Baker Dams Issues

Date	Title	Summary
Baker Dams' Issues
1/23/1950	Letter to Puget Power from Corps of Engineers	Corps of Engineers felt flood control storage in Lake Shannon was "worthwhile" looking into. Methods suggested was to either raise Lower Baker or to lower lake level. Important to remember is that Upper Baker Dam was not constructed until 1959.
2/15/1966	MFR re: Corps Investigation of Existing Baker Sites	Corps approximates that Baker River dams could not provide 100 yr protection. Would require 90,000 acre feet to control 200,000 cfs flow. However, could control 50 yr flood (180,000 cfs) by providing 50,000 acre feet of storage. Would require considerable study to determine power loss.
9/21/1967	Corps Memorandum re Lower Baker River Storage Projects	Corps admits investigation into Lower Baker dam storage has only been "on a very preliminary basis". Gross storage capacity of Lake Shannon 160,000 acre feet. 142,400 ac ft being used for power production. Upper Baker dam gross storage is 298,000 ac ft and utilizes 220,000 ac ft for power production. Important to note is that at this time only Upper Baker provided 16,000 ac ft of storage however both dams had major impacts on flood flows. Corps recognizes that 28,500 ac ft of storage was available behind Lower Baker in Lake Shannon for flood control. Flood prevention benefits would far exceed the cost of power reductions.
12/13/1967	Corps Memorandum re Preliminary Report on Baker River Regulation	Corps investigated 3 scenarios. 1-drafting Upper Baker to 720.6 ft to provide 16,000 ac ft of storage. 2-drafting Upper Baker to 709.8 ft to provide additional 50,000 ac ft of storage (current requirement 707.9 by Nov. 15th). 3-drafting Upper Baker to 701.3 to provide additional 84,000 ac ft of storage. In all 3 scenarios Lower Baker was kept at elev. 437 which is 1 1/2 ft below being full. "In all cases, with the exception of 2 years in #3, Upper Baker could refill by the end of April."
7/23/75	Corps draft letter to Rep. Meeds re Flood Control Projects	Corps recommended additional 58,000 ac ft of storage. Trade offs of power generation for flood control are economically and environmentally feasible.
9/15/76	Corps Draft "Read Ahead" for Meeting with Rep. Meeds	Documents 1975 flood event damages at $3,247,000. Had Upper Baker additional storage (more than 16,000 ac ft) been in effect at that time, could have saved taxpayers $520,000.
6/1977	Partial Corps Report on 1975 Flood Event	Documents Upper, Lower Baker Dam and Ross Dam operation during 1975 flood event. Ross Lake stored 104,000 ac ft or 87% of allocated 120,000 ac ft. Baker Lake was 19 ft below full pool at start of flood event. Lake Shannon was 1.5 ft below full pool. In 14 hrs Lake Shannon filled. At peak of flood PSPL was dumping 24,800 cfs into Skagit. Storage used in Baker Lake was 53,900 ac ft or 37,900 ac ft more then they were required to do.
7/11/1977	Corps Letter to Skagit County	Congress authorized an additional 58,000 ac ft of storage behind Upper Baker dam. Would reduce flooding during "major events". Ltr also addresses possible "deauthorization" of the Avon By-Pass project and the possible construction of a levee improvement project which would give lower valley 11 year protection with 3 feet of freeboard.
9/9/1977	Corps Memorandum re Additional Storage	Documents SCL plans for Copper Creek Dam and possible dams on Newhalum and Thunder Creek. States that PSPL had no plans to provide additional storage behind Baker River Upper Baker or Lower Baker dams.
8/14/2001	Informational Briefing	Document provided talking points and concerns re informational briefing on Skagit River project. Corps main concern on FERC Relicensing process was that they had limited funds $300,000 to devote to studying Upper Baker storage and FERC process. Corps felt risk was that BPA could pull out of funding flood storage and that FERC could delete current storage requirement. 20 yr compensation agreement with PSE expired in 2000.
5/8/2002	Biological Assessment of Proposed Interim Conservation Measures for Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Pending Relicensing	“Construction of an extensive system of levees and revetments, in combination with flood control by the Skagit and Baker Projects has allowed continued development of the former floodplain. Land uses such as agriculture, urban and residential development, and construction of infrastructure (roads, bridges, drainage systems) have permanently altered the valley landscape. The operation and maintenance of existing flood control facilities by Skagit County is dependent on flood control operations by the upstream hydroelectric projects.”
3/7/2003	Tribal Concerns about the Reanalysis of Storage in Upper Baker	“Larry Wasserman … expressed concern that the Corps would only look at the economic/flood benefits in making our recommendation and not at the potential environmental impacts.”
5/21/2003	Responses to Questions Posed by Mr. Mike Sato on May 2, 2003 Regarding the Status of the Skagit River Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Feasibility Study	“A very preliminary assessment was completed in April and has demonstrated that there could be additional flood control benefit that could be provided with additional storage at the Baker River reservoirs. However, the assumptions of the analysis need to be refined, and the proposed modifications better defined before the study proceeds to a full hydraulic and economic benefit analysis as well as undertaking NEPA scoping and environmental evaluation, as well as preparing engineering design modifications and cost estimates.”
5/30/2003	Corps of Engineers Responses To Questions Relating to Implementation of Additional Flood Control Storage at Baker River Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2150	“In any event, a decision document submitted by the Corps’ Seattle District office would be required to support the recommendation for authorization for the Corps to operate Upper Baker for additional flood control storage. This decision document would have to demonstrate a Federal interest in additional flood control storage at Upper Baker ... [and thus would] have to demonstrate that the recommended plan is economically justified (i.e., flood damage reduction monetary benefits exceed project costs). The recommended plan would have to be demonstrated to be consistent with protecting the Nation’s environment, pursuant to national environmental statutes, applicable Executive Orders and other Federal planning requirements.”
6/9/2003	Scope of Work for Skagit River Flood Damage Reduction Feasibility Study’s Baker River Dams Storage Evaluation	Research into finding maximum utilization of Baker River Dams’ flood storage capabilities.
5/28/2004	Draft Biological Opinion for Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation for the Baker River Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2150). NOAA Fisheries Consultation No. 2002/01040.	Dam storage “is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Puget Sound chinook salmon.”
8/9/2004	Seattle District Corps of Engineers Letter to FERC, Re: Baker River Project, Project Number P-2150-033	Corps requests "to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the environmental documentation" of the Baker River Project, Project Number P-2150-033.
11/24/2004	Baker River Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2150 -Baker River Hydroelectric Project Comprehensive Settlement Agreement	“The Settlement Agreement is a negotiated compromise worked out among the parties concerning extensive protection, mitigation and enhancement measures for the Project that address aquatic, terrestrial, recreational, cultural, and other resources. The Settlement Agreement reflects a consensus of all active participants in the relicensing, in regard to a wide variety of issues identified through the alternative licensing process.”
12/21/2004	Army Corps of Engineers reply to FERC Comprehensive Settlement Agreement	"Without the completion and Congressional approval of the GI study, the Corps does not have the authority to regulate any additional storage at Upper or Lower Baker Dam." "...The Corps considers this section of Article 107 as a place holder for possible future action."
12/22/2004	Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife reply to FERC Comprehensive Settlement Agreement	"We have participated in numerous meetings since 1999 regarding the relicensing of this hydroelectric facility. In the past year alone, we have attended more than 105 Baker River Project relicensing meetings to address issues associated with wildlife, fish, recreation, and the language of the settlement agreement." . . . Because the additional flood storage requires several significant approvals outside of the authority of the Federal Power Act before it will become a reality, it is WDFW’s view that the proposed license language for additional flood storage is a place holder that allows for a future possibility of an action by the Corps."
12/22/2004	Puget Sound Energy reply to FERC Comprehensive Settlement Agreement	"PSE acknowledges the dispute between the County and other Parties regarding the NEPA process for Proposed License Article 107(b). It acknowledges that the Settlement does not determine such process. However, that omission is customary for flood control provisions under the control of the ACOE, which generally does not participate as a party in any relicensing proceeding, including settlement. The Parties did not purport to determine the ACOE's process on its behalf. Notwithstanding this process dispute, PSE fully supports the Settlement as drafted, signed by the Parties, and filed with the Commission as being a truly comprehensive settlement agreement."
12/22/2004	Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe reply to FERC Comprehensive Settlement Agreement	"Our intent in drafting this article matches that expressed during the meeting by PSE, that Article 107 is a placeholder to show the intent of the relicense group to strive to achieve 29,000 acre-feet of flood storage at lower Baker Reservoir through the process established be the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)." "Throughout the relicense process the ACOE staff has been consistent in stating that additional flood storage at lower Baker Reservoir would only be considered as part of the Skagit Basin Flood Study." . . . "Given the disparity of the two processes, the language of Article 107 that addresses changes to the flood control regime must be read as a placeholder that shows the intent of the relicense participants to strive to achieve 29,000 acre-feet of additional storage at Lower Baker Reservoir, but only through the established ACOE process. Agreement to Article 107 by the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe was conditioned on the understanding that Skagit County recognized that additional flood control would have to follow the ACOE process and that Skagit County was committed to the ACOE process." . . . "...the Settlement does not include any environmental Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement measures for additional flood control. This is because the environmental effects have not been identified. It is our expectation that these measures would be part of the ACOE process. While additional flood control was not scoped or studied, relicense participants were willing to include a place holder license article solely to address the concerns of Skagit County and provide them certainty that there would be support for striving to achieve additional flood control through the ACOE process."
12/22/2004	Swinomish Tribal Community reply to FERC Comprehensive Settlement Agreement
12/23/2004	Skagit County Government reply to FERC Comprehensive Settlement Agreement	The plain text of the proposed flood control license article and related provisions included in the Settlement make it clear that it is the intention of the Settlement signatories that Proposed License Article 107 ("Article l07') and Article 106(L) govern flood control operations at the Baker River Project for the entire term of the new license. Therefore, Article 107 is not a "placeholder," "interim," or "temporary" flood control license article, and there is no language anywhere in the Settlement that supports such a characterization. The Commission should give no credence to unsupported after-the-fact claims that the flood control provisions of the Settlement are a "placeholder."
12/28/2004	Upper Skagit Indian Tribe reply to FERC Comprehensive Settlement Agreement	"In regards to the issues raised by FERC staff during the technical conference of December 8, 2004 the Tribe believes that license Article 107 represents the intent of the parties as it relates to the proposed additional 29,000 acre feet of storage for flood control. It was the Tribe's understanding that all of the parties to the Agreement would work together in order to achieve the additional 29,000 acre feet of extra flood storage. The main concern as it related to this goal from the Tribe's perspective was the effect that such storage would have on the down stream flow regime. After reviewing the proposal it was determined by all parties that the additional flood control would not have a negative impact on the proposed down stream flow regime and as such the Tribe's concerns were satisfied."
01/03/2005	Corps of Engineers Seattle District Response to Comment Letters to the Comprehensive Settlement Agreement	"If FERC includes the addition of29,000 acre-feet of storage at Lower Baker Dam as part of the license review for the Baker River Project, this would significantly complicate and delay the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA) review for the license."
02/14/2005	Letters to local elected officials and Congressional Delegation by Skagit County Public Works Director	"As the letter states, we are deeply concerned about the letters the Corps of Engineers has submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), suggesting that the additional flood control storage at the Lower Baker Reservoir is a mere "place holder" in the new license to be issued to Puget Sound Energy for the Baker River Hydro-Electric Project. . . . The new license, once issued by FERC, will be in place for up to 45 years and we need to ensure that adequate provisions for flood control are included and not delayed by the Corps process for many years, or even decades"
10/17/2008	FERC License for Puget Sound Energy Baker River Dams	Official terms of Federal Energy Regulator Commission license to Puget Sound Energy to operate Baker River Dams.