Title

Summary

“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.”

The conclusions reached in this report show that “95% of the migrants leaving the reservoir used the surface spillway as their exit route and that less than 5% left through the turbine intake.”  Further the report concludes that “64% of the native Sockeye and 54% of the native Coho were killed in passing down the spillway.”

8/23/1963

Letter to GNRR President

Avon By-Pass again being considered.  GNRR concerned about involvement of Milo Moore (Fisheries Director) in development scheme in Fidalgo and Padilla Bays.

“Salmon fishing is the major source of livelihood for the Swinomish Indians, and denial or deprivation thereof would cause great hardship.”

WG Minutes

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.

This letter is in response to the last Skagit Flood Risk Management Workgroup, dated April 26, 2001. At that meeting, we learned that the local sponsor, Skagit County, is considering removal of the language that incorporates appropriate fish and wildlife habitat improvements as part of the project purpose.

WG Minutes

The new riprap will be placed as deep as the old.  In response to a question, he agreed that the riprap could not be shallower than the depth of the river to ensure that the levee would not be undercut.  . . .  Several people were emphatic that they believed dikes should be protected with riprap.  Mike replied that he and the agencies recognized the need to protect the dikes.  He believed that a riparian area would be possible in conjunction with well-protected dikes.  . . . Ed Capasso noted that the Mayor of Anacortes wrote a letter to Ecology expressing concerns about water quality and quantity surrounding the potential diversions.  As a result there were still major issues about diverting water to a bypass.  . . .  Mike pointed out that the numerous high priority concerns on the resource agencies’ list of questions for the Swinomish diversion indicate serious potential problems with that alternative.  These potential difficulties include water rights, saltwater intrusion, tidegates and maintenance of the channel.  Continuing to review the list of resource agency concerns, Mike noted that the setbacks option only had one urgent question: riprap.  It had become clear that the new levees would need to be protected with riprap, but that riprap in the existing river channel would be detrimental to the fish.  The Samish diversion also had one major question on the list of concerns.   Because of the potential for mixing of fish stocks, there might be a jeopardy call from the National Marine Fisheries Service.  . . .  The Swinomish diversion was defined to be between SR 20 and about a mile south of SR 20.  Todd asked how the location for Alternative 1 was chosen. The Corps responded that it had been chosen to follow the low land and to avoid structures wherever possible.  . . .  Dave Brookings mentioned that he had heard from Larry Wasserman, who concurred with moving the two alternatives identified by the group and the do nothing alternative forward.

COE draft response to 5/7/2001 FWS ltr

The primary purpose of this project is Flood Damage Reduction.  Whether or not the project purpose contains “fish and wildlife habitat improvements,” environmental features will still be part of any constructed project.  We assure you that the Corps will implement a project that adequately mitigates for any potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources.

“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.”

Dam storage “is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Puget Sound chinook salmon.”

PSE one-page handout describing their "fish enhancement" efforts.

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.

“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..”

“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.”

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”.

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.

“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.”