Final PaperPlan B PresentationSearch the WebpageFlood Video Links
Home PageRiver Issues
About the AuthorAsk the Angry CitizenDocument DirectoryDwelley TributeFred Slipper SoliloquiesGlossary of Flood WordsHistorical ArticlesLinksPhoto GalleryQuote of the MonthRain Gauge
E-mail the Author

 

Date

Title

Summary
Wild & Scenic Skagit River Issues Page
7/9/1965 Series of MFRs & Letters Mostly Addressing 8 Possible Dam Sites and Impacts of Wild and Scenic River Act 7/9/65 8 sites were Cascade River, Lower Suiattle River; Upper Suiattle River; Upper Sauk River; Lower Sauk River; Cooper Creek; Thunder Creek; and Faber site (on Skagit about 6 miles upstream from Baker River).  7/1/65  "A decision to commit a portion o the river basin to a Wild (and Scenic) River category appears premature at this time.  6/18/65 "One hundred year flood protection is vitally necessary for continued progress in Skagit county. 6/29/65 The purpose of this meeting was to inform Seattle Light representatives of our proposed upstream storage studies in the Skagit River basin, determine sites at which City Light has made studies, and obtain data on power studies made by the city. 4/7/65  Ltr fm private engineering company to Corps re Cape Horn.
See also: 8/12/1965 DF re Skagit River Upstream Storage Geologic Reconnaissance
5/4/1966 Ltr to Seattle District fm Bureau of Outdoor Recreation re Status of Wild & Scenic Rivers Designations " In this case, we must consider the value of the Skagit River and its tributaries nationally as a unit of a National Wild River System as compared to the benefits a single project which could adversely affect the overall values involved."  ...  " we must consider the benefits of the Skagit as a unit of a National Wild River System as superior to those of the Lower Sauk Project.
4/29/1974 Skagit Conservation District ltr to Corps re Wild and Scenic River System designation for the Sauk River SCD didn't want designation because it would eliminate flood control structures on the Sauk River.  SCD demanded that "a feasibility study be made of both the Sauk River flood control structure and the Avon Bypass by the COE before allowing any classification of the river.

7/19/1974

 Skagit Conservation District ltr to Corps SCD wanted public meeting in Sept. so the Corps could discuss Sauk River dam and Avon Bypass concepts and the impacts of the Wild & Scenic River act because, "It has been a long time since either the Avon Bypass or the Sauk Dam have been discussed here."
4/22/1975 Ltr to Representative Meeds fm BCC re Wild & Scenic River Study "The immediate purpose of this letter is to request that you direct the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to undertake feasibility studies of a flood control dam on the  Sauk River and that you secure necessary funds to allow completion of these studies as soon as possible."
5/7/1975 Congressman Meeds ltr to Corps re scenic river classification and feasibility study Congressman wanted to know if such a study had been done and didn't feel Wild and Scenic classification would be done before 1978 or 1979.
5/19/1975 Corps ltr to Congressman Meeds ltr to Corps re Sauk River dam "The studies that were undertaken as part of the comprehensive investigation were preliminary in nature and not intended to determine the feasibility of the Sauk project."
7/14/1977 Ltr to Corps Seattle District fm Port of Skagit County re potential deauthorization of the Avon Bypass.  Also has attached Port resolution concerning the Wild and Scenic River designation. The Port Commissioners do concur that the Avon Bypass project should be dropped. The proposal to cut through the valuable farm lands of the Skagit Delta is very hard to support.  We wish to specifically point out to you, however, that the proposed upgrading of levees on the Skagit River from I-5 at Mount Vernon to Skagit Bay and your suggested release of flood control storage on the upper Baker Dam leave a great deal to be desired. Frankly, the purpose is far inadequate. Port did not want the River west of the Town of Concrete to be considered in the Wild and Scenic River Designation and wanted maintenance dredging and siltation ponds constructed along with 75 year protection levees..
2/14/1978 Corps MFR re Wild & Scenic Rivers Act Status "Further, Mr. Mead is proposing that a clause be written under the Values Section of Burton's bill that states that future riprapping be permitted to protect farmland along the upstream Skagit River reaches. The proposed Recreational classification does allow existing riprap to remain but precludes future placement.  . . . Of the five structural alternatives to be presented at the public meeting for the Skagit Levee and Channel Improvement project, the two which contain upstream storage are incompatible with the subject proposed legislation as currently written."
4/5/1978 April 5, 1978 Skagit County Flood Control Council Meeting Packet “The Skagit County Flood Control Council requests that the Army Corps of Engineers be given authority and funding for a study of a flood control structure on the Sauk River, to provide long-germ flood protection for the Skagit River. The Skagit County Flood Control Council asks the Congressman, should the Skagit River System be included into the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, that such legislation insure that none of the flood control measures necessary for long term flood protection, be precluded from the Act.”
4/13/1978 Corps Telephone or Verbal Conversation Record re t/c re Wild & Scenic Rivers Classification Nuclear Power Plant could have still been constructed under the proposed designation of the Skagit as Wild and Scenic.
6/15/1978 Letter from US Senator Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson to Skagit County Flood Control Council Senator Jackson understands Wild & Scenic Legislation has “a provision to allow for rip-rapping along the Skagit to protect farmland.”
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.”
2/6/1979 Letter to Congressman Al Swift - RE: Legislation Request for Levee Improvement Project “With the Sauk River inclusion into the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the possibility of upriver storage as a means of flood control is very remote. With the loss of this means of flood protection, the Levee Project is the last acceptable flood protection available. It is now very necessary that legislation be prepared and passed in this session of Congress authorizing the Skagit River Levee Channel Improvement Project to extend from the mouth of both forks upstream to the City of Sedro Woolley, Washington and to authorize the higher degree of protection now proven to be cost effective.”
12/14/1982 Skagit County Flood Control Committee Chairman Letter to Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Supervisor RE: Wild and Scenic Rivers Management Plan “As a large part of the flood damage will occur to property outside the authority of the Act, with much of the cause due to the conditions corning from within the classified section of the river, this Committee would sincerely hope that the Forest Service, in its management of the classified section of the Skagit River, would use its authority to cooperate with the efforts of Skagit County to provide adequate flood protection for the entire Skagit River Valley.”
6/26/2009 Sauk River Comprehensive Flood/Erosion Control Management Plan “As with any effort of this magnitude, it is difficult to distill the Sauk River into a few paragraphs. The Sauk lives up to its’ designation as a Wild and Scenic River, with emphasis on the Wild. At high flow, the river is powerful, erosive, and can change channels in multiple locations during any given event. To address this dilemma of a quickly changing river and Stakeholders desire to impart order amongst the chaos, Snohomish and Skagit counties embarked on a Comprehensive Flood/Erosion Hazard Management plan. The plan is a quantitative document that provides Stakeholders unprecedented opportunity for informed decision making.”