Directory of Documents

“In a response to members of Congress, FEMA committed to develop alternative approaches to the current "without levee" mode ling technique employed for non-accredited levees when updating the FIRMs. The intent of the proposed policy change includes evaluating methodologies to assess the flooding risk landward of non-accredited levees more precisely. Please be advised that this change may result in increased and/or decreased base flood elevations in the vicinity of a non-accredited levee. While FEMA develops the new levee risk modeling guidelines and procedures, we will temporarily withhold the issuance of Letters of Final Determination (LFDs) for communities with levees not shown as providing protection from the I -percent annual chance flood event. ... As part of Region X's response to the policy change, we have reviewed your community's mapping project(s) and have determined that there arc one or more non-accredited levees or Provisionally Accredited Levees (PALs) that are or could be affected by this levee policy change. Until the new levee risk modeling guidance is released, we will suspend the processing of the maps in areas with non-accredited levees.”

Date	Title	Summary
	1815-1939 Draft Timeline Index of Historical Events	The indexes were prepared between 1996 and 1997. They are an attempt at showing significant events in our history using documentation obtained through PDA and FOIA review of government documents. Since these indexes were created I have obtained thousands of documents that still need to be reviewed.
	1940-1949 Draft Timeline Index of Historical Events
	1950-1959 Draft Timeline Index of Historical Events
	1960-1969 Draft Timeline Index of Historical Events
1995	Graphic Summary of Increases in 1990 Flood Levels Due to Levee System	Hydraulic analysis graphic prepared by nhc showing increases in flood levels in the Nookachamps/Sterling areas due to the placement of the levees.
8/11/2002	History of Flood Control Projects Studied	Document lists the flood control studies and the main theme looked at in each study.
9/10/2003	1990 Flood Analysis -- The Big Picture	The documents were created from USGS flow records and Corps of Engineers log records kept during flood events. 1995 was done first in real time and then with 12 hours deleted from the Mt. Vernon column to show the impacts of decisions made by PSE and the Corps.
9/10/2003	1995 Flood Analysis -- The Big Picture Real Time
9/10/2003	1995 Flood Analysis -- The Big Picture 12 hrs deleted in MV column
11/1/2003	2003 Flood Analysis -- The Big Picture
11/23/2008	2008 Flood Analysis -- The Big Picture
1/11/2009	2009/1/8 Flood Analysis -- The Big Picture
11/2/2010	2010/11/2 Flood Analysis -- The Big Picture - note the 2nd page about USGS Datum
1/24/2004	James E. Stewart Field Notes	The documents were created from the field notebook used by Mr. Stewart in 1922-1923 and from documents obtained from USGS files that were used to write the Whitepaper which follows.
1/30/2004	Index To Stewart Documents
2/14/2004	James E. Stewart Skagit River Flood Reports And Assorted Documents: A Citizen Critical Review Whitepaper Whitepaper Appendix E	This 52 page research paper was written to analyze just exactly what Mr. Stewart did in his 1923 report. The overall conclusion reached is that we should abandon his work product as Skagit County and the Corps recommended in 1924, and utilize the 80 years of gage records we have at The Dalles.
3/26/2005	Quips & Quotes	Originally published as Chapter 2 of my book however over the years a few more quotes were added along the way. It will be added to from time to time as meaningful quotes concerning the flood issue are located. Many are expected to be used from the historical newspaper articles.
4/8/2005	FEMA -- The Total Failure Package	This paper deals with the failure of FEMA to enforce its regulations and promoting growth in the floodplain.
4/18/2005	County Commissioner Memo re Future of Flood Control	On April 12, 2005 I attended a public meeting where staff presented where the County is with respect to their flood control project. At the end of the meeting I was asked by the Chairman to submit a written memo on what I had observed and what direction I thought the County should go.
5/1/2005	History of Countywide Flood Control Districts (see also County Documents)	Using the Historical Newspaper Article Index I pulled out just the articles that dealt with the historical formation of countywide flood control zone districts.
5/15/2005	Historical Floods Of The Skagit River (1892 through 1951)	This is perhaps the most comprehensive collection of historical information on individual flood events of the Skagit River ever assembled. 98% of this document comes from direct quotes obtained from local newspapers.
6/12/2005	Historical Rainfall & Its Impact on Floods (1896-1969)	The purpose of this document is to look at historical articles and try and determine how much rain it takes to create a flood on the Skagit River. The best answer to the question of how much rain it takes is “It depends.”
7/17/2005	Historical Record of the Avon By-Pass Proposal (1921-2004)	This document was first created in July 2002. It has now been supplemented with the historical newspaper articles concerning this issue. The bottom-line is that Skagit County has never been able to afford this project.
11/24/2005	A Historical Tribute To Charles M. Dwelley (1929-1970)	A tribute to the former editor and publisher of the Concrete Herald. This paper is a collection of a few of the words of wisdom from Mr. Dwelley. You can obtain further historical family information on Mr. Dwelley at http://www.stumpranchonline.com/ and http://www.skagitriverjournal.com.
12/3/2005	Skagit River History	This paper is an attempt to document some of the history of the Skagit River according to mostly government documents obtained from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. On occasion it will also contain information obtained from local historical newspaper articles. It is a factual issue oriented paper addressing the log jams, boat traffic, commerce, logging, agriculture, dam building, flood events of the “early days” and much more.
12/4/2005	Letter to FEMA from Larry Kunzler re: Skagit Hydrology Study	This letter was prepared in response to the letter written by Colonel Debra M. Lewis to FEMA re: hydrology analysis.
12/26/2005	Observations of JES (James E. Stewart) Work Product	This paper was created primarily from transcripts of Mr. Stewarts field notebook and a set of handwritten notes found in his files. It is further documentation that supports the usage of the 80 years of gage records rather then the estimates submitted by Mr. Stewart of the 1897, 1909, 1917 and 1921 flood events in determining the 100 year flood flows on the Skagit River.
1/22/2006	Historical Facts - What Have We Learned	Document highlights some of the facts we have uncovered due to historical research.
2/5/2006	Historical Dredging On The Skagit River (1920-1966)	This document looks at 46 years of Skagit County history, 20 of which actual dredging (sidecasting method) was being done. It explores all the reasons local people wanted it done and all the reasons the Corps of Engineers says it cannot be done for flood control purposes.
2/5/2006	Flowage Easements	This paper was originally authored in 1996. Skagit County may wish to consider this as a possible avenue to pursue for impacted property owners affected by any proposed flood control project.
3/19/2006	Historical Dam Building And Their Impacts On Floods - PDF (1924-1969) (Word Version)	This document was also prepared using the historical information obtained from local newspaper articles. It documents the construction of the dams and their impacts on flood events.
4/24/2006	DC Trip Experience	My reflections on my trip to Washington D.C. Wherein I got to watch my federal government do what they do best... which is absolutely nothing.
5/7/2006	Declaration of Fred W. Slipper	Mr. Slipper's declaration documents the fact that not all of the homes in Hamilton had water in them in 1921 (See 12/24/21 C.H.) and that the house he grew up in only had water in it in 1921 to the depth of a couple of inches until the 1990 flood when it had 16 inches.
6/18/2006	Stewart 1923 Report -- Retyped Version	This is a retyped version of Mr. Stewart's 1923 work product. The only changes that were made were the font was changed from Courier 10 to Times New Roman 12 and the spacing was changed from double space to 1.5 in order to save space. Footnotes were added to indicate handwritten notes that appeared on the original presumably from Corps of Engineers employees. NOTE: You can do word searches on this document.
6/18/2006	Narrow Canyons	This assemblage of pictures is to document how narrow the canyons are where the dams were built in order to emphasize the probability and likelihood of these areas being subject to serving as collection points for major flood blockages due to log jams, landslides, ice jams or debris flows all of which could have contributed to the Indian legend floods of 1820 and 1856 just like The Dalles contributed to either the 1897 or 1906 flood as documented in Mr. Stewart's field notes. (See 11/19/1896 SCT, 3/5/1936 C.H. and James E. Stewart Field Notes.
6/18/2006	Letter to FERC in Response to DEIS	This document was filed with FERC in response to FERC's Relicensing efforts on the Baker River Dams and their Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Through the use of graphics produced by this website it is hoped that FERC, the Corps and PSE can see the minimal environmental impacts and maximum flood control impacts additional storage can mean to the taxpayers of our country.
7/23/2006	James E. Stewart Skagit River Flood Reports And Assorted Documents: A Citizen Critical Review Whitepaper, Updated and Republished	Two years worth of additional research culminated in this now 90 page document. All of the "new" information gathered further supported the conclusions reached when the paper was originally published in 2004. Reasons the Stewart data should be rejected include but are not limited to: Doesn’t conform to local history; Report is in conflict with Stewart’s handwritten notes and field notebook; WSP 612 (1929) and WSP 1527 (1961) both use Stewart’s 1918 and 1923 data. (You can’t get to the 1923 figures by using 1918 data.); Reports (1923 and 1961) were never completed; Stewart paid directly by Skagit County not USGS (Skagit owns his work product); No measurements taken between Baker River and The Dalles; Stewart’s work product rejected by Corps of Engineers in 1924 and 1951; Determination of “N-factor” at Sedro-Woolley inappropriate for The Dalles something Mr. Stewart himself was concerned about.
8/1/2006	Letter to Congress re: Storage behind Baker Dams	Letter tries to show Congress that the storage behind the Baker Dams is a reasonable, responsible, economical and much needed action for effective flood control in Skagit County.
9/22/2006	Stewart July 1918 Skagit River Flood Report - Retyped	This is a retyped version of Mr. Stewart's 1918 work product. Footnotes were added to explain terms and indicate handwritten notes that appeared on the original. NOTE: You can do word searches on this document.
9/22/2006	1961 Stewart-Bodhaine Report - Retyped	This is a retyped version of Water Supply Paper 1527 (WSP 1527). The only changes were those of formatting and two footnotes were added to explain technical details. NOTE: You can do word searches on this document.
12/27/2006	ISYS QUERY BPA	This document represents all references to the BPA contained in the 28,000 electronic documents in our database. It clearly shows that the BPA does not want to pay for flood control for Skagit County. Given the enormous impact the dams have on flood damages, this outrageous position of yet another federal agency involved with the flood control issue should be condemned by all.
1/7/2007	ISYS QUERY FLOODWAY	One of the most contentious issues in 2007-2008 will be the placement of a floodway in the lower valley in accordance with the NFIP regulations. This documents represents a small sampling of historic documents that address this issue. As the documents clearly show a floodway designation was in fact made in the 1980's however was never enforced.
1/27/2007	17B Analysis	This document analyzes the guidelines contained in the Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, commonly referred to as 17B as they apply to using the Stewart data in computing flood flow analysis on the Skagit River.
4/15/2007	LJK Analysis of the NHC Skagit River Hydrology Draft Report	Overall, while the document could use some tweaking, it is the best analysis of the historical flood flows ever performed on the Skagit River.
6/26/2007	Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement	Proposed agreement for Plan B involving power-sharing among governing bodies of Skagit County.
7/20/2007	Why Dredging Won't Work	Channel 300-800 ft. wide, 100 year floodplain 5,280-15,840 ft. (1-3 miles) wide, how deep do you think the ditch has to be? Updated to add slides showing how much cubic yards were taken out of the Skagit and about the ships dredging the Skagit and removing snags "for navigational purposes".
11/17/2007	Preliminary Historical Investigation of East Concrete and Crofoot Addition Flood Levels	Submission to nhc of potential properties in Concrete and other locations for forensic investigation to find actual flood levels.
1/15/2008	Why Crofoot Matters	One-page explanation that explains why a forensic investigation of Crofoot Addition in Concrete is appropriate to resolving conflicting hydrology.
1/27/2008	Concerns about Pacific International Engineering (PIE)	Cited newspaper research concerning PIE's project history.
6/23/2008	Skagit River Reports (Past studies, reports, documents)	This document identifies the examinations, reports, studies, GDM, and other documents written about the Skagit River and was updated with 34 new reports spanning between 4/9/2003 and 2/28/2008. Most of these documents I have copies of and am willing to make available upon request. The original list of Jan. 24 1999 was compiled with Corps of Engineers assistance.
6/2008	Historical Record of Fish Related Issues (1897-1969)	“If the Salmon is to ever reach their historic levels in the Skagit River we must employ better logging and agricultural practices, curtail urban drainage and pollution, re-create the natural estuaries, increase spawning habitat areas, do a better job of regulating the flows from the dams and severely curtail the placing of nets in the river. I absolutely believe that unless these practices are instituted the Skagit Salmons demise is not only apparent but guaranteed. We will have no one to blame but ourselves.”
09/14/2008	LJK Comments on Aug. 18, 2008 Corps of Engineers Presentation	“Corps understatement at meeting, “Doing anything with us is kind of complicated.” ”
09/29/2008	LJK Proposed Modifications to the Goals and Objectives of the Skagit River Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan	Proposed modifications with all additions are in blue, all deletions in red ~~strikeout~~.
12/14/2008	1925 Metsker's Atlas - Annotated With James E. Stewart Locations	Metsker Maps of Skagit River basin from Burlington to Rockport annotated with known locations where, according to his field notebook, James E. Stewart surveyed for flood elevation marks in 1922.
4/20/2009	Measures 4 & 5 - Nookachamp and Hart Slough Storage Issue Paper Presented to Advisory Committee	“I take great issue with the following verbiage that I am assuming was handed out at the Dike and Drainage Sub-committee: “The Nookachamps floodplain historically has provided various levels of natural storage, depending on the magnitude of the flood peak and shape of the hydrograph, to significantly reduce flood peaks.” (Source: Skagit River Flood Reduction Feasibility Study, PIE April 2006) The truth of the matter is that there is very little that is “natural” about the storage in the Nookachamps.”
7/19/2009	FCZD AC Draft Recommendations With Cost Estimates Provided by LJK	Proposed fast-track Advisory Committee measures could cost in excess of $150 Million dollars.
7/19/2009	Potential Sales Tax Revenue for Flood Control Measures from 2005-2008	If Skagit County had instituted a half-cent sales tax (.005) in the year 2005, we could have raised in excess of 42 million dollars for flood control.
8/10/2009	El Nino, La Nina & Normal Flood Years -- 1900-2004	Document compares El Nino to La Nina and our normal flood years. The document shows us that almost all of our major flood events happened in so-called normal years.
10/31/2009	Levee Failure and Tidal Analysis of the Mount Vernon Gage	Research into whether or not levee failures downstream or tides impact the Mount Vernon gage at the 3-bridge corridor.
11/16/2009	LJK Funding Options	Six page handout for the November 16, 2009 SC FCZD AC meeting on funding options for flood control.
12/27/2009	The Decade of “Paralysis of Analysis” in Documents	In order to prepare for a look back at the last decade we took all the documents published on this web site from 1/1/2000 until 12/31/2009 and put them in chronological order, regardless of their author, into one document. As always, when you put documents into chronological order they tell you a story. (See Angry Citizen December 2009)
1/10/2010	Chapter 6 CFHMP LJK Final Draft	33 pages of flood history documentation of the Skagit River.
1/19/2010	Handout to Jan. 19, 2010 SC FCZD AC Meeting	7 page handout on actual flood conditions in Crofoot's Addition to the south of Concrete.
3/7/2010	Retyped for clarity and emphasis 8/14/1953 Corps document. See Seattle District Office Ltr re: Flood Control Requirement and Operating Procedure for Ross Reservoir, Skagit River, Wash. for original document.	For this document we took the original 8/14/1953 document, retyped it verbatim and added emphasis, footnotes, and a flood CFS table to show what the Corps was studying. The document shows us that among many other things, the Corps used the Sedro-Woolley Stewart figures to compute the Ross Dam storage requirements, this despite the fact the Stewart data wasn’t published yet, and presents a serious question as to why they discarded the Stewart Concrete figures before 1924; if the 1909 flood happened today it would carry approximately only 185,000 CFS not the 220,000 CFS Stewart estimated; and the Corp recommended storage only “start” to be accomplished on November 1st even though 24% of the flood events “studied” happened in October. This document is a must read for everyone interested in storage issues for the Skagit River.
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.”
12/29/2010	Documents Posted in 2010 on www.SkagitRiverHistory.com	A listing of every document posted to SkagitRiverHistory.com in 2010, broken out between documents dated before 2010 and documents created in 2010.
1/27/2011	Historic Flood Flows of the Skagit River	This document list the flood events and the recorded flows. I first put this together in 1991 when I authored Skagit River Valley The Disaster Waiting To Happen. Most of the information came from the 1979 Corps of Engineers GDM used for the 1979 Levee Improvement project proposal. I have updated the document each time we had another flood event. It is sort of a running record of flood events on the Skagit River.
3/27/2011	Skagit County... FEMA's Hole in the Ground	Publishing FEMA NFIP Policy Statistics as of Jan. 31, 2011 & Loss Statistics from Jan. 1, 1978 up to Jan. 31, 2011.
4/30/2011	Interesting Quotes From 1/10/64 Corps of Engineers Public Hearing on Avon Bypass	See what your neighbors and relatives had to say about the Avon Bypass in 1964. “During my life time I have observed flooding of all the towns of Skagit County, from Edison to Stanwood, and I feel sure that history will repeat this disaster if steps are not taken to prevent it. . . . New developments and the potential increased population in Skagit County certainly justifies the Bypass with its accompanying improvements.” James Hulbert Sr., Fir Island Farmer, and Dike Commissoner of Several Dike Districts during the last Fifty Years, January 10, 1964 public hearing on Avon Bypass See also: Public Hearing Transcript; Corps mtg with Skagit County residents re Improvement Downstream Levees and adding Fisheries and Recreation to Avon ByPass, Various Exhibits Submitted to USACOE at Public Hearing
5/3/2011	Before-After Flooding in the Skagit River Basin	A series of photographs showing how floods impact the Skagit River Basin. Note how development has crept into the Skagit River floodplain after each flood.
11/26/2011	www.SkagitRiverHistory.com Comments on October 2011 Corps Scoping Summary Report	Comments about various measures proposed in the 10/2011 Skagit River General Investigation Study Scoping Summary Report for the Draft Feasibility Study And Environmental Impact Statement.
1/1/2012	Documents Posted in 2011 on SkagitRiverHistory.com	“During 2011 we published 165 historical documents and 125 documents dated in 2011 for a total of 290 documents.” Document lists each posting by jurisdiction of creation divided by pre-2011 & 2011.

Date	Title	Summary
1/16/1998	Basic River Facts	Over the years I have given over 200 presentations to Universities, High Schools, Elementary Schools, federal, state and local government agencies, citizen organizations, and elected officials. The ones listed on this web page are reflective of what those presentations have contained.
5/16/2004	Presentation to LaConner High School (Volcanic History, Flood History, Stewart Report)
2/14/2005	Presentation to Skagit County Commissioners on Historical Newspaper Articles 1895-1969
9/13/2005	Northwest Regional Floodplain Managers Association (NORFMA) Presentation 2005 - PDF
3/7/2006	James E. Stewart Work Product Goes to D.C. - presentation given to legislative aides, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and FEMA in Washington D.C. - PDF
11/16/2006	AWARE which addressed historical flooding, river migration, flood and fish projects, farming and the future of flood control in Skagit County
6/26/2007	Plan B Presentation - Presentation to Skagit County Commissioners urging formation of a flood agency and excise sales tax to be used specifically for flood project construction.
07/11/2008	PDF of Slides in Hearing re: Clear Valley Farm Wetland Banking Proposal - Testimony before Skagit County Hearing Examiner in opposition to Clear Valley Farm wetland banking proposal.
10/20/2008	Sterling Dam Presentation - Short presentation on the Sterling Dam between Burlington and Sedro-Woolley.
11/27/2008	November 2008 SC FCZD AC Discussion Documents - Arguments for/against staying in the Corps GI process.
01/20/2009	Skagit River Dredging: The Perception vs. The Truth - Short presentation for the Jan. 20, 2009 Skagit County Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee on the history of dredging and why dredging won't work.
10/25/2010	Presentation: Low Low Water in Puget Sound vs. Mean Sea Level - Questions concerning the datum used for historical floods at Sedro-Woolley and the impacts on Ross Dam Storage.

Date	Title	Summary
10/02/2005	1800s-1919 Master Index Articles	In the summer of 2004 I was contacted by Dan Berentson and asked to assist him in reviewing all the historical Skagit Argus newspaper articles for flooding stories. That project quickly grew into reviewing the Burlington Journal, Courier Times, Concrete Herald and Skagit Valley Herald archives as well. Out of all the projects I have been involved in and all the papers I have authored none have given me more satisfaction and sense of accomplishment then putting together these decade-by-decade indexes of historical articles. The index includes over 1,000 articles from the 5 newspapers arranged in chronological order.
	1920-1929 Master Index Articles
	1930-1939 Master Index Articles
	1940-1949 Master Index Articles
	1950-1959 Master Index Articles
	1960-1969 Master Index Articles
	All Articles Index: 1895-1970
5/17/2005	Recognition from the American Public Works Association	Helped Skagit County Government win "Project of the Year" award.
6/13/2005	Recognition from the Skagit County Commissioners	Skagit County Commissioners issued plaque awards for our involvement with the Historical Skagit River Flood Research.
Summer 2005	American Public Works Association - Washington State Chapter Newsletter	Awards ceremony.
10/2006	2006 Skagit County Government Flood Awareness Newsletter	Article regarding historical newspaper archive and web site by Skagit County Government.
2/25/2007	1979 Levee Improvement Project Historical Index	This index is a compilation of 30 newspaper articles from the Skagit Valley Herald concerning the 1979 Levee Improvement Project. It should be considered must reading for all city, county, and Federal employees that were not part of the 1979 project and are currently working on the flood control issue on the Skagit River.
5/27/2007	1981-1984 FEMA-BFE Flood Research	Compilation of articles describing the FEMA flood insurance base flood elevation and floodway determination made by FEMA in 1984.

Date	Title	Summary
9/26/1922	GNRR letter and Robert Herzog Report (1st Avon By-Pass Proposal)	This report is significant in that it was the first study devoted entirely to the Avon By-Pass concept and it was authored by private enterprise.
10/6/1922	Hogeland letter to GNRR President	Acknowledges breaking of levees saved bridge. Felt that when levees were improved they would lose bridge. Wanted to build bypass.
10/11/1922	GNRR Vice President letter	Acknowledges "enormous size" of floods however due to "infrequency" and "short duration" thought locals had more to lose then railroad so didn't want to get "overly" involved due to probable cost to railroad.
12/20/1923	Letter to GNRR Vice President (re flood control status)	NPRR sent Herzog to Corps public meeting in Mt. Vernon. He reported, "Nothing of any importance transpired." Corps only interested in navigation improvements not flood control.
11/10/1936	Letter to GNRR President (re opposition to By-Pass)	Avon By-Pass project to cost $1,832,000. Locals said they couldn't afford it. NPRR wanted taxpayers to pay for improvements to their bridge.
3/10/1937	Letter to GNRR President	Tells President of March 2nd meeting in which By-Pass plan was "quite unfavorable" amongst those in attendance due to the cost of the project. Felt plan would be "indefinitely postponed".
6/8/1955	GNRR Chief Engineer letter	Corps of Engineers reported that the By-Pass proposed in 1936 did not meet their minimum cost benefit ratio.
8/23/1963	Letter to GNRR President	Avon By-Pass again being considered. GNRR concerned about involvement of Milo Moore (Fisheries Director) in development scheme in Fidalgo and Padilla Bays.
9/7/1965	Letter from GNRR Ass't Engineer	Avon By-Pass cost soared to $23,940,000. $1.5 million was for improvements to GNRR bridges.
9/1965	Ltr fm Seattle District to Portland District re GNRR Request to Make Bridge #36 A Fixed Bridge	Seattle wanted guidance on how to respond to GNRR request to make the bridge a fixed bridge. Elevations cited in the letter appear to be questionable.
9/20/1965	Letter to Seattle District ACOE from GNRR re swing Bridge #36 across the Skagit River	GNRR (BNSF) wanted to change the bridge from a swing bridge to a fixed bridge. Stated in part: "The Great Northern Bridge, in closed position, has substantial clearance to the water surface, the bottom of low steel is Elevation 43.1 ...",... "The Bridge has not been opened for commercial river traffic since September 9, 1959."
8/9/1966	Letter to GNRR President	Letter discusses how Avon By-Pass plan would impact their bridges.
11/11/1966	Letter to GNRR President	Letter attaches 11/8/66 Seattle PI article re: $5,804,000 levee improvement project approved by Congress and President Johnson. No indication in any record that project was ever constructed.

Date	Title	Summary
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.
11/22/1978	Baker Lake Reservoir Flood Control Negotiations Ltr and Notes from Skagit County Engineer to Skagit County Commissioners	“Negotiations are faultering (sic) over the method of reimbursement to Puget Power for power loss due to this agreed draw-down. Puget Power is indicating to the Corps that they want reimbursement in power, rather than in financial remuneration. This in turn involves Bonneville Power Administration in a very complicated 3-party negotiation process.” PDF also includes notes from and about the Corps of Engineers' role in Baker River dam storage.
2/17/1983	Corps of Engineers Seattle District Presentation to February 17, 1983 Skagit River Flood Control Committee on Dam Storage	Slides showing how Army Corps of Engineers operated Upper Baker Dam and Ross Dam in December 1980 flood. “Dams provide flood damage reduction. But dams cannot eliminate the possibility of flooding.”
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.

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.”
2011 Scoping Efforts
8/08/2011	National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Steps	Flow chart of the environmental impact evaluation that must occur under NEPA alongside the GI Study process.
8/08/2011	Skagit River General Investigation (GI): Feasibility Phase Flow Chart	Flow chart of the current phase of the GI Study.
8/09/2011	Brochure: What is NEPA... and the Public Scoping Process?	“What is NEPA scoping? “Scoping is part of the EIS process through which a federal agency describes a proposed action and possible alternatives. The agency then seeks input from other agencies, organizations, and the public on potentially affected resources, environmental issues to be considered, and the agency’s planning approach to the analysis.”
8/09/2011	Poster: Skagit River General Investigation Study Project Purpose	“Project Purpose: “The purpose of the Skagit River General Investigation (GI) Study is to identify the problems and opportunities that exist to reduce flood risks and to develop a flood risk management plan.”
8/10/2011	Dike District 17 Submission to US Army Corps of Engineers 2011 Scoping Efforts	"Burlington Levy Certification program... We must take as much of our critical infrastructure out of harms way with the least amount of impact to the environment. Water running through the city and then back to the river or the sound ... not good."
8/10/2011	National Environmental Policy Act Public Scoping Meeting Comment Form	Comment form handed out at August 10, 2011 Scoping Meeting. The comment form is optional in submitting comments.
8/10/2011	Skagit River General Investigation Study: NEPA Scoping Meeting	Agenda of the Skagit River GI Study Scoping Meeting.
8/15/2011	Information Sheet for Skagit River GI	“The primary intent of the flood risk management feasibility study is to evaluate flooding problems in the Skagit River basin from the Ross Dam reservoir (Ross Lake) to Skagit Bay; to formulate, evaluate, and screen potential solutions to these problems; and to recommend an alternative that has a federal interest and are supported by the local entities. The recommended plan must be technically viable, economically sound, and supported by the local jurisdictions and local sponsor. The study will result in an integrated Feasibility Study Report/Environmental Impact Statement (FR/EIS). “The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Skagit River General Investigation in the July 29, 2011 Federal Register. A NOI was originally published in the Federal Register in November 1997 and a public meeting was held. Due to the amount of time that has lapsed since the issuance of the original NOI, the Corps has reissued the NOI and is soliciting comments. A DEIS is being prepared due to the potential for impacts on environmental resources and the intense public interest already demonstrated in addressing the Skagit River flooding problems.”
8/15/2011	Skagit River GI Measures Map	Map of proposed flood fighting measures.
8/26/2011	Skagit River GI NOI Comment Period Extension	“During the comment period, requests to extend the comment period were received. In response to these requests, the comment period for the NOI has been extended through September 9, 2011.”
10/2011	Skagit River General Investigation Study Scoping Summary Report for the Draft Feasibility Study And Environmental Impact Statement	“The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District (USACE), in cooperation with Skagit County, is preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for a proposed flood-risk management General Investigation (GI) Study for the Skagit River Basin from Ross Lake to the river mouth at Skagit Bay. This study was requested by Skagit County because of the potential for significant flooding on the Skagit River. “An initial notice of intent (NOI) for this project was originally published in the Federal Register on November 20, 1997, for a Skagit River Flood Damage Reduction Study (62 FR 62019). Since the original NOI was issued in 1997, the study has evolved to meet new challenges and include ecosystem considerations associated with Puget Sound Chinook salmon and bull trout species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). On July 29, 2011, an additional NOI was published, recommencing the scoping process (76 FR 45543) (see Appendix A). The purpose of this most recent NOI was to provide opportunity for additional public input and ensure that the study still accurately reflects stakeholder resource issues and concerns.” See also: 11/26/2011 www.SkagitRiverHistory.com Comments on October 2011 Corps Scoping Summary Report

11/26/1924	Notice and Minutes of Public Hearing In Connection With Preliminary Examination of "Skagit River, Washington, With A View To The Control Of Its Floods" Directed By Flood Control Act of May 31, 1924	“I would like to emphasize the point, that Mr. Knapp brought out in his paper, that before any highly scientific plan can be prepared for the protection of this valley from floods, it is necessary to have more authoritative information than we now have as to the amount of water carried by the river in time of floods. ... The information that was collected by Mr. Stewart and given in his report to the committee was excellent so far as the dots that he had to work upon permitted, but that data was necessarily more or less inaccurate.” Colonel W. J. Barden, Colonel, Corps of Engineers Seattle District Engineer
11/26/1924	Robert E.L. Knapp, Skagit County Engineer, Testimony for 11/26/1924 Hearing
11/26/1924	J.O. Rudene, Skagit County Property Owner Testimony for 11/26/1924 Hearing
11/26/1924	H.L. Willis, Skagit River Improvement Committee Chairman Testimony for 11/26/1924 Hearing
3/02/1937	Report of Public Hearing	“The farmers have tilled the soil up close to the banks of the river; the dikes are built there, and the problem of dredging presents a situation where there is no place adequate to waste the sand that is taken from the river bed. In other words, it will result in an attempt to confine to too narrow an area the volume of water that must escape. That was faulty planning, or lack of planning at the start. But the expenditures have been made and the farmers are attempting from their own pockets to keep that situation intact and improve it.” [R. V. Welts, Chairman, Skagit County Planning Council]
4/12/1949	Minutes on Public Hearing on Skagit River, Washington, Relating to Navigation	“What we have now is a two-edge sword. The Skagit River is a real benefit to us, and on the other hand it is a constant hazard.” [Mr. Nordmark, Anacortes Chamber of Commerce]
2/08/1961	Public Hearing on Flood Control for the Skagit River Basin, 8 February 1961	“I am particularly interested in securing information on the nature and scope of the flood control improvements desired; the problems and difficulties encountered under the present conditions, and the proposed developments which would utilize the desired improvements that you would suggest.” [Source: Colonel R.P. Young, Corps of Engineers]
2/8/1961	Missing Exhibits to Public Hearing Transcript	This is a series of letters that were submitted during the 2/8/61 Public Hearing. Dike 12: "The dike has been raised an overall height of 2 feet for a distance of approx. 9 miles. As they continue to build restrictions into the river below us, narrowing the stream flow, it will be necessary to raise the height of the dike." La Conner: "In 1882, six feet of flood water inundated the land, damaged crops, and broke the dikes. In 1886 the Skagit River overflowed and froze and in 1887 a late spring freshet damaged crops." Dike 17: District formed in 1907. Letter identifies where the levee broke in 1917 & 1921. Raised their levee 18 inches above the 1951 level. Dike 20: (Nookachamps) Dike not high enough to keep out water over 24 feet. Dwelly: Supported dredging for commerce but very opposed to Faber Dam. WSDOF: Skagit "most valuable" tributary to Puget Sound in sustaining commercial sport fishing. 65% of the Chinook salmon spawning area is located on main stem of the Skagit and tributaries above proposed Faber dam site. Supported building of Avon Bypass. Dairy Farmers: "They know what has happened to them in past floods..." Many dairy cows died in the 1951 flood. Mt. Vernon: Estimated over 4 million dollars of property in harm's way. Figure included 600 homes and 1,400,000 sq. ft. of commercial property and 10 miles of sewer lines in flood area. Total damages est. $6,200,000. Burlington: No loss since 1950. Made no specific recommendation for a flood control project. Needed to educate voters on flooding issue. See also: Public Hearing on Flood Control for the Skagit River Basin, 8 February 1961
1/10/1964	Public Hearing Transcript; Corps mtg with Skagit County residents re Improvement Downstream Levees and adding Fisheries and Recreation to Avon ByPass.	This public hearing transcript covers everything from dredging to the Sauk River Dam, to levee improvements, the Avon Bypass. It is a wonderful snapshot in time on the issue of flood control. Unfortunately, many of the views expressed at the public meeting are the same views being expressed by the uniformed today. One of the better quotes from the document is from an old timer who passed away a few years ago. "Let's have protection now, rather than 'Aid to a Disaster Area' later." Zell A. Young, Welder, West Mt. Vernon, January 10, 1964 public hearing on Avon Bypass
1/10/1964	Various Exhibits Submitted to USACOE at Public Hearing	"We the Commissioners of Dike District #20 have hopes that with these projects completed we can expand our Dike District #20 so that the entire Nookachamp Valley can be Diked to give our farms protection from Floods that cover our farms land on an average of every three years, but realize that as off now we act as a reservoir for flood waters from the Skagit River so the lower parts of the Valley will have additional protection. If our areas were diked at this time it would be impossible for the Skagit River to carry even a normal high water." George Dynes, Dike Dist 20 Let's have protection now, rather than 'Aid to a Disaster area later. Zell Young See also: Public Hearing Transcript; Corps mtg with Skagit County residents re Improvement Downstream Levees and adding Fisheries and Recreation to Avon ByPass.
3/22/1978	Public Meeting on the Skagit River Levee and Channel Improvement Project	Meeting to discuss potential Corps projects for the Skagit River originally authorized in 1966 by Congress and to receive citizen input. See also 3/23/78 SVH for a meeting summary.
6/17/1979	Transcript of Public Hearing	“To me, to live in a flood plain and act shocked when the floods come is ridiculous. To live in the flood plain without raising the buildings is ridiculous and to expect taxpayers all over the country to pay the bills because some folks in Skagit Valley just didn't build their town right, is obsured [absurd]. If you are going to spend $55 million plus $88,000.00 a year on management costs we had better get a solution to the problem and the most recent June 1979 brochure which you got there is a list of alternatives, only four lines in this brochure are used to gloss over the only alternative that I feel that would bring a long-term solution to this flood damage problem. That would be rezoning, flood-proofing and raising the structures.” [Source: Bruce Stroker, Big Lake Resident]
8/10/2011	Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings Skagit County Flood Study Meeting Fixed link!	“NEPA really does encourage citizen participation via public hearings, scoping meetings, these comment periods where you can send in your written comments. Public involvement is a very important aspect of the NEPA process. It's an opportunity for the public to participate in a federal decision-making process and direct an agency's attention to the community's concerns.”