This webpage is to inform readers of updates to the website. The updates will remain for a period of three months and then will be replaced with the following month.
Downloadable Readers
| Date |
Title |
Summary |
| March 2010 | ||
| LJK Documents | ||
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. |
| City of Burlington Documents | ||
| 2/25/2010 |
Burlington Response to USGS Refusal to Attend Technical Conference | “I am not an expert here but as I understand it, the criticism is that the model cannot accurately determine the water surface levels through the Dalles Gorge. Again, I am not an expert, but I must say that this criticism completely misses the point.” |
| Corps of Engineers Documents | ||
| 2/28/1951 |
Skagit River – Rough Estimate of Flood Damages from Sedro-Woolley to Mouth of Skagit River | This is a wonderful historical document drafted for the purpose of computing the 1951 flood damages however it also contains detailed information on the floods of 1949, 1932, and 1921. What it clearly shows us is the reliance on the James E. Stewart data 10 years before it was published. |
| 8/13/1953 |
Ltr to USACE Corps District Office in Portland fm USACE Seattle District Office re: Flood Control Requirement and Operating Procedure for Ross Reservoir, Skagit River, Wash. | This document provides descriptive detail into how
the USACE determined to lower the required 200,000 acre feet originally required
for flood control storage down to 125,000 acre feet. “All discharges of more
than 65,000 second-feet at either Sedro Woolley (1908
through 1923) and Concrete (1924 to date)
occurring in October, November, and December were studied.” See also: Retyped for clarity and emphasis 8/14/1953 Corps document. |
| General Webpage Updates for March 2010 | ||
| Rain Gauge |
Updating for February 2010 totals. |
|
| February 2010 | ||
| City of Burlington Documents | ||
| 1/21/2010 |
Request for Technical Conference to Resolve Skagit River Hydrology to FEMA | “We would like an opportunity for both FEMA's experts and our experts to sit in the same room, dedicate the uninterrupted and focused time necessary to go through the information, explain and discuss the technical arguments, defend technical positions, and then work together through all of the individual components of the analysis, point by point, to reach agreement.” |
| 2/2/2010 |
State Legislators Request Technical Conference of the Corps of Engineers | “Recent discussions between Skagit County, Mount Vernon, Burlington and Dike District staff with senior Civil Works and Corps of Engineers executives raised the possibility that an expert technical panel/conference could be convened ahead of the milestone Feasibility Scoping Meeting set for the Skagit General Investigation Study this year. Local jurisdictions have committed to help pay travel and per diem expenses for Corps of Engineers experts and other independent experts participating in the conference.” |
| 2/2/2010 |
State Legislators Request Technical Conference of FEMA Mitigation Directorate | “We are writing to urge your support to convene a technical conference March 17-18 in Washington D.C. to exchange information and defend technical positions regarding the Skagit River hydrology, focusing in particular on the historic flood events. The purpose of this conference would be to resolve the Skagit hydrology issue if possible; but if not, build a knowledge base among FEMA's technical experts and staff about the issue.” |
| 2/12/2010 |
Request for Technical Conference to Resolve Skagit River Hydrology to Congressman Larsen | “We have formally requested FEMA convene a 2-day technical conference March 17-18 in Washington D.C. to consider the Skagit River hydrologic analysis, with a specific emphasis on determining the nature of the historic floods of 1921, 1917, 1909, and 1897. So far, FEMA has listened but taken no action. We are requesting your office's involvement to facilitate convening such a conference. We believe this request is consistent with the spirit and intent of FEMA's policy of working with local communities. Further, the situation with the Skagit hydrology is unique, and merits a special focus that this technical conference would provide.” |
| Corps of Engineers Documents | ||
| 1/7/1950 |
Letter to Skagit County Government Requesting Flood Fight Mapping |
“The Seattle District is reviewing its maps of the Skagit Valley in
order to incorporate therein data which might be of assistance during
flood-fighting operations.” See Also: 1/7/1950 Reply to Corps Request for Flood Fight Mapping |
| 1/11/1950 |
Corps of Engineers Involvement in Skagit River Flood Control Affairs | “It appears unlikely that any project can be recommended in which the local cost will be small, and therefore if effective control of floods is to be realized in the Skagit Valley, a good measure of local financial support is needed.” |
| 2/15/1950 |
Elevations of Skagit River Gages | NGVD 29 levels for Skagit River gages. |
| 5/24/1950 |
Letter to Skagit County Farm Bureau, Re: Dredging | “There has been very little additional material deposited in the river during the past 18 years between the south and Mt. Vernon. ... Dredging a cut-off at the mouth of the North Fork or dredging an outlet along the present path of the river from the south to deep water cannot lover flood stages at that point below the stage which would be experienced at high tide with normal flows.” |
| 1/24/1951 |
Letter to Congressman "Scoop" Jackson, Re: 12/26/1950 Letter from Skagit County Farm Bureau |
Discussion of various diking projects for Skagit River. See Also: 12/26/1950 Skagit County Farm Bureau Letter to Congressman Henry "Scoop" Jackson |
| 2/16/1951 |
Dike Dist. Letter to Seattle District Engineer, Re: Plans to dam off Dry Slough | “It has come to the attention of the commissioners that there is a project considered in your office to dam off Dry Slough at the point of "intersection" of this slough with the north fork of the Skagit. We must advise the engineer that the undersigned commissioners are in opposition to such a procedure and desire to place our objection on record and to request a hearing in the event the proposal is further pursued.” |
| FEMA Documents | ||
| 2/8/2010 |
FEMA Letter to City of Sacramento on Illegal Development Permits | “NFIP participating communities are required to enforce floodplain management regulations that meet minimum NFIP criteria. Failure to develop a corrective action plan that remediates the known violations, will result in a finding that the City's floodplain management program is not compliant with NFIP criteria; and, therefore, the City is ineligible for the CRS Program.” |
| USGS Documents | ||
| 2/24/2010 |
USGS E-mail response to Request for USGS Participation in a Technical Conference: Skagit River WA Hydrology | “The USGS is always willing to consider historic flood information, but as far as we know we have considered and evaluated all currently available information and nothing better exists than the work done by Mr. Stewart after the flooding and recently re-evaluated by the USGS. ... In summary, given the extensive work we have already done and the lack of any new compelling field information, I do not see how another meeting would be productive at this time. As a result, we respectfully decline to attend the proposed workshop.” |
| Ross Dam Storage Documents | ||
| 7/15/1946 |
Congressman Henry "Scoop" Jackson Letter to Corps of Engineers, Re: Application to Increase Ross Dam Height and Request for Flood Control |
“As you will note, the Skagit County Planning Commission and the Board
of County Commissioners have requested that any grant of right to
increase the height of the Ross Dan be granted only upon the condition
that the upper 15 feet of the dam, as either completed or partially
completed be reserved as storage for flood waters and for flood control
purposes.” Note: Upper 15 feet of full pool translates into 170,741 acre-feet of storage. As of 2/2010, Ross Lake has 119,629 acre-feet of flood control storage. |
| 9/26/1946 |
Seattle District Corps of Engineers Letter, re: Ross Dam Flood Capacity Needs | “From the tabulation in paragraph 4, it can be seen that 100,000 to 200,000 acre-feet of storage would control the winter floods of record on the upper Skagit.” |
| 11/20/1946 |
Acting Chief of Engineers for the Army Corps of Engineers Letter to Federal Power Commission, Re: Third Step in the Construction of the Ross Dam | “Studies by our District Engineer, Seattle, Washington, indicate that 300,000 acre-feet or more of capacity would be required to control floods comparable to the historical floods of 1851 and 1856, although a reserve capacity of approximately 200,000 acre-feet during the period 1 November to 1 April would have controlled floods of record since 1909.” |
| 1/16/1947 |
Seattle District District Engineer Corps of Engineer Letter to North Pacific Division, Re: Skagit County Planning Commission Meeting on Flood Storage, Ross Dam, Skagit River, Washington | “Several members of the committee objected to the proposed flood control reservation of 200,000 acre-feet from 1 November to 1 April on the grounds that, although the amount of storage was adequate, the period suggested did not include the usual early fall high water in October, nor the snow melt high water in April. In historic times neither of those high waters has exceeded bank-full stage of Skagit River, and anticipated reservoir operations are such that flood storage reservation in the months of October and April would reduce the prime power output of the plant. Nevertheless, the representative of Seattle City Light stated that the City would have no objections to reserving 200,000 acre-feet of flood storage from 1 October to 1 May of each year.” |
| 4/29/1947 |
Federal Power Commission Order Authorizing Amendment of License [to complete Ross Dam] | “Upon installation of the spillway gates it is provided that during the period November 1 to April 1 200,000 acre-feet of storage space in Ross Reservoir shall be reserved by the licensee for flood control and utilized as prescribed herein.” |
| 12/27/1948 |
Seattle City Light Letter, Re: Amendment of License - Project No. 553 - Third Step of Ross Dam | Request due to inadequate data, incomplete dam & powerhouse construction and also “the position that the Skagit Project bears to regional power development rather than an isolated project”. |
| 1/26/1950 |
Col. Itschner Ltr to Seattle Department of Lighting/Seattle City Light on Ross Dam Storage |
“The value of flood storage at Ross was recently demonstrated during the
November 1949 flood when river stages at Mount Vernon were reduced by an
estimated three feet through the fortunate availability of sufficient
storage above Ross Dam.” See Also: 1/7/1950 Reply to Corps Request for Flood Fight Mapping: At “the peak of the Nov. 27-28 flood... The dikes at Mount Vernon were about 1.5 or 2 feet above the peak at most places, with weak spots developing near Avon.” |
| 2/8/1950 |
Corps Seattle District Ltr to North Pacific Division, Re: Standard Project Flood, Skagit River Basin, Washington | “From the hydrograph on Plate 4 and considering 200,000 acre-feet available in Ross Reservoir for reduction of floods, it is calculated that the peak inflow of 97,000 second-feet could be reduced to a constant outflow of about 25,000 second-feet. The Skagit River Report may present data to indicate that a reduction to zero outflow for a short period may be better for flood control, but in any case it is evident that the Ross Reservoir, will be able to accomplish a substantial reduction of flood flows.” |
| 7/17/1950 |
Seattle City Light/Department of Lighting Letter to Corps of Engineers, Re: Costs of 200,000 Acre-Feet of Ross Dam Storage & Discharge Capability Past Gorge Diversion Dam | “The Department has made a study of the operations of the reservoir to effect flood control in the amount of 200,000 acre-feet to be made available continuously from December 1 through February 15 of each seasonal year. In this study it was assumed that the Skagit River plants would be operated as a part of the Northwest Power Pool.” |
| Skagit County Documents | ||
| 1/7/1950 |
Reply to Corps Request for Flood Fight Mapping | Through discussing about the Nov. 27-28 1949 flood.
At “the peak of the Nov. 27-28 flood... The town of Hamilton was under 2 to 4
feet of water. The other towns in the valley, Mount Vernon, Sedro Woolley,
Burlington and Lyman were not inundated but at least one, Burlington was
seriously threatened. ... The water was about 3.0 feet below the top of the dike
East of Burlington on Fairhaven St., and was about 1.5 feet below the top of the
dike northeasterly of Burlington. The dikes at Mount Vernon were about 1.5 or 2
feet above the peak at most places, with weak spots developing near Avon.” See Also: 1/5/1950 Letter to Skagit County Government Requesting Flood Fight Mapping |
| 12/26/1950 |
Skagit County Farm Bureau Letter to Congressman Henry "Scoop" Jackson | Request for four lower Skagit River Basin flood control projects to reduce flood damages. |
| 1/11/1951 |
Skagit County Farm Bureau Letter to US Senator Harry P. Cain | “The Skagit River normally empties into the Sound through many outlets besides its main channel. The Engineers closed several of these outlets thus forcing more water out through the main channel which raised the low rra.ter level at the mouth of the main channel by several feet. The drainage system for the lower Skagit Valley depends on emptying its ditches at low tide with a quick runout and holding high tide back by use of flood gates. The raised level of low water in the main Channel of the Skagit River makes this quick runoff impossible and the drainage system inoperative..” |
| 2/10/2010 |
Skagit County Commissioners' Letter to Seattle District Corps of Engineers | “We do not believe the uncertainty in the USGS data used in the Corps' hydrology analysis and the new information now available from the work performed by our consultants, has been incorporated into a review. Skagit County requests a technical conference with the Corps, USGS, and FEMA to address these findings and the USGS data used in the Corps' analysis.” |
| Skagit County Flood Control Zone Advisory Committee Documents | ||
| 2/16/2010 |
Agenda for Feb. 16, 2010 Meeting | Meeting is to review discussion on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps plus review chapters 1-4 of CFHMP. |
| 1/19/2010 |
“The common theme was the concern regarding FEMA's review of information submitted during the appeal process. Many feel the data submitted has not be taken into consideration. It was also mentioned there is a desire to hold a discussion about the hydrology of the Skagit River with FEMA and several other parties. ... Ryan was asked again about the possibility of having a technical panel review the base information and the maps and Ryan said that if it was up to him, he would like to get all of the experts in the same room and work this out. Unfortunately, it is not his call.” | |
| 2/10/2010 |
CFHMP Draft Chapter 1 | Draft Introduction to Skagit River Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan/CFHMP as of Feb. 10, 2010. |
| 2/10/2010 |
CFHMP Draft Chapter 2 | Draft Skagit River Basin Characteristics section of Skagit River Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan/CFHMP as of Feb. 10, 2010. |
| 2/10/2010 |
CFHMP Draft Chapter 3 | Fundamentals of Flooding section of Skagit River Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan/CFHMP as of Feb. 10, 2010. |
| 2/10/2010 |
CFHMP Draft Chapter 4 | Flood Warning and Operations in the Skagit River Basin section of Skagit River Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan/CFHMP as of Feb. 10, 2010. |
| General Webpage Updates for February 2010 | ||
| Quote of the Month | Studies into the Skagit River Flood Risk are... | |
| Rain Gauge |
Updating for February 2010 totals. |
|
| January 2010 | ||
| LJK Documents | ||
| 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. |
| Skagit County Flood Control Zone Advisory Committee Documents | ||
| 1/13/2010 | Swinomish Tribal Representative Resignation | “The purpose of this letter is to inform you of my resignation from the Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee (AC) and the Environmental Technical Committee. From the very beginning of this process, the Tribe explained that our support for individual flood damage reduction elements would be based on the result of a cumulative effects analysis that would consider many flood reduction actions together and their associated environmental consequences. ... However, the AC has moved forward and developed recommended action items without any analysis of the environmental consequences nor the level of flood damage reduction that would be achieved.” |
| 1/19/2010 | Agenda for January 19, 2010 Meeting (Handout 1) |
Topics of discussion are: 1) CFHMP Draft Update Status |
| 10/19/2009 |
“If a project is chosen to reduce flood risk in Skagit County, how would it be funded? Boudinot opened the discussion by handing out three documents: a presentation given by David Brookings in 2007, a table compiled from the Assessor's database (by Emma Whitfield, Skagit County Public Works), showing the Dike and Drainage Districts' monies received every year, and a report on Levy rates by Kunzler.” |
|
| General Webpage Updates for January 2010 | ||
| Quote of the Month | The truth about building in the floodplain. | |
| Rain Gauge |
Updated December 2009 totals. |
|