". . . based on a review of the authorizing document and assuming such extension is justified and desired by local interests, extension of the project that far via a phase 1 report would require a significant Post Authorization Change report requiring Congressional action." . . . An alternative course of action would be to proceed with a GDM report covering the general project area reconsidering the degree of protection to be provided. At the same time preauthorization studies could proceed on the area upstream under the authority of the PSFAW study or under Section 216. Such a procedure would permit early construction capability and at the same time cover the full flood control needs of the area."

"... Skagit County's county-wide flood control zone will be an asset should any large projects, such as the Lower Levee Project or the Avon Bypass Project, be undertaken..." . . . "All of the Diking Districts and the County Engineering Department feel that we should keep working against the deauthorization of the Avon Bypass.

Meeting will have a Skagit GI Update & a nhc Hydraulic Effectiveness Report presentation.

100 yr flood at Sedro Woolley 239,000 cfs. . . . The existing levee system rests on a foundation of silts and sands common to the delta area. Differential heads of water in flood flow periods result in seepage through levee embankment and levee foundations, causing boils and blowouts that flood adjacent croplands.  . . .  The semi-pervious foundation conditions preclude any general raising of levees without extensive broadening of the levee sections, construction of cutoffs to reduce seepage and relocation of the road systems adjacent to the levee system. . . . Widening the Skagit River to carry flood flows is also infeasible. To achieve the same results as the Bypass and levee and channel improvements would produce, the channel would have to be widened from 300 to 600 feet from the downstream limits of Sedro Woolley to the mouth of the river, a distance of over 20 miles.  . . . The possibility of substantially increasing existing levee heights was opposed by the City Engineer of Mount Vernon and representatives of diking districts because of the hazard of underseepage and blowouts through porous foundation materials.  . . .  Representatives of the Washington State Department of Game and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service stated that the proposed levee and channel improvements would not adversely affect the runs of anadromous fish in the Skagit River, . . . The Avon Bypass project for flood control was endorsed by the Washington State Departments of Conservation, and Commerce and Economic Development, the Skagit County Board of Commissioners, the Skagit County Flood Control Council, the City Engineer of Mount Vernon, and local residents. The Chairman of the Skagit County Board of Commissioners stated that the people and taxpayers of Skagit County could be assured that they would have the right to vote on funding of local cooperation requirements for the project.  . . .  Opposition to the Bypass project was expressed by representatives of Fire District No. 6 and Diking District No. 12 on the grounds that the Bypass cost would be excessive and would sever both districts and make access difficult.  A petition signed by 740 persons was presented by a citizens' group that opposed the Bypass and any plans to modify the Bypass for other purposes.

A comprehensive plan, completed in 1971, called for increasing Skagit River flood control through use of reservoir capacity provided by Puget Sound Power and Light Company's Upper Baker hydroelectric power project in addition to the 16,000 acre-feet of storage space now available during the winter flood season. The detailed feasibility investigation being completed by the Corps of Engineers was in follow-up to the comprehensive study and undertaken under the same authority.  . . .  Land use zoning, development restrictions, flood proofing and early flood warning are flood plain management elements of this alternative which would be continued by Skagit County and the State of Washington.  . . . Baker Lake would be lowered to provide a total of 74,000 acre-feet of flood control storage between 15 November and 1 March each year.  . . .  Although increased flood control capability has the potential of creating increased development pressure on flood plain lands, especially those close to urban areas and those now protected by dikes and levees, this pressure is expected to be minimal.  . . . However, the application of stringent flood plain management techniques and flood plain zoning by Skagit County, as called for in the recommended plan, should reduce the likelihood and severity of such losses.  . . . The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service late in the study asked that flood control drawdown occur earlier than necessary for flood control in order to benefit Baker Lake salmon production.  This earlier drawdown would increase power losses and, therefore, would have to be justified by fishery enhancement benefits. No current provision exists in the FPC license for such a project operation change.  Because of this and the lack of data on fish production, the Corps study did not evaluate the early drawdown proposal.  . . .  Detailed engineering, economic and environmental impact studies were conducted over the past 2 years . . . Land use. The increased flood protection provided by this alternative (additional 58,000 ac ft storage) would not be sufficient to allow relaxation of current restrictions on intensive developments in flood hazard areas. Therefore, no effect on land use is expected.

COMMENTS RE ADDITIONAL STORAGE

False sense of security. Encourages development of flood plain for uses incompatible with flooding.  (Sierra) Would create a false sense of security which could induce continued building in floodprone areas. (R. Hammond, SWCD)  . . .  Not enough protection. Only corrects about 8 percent of the total flood damage of the basin. (Dept. Ecol.) Watershed above Upper Baker includes less than 7 percent of area of the Skagit at Mt. Vernon and about 10 percent of runoff volume. This degree of control would be small under severe conditions.  (SWCD)  . . .  Storage will increase. The additional flood storage could make the difference between the (a) disaster or high river stage. (PNWWA) Additional flood storage at Upper Baker will not adversely affect the environmental values of Skagit Valley. (EPA) It is only a start on the overall control program for Skagit, and its benefits will more than justify the costs.  (SWCD)

The documents represent what happens when there are one too many agencies trying to comment on a flood project when one of the agencies doesn't know anything about the flood issue.

The Dept. of Ag stated, "In addition, the Department of the Army, in their response to the study report, pointed out that designation of the Sauk River would preclude construction of, a flood control storage project on the river. However, alternatives to the Sauk River site exist which would provide the same degree of flood protection for downstream areas.

NOTE TO REVIEWER:  This is a very poor copy of the original and very difficult to read.  It helps to enlarge it to 125-150%.  This document looked at the history of a navigation project between Mt. Vernon and Concrete originally authorized by Congress on May 13, 1947.  The final results are in this report as well as a lot of statistical history on logging and local businesses.

"Tug operators advised that a 100-ft channel width and a 6 foot depth would be sufficient for foreseeable navigation requirements." (¶13) ... Approx 1,520,000 CY of material would be dredged. (¶15 & 21)  Estimated that annual maintenance dredging would consist of 380,000 CY.  (¶22b)  Two mills at SW sell annually, an average of 10,500,000 board-feet of lumber to the US Army. (¶27)  Total annual benefits of barge canal would be $592,000. (¶28)  Annual cost $474,000. (¶29) Amt needed to complete study $45,000. (¶30) The Skagit River navigation study has been authorized and intermittently underway since 1947 In view of this fact ... an effort should be made to complete the study as soon as practicable.  ... $15,000 needed to complete the study be allocated early in fiscal year 1964. (¶31)

“Swinomish Chairman Cladoosby recently told the three of us that he intends to control land use in the Skagit Basin by controlling the water supply, effectively bypassing Growth Management Act (GMA) process. From our standpoint, this sentiment explains the present conflict over water rights in the Skagit Basin. ... Skagit County has prohibited most development on floodplain, farmland, and forestland, consistent with the GMA. The stream basins at issue are the same narrow swath of pre-foothill land in Skagit County identified under the GMA for limited rural growth.”

Meeting will discuss Skagit River GI & Baker FERC Relicensing 107 (c).