencies from participating in projects that encourage development in the flood plain; 3) the bypass would increase conveyance, but do nothing to increase flood plain storage, thus doing little to help restore natural processes; and 4) some kind of structural mechanism would need to be installed at the inlet of the bypass to ensure year around flows and stability of the inlet..” |
|
12/8/2000 |
“The alternatives for flood control in Skagit County that have been identified thus far by the Working Group are listed below. These alternatives were identified during a brainstorming session of the September 14th Working Group meeting. During this brainstorming session, Working Group members studied a Mylar map of the Skagit floodplain to help them generate ideas about potential alternatives for further consideration. The purpose of the brainstorming session was to produce a range of flood control alternatives for further analysis by the County and Corps of Engineers.” |
|
| 12/11/2000 | GI Study Alternatives received from WG | See 12/8/2000 EI e-mail to WG above. |
|
12/12/2000 |
|
|
|
12/12/2000 |
Presentation by USFWS re their concerns about fish vs flood control. Lou Ellyn explained that fish have adapted to a system with a variety of natural processes. The Skagit River system previously had large floodplain storage and a large amount of vegetation along the riverbanks. In this system, the water would spread out laterally from the river during a flood causing the water to have a gentler rise. Currently, the river is channelized by the levees, causing the water to rise quickly and destructively. Any efforts that the County and the Working Group take to regain the original flood plain function will help the fish population levels because it restores their natural habitat. Setbacks and ring dikes are alternatives that would benefit fish. Non-structural alternatives, such as relocation and early warnings, are also good. Lou Ellyn noted these value statements are made in regards to fish and river function. . . . the levee system can flush these anadromous fish out of the river system . . . Dick noted that the salmon problem is so severe that if nothing is done immediately all of the fish will be lost. Corps Update: Stephen Pierce provided the group with an overview of the Corps activities to date. In 1993 the Corps finished its reconnaissance study, which provided the basis for the current funding. The current schedule shows that the Corps will be finished with the EIS and FS in 2003. The project will go for authorization and appropriation under the Water Resources Development Act in 2004. The design of the plan will occur in 2004 and 2005. Construction is slated to begin in 2006. |
|
|
12/12/2000 |
Corps PowerPoint Presentation re Hydraulic Modeling for Alternatives |
Presentation showed areas that would flood with different alternative projects. |
|
2/6/2001 |
5 Alternatives considered. All included “In 3 bridge corridor, between Burlington and Mount Vernon, set back levee 500 feet including 20 foot deep bank excavation. Lengthen the 3 bridges.” |
|
|
2/6/2001 |
“The item for Francis Road is from the brain storming session (September). The idea is that Sterling and Nookachamps could be given something like 25 year protection, consistent with the rest of the dike systems. There would be some road access during the floods, etc. If we went with an overtopping alternative, this piece would give us some more options to study.” |
|
| 2/16/2001 | Alternatives for Analysis |
Good description of different alternatives along with positive and negative impacts of each. |
|
2/23/2001 |
“I would also like you to inform the group of the plan to involve Ron Thom and a little about his background.” (NOTE: Dr. Ronald Thom, who leads the Coastal Assessment and Restoration technical group at the Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory in Sequim, Washington, has over 35 years of experience as an estuarine and coastal ecologist, and fisheries biologist. It was eventually Battelle’s estimate for the ell grass study that sunk the By-Pass proposal. See 12/20/2002 e-mail |
|
|
2/23/2001 |
Very preliminary document. |
|
|
3/1/2001 |
|
|
|
3/1/2001 |
Ed Capasso noted that with the exception of the overtopping alternative, all of the alternatives had been examined in the past for their environmental impacts. Ed noted that the group was not starting at ground zero because of the previous studies. . . . Stephen Pierce stated that all of the potential alternatives, except for Alternative 6 (Samish Diversion), require the three-bridge corridor to be lengthened. . . . Larry Kunzler brought up the topic of compensating landowners for their property. He warned that if this did not happened the community would develop a “not in my backyard” attitude. The facilitator agreed that compensation was a key issue of interest to many. . . . There was a brief discussion regarding how the project would be funded. The federal government would pay for 65% of the project and the local share would be 35%. Funds for land acquisition would come entirely from the local share but would count towards the local 35% share. The group also touched on the amount of the total project price that would be used for mitigation purposes. |
|
| 3/8/2001 | Corps MFR re Cultural Resources Assumptions |
Very good discussion of how cultural resources are looked at during flood risk reduction measures evaluation although at least one of the assumptions is clearly wrong.. “3-bridge corridor to Avon has recorded sites but has not seen systematic survey so new sites are anticipated in area of overbank excavation, same for West Mount Vernon setback, direct construction impacts in dike alignments.” |
|
3/19/2001 |
With the addition of this supplement, the County will have contracted with Environment International, Inc. for about $175,000. That is significantly more than I had originally planned for this effort so I have to be careful about this most recent request. |
|
|
4/9/2001 |
My intent is to have Valerie really hammer home the point that we are in decision mode and must reach a consensus no later than the end of June. That means that we really only have two more meetings besides this one to get an agreement. |
|
|
4/12/2001 |
I don't really want to be at Larry's beckon call. Do I need to change my attitude? |
|
|
4/19/2001 |
WDFW has
assigned Brendan Brokes to act on the behalf of Rich Johnson in his
absence from the Working Group. Please add Brendan to your list of |
|
|
4/20/2001 |
We have had four working group meetings total. NMFS came once . USF&WS came three times, and SSC came twice. WDFW hasn't missed any. Scuderi missed once. I am guessing that the next meeting only WDFW will be in attendance. I can't help it if they are feeling left out. We give plenty of advanced notice. I am also concerned that no one in the environmental arena has any incentive to be economically responsible |
|
|
4/20/2001 |
I understood that you needed some form of documentation from the County on their position with overtopping levees. The reason that overtopping was the alternative of choice for the Recon Study in 1993 was because the economic evaluation at that time was based on very old data - (I know, - thats okay). Overtopping was the only project that would meet the B/C ratio criterion using the old economic data from the 1970s. . . . I think that the County is not the only one that would be against overtopping. I think, given the information we now have, that the environmentalists would never allow this project either. Now we have new data that indicates that we can qualify for a much more comprehensive project that will benefit MORE people than overtopping would, not to mention salmon. . . . I don't want it to be a "product" of the working group either - I agree |
|
|
4/24/2001 |
While we potentially are improving Chinook habitat we still have to deal with bull trout. The Skagit has the healthiest population of bull trout in Puget Sound and FWS is quite concerned with any disruptions to that population. . . . This issue must be addressed. |
|
|
4/26/2001 |
|
|
|
4/26/2001 |
The federal government is trying to implement a tax cut, and the state is having a hard time passing a budget; neither government seems to have much money available for flood risk management projects. . . . If the bypass is combined with the Highway 20 project, it could be a win-win situation for many parties. . . . The facilitator led the group into a discussion of the timeline and immediate goals. . . . She reminded the group that the County wanted their opinion by the end of June. . . . The facilitator clarified the challenge at hand: how to balance a linear process of selection, studies and approval with a non-linear world. She diagramed the process. . . . This is an enormously important decision for the counties, agencies and tribes, and one cannot rush into a $300 million project. The diversion has failed twice because of lack of planning, and he does not want it to happen again. He also wanted more information about the Highway 20 project that was shut down in the 1980s for environmental reasons. . . . that it was the same process that the DOT has struggled with many times. In his experience the more stakeholders, agencies and others are involved early in the process, the more successful the project is down the road. He also added that Highway 20 project was slowed because of serious concerns about filling and building in the floodplain but it is now going forward. . . . Given $300 million project whose costs are spread over 50 years, and the current estimate of $66.7 million annual flood damages, Jim saw no problem justifying a project with a benefit:cost ratio. In other words, the economics of the project does not eliminate any alternatives. Jim commented that the County had done a good job building in the flood plain, making many alternatives viable. |
|
|
4/30/2001 |
The farmers down by Larry didn't vote cause it was secret. I told him we need to reduce the list with the information from the 10% design. We plan on spending $2,000,000 on the remaining alternatives and we can't study all of them. . . . . I should have told him that we were going to let economics determine the options. Maybe some of the solutions will be horse-trade. I further told Larry that the Economic report had not been provided the county yet. |
|
|
5/1/2001 |
The flood damage
reduction project purpose is to assist in developing a Comprehensive
Flood Hazard Management Plan for the Skagit River by developing
alternatives to reduce flood hazards in the project area. |
|
|
5/1/2001 |
Will you look at it from a legal perspective and how we might word smith it so that something like overtopping might be eliminated but a diversion channel wouldn't necessarily be eliminated? |
|
| 5/2/2001 | Corps e-mail to County re rip-rap cost estimates |
Estimated cost for “rock” for each of the 7 alternatives. |
|
5/2/2001 |
In all alternatives, a floodwall will be built in Mount Vernon to prevent the continued flood fight that is required with even a small frequency event. A levee will also be built near Sterling to preclude the necessary flood fighting along Highway 20. |
|
|
5/2/2001 |
Includes mitigation measures |
|
|
5/2/2001 |
Corps e-mail re alternatives and environmental matrix for project EIS |
Meeting took place Friday May 4th. |
|
5/2/2001 |
“Many in the group believed that they needed additional information before they could express preferences among alternatives. It was made clear by a number of Working Group members that they would very much appreciate the resource agencies bringing their expertise to bear so that the Corps, the County and the Working Group will have a better understanding of the environmental benefits and possible impacts of various alternatives.” |
|
|
5/4/2001 |
Stephen Pierce explained that there are currently seven action alternatives. Those studies have been planned to a ten percent detail level. Two million dollars are available to take one option to the 35% stage. Replying to the facilitator’s question about what the different design stages would look like, Stephen stated that the 10% stage has some details, but only enough to formulate a rough estimate of what building costs would be. The 35% stage includes more specifics such as how bridges will be designed and exactly what property will need to be acquired. . . . He cannot eliminate anything for capricious or political reasons. . . . Lou Ellyn pointed out that if the toe rock were left in, most of the environmental benefits of a natural river system would not be realized. Without the environmental benefits, the additional funding may not be available. Brendan Brokes concurred, and added that juvenile fish might get stranded outside of the river channel after a flood. . . . She stated that numerous questions existed about leaving the toe rock in versus removing it, and that sedimentation studies should be done to answer those questions. |
|
| 5/7/2001 | US Fish and Wildlife Service |
