This webpage is to inform readers of updates to the website. The updates will remain for a period of three months and then will be replaced with the following month.
Downloadable Readers
| Date |
Title |
Summary |
| July 2010 | ||
| LJK Documents | ||
7/18/2010 |
Low Low Water in Puget Sound vs. Mean Sea Level | “When you make the adjustment of 8.93 feet to the
published values and then subtract the impacts of upstream dam storage it is
very possible that the 1990, 1995, 2003 flood events mirror the 1906, 1917 and
1921 flood events.” |
| City of Burlington Documents | ||
| 7/8/2010 |
Final Environmental Impact Statement/FEIS To Adopt A Strategic Program for Comprehensive Flood Hazard Mitigation in the Burlington Urban Area and Adjacent Land With A Range of Structural and Non-Structural Components | “Over 3.5 million square
feet of commercial and industrial construction and over 1400 dwelling units have
been built between 1995 and 2008, based on the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) adopted in 1985. Only 216 acres of vacant land are available within the
City Limits. Because of the growth since 1995, the need
to protect the existing urban built environment against the Base Flood is very
important for the economic vitality of the community.” |
| FEMA Documents | ||
| 6/30/2010 |
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Packet for Skagit County | This is a 65MB PDF file hosted by Skagit County
Government containing the maps and assorted documents. See Also: Flood Insurance Study for Skagit County, Washington and Incorporated Areas - Revised June 30, 2010, See Also: 1981-1984 FEMA-BFE Flood Research |
| 6/30/2010 |
FEMA Region X Mitigation Division Director Letter to Burlington Mayor | “Your community and others will have
90 days from the receipt of this letter to review the enclosed copies of the
DFIRM and FIS report. The review period provides your community and others with
an opportunity to identify changes or corrections to non-technical information,
such as corporate limits, road names (within or adjacent to SFRAs), bridges, and
streams labels, presented on the DFIRM or in the FIS report. ... During the
course of preparing the countywide DFIRM and FIS report, we added or modified
BFEs where appropriate. Therefore, following the 90-day review period and the
flood study review meeting, we will initiate a statutory 90-day appeal period
for the new or modified BFEs. We will send you a letter approximately 2 weeks
before the start of the 90-day appeal period to detail the appeal process.” |
| 6/30/2010 |
Flood Insurance Study for Skagit County, Washington and Incorporated Areas - Revised June 30, 2010 | “The hydrologic analysis was based
on flows developed for the Skagit River near Concrete at River Mile 54.1. This
location was the focal point for several reasons. There has been a stream gage
(U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gage #12149000) at this location since October
1924 and there are four additional significant historical peaks that were
estimated for this location. The stream gage encompasses 88% of the total
drainage area of the Skagit River (2,737 square miles). ...
The data for the Skagit River near Concrete provides a
firm foundation to determine the magnitude and frequency of floods in the Skagit
River Basin.” |
| 6/30/2010 |
Flood Profiles for Revised as of June 30, 2010 FIS | 70 pages of projections of Skagit River Flood Risk at various stretches of the Skagit River and tributaries such as the Sauk River, Baker River and Cascade River. |
| 7/23/2010 |
U.S. Senator Thad Cochran: Cochran Legislation Elicits FEMA Action On Flood Insurance | “FEMA will establish a process for
communities to appeal to an independent review panel when direct
FEMA-to-community consultations falter. A five-member scientific resolution
panel, three of whom would be selected by appellant communities, would be formed
from a predetermined list of qualified and independent experts. The panel would
have a set timeline to review scientific and technical information submitted by
communities to challenge FEMA findings.” See Also: Parameters for the Flood Mapping Scientific Resolution Panel |
| 7/23/2010 |
Parameters for the Flood Mapping Scientific Resolution Panel | “National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) participating communities are strongly urged to collaborate with FEMA
throughout the study of their flood hazards, providing available data, models,
and other scientific information that would enhance the final Flood Insurance
Rate Map and avoid appeals. When such appeals are necessary, community
consultation is the preferred method of resolution. Such consultation allows for
collaborative evaluation and discussion of the conflicting data between FEMA and
the appellant and usually facilitates a mutually acceptable resolution. On
occasions when community consultation cannot produce a mutually acceptable
resolution, the Panel will be made available. The Panel will be made up of
experts on hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences, as they apply to
the development of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs)for FEMA flood studies.”
See Also: U.S. Senator Thad Cochran: Cochran Legislation Elicits FEMA Action On Flood Insurance |
| Skagit County Document | ||
| 7/6/2010 |
Skagit County Public Works and Planning Briefing of Skagit County Commissioners RE: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps on Skagit 21 |
Skagit County Commissioners and staff discuss the released FEMA Flood Insurance
Rate Maps for the Skagit River from Concrete to the mouth. Items of
discussion include options of appeal and financing to address the Skagit River
Flood Risk. See also: June 30, 2010 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Packet for Skagit County (65 MB PDF file), & June 15, 2010 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Update - Status of Flood Mapping for Skagit County plus October 29, 2007 Public Meeting - Skagit County Community Update Regarding FEMA Flood Mapping |
| Guest Documents | ||
| 7/7/2010 |
Snoqualmie Valley Preservation Alliance: Citizen group takes legal action against Army Corps of Engineers over flooding | “Calling legal action “the only means to dig out
the truth about increased flooding,” the Snoqualmie Valley Preservation Alliance
(SVPA), a nonprofit group of farmers and residents in the Snoqualmie Valley,
today filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court against the U.S, Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps). At issue is the Corps' approval of a new Snoqualmie Falls
river widening project by Puget Sound Energy (PSE) and the Corps' complete
failure to consider whether the project will cause flooding in the lower valley.” |
| 7/20/2010 |
US Senator Patty Murray: Senator Murray Secures Funding for Critical Washington State Water Priorities | Senator Murray gets $1.137 Million for Skagit GI
Study thru part of Congressional appropriation process. Says, “This
funding would allow the Army Corps of Engineers to analyze possible flood
control projects to protect citizens and infrastructure that would be impacted
by a flood event on the Skagit River.” |
| General Webpage Updates for July 2010 | ||
| 2010 Candidates Issues Page | Hyperlinks without endorsement to US Senate, US House of Representatives and Skagit County Commissioner candidates who discuss the Skagit River Flood Issue. | |
| Quote of the Month | One solid reason why studies exist... | |
| Rain Gauge |
Updating for June 2010 totals. |
|
| June 2010 | ||
| Corps Documents | ||
| 3/2/1907 | USACE Survey Map of the Skagit River in the Sterling Area | A wonderful piece of history showing depths of the river, height of the 1906 flood event, location of the Balls Riffle Ferry, pioneer farming family residences, location of the 1897 and 1907 channels, as well as surveys of land elevations. Notice all depths are based on Low Low Water (i.e. different then sea level today). |
| 12/1978 | USACE Levee Improvement Study Studygram December 1978 | Analysis of proposals to improve levees from the
3-Bridge Corridor to the delta for the 1979 Levee Improvement proposals that
failed at the polls. One alternative, 3D, would provide, “29,700
acres of land” See also: 1979 Levee Improvement Project Historical Index |
| 8/21/1997 | Skagit Fisheries Investigation Feasibility Study | “It has been inferred that the
massive loss of slough habitat in the lower Skagit River has reduced
overwintering productivity of the river and placed increasing pressure on the
few remaining sloughs. A survey should be completed to quantify the amount of
slough habitat currently open to fish passage along the project area and to
quantify any further loss of slough habitat due to the proposed project.
If losses occur beyond the current condition,
engineering solutions to retain adequate fish passage should be devised.” |
| 7/9/2002 | News Release Showing Partnership between Corps of Engineers and Nature Conservancy | Interesting to note there was no mention of the Baker River Dams which later the Nature Conservancy worked to make sure no additional storage would be made available for flood reduction impacts on the landowners along the Skagit River. |
| 7/9/2002 | Series of e-mails expressing concern over TNC/Corps Joint Press Release | “If that is
not possible we can do damage control with Seattle City Light (Ross, etc.) and
Puget Sound Energy (who operates the Baker River projects) but it benefits
neither USACE nor TNC to create the impression that we are going to conspire to
dictate operational changes to dams neither of us owns.” |
| 11/20/2002 | MFR for USACE Re: Policy and legal issues created by a diversion alternative that directs floodwater to the Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (PBNERR) and CZMA | “The purpose of this memorandum is
to discuss whether the designations of a Marine Protected Area and a National
Estuarine Research Reserve impose protections on Padilla Bay that would be
relevant to a diversion alternative which directs floodwaters to PBNERR. After
careful review, it is the legal opinion of this office that the designations
enjoyed by Padilla Bay present significant legal issues with regard to the
viability of the proposed diversion alternative.” |
| FEMA Documents | ||
| 5/19/2010 | An Evaluation of Flood Frequency Analyses for the Skagit River, Skagit County, Washington | “The impact of the historic peak
discharge revisions and new data resulted in the regulated 1-percent annual
chance (base) discharge decreasing from 226,400 cfs to 209,500 cfs.
... Based on this review, it was concluded that no
changes are warranted in the USACE (2008) hydrologic analysis.”
See Also: FEMA Region X E-mail, Re: Status Update |
| 5/27/2010 | Letter to Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority (of California), Re: FEMA Levee Certification | What it takes to get FEMA to certify a levee.
FEMA also warned, “Even though we plan to map the referenced levee
system as providing protection from the 1-percent-annual-chance flood, it is
important to note that levees are only designed to provide a specific level of
protection. They can be overtopped or fail in larger flood events. ... When
levees do fail, they fail catastrophically, and damage may be more significant
than if the levee was not there.” |
| 6/15/2010 | FEMA Region X E-mail, Re: Status Update on FIRMs | “The Preliminary FIS and associated
maps are expected to be sent to all Skagit County communities on or near June
30, 2010. This study is county-wide and will extend from Concrete downstream to
the bay. All communities in the County are encouraged to review the maps and
take a close look at the new conditions shown. ... Along with the preliminary
FIS, we are also looking at HAZUS (emergency management
and economic loss estimation tool) to evaluate a series of scenarios to
determine relative change in damages and flood depths. This product is
non-regulatory but helps isolate various levels of risk associated with the
flood hazard. It is also a modeling tool frequently used by Emergency Managers
to evaluate potential debris, displaced population, and response planning.
The data used in the modeling was provided by the County.” See Also: |
| Skagit County Documents | ||
| 6/15/2010 |
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Update - Status of Flood Mapping for Skagit County Commissioners on Skagit 21 |
FEMA and Skagit County Government have a meeting regarding the upcoming
re-release of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps/FIRMs for all of Skagit County. See also: An Evaluation of Flood Frequency Analyses for the Skagit River, Skagit County, Washington & FEMA Region X E-mail, Re: Status Update on FIRMs |
| Skagit County Flood Control Zone Advisory Committee Documents | ||
| 6/19/2010 | Draft as of June 19, 2010 of Chapter 7 of CFHMP: History of Flood Management | This section of the CFHMP discusses the studies conducted and some of their findings on the Skagit River so far. |
| 6/21/2010 | Agenda for June 21, 2010 Meeting/Handout 1 | Meeting will be to plan future flood control efforts thru a Blueprint and also the first draft of the Combined Flood Hazard Management Plan/CFHMP. |
| 6/21/2010 | “Ellestad estimates the cost to finish the study is approximately $3 million. The County’s match thus far has been met by contracts with technical consultants, county staff time, and funding from DOE. The County is reviewing the PMP and is negotiating to be responsible for tasks that have obvious “added” value to local cities and dike districts in order to complete them in a timely manner. Identified match for the Skagit GI will be submitted as part of the projected Fund 110 budget and vetted through the county budget process for approval. It was decided to not request funding for the CFHMP. However, the AC agreed to send a letter to the Board of Skagit County Commissioners to ensure their monetary support of the Skagit GI.” | |
| 4/30/2010 | Listing of various tasks the State Department of Ecology is funding on Skagit River Risk Management from among other things seeking full GI study funding, working to get correct Flood Insurance Study/FIS maps and the buy-out of six Cape Horn properties. Also managing the Baker River hydroelectric project as, “Skagit County continues to be confident that the additional flood control at the Baker River Hydroelectric project will be compatible with other project purposes and provide additional protection benefits for endangered Chinook salmon by reducing bed scour during flood events.” | |
| 5/10/2010 | Skagit County Commissioners recognize resignations and replacements on the Flood Control Zone District committees. | |
| USGS Documents | ||
| 1916 | Water Supply Paper 419: Profile Surveys in 1915 in Skagit River Basin, Washington | An early Water Supply Paper/WSP about Skagit County. |
| Guest Documents | ||
| 5/16/2010 | Everett Herald: Glacier Peak Hazard Zones | A must-see graphic on the Everett Herald website
on the “very high threat” that Glacier Peak is. See also: Everett Herald: Our volcano: Glacier Peak is the hidden threat in our back yard |
| 5/16/2010 | Everett Herald: Our volcano: Glacier Peak is the hidden threat in our back yard | “Glacier Peak is one of 18 volcanoes
in the U.S. listed as a “very high threat.” It made the list because its
historical record shows it erupts frequently and on a large scale. It last
erupted about 240 years ago, just before the Revolutionary War, and its last
major eruption was about 1,800 years ago.” See also: Everett Herald: Glacier Peak Hazard Zones |
| 6/7/2010 | Letter from Western Washington State Congressional Delegation to Assistant Secretary for Civil Works, Army | “Additionally, as you know, several
populations of salmon in Washington State are listed species under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). As a result of this listing, levee operators in
the impacted Washington river basins must comply with the ESA, which in most
cases means vegetation that provides shade to cool the water temperature must be
planted on a levee. Levees required to be in compliance with the ESA could
simultaneously be in conflict with proposed Corps vegetation standards if no
variance is kept in place. This could also result in levees being decertified or
not being accredited if the FEMA standards are not met.” |
| 6/9/2010 | Recent GAO Work on Disaster Recovery: FEMA’s Long-term Assistance Was Helpful to State and Local Governments but Had Some Limitations | GAO Presentation to the 13th Annual FEMA Emergency
Management Higher Education Conference. One of GAO's recommendations was,
“Establish a long-term recovery structure that more effectively aligns
the timing and level of federal involvement with the capacity and needs of of
state and local governments” |
| General Webpage Updates for June 2010 | ||
| Quote of the Month | Consequences of turning the Nookachamps into an artificial reservoir. | |
| Rain Gauge |
Updating for May 2010 totals. |
|
| May 2010 | ||
| City of Burlington Documents | ||
| 4/24/2009 | Series of e-mails between Burlington and FEMA re: potential agreement to rely on the National Academy of Sciences to determine the hydrology of the Skagit River | FEMA concerned that there was nothing in the law or regulations that states the process being proposed by Burlington would have any legal binding implication. Potential cost estimate of $500,000 for NAS review. |
| 8/13/2009 | Burlington e-mail re GI study funding | “What frustrates me is, if we could
get the Corps to accept reasonable hydrology numbers, then no appeal would be
necessary and the money designated for technical and legal support for the
appeal could be put toward a real partnership funding effort on the GI. I would
really like to see that happen. And it wouldn’t just be Burlington: it could
also be Mount Vernon, Sedro-Woolley and several of the DDs. That would be a
compelling funding partnership.” |
| 12/16/2009 | Burlington e-mail re FEMA Press release re Preliminary Flood Maps | The comments in the press release certainly do present a question of the appearance of fairness and a conflict of interest. |
| 12/17/2009 | Burlington e-mail, re: new flood heights | “I am looking at our Burlington maps, and
comparing them to the Corps’ work product submittal to FEMA back in 2008, after
the Flo-2d issues were sorted out, and after Ted adjusted the hydrology for the
USGS historic floods, and adjusted his peak to one-day flow ratios. What I am
seeing, is base flood elevations 1-2 feet higher than the previous output –
about 1 foot higher generally on the east side of town, to 2 feet higher on the
west side, closer to the freeway. For example, the previous version had
the Cascade Mall at 34.5 feet. Now that is 36.7 feet. The first floor level of
the mall is 31 feet. ” |
| 1/12/2010 | Burlington e-mail re potential technical conference in DC | “I think we have a window of
opportunity here to address the foundational issue in this period before FEMA
reissues the maps. The arc of this story is: if we can get the hydrology
corrected, then the general atmosphere of frustration and ambivalence about the
GI study could be changed to enthusiastic support. And that could make an
eventual regional flood project possible. We might not be successful in this
effort. But I think now is the time to push, and push hard. I am not seeing a
better opportunity in the future.” |
| Corps of Engineers Documents | ||
| 5/14/1996 | Copy of check to Corps fm DD-17 with attached MFR (Memorandum for Record) re: PL 84-99 Levee Restoration Project #SKA-1-95 | “November 1995 was the
wetest November on record for most of Western Washington. . . . Average
channel velocities through the river reach covered by this report are estimated
to vary between 5 and 6.3 feet per second. . . . The
last Federal participation in repairs on this levee system was in 1991 at cost
of about $1,078,000. Prior Federal participation under PL 84-99 was in
1980 at a cost of about $16,000.” |
| 6/28/1996 | USCOE Seattle District ltr to DD-17 re attached Supplemental Agreement for FEMA projects #49965 & 49966. | 100% of cost to DD-17 estimated at $356,508 for "levee restoration". |
| Corps of Engineers GI Study Scoping Documents | ||
| 11/07/1997 | Intent To Prepare Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Skagit River Flood Damage Reduction Study, Skagit County Washington | Document informs the public about the scoping process. |
| 11/19/1997 | Corps Letter to Citizens | Letter informs citizens of the Scoping Process. |
| 12/11/1997 | Public Meeting Notice re Scoping | Document describes the purpose and what was going to happen at the meeting. |
| 3/30/1998 | Draft Questions and Comments re Scoping | Any "GI Study" conducted by the Corps must reinitiate the scoping process. This document shows the concerns and Corps responses to the last scoping notice in 1998. |
| 7/12/2002 | Scoping Talking Points |
“Using current data for hydraulic modeling and economic
analysis, results indicated that the flood damage potential for the Skagit delta
was much greater than previously thought. Habitat restoration has also been
added as an element of the project. The potential multi-benefits of the project
are very significant.” |
| FEMA Documents | ||
| 3/11/1996 | Interagency Levee Coordination Committee Review Form and Supporting Documents for PL 84-99 work on Dike District 17 Levees Completed by Corps of Engineers | One of several projects for DD-17 due to damages during 1995 flood event. (Interesting answers to Yes/No questions). |
| 12/3/2009 | Series of E-mails between Burlington & FEMA re: Certifying Levee Segments |
“One thing that I think would really help in a discussion
is a bit more detail on the design concept. There is not
really such a thing as a “certified levee segment”. 44 CFR 65.2b defines
certification. One part states “Certification of structural works is a statement
that the works are designed in accordance with sound engineering practices to
provide protection from the base flood” (emphasis added).” |
| Skagit County Documents | ||
| 1/4/2010 | Series of e-mail exchanges re meeting with FEMA | “FEMA will propose the vague series
of open houses where they cannot get nailed on the issues, so we might want to
consider a forum or two where they are tied into being forced to give answers
that can be recorded: such as “we are confident and right” and “you have to
appeal and you are screwed anyway”.” |
| 1/6/2010 | nhc Draft Memorandum Re: Skagit Hydrology Documentation Update – Outstanding Issues |
nhc finds that the GI study has issues
around
“Consideration of Seasonal Variation in Flood Control
Storage” Also, “Many of the large floods in the historical record have however occurred in November or even October (e.g. the flood of October 2003) when required flood control storage is substantially less than that assumed in the current existing condition analyses. ... Some indication of the effects of having less than the full amount of flood control storage is provided by the comparison of regulated and unregulated discharges. After considering seasonal weighting of regulated flows (approximately 40% of floods occur before 1 December) we expect that the 100-year regulated discharge at Mount Vernon could increase by between 5,000 and 10,000 cfs.” |
| 5/5/2010 | nhc Memo Re: Skagit River 1921 High Water Marks |
“(It is perhaps also worth pointing out Stewart’s comment
that “the only elevations available, when the flood crest is based on high water
marks, is the crest of the surges, whereas what is needed is the mean level of
the water at the time of the flood crest”.) It remains our opinion that given
the available HWMs, there is considerable scope for uncertainty in the slope
area measurements of the 1921 peak discharge.” See also: nhc Re-Evaluation of the Magnitude of Historic Floods On the Skagit River Near Concrete Revised Final Report, USGS responses to issues raised by the Technical Memorandum, “Review and reevaluation of Skagit River 1921 flood peak discharge.” and Correction Memo for 5/6/2010 USGS responses to issues raised by the Technical Memorandum, “Review and reevaluation of Skagit River 1921 flood peak discharge.” |
| Skagit County Flood Control Zone Advisory Committee Documents | ||
| 1986 | RCW 86.26.105: Comprehensive flood control management plan — Requirements — Time for completion. |
“A comprehensive flood control management plan shall be
completed and adopted within at least three years of the certification
that it is being prepared, as provided in RCW 86.26.050. If after
this three-year period has elapsed such a comprehensive flood control
plan has not been completed and adopted, grants for flood control
maintenance projects shall not be made to the county or municipal
corporations in the county until a comprehensive flood control plan is
completed and adopted by the appropriate local authority.” |
| 1/21/2001 | WAC 173-145-040: Comprehensive flood control management plan | What must be in the CFHMP/CFCMP by state statute. |
| 5/3/2010 | Skagit Flood Planning “Blueprint” Discussion Purpose |
“The AC needs direction and funding to move forward.” |
| 5/10/2010 | Skagit Flood Planning Blueprint Discussion Notes |
“Todd: Need to determine who is in charge – this especially
needs to be resolved.” “Bob: Leadership is needed as a core group.” “Esco: Coming up with a plan is not high on a priority list. There is a need to work through the priorities of the individual groups.” “Leonard: Advised that he had been part of a Recon study before – when it was presented to the County Commissioners, they did not like it & threw it out. Since then the Commissioners and the Corp have been at odds.” |
| 5/17/2010 | Agenda for May 17, 2010 Meeting |
Bulk of meeting is to, “Continue Conversation Regarding
Funding to Complete Planning Process.” |
| 4/19/2010 | “Boudinot opened the
discussion with two questions: 1.) How does the County plan to fund the
Skagit GI and 2.) Is it possible to devote a source of funding towards
building projects? The County is going to need a dedicated funding
source in order to meet its match requirement for funding the Skagit GI,
which comes to approximately $2 million over the next two years. The
Board of Skagit County Commissioners (BCC) is going to have to decide
how the County goes about meeting this match.” |
|
| 6/26/2007 | LJK Presentation to Skagit County Commissioners urging formation of a flood agency and excise sales tax to be used specifically for flood project construction. | |
| USGS Documents | ||
| 5/6/2010 | USGS responses to issues raised by the Technical Memorandum, “Review and reevaluation of Skagit River 1921 flood peak discharge.” | “Because they do not represent peak flow
conditions, the USGS generally disregards the lower highwater marks in favor of
the higher marks, particularly when multiple highwater marks provide
confirmation of those higher elevations.” See Also: nhc Re-Evaluation of the Magnitude of Historic Floods On the Skagit River Near Concrete Revised Final Report, Correction Memo for 5/6/2010 USGS responses to issues raised by the Technical Memorandum, “Review and reevaluation of Skagit River 1921 flood peak discharge.” and nhc Memo Re: Skagit River 1921 High Water Marks |
| 5/7/2010 | Correction Memo for 5/6/2010 USGS responses to issues raised by the Technical Memorandum, “Review and reevaluation of Skagit River 1921 flood peak discharge.” | “Rereading these notes, the HWM at
the upper gage was at an elevation of 27.468 feet (gage datum) not 27.714 feet.
It was located at the upper section of the upper gage not the current gage. The
recorded gage height for the February 27, 1932 peak was 27.30 feet (gage datum)
at the current gage.” See Also: nhc Re-Evaluation of the Magnitude of Historic Floods On the Skagit River Near Concrete Revised Final Report and USGS responses to issues raised by the Technical Memorandum, “Review and reevaluation of Skagit River 1921 flood peak discharge.” |
| Guest Documents | ||
| 2/2009 | Fisher Slough Fact Sheet | “Fisher Slough historically supported
dynamic tidal and non-tidal wetlands. To claim land for agricultural purposes,
tide gates and levees were installed decades ago. Today, the slough and its
lower tributaries are confined and filled with invasive non-native plants; the
historic alluvial fan has been eliminated; and natural flooding and tidal events
are almost non-existent. The net results are a reduction in extent and diversity
of wetlands, reduced accessibility for fish, degraded water quality and a
reduction in flood storage capacity.” |
| 2/2009 | Fisher Slough Project Maps | Two pages of maps showing how the Nature Conservancy and other partners work to restore Fisher Slough on the South Fork Skagit River to its natural habitat and floodplain management capacities. |
| 5/19/2010 | US Senator David Vitter Press Release: Vitter Secures Corps Reform Commitments, Pushes for Further Accountability | “From the beginning, this
disagreement was about holding the Corps' feet to the fire and demanding that a
broken and irresponsible bureaucracy be held accountable.” |
| 5/26/2010 | The Columbia Daily Tribune - Taming the River | “Enter the Army Corps of
Engineers, the hapless agency years ago given the impossible task of satisfying
irreconcilable differences so many generations in the making. Finally the corps
came up with a plan for water management, but after a few years complaining
persists and Congress has commissioned a $25 million study. Nobody, including
the group conducting the study, thinks it is likely to bring mutual happiness.
Apparently Congress had to do something, so we shall have another study.” Sound like Skagit County? |
| General Webpage Updates for May 2010 | ||
| Angry Citizen | Hypocrisy and the Skagit River Flood Risk. | |
| Quote of the Month | One reason why a comprehensive plan is needed for the Skagit River Flood Risk reduction projects. | |
| Rain Gauge |
Updating for April 2010 totals. |
|
| April 2010 | ||
| City of Burlington Documents | ||
| 7/12/1982 | Summary Report for DEIS - Hydraulic Investigations: Cascade Mall at Burlington | A 13-page report on hydrology, circa 1982, on the
hydraulics and hydrology of Burlington & Gages Slough. “The
Corps further reported that nearly the entire runoff from the town of Burlington
drains into Gages Slough.” |
| 4/1983 | Supplemental Hydraulics Investigation to the Cascade Mall | Hydraulic calculations about how a
100-year flood would proceed through Burlington City Limits. NOTE:
This report was never accepted by FEMA. “Cascade
Mall hydraulic study could not be supported by any scientific or technical data.” |
| 11/30/2009 | E-mail from Burlington Planning Director to FEMA, RE: ESA Issues | “The Floodway here is specifically limited to the
area between the levees, and extending landward from the toe a distance of 300
feet in the city and 500 feet in the county.” |
| Corps of Engineers Documents | ||
| 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 | Excerpts from Report on Survey for Flood Control of Skagit River and Tributaries | Paragraphs suggest a design of 250,000 CFS at
Mount Vernon. Skagit County failed to reconcile those statements here with
their record of 11 floods from 1896 to 1950 with a flood volume of 100,000 CFS
to 195,000 CFS, proving the hydrology of the Skagit River was in question as
early as fifty years ago. See: Ltr to Colonel R.P. Young, US COE, Seattle District, Re: Legislative Council Meeting |
| FEMA Documents | ||
| 12/8/2009 | FEMA E-mail to Burlington, Re: Meeting to Update Region X on Dike 12 / Burlington "Certified Levee Segment" Concept | List of 5 things necessary for addressing floodplain development . |
| 1/2010 | Model Ordnance: Floodplain Management and the Endangered Species Act | Current recommendation from FEMA Region X on a draft model ordinance for all local jurisdictions to implement. |
| 3/17/2010 | Michael Baker, Jr. Corp Summary of the Skagit River Hydrology Technical Meeting |
“Ted Perkins, FEMA, indicated that a Technical Memorandum was being
prepared with responses to questions raised by the County and the City of
Burlington. This Technical Memorandum will be provided with revised copies of
the Preliminary FIRM. Ted also indicated that release of the revised Preliminary
FIRM was held up pending the outcome of the March 17 meeting. ...
Ted indicated that a meeting will be held with community
officials (without the public) to discuss the Technical Memorandum and the
revised Preliminary FIRM.” |
| 4/8/2010 |
“As a foundational comment, FEMA's Model Ordinance
suffers the same fatal flaw as the BiOp itself: it is bipolar. On the one hand,
the BiOp repeatedly acknowledges that the majority of the 100 year floodplain
and floodplain habitat in the Puget Sound region has been modified, channelized
or otherwise developed and, therefore, provides no habitat functions or benefits
for endangered species. BiOp at 146. At the same time, the BiOp asserts that
virtually every inch of the 100 year floodplain in the Puget Sound region should
be protected from development to achieve the BiOp' s goal of ensuring that
development in the floodplain "will not result in adverse habitat effects." BiOp
at 156.” |
|
| Skagit County Documents | ||
| 5/3/1960 | Ltr to Colonel R.P. Young, US COE, Seattle District, Re: Legislative Council Meeting | “Why is it so hard to get an acceptable cost benefit ratio for diking protection of the Skagit River, when in 1936 Congress approved the Avon Bypass and supported dike systems. Please refer to paragraphs 68, 91 and 92 of the 1952 copy of "Report on Survey for Flood Control of Skagit River and Tributaries", Copy No. 43. Your report suggests a design of 250,000 C.F.S. at Mount Vernon. We fail to reconcile these statements with our record of eleven floods from 1896 to I960 and with a flood volume of 100,000 C.F.S. to 195,000 C.F.S.” |
| Skagit County Flood Control Zone Advisory Committee Documents | ||
| 4/19/2010 | Agenda for April 19, 2010 Meeting | Meeting is to review membership, funding issues, updating the draft CFHMP as well as the recent trip to D.C. for federal assistance. |
| 4/7/2010 |
2nd District Congressional Meeting Senator Murray and Skagit County Community Agenda |
Meeting w/ US Senator Patty Murray on attempting to get funding for the Corps of Engineers Skagit General Investigation Study. |
| 4/7/2010 |
List of Tasks Left to Do in Skagit GI Study as of April 7, 2010 and What's Funded |
As per title. |
| 2/16/2010 | “The Skagit GI project delivery team is also reviewing the scope of work to complete the 10% design and cost estimates for each measure. This information will feed into the USACE’s HEC- Federal Damages Assessment model to establish whether there is a Federal interest in pursuing a flood project in the Skagit River basin. ” | |
| 4/19/2010 | Most recent draft of CFHMP Executive Summary. | |
| Swinomish Tribal Documents | ||
| 7/22/1992 | Skagit System Cooperative ltr to Skagit County re Sediment Pond Construction on Hansen Creek | “...this project as proposed, will have adverse impacts upon the treaty protected fisheries' resources in the Hansen Creek watershed.” |
| 10/28/1996 | Skagit System Cooperative ltr to DFW re Hansen Creek Dredging and Red Creek Flood Gate | “We need to get away from the "same old way" of handling these chronic problems.” |
| Washington State Dept. of Ecology Documents | ||
| 8/2/1999 | DOE Ltr to USACOE Seattle District re: GI Study -- Concerns over Swinomish Bypass Impacts on Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve | Although the final nail in the coffin of a Bypass concept was not to come for several years (See County e-mail killing diversion channel efforts), this letter was the beginning of the end of one of the more responsible flood control alternatives. |
| Washington State Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Documents | ||
| 9/17/1998 | Dept of Fish & Wildlife Ltr to Skagit County re Hanson Creek Dredging Project | “The less frequent the dredging, the fewer fish are killed and the more the channel and bank vegetation can recover. ” |
| Guest Documents | ||
| 4/2010 | Institute for Policy Integrity: The Distributional Consequences of the NFIP | “The program encourages building in floodplains by providing insurance policies that private insurers find too risky to write. The less expensive it is to insure a property in the floodplain against loss, the stronger the incentive to build in that floodplain and the more risk becomes concentrated in areas covered by the NFIP. The geographic concentration of risk helped to create the debt crisis the program faces today: a single flood event can affect a great number of covered properties, none of which have paid insurance premiums at a market rate.” |
| 4/2010 | University of Washington Climate Impacts Group Draft Report | “Under a warmer future climate, more winter precipitation falling as rain, rather than snow, will intensify winter flood risk for warmer transient basins.” |
| General Webpage Updates for April 2010 | ||
| Quote of the Month | Fifty years ago, Skagit River hydrology was also in doubt. | |
| Rain Gauge |
Updated for March 2010 totals. |
|