Dredging Issue

Date	Title	Summary
Dredging Issue

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.
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".
1/20/2009	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.

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]
1961	Drainage District 17	District encompassed 4,680 acres. Wanted to dredge South Fork of Skagit River.
2/6/1961	Letter to the Corps from the City editor of the Concrete Herald	1961 letter to Corps from Concrete Herald editor re his opposition to Faber Dam site and his support of dredging.
9/7/1965	Corps letter to Congressman Meeds re Avon Bypass	Extensive letter justifying the Bypass concept. Addresses why dredging won't work and setback levees too expensive.
3/1/1966	Supplement to Review Report on Flood Control and Other Improvements on Skagit River, Wa., Corps of Engineers, Seattle District	Report address a myriad of flood control options including dredging, widening channel, dredging the mouth of the river and levee raising.
6/8/1978	June 8, 1978 Skagit County Flood Control Council Meeting Minutes	“The Council questioned Mr. Skrinde regarding dredging of the mouth of the North Fork of the Skagit River. Mr. Skrinde answered that he had done considerable study of dredging for the mouth of the North Fork as an Engineer for the Corps. That an undertaking of this nature would be very expensive. That a pile line or rock rip-rap line along each side of the channel would be necessary at great expense. That Skagit County would have to sign a maintenance agreement with the Corps to keep this channel clear once it was established. That most likely, this channel would need dredging each year. The cost to Skagit County for this maintenance operation would be prohibitive.”
2/7/1979	February 7, 1979 Skagit County Flood Control Council Invitation	“It seems a considerable number of people in Skagit County still feel dredging is a reasonable alternative for Flood Protection. We need to address this thinking.”
2/7/1979	February 7, 1979 Skagit County Flood Control Council Meeting Minutes	“Considerable discussion took place regarding the feeling by some people that dredging the river is the answer to flood protection. Mr. Nelson pointed out that the Project as presented will not include dredging for a number of reasons. ... The Board discussed the possibility of the Dike Districts assisting Skagit County in financing the local portion of the Levee Project. The Board feels the Dike Districts should incur little expense for dike construction and maintenance for a considerable time after construction of the levees is completed. It has been roughly estimated that the combined Diking Districts have a tax base of about $250,000,000. The Board feels an annual levee of about 50 cents per $1,000 valuation would be reasonable. At this rate, the Diking Districts could raise about $125,000 per year to assist Skagit County in financing the local portion of the Levee Project.”
5/31/1991	MFR re amounts of material "dredged" out of the Skagit River	This MFR documents the historical “dredging” performed by the Corps. In reality the Corps never really dredged anything. The process was called “side-casting” which put the sand obtained from the bottom of the river up on the river banks where it proceeded to be washed back into the river during the next freshet.
1996	Dredging - Frequently asked Questions/Statements	Questions and answers about dredging of the Skagit River.
9/14/2000	WG Minutes	Ron Malmgren replied that even if the capacity of the river was doubled by dredging 40 to 50 feet deep with an 800-foot channel width, one would still see a tidal effect at Mount Vernon. Because the tide holds the water back, dredging simply won’t be that helpful. Additionally, the dredged area will be filled in about 5 years and all of the fish habitat will have been destroyed. . . . Questions turned to how much dredging can be done before the integrity of the levees is compromised. Sky replied that one cannot dig below 40 feet. Curt Wylie mentioned that for every foot over flood stage, the river scours a foot deeper into the riverbed. Sky confirmed this statement and added that the river moves around and dredges a hole in the riverbed. When the river slows down it drops its sediment load, which will fill in any holes that were created through dredging. Additionally, clean water flows faster and will pick up more soil increasing the level of erosion. . . . Bob Boudinot asked what distance the levees would have to be setback to accommodate flooding. Ron answered that they would have to be moved 500 to 1,000 feet depending on the capacity. The Burlington Northern railroad is the biggest constriction of the river. Bob noted that it was the shore side spans of the railroad bridge that caused the constrictions and not the piers. Therefore, they should only have to add short spans between the piers close to the shore. . . . Stephen Pierce asked what the benefits of overtopping are. Ron responded that the rural areas get wet and not the urban areas. Chuck Bennett asked if they could develop a plan in which the set backs hold 190,000 to 200,000 c.f.s. and overtopping areas take the rest of the floodwaters. He noted that the set backs are more of a controlled system as opposed to the overtopping. Ron Malmgren informed him that it was possible.
9/14/2000	Corps PowerPoint Presentation re answers to various questions presented by the WG	Addresses’ issues like the Mt. Vernon revetment, storage in the Nookachamps, levee setbacks, Gages Slough and dredging.
3/16/2009	Public Comment Submission from Dan O'Donnell, re: Environmental Technical Committee's findings regarding Measure #35 - La Conner	“Regardless of the Corps' label, this project has consistently been called: "Gap Filler". In a meeting with Col. Wright, it was made clear that the objective is to replace the approximately 1,700 lineal feet of levee that was removed in the early 1970's, and rebuild the spoils left from dredging an additional 1,100 ft. The Town Council does not envision building a new ring dike around La Conner.”
6/3/2009	jacksonfreepress.com story: Drowning Jackson	“For most of the past century, the answer to flooding was to straighten rivers or strategically dam them up. There was no problem human ingenuity couldn’t dredge or concrete its way out of. It was only after we developed a deeper understanding of our environment and began to see the long-term destruction imposed by such projects that we began to reverse our strategy.”