| Date |
Title |
Summary |
| 2014 Draft Feasibility GI Study Comments Draft Index | ||
| 7/14/2014 | Comment Letter Re: Skagit River GI Study DEIS | LJK Comments on the Skagit River GI Study DEIS.
See also: 5/2014 Skagit River Flood Risk Management General Investigation Skagit County, Washington Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement |
| 5/19/2014 | David Anderson Comments |
“My recommendation is one should only consider the alternative...
Setback Entire Levee System. ... Any bypass, Joe Learly Slough,
Swinomish, or Fir Island, should not be done as anyone of these will
remove valuable farmland and most likely will divide current farm
ownership.” |
| 6/14/2014 | Unsigned Comments | |
| 6/19/2014 | Transcript of June 19, 2014 Army Corps of Engineers Public Hearing |
“I'm disappointed that I feel like this is pitting community against
community, and isn't really being supportive of the County. I feel like
the city -- and it's pretty obvious if you look at the numbers,
Burlington is the big winner. La Conner doesn't even come out that far
ahead in this plan. And those of us who live outside the City of
Burlington, and who aren't friends with the Corps, and don't meet with
them every week or so, are really getting the short of the stick. If
there's any way that our comments could make any changes, I'd feel
better about this, but I've been to other of these meetings, and I've
heard other comments and it doesn't seem like it is in consideration.” . . . “The preferred alternative here for District 12 Dike is the ugly. They've been a problem for 50 years, maybe 100, they've passed the water up river, Sterling, (inaudible) Sedro-Woolley, Clear Lake. They passed it down river to all the rest of the dike districts and Fir Island.” |
| 6/20/2014 | Fred Wright Comments |
“In the long run, occasional dredging will not be as expensive as the
extensive dike work you propose, which will put certain rural areas in
more danger, but supposedly save the towns along the river. Quite
frankly, I believe the general populace is more important than our small
towns. By dredging the mouth, a larger area of floodplain will be less
likely to flood. I’ve heard all the excuses for not dredging, and none
of them are valid. (in my opinion). |
| 6/20/2014 | Heidi Herder Comments |
“The National Flood Insurance Program has to be mathematically solvent,
where insurance premiums are equal to claims. Right now, there is no
economic case for building a project, because the risk premiums are a
government subsidized welfare program, so the rates are cheaper than
building. When the risk premiums accurately reflect damges, then
communities can better see the rational payback on taxing themselves for
flood projects. |
| 7/3/2014 | Robert Dow Comments |
“The results of the Skagit River GI Study (which took too long and cost
too much) came as no surprise. There's an old saying, "Money talks and
bullshit walks" and it is obvious to anyone that there are hundreds of
millions of dollars in retail, real estate and residential n one side of
the river and a economically disadvantaged area with some farmland on
the other. I understand that Army Corps is interested in economic impact
and helping the most people. I also know that no plan is perfect.
However, it is obvious that the big win is for Burlington and Dike
District #12, while others of us, (SW, Clear Lake, Sterling,
Nookachamps, upriver communities) pay the price. Let me be specific
about my concerns: “• There is a clear "transference of risk". Skagit County has promised to try and minimize these risks but that is hardly reassuring. When I'm told we need to "mitigate" I'm uncertain what that means? Will I be compensated for this risk? Who will pay to raise my house (again)? I have to laugh when I read that we all need to, "Share the risk" when it is obvious everyone is not sharing. “• For me there have been questions about transparency and honesty between stake-holders. There have been instances where I suspected collusion in the process. I remain in awe that Dike Dist. #12 seems to be able to do as they wish. They, along with the City of Burlington, and to some extent Skagit County have not acted in good faith nor been truthful about their intent. I feel, "sold down the river". Ultimately, my home and property are expendable while others prosper from the plan. |
| 7/8/2014 | Dike District 17 Comments |
“The district supports the Corps Tentatively Selected Alterative of a
Comprehensive Urban Levee Improvement Plan. We believe this would be the
most effective way to keep the majority of our county's major
infrastructure secure from flood damages in the case of a large flood
event. This plan allows the district to provide a higher level of
protection to our urban community and keeps a majority of critical
infrastructure functioning. “The district also supports the potential for increased storage in the Baker River system. The increase in the amount of storage and the timing of that storage has a benefit to the entire Skagit basin. In the 2003 and 2006 floods of record, the enhanced levels of storage in the Baker System relieved the Skagit delta community from potentially higher impacts. This storage reduced the risk to life and property and lessoned flood related damages. The district feels written management practices and physical changes to the amount of dam storage will help ensure positive outcomes critical to the flood risk management in Skagit County. Dike District 17 will continue to support such a macro impact approach to flood control. |
| 7/9/2014 | A Resolution of the City of Sedro-Woolley, Washington Commenting on the Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement for the Skagit River Flood Risk Management General Investigation |
“Whereas, the City of Sedro-Woolley was an active partner in the Corps
of Engineers General Investigation of flooding on the Skagit River until
recently when the City was no longer included in meetings and
discussions about flood reduction alternatives including the process for
identifying the Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP), and ... therefore, be
it resolved by the City Council of the City of Sedro-Woolley: ... The
City Council of the City of Sedro-Woolley has grave concerns about the
possible transfer of flood risk from historical and traditional flood
prone areas which have been heavily developed in recent decades to areas
that developed over a century ago and which have never been at
significant risk of flooding as may be possible if the TSP is
constructed. |
| 7/10/2014 | Andrew and Krista Treadway Comments | |
| 7/10/2014 | City of Sedro-Woolley Mayor Mike Anderson Comments |
“To state it bluntly. Sedro-Woolley has been very supportive of the GI
Study, but always in the context of a river system-wide solution to
flood risk. This TSP leaves Sedro-Woolley out when it comes to reducing
flood risk and appears to increase flood risk to our community. We do
not support a plan to increase the risk of flooding in the City of
Sedro-Woolley. Indeed, the no action alternative appears be better for
Sedro-Woolley than the $280.000.000 CULI plan. We need a plan that takes
water out of the river system rather than moving water from high
assessed value businesses to lower assessed value residents. I
appreciate the opportunity to comment on behalf of the City of
Sedro-Woolley; I sincerely hope that these comments. as well as the
comments made in
Resolution 902-14 are taken seriously and incorporated into
the final EIS and a redesigned project. This TSP, as presented, is not
something we can support and if the USACE and Skagit County insist on
selecting the CULI. as presented in the feasibility report, our
community will have no choice but to actively fight this project. See also: 8/5/2014 City of Sedro-Woolley Additional Comments |
| 7/10/2014 | Skagit County Agricultural Advisory Board Comments |
“The fundamental issue that is not sufficiently addressed in the Skagit General
Investigation draft FR/EIS is the expedited removal of flood waters from the
floodplain after an event. The highest risk to public safety and costliest
damage to property is when flood water remains for extended time on the land and
over roads. What must be addressed, whether or not an alternative is
implemented, is construction of multiple outlet structures in the sea levees
that would open at low tide and allow the water to escape. ... To this end, the
Skagit County Agricultural Advisory Board supports the increase in the Baker Dam
storage. We also request that the Army Corp investigate and facilitate the
construction of outlet structures in appropriate locations to remove flood
waters from the floodplain. Thank you. |
| 7/11/2014 | Sharon Metcalf Comments | “We have to do something to protect
Sedro-Woollley. |
| 7/14/2014 | Kathleen Lathom Comments |
“River dredging and structures in the river to control sediment build up, clear
cut logging. |
| 7/14/2014 | Kelvey L. Melom Comments | “The fun part, raising the
dikes up is like moving the ceiling of your house up because the floor is dirty. |
| 7/14/2014 | Mike Blade Comments |
“Blade employs over 70 full-time staff and
generates approximately $60 million in sales revenue for the local economy
annually. Blade Chevrolet is in favor of the plan put forth in the Draft
Feasibility Report plan proposed by the Corps. It is imperative that the area
which now is annually put at risk be made safer and it appears that the plan as
proposed would do so in a cost-effective and environmentally responsible way. |
| 7/15/2014 | Gary T. Jones Comments |
“This letter comments on the draft Feasibility
Report & Environmental Impact Statement published June 6 and presented at a
public meeting on Thursday, June 19, 2014 in Mount Vernon. The undersigned
attended that meeting as a representative of Skagit County Consolidated Diking
Improvement District No. 22, Skagit County Diking District No. 17 and Skagit
County Diking District No. 3. Our office also advises Skagit County Drainage and
Irrigation Improvement Districts No. 15 and No. 17. ... “Skagit County and USACE made plans to flood proof Skagit County in earlier feasibility reports 1962 and 1979. Each time the people have been unwilling to vote local funding essential to implement the plan to reduce flood risks. Except for residents of Nookachamps and Fir Island, who suffered devastation in 1990 the majority of Skagit watershed residents have paid a low price for voting not to fund flood risk reduction. Whether events such as Katrina and the Chehalis flooding have changed public opinion remains to be seen. However, there is broad acceptance of the “Tentatively Selected Plan” because of the communication initiated by Skagit County government to inform citizens and the various municipal and special purpose district elected representatives serving locally. “The TSP is consistent with the essential elements of the Growth Management Act. The Act mandates population and public investment concentrated in urban areas. Natural resource lands and rural lands should be managed for low population density and high natural resource production. This vision of Skagit River watershed includes farms, forests, and fish as essential to a healthy community. The Districts urge the state and county government to align their plans for the Skagit watershed to reduce flood risk and realize a viable future with farms, forestry, and fish. In the short run the multijurisdictional hazard mitigation plan can do this. By building an early warning system, managing dams and keeping debris off bridges, coordinating the incident command structure, training leaders, including special purpose district commissioners and volunteers during annual flood awareness week drills, the Tentatively Selected Plan can reduce risk. |
| 7/15/2014 | Karen Leibrant Comments | |
| 7/15/2014 | Michael Ellis Comments |
“We survived Burlington's last attempts to dike
Gage's Slough, the city built a dike to protect Burlington properties during a
flooding event. This dike also backed flood waters up into my neighborhood. My
home was spared, some of my neighbors did not fare as well. Needless to say,
there has been a lot of speculation about all the soil Burlington has been
stockpiling, folks believe Burlington is going to use the dirt to build a levy
to protect Burlington residential and commercial properties. That's great for
Burlington, but the backed up flood water will affect everyone up river from it.
Property values will plummet (including mine). The city of Sedro-Woolley will
see major flooding in residential area that have not previously seen flooding.
As a police officer for Sedro-Woolley I fear for
the safety of our citizens, and know our small department will be woefully
unprepared to respond to a large scale flooding event. |
| 7/15/2014 | Sandi & Sherwin Phillips Comments |
“How is this going to impact my home, my family,
my mortage. Since when is one town more important than the next? I
FEAR for my home if the City of Sedro-Woolley is left out of these changes.
Are you going to pay to rebuild and replace for us?? |
| 7/16/2014 | John & Cheryl Bolden Comments |
“Ms. Hadley, “We are writing as concerned Sedro-Woolley citizens who are opposed to the Comprehensive Urban Levy Improvement Plan as it currently stands. We understand that it is important to view the big picture and what is best for all concerned. However it is nonsense to consider a plan that would or could protect some areas of Burlington and Mount Vernon and jeopardize an area in Sedro-Woolley with three schools on site, let alone many, many residences and historical buildings. That is quite unreasonable to sacrifice schools for malls and businesses. We feel that additional studies need to be completed and more information collected prior to any decisions regarding this plan. “The city of Sedro-Woolley needs to be represented in further meetings!! “John and Cheryl Bolden |
| 7/16/2014 | Elaine Wright Comments |
“When we moved to Skagit County 27 years ago, we
moved to Sedro Woolley. When we decided to build quality Built Green homes we
chose Sedro Woolley because it is a wonderful community and it the area doesn't
flood. We have nine properties in Sedro Woolley, seven are on Dunlop Avenue.
This area has never flooded; if the proposed levies go in, they will flood. We
will have to purchase flood insurance for all the houses. We will have to raise
the rent to cover our additional costs, which will reduce the number of people
who can afford the rent. In addition, forcing our property into the flood area
will reduce their market values. Had the property been in a flood area, we would
probably never built the houses. If we had decided, against all good sense, to
go ahead with the project, we would have certainly considered flood elevations
and flood mitigation measures prior to construction. . . . “Why should the few poorer people of Sedro Woolley have to pay the price for the not so smart richer people who built in a flood area? |
| 7/16/2014 | John Wright Comments |
“ |
| 7/16/2014 | Lisa Marie Swanson Comments |
“ “Recent SCOTUS decisions aside, here in my community, businesses aren't people, and people need to come first. The safety of the people, property, and pets of Sedro Woolley must have more priority than the profit of Burlington and Mount Vernon's businesses.” |
| 7/16/2014 | Natural Resources Conservation Service Comments |
“As a Federal agency, USACE has a
responsibility to lessen the effects of conversion activities on farmland and to
ensure that actions are compatible, to the extent practicable, with State,
local, and private programs to protect farmland. |
| 7/16/2014 | Unsigned Comments 01 |
“ |
| 7/17/2014 | Carol Bohmbach Comments | |
| 7/17/2014 | Elisabeth Waldron Comments |
“Flood insurance is expensive and many people
will not be able to afford it. I do not believe we should be forced by anyone to
pay for something we do not want to pay for. The people who live in the City of
Sedro-Woolley choose to live here because IT DOES NOT FLOOD HERE and we do not
have to pay flood insurance. |
| 7/17/2014 | Jeanette Hoffman Comments |
“I am asking that the levies not be raised in
Burlington causing more flood risk in Sedro-Woolley. This is not a
community that can absorb the additional costs of Flood Insurance or flood
damage. |
| 7/17/2014 | Joanne Swenson Comments |
“I've seen the river rise to Dunlop St & Township
St when it has flooded in the past. There is a ledge there. If dikes
are put in downriver to protect other cities from flooding, Sedro-Woolley will
surely flood! |
| 7/17/2014 | Kristi Curtin Comments |
“ |
| 7/17/2014 | Lea Shato Comments |
“ “If a solution to the flooding potential in Mount Vernon and Burlington can be managed in a different way, rather than increasing the flood possibility in Sedro Woolley, I am all for it. A flood is a horrible loss for all involved. I wish that on no one, but Sedro Woolley is not a throw away town. We matter too.” See also: 7/18/2014 Lea Shato Additional Comments |
| 7/17/2014 | Lorrie Chance Comments | |
| 7/17/2014 | Patricia Mosher Comments |
“ |
| 7/17/2014 | Pola Kelley, Sedro-Woolley Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Comments |
“ |
| 7/17/2014 | Samish River Basin Dike District Commissioners Letter |
“ |
| 7/17/2014 | Shannon Burrow Comments |
“ |
| 7/17/2014 | Stacey Harris Comments | |
| 7/17/2014 | Tom Hoffman Comments |
“ “This is complete B.S. How can anyone justify this creating flood zones to protect businesses that build in the flood zone and can afford flood insurance?” |
| 7/18/2014 | Alaskan Bean Comments |
“Raising the dikes in Burlington will put
thousands of families in danger that were never affected before. Seniors,
widowers, single moms, children, you name it, all for the benefit of "big
business." The computer model shows an enormous area that was not in danger
before. All the homes are being sacrificed so the businesses will be exempt from
flood insurance. Now the homes that were exempt from flood insurance will now be
required to purchase flood insurance. |
| 7/18/2014 | Brian Ferguson Comments |
“This plan, should
it continue, is doing nothing more than placing one group of people in danger in
favor of another group of people. This is a horrible notion. In a situation like
this, levies aren't the answer. "Transferring" risk from one community to
another is not the way to help anyone. Especially when the group of people
having to take the "risk" on are less able to help and fend for themselves in
the event of a natural disaster.
|
| 7/18/2014 | Chelsea Jepperson Comments |
“Our towns are not prepared for that kind of
water increase, especially if we get a higher than average flood year. Please
look into this, it seems like an obvious misuse of a levy if other towns will be
directly affected in a negative way. I live in Sedro-Woolley Washington directly
upriver from Burlington along the Skagit River and I would be affected by this
as will my entire town. The certified levys will cause more problems in areas
that are currently unaffected. |
| 7/18/2014 | Donald Moe Comments |
“First of all I would like to thank you
for your work and your willingness to involve the citizens of Skagit County in
this process. As a former commissioner of DD#1 and property owner in DD#1, I
still have an interest in adequate flood protection, specifically through the
use of interlocking sheet pile. For the record I am in no way writing on behalf
of the commissioners of DD#1. Commissioners have as their mandate the protection
of “all” citizens and property owners of the district and I would not want to be
in the unenviable position of protecting one segment of our population [urban]
at the expense of the other [rural]. |
| 7/18/2014 | Donna Stark Comments |
“I am a single, 65 year old woman. It is
unbelievable that my retirement and well being could be "washed away" because of
the finances of big business. I would be completed, done.
My health would be effected and my only home gone with
no means to move on. I am one of many who would be effected - all for bug
businesss! Many
will boycott
these businesses. |
| 7/18/2014 | Ernie Goetzinger Comments |
“We have an rv site at Janike Cove. We
were recently given notice that many of the improvements are in violation -
because of floodways. And that this came about due to flood insurance rates.
From your message, it seems apparent that the levee proposal is planning on
flooding us out. My situation is OK - I have an RV that can be moved at a
moments notice, but there are other residents that have invested their
retirement into a quality life stile. This would be destroyed with the potential
fiver levels. We are concerned that the focus is on the commercial areas, and
not the citizens. Why are we less important? |
| 7/18/2014 | Eugene D. AA Comments |
“ |
| 7/18/2014 | Gary Huntsman Comments |
“I live in Janicki Cove.
We have been asked to remove all Park Motel housing
units, storage sheds, and other structures that can
|
| 7/18/2014 | Jack McDougle Comments |
“I live in Sedro-Woolley on Jennings where
you have proposed to flood my home. We have lived in our home for 42 years and
never once been flooded. That includes the 100 year flood plain we are currently
not in. BUT if this levy goes in we will be flooded. The
owners of the businesses and homes in Mount Vernon and Burlington were
completely aware of the flood history in the areas where they built. And now,
they want to make it Sedro Woolley's problem. Sedro Woolley is not
affluent as Mount Vernon and Burlington so I guess it's okay to flood us. I
don't think so. We don't have the money or the voice of these other towns,
combining their financial impact on the local economy. I do not understand how a
bad decision (to build in a flood zone) is the responsibility of those who did
not make that bad decision. I think the towns should suffer the consequences of
their decisions. If a solution to the flooding potential in Mount Vernon and
Burlington can managed in a different way, rather than increasing the flooding
possibilities in Sedro Woolley, I am for it. A flood is
a horrible loss for all involved. I wish that on no one, but Sedro Woolley is
not a throw away town. We matter too. I do not want my home to become like
Katrina in Mississippi. |
| 7/18/2014 | Jeri McDougle Comments |
“The mayor of Sedro-Woolley should be included to
participate in the levy studies. |
| 7/18/2014 | Jerry Haegemeyer Comments |
“ |
| 7/18/2014 | Jerry Wickmire Comments | |
| 7/18/2014 | Joel & Connie Doomenball Comments |
“It is unfair to put us at risk by building
levees downriver. Other options - suc |
| 7/18/2014 | John Eades Comments |
“I request you and
your technical and political personnel honestly consider that presentation
empathetically, as if you and your family were in our position. “Twenty five years ago, you would have purchased property close to (but not too close, both horizontally and vertically) the Skagit River, anticipating retirement. The project was not taken lightly. The property was flat, well vegetated and in an area suited to your interests. Ten years ago, you designed a substantial home specifically for that property and over the next four years you personally constructed that home, nailing each stud and joist, erecting each wall, applying each shingle, making each electrical connection, etc., etc. “You investigated the flood risk. You obtained flooding records back to the 1930’s. You acquired aerial photographs of serious area flooding from the 1940’s through the present. You made flood risk decisions based on historical facts. You accepted that known risk. “Other people downriver did the same. They built homes, developed businesses, planted crops and made lives based on similar risk decisions. This is where the stories may diverge… The downriver entities made their decisions on riskier grounds, choosing that risk to take advantage of higher profit potentials or better views. They knew that risk. Then, unsatisfied with the risk, they employed the political process to improve their risk position. Their property values and population density, now of higher relative value than yours, must deserve greater protection – notwithstanding they made their previous purchase or development plans based on the same risk assessment you did. The Corps of Engineers must of course oblige. That is their ostensible job. |
| 7/18/2014 | Kay Brunke Comments |
“I have lived in Janicki Cove Community for 17
years, it is right on the river. I have never
|
| 7/18/2014 | Kristi Curtin Comments |
“This is a request that there would be an
immediate study on the environmental impacts for Sedro Woolley. As a
business owner, a flood would devastate my business as well as all others
including residents - as well as my own. Business owners along with the
chamber have done so much to improve our wonderful community and I see it
growing. Please do a study so there can be improvements made to avoid a
devastation such as a flood. |
| 7/18/2014 | Larry & Judith Ashe Comments | |
| 7/18/2014 | Lea Shato Additional Comments |
“After penning my response to the proposed dyke
improvements for Burlington and Mount Vernon, it occurred to me that purposely
engineering a flood prevention system that floods areas of Sedro Woolley,
previously NOT in the flood plane, in an attempt to alleviate flooding in Mount
Vernon and Burlington, you would be leaving Skagit County and perhaps the State
of Washington open to a serious class action law suit. I think they call it
"malice aforethought." You might want to consider the legal repercussions of
such a studied change. (See also 7/17/2014 Lea Shato Comments) |
| 7/18/2014 | Nancie Silves Comments |
“Is this really what it has become? We
think now of big businesses than we do of our own people. This has to
STOP! |
| 7/18/2014 | Norvel E. Rogers Comments |
“ |
| 7/18/2014 | Rog and Gail Welborn Comments |
“ |
| 7/18/2014 | Roger and Sally Crawford Comments |
“ Sedro Woolley. If that is the case then the city of Sedro Woolley will indeed flood where it has never flooded before. All of the people who spent their lives paying for homes that were previously safe from the floods will now suddenly be at great risk. Flood insurance is expensive and will not be of much consolation when every thing that used to be safe is now gone.” |
| 7/18/2014 | Sheila & James Huff Comments |
“We are all
prepared to boycott Burlington businesses. |
| 7/18/2014 | Tim Adams Comments |
“Very unclear what these maps mean. |
| 7/18/2014 | U.S. Department of Interior Comments |
“As noted in the DEIS,
existing flood control measures on the Skagit River,
most notably levees, in addition to widespread development within the
floodplain, have caused long-term adverse effects including loss of floodplain
function; loss of riparian function, including streamside cover and nutrient
input; loss of channel and stream bank complexity; lower rates of large woody
debris recruitment, etc. These effects have occurred throughout the lower
Skagit River, and combined with the effects of dams on the upper river have
resulted in a reduction in quality and quantity of
habitat for anadromous and resident fish. |
| 7/18/2014 | Yew Halem Comments |
“ |
| 7/19/2014 | Brenda Rindal Comments |
“ |
| 7/20/2014 | Peg and Brad Bodin Comments |
“We have lived in Sedro-Woolley on
Alexander Street for 24 1/2 years. Prior to that we lived in Mt Vernon in an
area that required flood insurance for our home loan. When we moved to
Sedro-Woolley, it was a relief that we were not required to have flood insurance
any longer. . . . “I have looked at the flood insurance cost for our home and found it very expensive. Much higher than insuring the house against all other risks in our homeowners insurance. I understand that flooding is expensive and that the premiums are needed to cover the resulting damage. However, I’m concerned that this project is transferring the risk and cost others knowingly took on to those of us living slightly upriver. I know that Sedro-Woolley has a free and reduced lunch rate over 50%. The rate in this neighborhood is higher than that. While I, personally, could find the funds to purchase flood insurance, I strongly believe many of my neighbors could not without a serious impact on their financial situation. “I am also concerned with the damage this project will have on our home value. Our modest home is very important to our eventual retirement. The loss of home value due to increased flood risk or worse, the loss of our home to flood damage, would be a terrible blow. I am very aware of the repeated floods in Hamilton and their impact and am concerned that we are being set up to be next in line. |
| 7/20/2014 | Russell Hutchison Comments |
“I am the owner of ... Fidalgo Place in
Sedro Woolley. It is my understanding that the Comprehensive Urban Levy Improvement plan is basically a plan to force myself, and hundreds of other people to purchase flood insurance because I will be placed in the flood plain by this plan. I didn’t buy a house in a flood plain for a reason. Not only that but your plan will make it so my house is harder to sell if I chose to do so. |
| 7/20/2014 | Valerie Stull Comments |
“My family has occupied the same home for
3 generations in Clear Lake. “I understand that the homes and towns east of your lovely high levee in Burlington are to.be sacrificed for the township over there. “My home happens to be one of those which has escaped any damage from flooding since its origin in the 1880s. “Please dont throw us to the wolves. |
| 7/21/2014 | David Top Comments |
“If the water level comes up higher that
it does now, our houses and buildings will be very impacted. If studies
informing me that the flood level will rise because new dikes are made are
available, I could be informed. But as my city government is informing me, those
studies have not been done. So I urge you to inform me what will happen to my
property, before any changes are made. ... My flood insurance policy is going
crazy. My brother is a flood insurance agent and has
informed me that my policy will likely be close to $2000 a year soon. I
can't afford you to raise my flooding risk any more with higher dikes in other
areas, but not in mine. |
| 7/21/2014 | Jennifer Thramer Comments |
“I feel as a landowner, and a resident of
Sedro Woolley, that the USACE owes my City and me a fully researched plan with
analysis of both East and West adjustments of the river. My city and the
community has been here a lot longer than some of the areas this plan is meant
to protect. Those people knew they were in the flood plain. They accepted that
risk in purchasing their home. I did not. Nor am I all right with
accepting it now. |
| 7/21/2014 | John Sedgerick Comments | |
| 7/21/2014 | Kimberlee Hutchison Comments | |
| 7/21/2014 | Lyle & Beverly Mosher Comments | |
| 7/21/2014 | Marie Hyler Comments | |
| 7/21/2014 | Morgan Family Comments |
“How in good consicence can you possibly consider
moving forward with this? |
| 7/21/2014 | Nicole Rambow Comments |
“We are all in it together why shouldn’t
all of the jurisdictions participate and be protected together? By allowing one
city or dike district to start protecting their own area surely you can
understand that another area will be affected. Please have us all work together. |
| 7/21/2014 | Norvel Rogers, Jr. Comments |
“I am concerned that it appears Sedro-Woolley is
being left out of the process. “I am extremely concerned that the new home I bought for my wife/child/family may now flood if the levees are changed in Burlington. “I am extremely concerned that I may be forced to buy flood insurance, something when buying my house did not need. “I am extremely concerned that the residents of Sedro-Woolley are being sacrificed for the residents of Mount Vernon & Burlington.” |
| 7/21/2014 | Reisa Sines Comments | |
| 7/21/2014 | Robert & Debra Gustafson Comments |
“My family and I have lived in south Sedro
Woolley for over 45 years. It has never flooded in the surrounding residential
area in that time or ever that I am aware of. If the army corps of engineers and
the county decide to raise the dikes around Burlington, is this a wise decision
for south Sedro Woolley residents? A complete study should be done before
attempting any such undertaking I made a decision to live here based on many
things, NOT being flooded out would be one of them. Please reconsider raising
the dikes to save some so others can be in harms way. We all made a decision to
live and build based on the facts at that time. Don't change the facts to
benefit some. |
| 7/21/2014 | Roger Mitchell Comments |
“Private property owners and agricultural
landowners need to be adequately compensated by contracts executed before any
land work associated with this plan is commenced. Any flood mitigation
contemplated or implemented must adhere to the Washington State Attorney
General’s “Advisory Memorandum: Avoiding Unconstitutional Takings of Private
Property”. In making any flood mitigation choice it is imperative that private
property rights be respected. Often that property is the physical manifestation
of people’s lives, careers, hopes, and dreams. Private property is often the
heritage of generations of a person’s family lineage. |
| 7/21/2014 | Ross O. Barnes Comments |
“Incredibly, USACE assumes this
scientifically, technically, hydraulically flawed proposal will work because
they only
“allow |
| 7/21/2014 | Sedro-Woolley Wastewater Treatment Plant Comments |
“Skagit County Commissioner Sharon Dillon
recently attended a City Council meeting and shared that she would be walking in
flood waters around her home on Fidalgo Street during a 100 year event.
If flood waters indeed reach this level, the City of
Sedro-Woolley will have at least 5 miles of sewer pipe under water. A submerged
gravity sewer system with head pressure in essence becomes a pressurized force
main which will push water into the WWTP and cause sewage to over top
structures. At this point, the ring dike designed to protect the Treatment Plant
becomes worthless and provides absolutely no protection, all at the
expense of taxpayer dollars. “Homes throughout the City will also experience internal flooding as sewage under pressure begins to spill out floor drains, toilets and bath tubs, thereby creating a potential health risk for those exposed to contaminated water. “I highly recommend the Army Corps of Engineers perform hydraulic modeling and provide this data to the City of Sedro-Woolley before taking further action. |
| 7/21/2014 | Shannon and George Lauder Comments |
“Born and raised in Skagit county we knew
the potential for flooding. When we decided to purchase a house we intentionally
purchased outside of flood zone. We are a struggling couple barely able to make
ends meet as is in our economy. I fear that the addition of flood insurance to
our monthly bills may be more than we can afford. Although the housing market is
getting better. We cannot afford to sell and once again find a home outside of
the flood zone. I do not understand why one town (that has always known the
potential for flooding) is being prioritized over another. |
| 7/21/2014 | Thomas R. Plank Comments |
“To protect the potentially damaging
flooding of two communities and ignore the third is a shameful act.
I would propose that if the Urban Levy Improvement
plan occurs: those who suffer flooding in Sedro Woolley should receive payment
for their loss and have their flood insurance paid for. A fund could be set
aside with taxes collected county wide to compensate these residents. It
would be fair to divide the costs of the new levies and the fund three ways
between residents of the three cities affected by the 100 year flood. “I can only hope that the burden of flood costs not be laid on those affected by flooding caused by down river levies. |
| 7/21/2014 | Unsigned Comments |
“Why protect one town to jeopardize another?
... This is a concern to every citizen, but an
|
| 7/22/2014 | Erica Chandler Comments |
“I strongly oppose this plan because it is
unjust in its effects on the residents of Sedro-Woolley.
I bought my home on Fidalgo Place in Sedro Woolley in
late 2010, knowing that I would be far enough from the river to not be required
to pay flood insurance or to ever have to worry about my home being ravaged by
flood waters. Now I've been made aware of a half-baked plan that would
change my situation drastically, along with many other residents that call this
lovely town home. |
| 7/24/2014 | Eric Hall Comments |
“I spoke with an hydrologist who was
present and I asked him for his estimate on the increased flood levels at our
home at River Vista Court in Mount Vernon when construction for the
Comprehensive Urban Levee Improvement Alternative is completed. I don't remember
his name and was hoping you would know and could share that with me please. |
| 7/25/2014 | Ron Fairblander Comments |
“I fully support Mayor Anderson & the
Sedro-Woolley City Council's decisions. |
| 7/25/2014 | Swinomish Indian Tribe Comments |
“We believe that the CULI will result in
damage to fish populations due to degradation of habitat associated with the
construction and maintenance of new levees and toe rock proposed for protecting
the levees. Increased offshore export of sediment due to additional channel
restrictions in the face of increasing magnitude and frequency of flooding
associated with climate change will negatively impact the maintenance and
formation of critical estuarine habitats. The project as proposed will result in
an increase in the export of juvenile salmon associated with increased
velocities contained within the channel. Additional erosional forces will have
adverse impacts on the little remaining high quality salmon habitat within the
project area. |
| 7/27/2014 | Dennis Clark Comments |
An Anacortes resident opines,
“The information provided in the Draft
Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement (FR/EIS) appears to show
that the CULI alternative is the most cost-effective and environmentally sound
way to achieve the objectives of flood hazard risk reduction while minimizing
harmful impacts to the environment. While I expect there will be some concerns
about the implications for rural areas of the CULI alternative, I think that on
balance it will better contribute to our county-wide goals of improvements in
public safety, environmental protection, and sustainable development by
protecting existing urban areas and encouraging further development (“in-fill |
| 7/28/2014 | Konrad Kurp Comments |
“Should an intensional overflow or dike
break location be included in this study? Things don't always go according
to plan. Maybe an extra relieve valve for the loaded system might come in handy.
Do we leave this scenario up to chance, because we can not agree on where to
locate such a feature? |
| 7/29/2014 | James B. Tilley Comments |
“If Burlington is allowed to raise more
dikes you are allowing us to be flooded. Why do you protect the malls that
were built in the floodplain and flood homeowners. I am a property owner
and my wife and I are behind our Mayor's decision to sue in order to protect our
home. |
| 7/29/2014 | Leon Green Comments |
“Any improvements for protection from
floods on the Skagit Valley should be a program that benefits Mt. Vernon,
Burlington & Sedro-Woolley equally. If not, then nothing should be done &
everyone suffers the consequences. |
| 7/29/2014 | Nathan Sanders Comments |
“This levy
improvement plan is as stated a transfer of risk plan that does nothing except
transfer higher flood risk from people; comm “I believe that this is not a viable option for flood mitigation due simply to the fact that the potential for decrease in home values increased insurance premiums and not to mention the extreme damage and inconveinence that a flood would cause for an unknown number of people that had the forethought to not live in a flood zone. Simply put, transferring the risk to a less valuable and less developed area is just selish and irresponsible. “Its like going on a shopping spree and racking up a whole bunch of debt and then just deciding that you don't think you should have to pay it back so you pass all your bills for someone else to pay... it doesn't work that way.” |
| 7/29/2014 | Steve Meissner Comments | |
| 7/30/2014 | Louise A. Harris Comments |
“I was appaled to hear that you plan may
back water up into lower Sedro-Woolley streets. Poor planning allows
malls, businesses, etc. to build in the flood plain then they get protection at
other peoples' expense! Outrageous. |
| 7/30/2014 | Sedro-Woolley School District Comments |
“In addition to our concern about Clear
Lake Elementary, we also have concerns about Central
and Mary Purcell Elementary schools, as well as Sedro-Woolley High School. The
concern is that these three schools will be affected by flooding, especially
after comments made by public officials that Fidalgo Street would more than
likely be under water when flooding occurs. Based on conversations with
the Sedro-Woolley City officials, we are also very concerned that the wastewater
treatment plant (located between Sterling and Alexander Streets) will not be
adequately protected from flooding, resulting in the overwhelming of the system.
If this is the case, there would be a major safety issue with our nearby schools
and families. “Our concern is not only with our school facilities, but with displaced families and school closures, resulting in property damage, monetary impacts and loss of instruction, potentially for a significant period of time. The emotional toll placed on our families and more importantly, our children, would be devastating and in some cases irreversible. “In conclusion, we ask that before final decisions are made to raise levee levels, that the corps study the impacts of the tentatively selected project on our schools and school community. |
| 7/30/2014 | Skagit Climate Science Consortium (SC2) Comments |
“The Skagit GI has a Tentatively Selected
Plan (TSP) projected to cost $225 million dollars plus $800,000 annually for
Baker Dam operations. An expenditure of this magnitude will likely be the most
significant, if not the only effort of its kind for many decades, and presents
an important and unique opportunity for the valley to prepare for flooding
exacerbated by climate change. Furthermore, if the
changes identified in the TSP ultimately prove to be inadequate in coping with
future flood risks, it is questionable that the region will be able to secure
the resources to conduct additional analysis or make expensive, time-consuming
changes or improvements to recent infrastructure investments of this scale.
Proposed alternatives put forward as part of the GI need to be explicitly and
thoroughly tested under the conditions they will likely encounter, including
climate change (increasing peak flows, increasing sediment loads, and sea level
rise). |
| 7/31/2014 | Debbie Cornish Comments |
“I am a resident of Sedro Woolley as are
my family members. We live in the area that would be affected by the proposed
levees. This proposal makes me feel as if the residents of Sedro Woolley are
considered of lesser importance than the urban improvements made in Mt. Vernon
and Burlington. When I bought my home, I did so knowing that it was not in the
flood plain. My family, that resides closer to the river has lived in their home
for over 45 years. They too bought their home knowing that they were not in the
flood plain. The fact that the county is concerned about protecting businesses
instead of residents is appalling. Thanks so much for
proposing to protect out sewage treatment plant and hospital. Meaning you don’t
want our pollution, but would leave our hospital to treat the injured. How
thoughtful of you. Does the county also propose that they would
compensate us for our loss of property value and pay our flood insurance? |
| 8/1/2014 | Marcia Ellyson-Billman Comments |
“Please consider Sedro Woolley’s concern
and redo this impact statement with the lives and homes of 10,540 est pop in
consideration. Thank you Marcia Billman |
| 8/1/2014 | Sherry Lynch Comments |
“Increasing the height of current levies
in order to minimize flood risk to the City of Burlington at the expense of the
city of Sedro-Woolley and its residents is not an acceptable plan.
Within the affected area of concern (south side of
State St), are two elementary and one senior high schools, a dementia facility
and the cities waste water treatment facility. ... Sacrificing a
community just because it has a lower assessed value is not acceptable when
there are other options available. How about cleaning
up some of the "added" materials that have been "temporarily" been placed into
the river over the past years? How long is "temporarily"? |
| 8/1/2014 | Upper Skagit Indian Tribe Comments |
“First, to set the record straight, in a
number of pages of the GI, e.g. pg. 2, 21, and 211, there is reference to 5
tribes with reservations or U and A's in the Skagit watershed. This is
incorrect; the only tribes with Treaty protected rights in the Skagit watershed
are the Swinomish, Upper Skagit and Sauk Suiattle. The GI also lists the USIT
population at 230, while in reality; the Tribe has a membership of in excess of
1200 members, many of whom live in Whatcom, Skagit and Snohomish counties. ... “As noted above, the Tribe is also an intervener in and a signatory to the Baker River Hydropower Facility (FERC #2150) Settlement Agreement, as approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC"). The settlement is structured around the intent to rebuild the Baker Sockeye run to sustainably harvestable numbers. In addition the license focuses on improving downstream (Skagit River) instream flows that better protect ESA listed and other treaty fishery resources. As a result, the inclusion of the Baker measure in all alternatives restricts the ability to analyze costs and benefits of such a measure. The Tribe is concerned that the potential impacts to the Baker Sockeye rebuilding and the Treaty Fishery are not being studied nor analyzed in a manner that was committed to under the Settlement Agreement for FERC #2150, nor to the Tribe's United States protected Treaty Rights. “As stated above, the Tribe's treaty protected sockeye fishery provides food for elders, cultural fishing opportunities for members in the immediate area of its aboriginal villages and food and financial assistance to the Tribe's growing number of fishers. |
| 8/3/2014 | Brett Sandstrom, Sedro-Woolley City Councilman Comments |
“It is
reprehensible and immoral to endanger one person over another.
Sedro-Woolley has a long, floodfree existence; my
house has been standing strong and dry for over one-hundred and twenty-two
years. These possible flood control measures on the Skagit River will
have negative impacts on me, my family, and my neighbors, including three school
zones – Mary Purcell and Central Elementary Schools, and Sedro-Woolley High
School. “The City of Sedro-Woolley has, in good faith and in a cooperative manner, contributed to the flood control process here in Skagit County, and we demand that our concerns are address and solutions found before any projects are completed. “We demand that any project shows the true affect on all the residents of the City of Sedro-Woolley; the studies must be done. “We demand that any project shows the true affect on the schools located in the newly affected area; when the full studies are completed. “We demand that the flood control projects take in consideration population of a city over assessed value. “We demand the same protection against flooding that the downriver cities will benefit from. |
| 8/4/2014 | City of Mount Vernon Public Works Comments |
“To the extent
the proposed mitigation measures provide flood protection at or greater than the
desired levels within the City's UGA, the City is in general support the GI
Study. In those areas which the study cannot demonstrate such flood
protection, the City respectfully requests that the USACE Corps demonstrate
through the EIS process that those areas within the City's UGA where measures
fail to provide 100 year flood protection or greater will not receive adverse
environmental impacts caused by the project, including but not limited to the
results of rerouting, collecting or otherwise directing greater volumes of water
during a flood event. “Lastly, another important area that we request to be more thoroughly addressed in the GI study is assurance that the selected alternative does no harm to others. The need for the project to mitigate for its adverse impacts to our neighbors and community members is essential. |
| 8/4/2014 | Dike District 12 Comments |
“The DD12 Commissioners are in support of
this GI Study proposal with selection of the CULI, Comprehensive Urban Levee
Improvement. The District has worked with the City of Burlington and Skagit
County for many years in support of the GI Study. The
District complements the Corps for the diligent work and effort which appears to
be bringing the study to completion over these past many years that the study
has proceeded. In the interim, the District has worked closely with the
City of Burlington for the project which will be included in the CULI.
A significant amount of related levee and flood
protection work has preceded this proposal, for which DD12 is currently moving
through the permit process with the City of Burlington and Skagit County. See also: DD12 Levee Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Issues Page |
| 8/4/2014 | John Matterand DDS Comments |
“I work in a dental office very close to
United General Hospital and live just south of Clear Lake on Hwy 9. Both
my livelihood and my water supply for my home are under a significant increased
risk of damage from flooding by the increase in flood height brought about by
the increased levee heights in Burlington. A mention was made in the study that
the 1 foot increase in flood depths would only last for a day. I am not sure how
that was determined but it does not matter to a dental office whether the flood
damage is 1 day or 3 days, the damage will be extensive.
With that increased flood depth the flood protection
built into my dental office is negated.The increase in flood levels will
obviously bring about an increase in flood insurance premiums that have already
experienced a significant increase just last year. Are there plans to
subsidize those increased costs for those of us in the storage area for
Burlington and Mount Vernon? I believe that allowing Burlington, Dike
District 12, and Mount Vernon to increase levee heights and reducing their flood
insurance premiums should be offset by a subsidy of flood insurance premium
increases for affected areas. “I do not believe that enough emphasis has been given to the risk to infrastructure upstream from Burlington. If United General Hospital has a flood protection structure built around it, it protects the building but if the hospital is completely cut off to ground transportation by flood waters it rapidly will lose it's effectiveness and will need to be evacuated by air. The importance of Hwy. 9 as an alternative to I-5 was demonstrated just last year but this Hwy. would be cut off with a significant flood event (increased likelihood under this proposal). Hwy. 20 east of Burlington would be cut off. I am a Commissioner for FPD #4 (Clear Lake). The Clear Lake Fire Building would need to be evacuated and fire events and medical aid calls might not be able to have a timely response. |
| 8/4/2014 | Julie Anderson Comments |
“My husband and I have owned this house since
1983 and have experienced a few floods. We
raised the house with money out of our pocket after the 1995 flood to be one
foot above flood stage per Army Corp and above the railroad tracks to the north
of us knowing the water will flow northwest and not flood our house. We haven’t
been flooded since 1995 and life has been good.
Now Burlington and Dike District 12 want to raise the dikes higher and push
water into our house. Your Urban levy will protect Burlington at our cost. “This is wrong! Burlington built in the wrong place but is lucky to have I-5 and Hwy 20 crossroads so commercial development happened. Now they want to protect this commercial development at the risk of thousands of people to the east. People and homes are more valuable than Costco’s and Home Depots? Please think of the people who will be displaced by flood water that is pushed back on to them. What happens to their lives after their homes get flooded? Box stores and commercial development knew they were developing in the flood bull’s eye. It will be a minor blip on the stock market for maybe not a day to a Home Depot but to people lives it can be very traumatic. Please think about the common people.. |
| 8/4/2014 | Washington State Department of Transportation Comments |
“It appears that the greatest risk to
state highway infrastructure will be on SR 20 at Sterling, SR 9 in the
Nookachamps, SR 11 as it crosses the Joe Leary Slough and 1-5 between the new
Burlington Levee and Bow Hill. We at WSDOT would like to continue assisting the
Corps and Skagit County with these refinements. Also, WSDOT owns and operates
drainage/stormwater infrastructure, which should be included in the flood flow
return—post event drawdown. |
| 8/5/2014 | City of Burlingtom Comments |
“Burlington has a long history of over 110
years as an incorporated City, and the role of the City as a regional service
center has greatly expanded over the past 20+ years, primarily because of its
central location. Implementing the CULI TSP is vital to protecting important
transportation corridors. We recognize that it is not possible to protect all
occupants in the Skagit River Basin equally. The
common sense approach of reducing the flood risk to the greatest portion of the
population coupled with protecting the economic generators of the region is the
right approach as achieved by implementing the CULI action. The City of
Burlington is home to approximately 9,500 jobs and is a significant generator of
state and local sales tax revenue through its regionally significant retail
center. This economic engine must be preserved and protected for the benefit of
the region. ... “The City of Burlington supports inclusion of thorough evaluation of, and mitigation measures for any impacts to our neighboring communities from the implementation of the CULI TSP. As a result, |
| 8/5/2014 | City of Sedro-Woolley Additional Comments |
See also: 5/22/2014 nhc Memo, RE: Hydraulic Effects of Proposal to Improve Dike District 12 Levee from SR-20 to the BNSF Bridge, 7/10/2014 City of Sedro-Woolley Mayor Mike Anderson Comments, and |
| 8/5/2014 | Dike District 1 Comments |
|
| 8/5/2014 | Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10 Comments |
|
| 8/5/2014 | Kevy Clevish Comments |
|
| 8/5/2014 | Mike Anderson Personal Comments |
|
| 8/5/2014 | NOAA Comments |
|
| 8/5/2014 | Roger Pederson Comments |
|
| 8/5/2014 | U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Comments |
|
| 8/5/2014 | Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Comments |
|
| 8/5/2014 | Western Washington Agricultural Association Comments |
|
| 8/8/2014 | Gus F. Suryan Comments | |
| 8/8/2014 | Marjean Buske Comments |
|
| 8/8/2014 | Ron Mattox Comments |
|
| 8/14/2014 | Alan Burke Comments |
|
| Undated Comments | ||
| Doug Wedin Comments |
|
|
| Eron Berg Personal Comments |
|
|
| Jean A. Hanson Comments |
See also: Historical Articles Issues Page |
|
| Jim and Rochelle Pittis Comments |
|
|
| Julie and Mike Anderson Comments |
|
|
| Mike Stringfield Comments | ||
| Roger Anderson Comments |
See also: 7/9/2014 A Resolution of the City of Sedro-Woolley, Washington Commenting on the Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement for the Skagit River Flood Risk Management General Investigation |
|
| Todd Olson Comments |
. . . |
|