Alternativeletmehear

1SkagitRiverGeneralInvestigationStudyPublicOutreachonPreliminaryRangeofAlternativesApril/May2012Wewanttohearfromyou!
!
Pleasetakethetimetorespondtothequestionsbelow.
Youcanprovideyourcommentsby:LeavingthisformwithustodayoratSkagitCountyPublicWorksPuttingastamponthisformandsendingbyregularmailContactingDanielJohnsonWhatareyourthoughtsregardingthepreliminaryalternativesfortheSkagitRiverBasinMythoughtsatthisstageoftheon-going18yearprocesstodevelopthe"preliminaryalternatives"arebasedonover37yearsparticipationandresearchintothefloodingissueoftheSkagitRiver.
Ihaveauthoredandco-authored5booksonthehistoryoffloodingintheSkagitRiverBasinandhaveauthoredmany"Issue/Whitepapers"onthesubjectaswellasmanythoughtprovokingeditorials.
&IwouldberemissinmythoughtsifIdidnotexpressmyfeelingsthatitappearstomethatanawfullylotofmoneyhasbeenwastedbytheSeattleDistrictCorpsofEngineers.
ThemeetingsonMay7,2012andAugust18,2008areIbelieveclassicexamplesoftheCorpswastingpublicmoney.
Allthosestaffpeople(10-12)andmostofthemdonotsayawordduringtheoverallpresentation.
Thepublicshouldnothavetopayfor3hoursoftraveltime,meals,perdiem,etc.
whenonepersoncouldhavegiventheoralpresentationandtherestofthestaffcouldhavebeenvideoconferencedintoansweranyquestionsthatthepublicwouldhave.
EvenlittleoleSkagitCountyhasmoderntechnologyandpeoplewhoknowhowtorunit.
Itshouldbeutilizedtoitsmaximumtosavetaxpayersmoneyespeciallysinceitwasthetaxpayerwhopurchaseditforyou.
Iamalsosomewhatdismayedthatsince1993theCorps"preliminaryalternativesareconceptualatthisstage".
OnehastoaskwhathavethemillionsofdollarsspentsofaronthisGIStudybeenusedforThroughoutthesecommentssubmittedforyourconsiderationIwillrefernotonlytothequestionsaskedhereinbuttheprojectmanager'sstatementsmadeattheMay7thmeeting,presentationmaterials,aswellascommentsreceivedbytheCorpsfromtheaudience.
Thefirstcommentisonthegraphictitled"SkagitRiverFloodDischargeDiagram.
"Itgivestheimpressionthatverylittlewateris"forced"intotheNookachampswhileagreatdealofwatertravelsoutSterling.
Topofthenextpageisagraphicshowingtheamountofwaterbeing"forced"intotheNookachampbasinbytheleveespreparedbynhc:2GraphicSummaryofIncreasesin1990FloodLevelsDuetoLeveeSystemThereasonthisisimportantisthattheprojectmanager("PM")statedatthemeeting"welosesomewaterattheNookachampsandalittlebitofinflowfromNookachampsCreek.
LaterinthepresentationthePMstatedthatthe"Nookachamp/Sterlingarea"naturallybackwater".
Thereisnothing"natural"aboutthe"backwaterstorage".
TheamountofwaterthatisbeingstoredintheNookachampBasinhaslongbeenrecognizedbytheCorpsofEngineersasequaltoorgreaterthantheamountofwaterflowingoverlandthroughSterling.
TheNookachampsBasinisanartificialstoragebasincreatedbytheleveesystemofDikeDistricts12and17.
Thedepthsofwatercreatedbythatleveesystemisshownonthegraphicabove.
WithrespecttothecommentthattheSkagitreceivesinflowfromNookachampsCreekIwouldsubmittoyouthatfromthepointthattheSkagitRiverbeginstoflooduntillongafterthecrestispasttheMt.
Vernongage,thatNookachampsCreekputsnowaterintotheSkagitmainsystem,thatinfactthewaterfromtheCreekisforcedbackintotheBeaverLakearea.
ImakethatstatementhavingobservedtheSkagitduring3floodevents(1975,1979and1980)whenIwatchedSkagitRiverwaterrunupstreaminNookachampsCreek,andhavingspoketoBeaverLakeresidentswhohavetoldmethatevenwhentheMt.
VernongagehadcrestedthewatercontinuestogetdeeperintheBeaverLakeBasin.
NookachampsCreekisnotcontributinganyflowsintotheSkagitduringafloodeventandthereisnothingnaturalaboutthebackwaterartificialstorageintheNookachamp/Sterlingarea.
3Pleaserankthepreliminaryalternatives1-6,with1beingyourmostfavorablepreliminaryalternativeand6beingyourleastfavorablealternative.
5NoAction-Alt.
12SwinomishBypass–Alt.
41Non-Structural-Alt.
26UrbanAreaProtection-Alt.
53JoeLearySloughBypass–Alt.
34System-wideLeveeSetbacks–Alt.
6Basedontheaboverankings,whichpreliminaryalternative(s)didyoufavorandwhyNon-Structural–Alternative2Thenon-structuralalternativeisonethattakescareofalotoftheproblemsthatman(notMotherNature)hascreated.
(SeeTheRealitiesofFloodControlinSkagitCounty)Nookachamps/SterlingareapeoplewouldnothavefloodwatersintheirhomesduetotheactionsofBurlingtonandMt.
Vernondikedistricts.
Additionalstorageand/ormodificationofdamoperationsistheonecomponentoftheGIStudythatshouldbegivenpriorityoverallotheralternativesduetothefactthatitistheonecomponentthatwillbenefiteveryoneinthefloodplain.
KeyinthisstudywillbetoanswerthequestiondidtheCorpsofEngineersusethewronghydraulicfiguresincomputingtheRossLakeamountofstorageandshouldstoragebegininOctober.
(See8/14/1953Corpsdocument)Whileweareonthesubjectofhydraulicfigures,paramounttothecompletionoftheGIStudyshouldbeaseriousconsiderationthatwhentheCorpschangeditscomputationsfromExtremeLowWatertoMeanSeaLeveldidtheCorpsfailstoadjustthegagereadingsappropriatelyforhistoricalfloodevents(SeeLowLowWaterinPugetSoundvs.
MeanSeaLevel)SwinomishBypass/Floodway–Alternative4AswasappropriatelynotedbythePMattheMay7,2012hearing/meeting,thisproposalhastraditionallybeenreferredtoastheAvonBypass.
TheconceptualnatureofthisprojecthasbeenkickingaroundSkagitCountysince1921.
FirstpresentedtoSkagitCountynotbyagovernmentagencybutbyahydraulicengineernamedRobertHerzogoftheGNRR(currentlyBNSFRR).
(See9/26/1922GNRRletterandRobertHerzogReport(1stAvonBy-PassProposal))In1935theCorpsofEngineersdeterminedthattheconstructionoftheBypass"wasthemostfeasiblemethodoffloodcontrolinSkagitCounty.
"(See8/22/35Argus)In1936,theU.
S.
CongressauthorizedthebuildingoftheBypassatacostof$4,982,000.
(See11/5/36MVDH)ConstructionoftheBypasshasandremains"conceptual".
TheideaoftheBypasswhichistheonlyprojectthatwill"stopitfromflooding"inthelowervalleywaslastkilledbytheSkagitCountyPublicWorksDepartmentin2002.
(SeeCountye-mailkillingdiversionchannelefforts)Howeverafterreviewingallthedocumentspostedat,thecostofactuallyconstructinga"bigditch"projectiswaybeyondtheeconomicmeansofSkagitCounty.
Theenvironmental/fish/eelgrassissueswouldprobablybeenoughtokillthisprojectevenifSkagitCountycouldcomeupwiththemoney.
PreviousCorpsprojectmanagershaveestimatedthecostofastructuralprojecttobeinexcessof$300milliondollars.
However,giventhatadesignatedfloodwayispartofthis"conceptual"project,thisissomethingthatIcouldstronglyendorsesolongastherewasanagriculturalexemptionthatwouldallowconstructionofagriculturaloutbuildingsandtherebuildingofdamagedfarmhouses.
GettingthefloodwaterpasttheCityofBurlingtonandI-5andgettingridofitbeforeitgetstoMt.
Vernonbyallowingthefloodwaterstogoontothefloodplaininits"naturalchannel"isthemostsensible,engineeringpossible,environmentalfriendly,economicallyachievableapproachthattheCorpsandSkagitCountycouldtake.
Ascanbeseenonthehomepageofwww.
skagitriverhistory.
com,thedesignatedfloodwaywouldbewherethewaterisgoingtogoanywaywhen4theleveesupstreambreakorSterlingisovertopped.
Ihavebeendiscussingandwritingaboutthisconceptforseveralyearsnow.
TheeditorialIauthoredin2006isstillverytruetoday:EmergencyOverflowSpillway/Floodway:Ifwearesuccessfulinobtainingaccuratehydraulicdataandthe100yearfloodflowsareadjusteddownwardasthehistoricrecordstronglysuggesttheyshouldbe,andifwecouldachievetheaddedprotectionofadditionalstorageeitherthroughvoluntaryorcompensationmeans,thenIfeelthatthecheapest,mostenvironmentalfriendlyandengineeringfeasibleprojectwecouldbuildwouldbeanemergencyoverflowspillwayintheAvonarea.
Thisspillwaywouldonlybeactivatedwhenflowsreach145,000cfsattheMt.
Vernongage.
Inthelast82yearsthespillwaywouldonlyhavehadtobeusedonceandpossiblytwice(1990and1995).
ThefloodwaterswouldthenflownaturallytowardsPadillaBaywhichiswheretheyaregoingtoflowanywayduringamajorfloodevent.
It'snotlikewewouldbespillingtheentireflowoftheriver.
Duringthe1990floodeventthespillwaywouldonlyhavebeenspillingwaterforaperiodof11hoursforanaverageof5,100cfsperhour.
Granted,duringa100yeareventthespillwaycouldbespillingasmuchas30-50,000cfsbutwhatisthealternative,tohavethewaterflowthroughtheCityofBurlingtonorbeforcedintotheSamishRiverBasinBothofthosealternativesareunacceptable.
Therewouldbemanybenefitstothespillway/floodwayapproach:a.
ItwouldallowthefloodwaterstopasstheCityofBurlingtonandspillontothefloodplaininasafemannerbeforeitreachestheCityofMt.
VernonthussavingtheUrbanareasfromcatastrophicflooding.
b.
Byallowingthefarmlandtobesubjecttoflooding(onceinthepast82years)itwouldpreservethefarmlandfromurbanencroachment.
c.
Bydesignatingtheareaasafloodwayitwouldprohibitfurtherdevelopmentinthenaturalcorridorwhereundercurrentconditionsthefloodwatersaregoingtogoanywaythusdecreasingfuturedamages.
Further,itwouldkeepthefloodwaydesignationoutoftheUrbanareaswhichundercurrentconditionsinalllikelihooditwillbeplaced.
d.
Outofalltheprojectslookedat,thiscouldbethemostaffordable;providethemostbenefits,meetthethreeE's,perhapsevenbeacceptabletothemajorityofthevoterswhoshouldhavethefinalsayinanyproposedproject.
Admittedly,thepeoplelivinginthisfloodwaycorridorwouldobject,butwhattheymustrealizeisthatifwedonothing,whichiswhatwehavedoneforthelast100years,duringanycatastrophicleveefailureoreveniftheleveesholdundercurrentconditionsthewaterwillendupinthatcorridorastheyhaveinsomanyfloodsInthepast.
e.
WhataboutthefishyouaskWouldn'tprovidinganemergencyoverflowspillwayputfishoutontothefloodplainThesimpleanswerisyes.
Onceinthelast82yearswewouldhaveimpactedsomefish.
Inthelast82yearstherehavebeenmanyleveefailures.
ThemostrecentonFirIslandin1990.
HowmanyfishwereimpactedbytheleveefailuresIftherewerenolevees,howmanyfisharestrandedonthefloodplainThefishissuelikeanyotheradverseimpactcanbemitigatedifgivenachance.
(SeeTheRealitiesofFloodControlinSkagitCounty)AnotheraddedbenefitisthatMt.
VernonwouldnotneedafloodwallbecauseDikeDistrict's12&17wouldnotbeforcingunnaturalfloodwatersatMt.
Vernon'sdowntownarea.
Asavingsofmillionsofdollars.
ConwayandFirIslandwouldnotbesubjecttocatastrophicflooding,againasavingsofmillionsofdollars.
JoeLearyBypass/Floodway–Alternative3WhilemuchinprinciplethatwassaidabouttheAvon/SwinomishBypasscouldalsobesaidabouttheJoeLearyproposal,Ibelievethatthe"mixingoffish"andcostissueswouldkillthisproposal.
Besides,theSamishRiverwillmorelikelythannotbefloodingatthesametimeastheSkagitandthelastthingtheSamishRiverfarmingcommunitieswillwantismorewater"sheetflowflooding"intotheirbasin.
Allonehastodoislookatthe1979oppositiontothe1979LeveeimprovementProjecttoconfirmtheiropposition.
(See1979LeveeImprovementProjectHistoricalIndex)5Basedontheaboverankings,whichpreliminaryalternative(s)didyouleastfavorandwhyUrbanAreaProtection–Alternative5ThemainreasonIdonotsupportallofthisalternativeisthatcertainlyBurlingtonandMt.
Vernonhaveknownabouttheflooddangersincethelate19thandearly20thcentury.
(SeeSterlingDamPresentationandthe10/21/1895TheSkagitNewsarticletitled"MemorialtotheSenateandHouseofRepresentatives).
Floodcontrol/riskreductionmeasuresshouldnotbetherewardforrecklesslyendangeringthelivesandpropertyofresidentsandbusinessesjustsotheycancreateataxbaseforlocalgovernmentemployees.
Ihavesaiditbeforeandwillsayithereagain;Mt.
VernonandcertainlyBurlingtonhavearguablytheworstlanduseplanninginthehistoryoffloodplainmanagement.
Mt.
VernonandBurlingtonofficialshavealreadystatedthattheywant100yearprotectioninorderthattheycanallownewdevelopmenttobuildflatontheground.
Alllevees/floodwallshaveonethingincommon.
Eventuallytheyfail.
AllowingbuildingflatonthegroundisnothingshortofirresponsibleandpossiblyinconflictwithEO11988andCorpspoliciessince100yr.
protectionwouldbepromotingmoreirresponsibledevelopmentofthefloodplain.
Justbecausesomeonehas100yearprotectiondoesnotremovethemfromtherealitythattheirpropertyisstillpartofthebottomoftheriver.
TheleveesaroundClearLakeandtheSedroWoolleysewagetreatmentplant,communitiesthathavesufferedatthehandsofBurlington'sDikeDistrict12fordecadesshouldbebuilt.
Also,theproposed"stop-gap"leveeforLaConnershouldbebuilt.
System-wideLeveeSetbacks–Alternative6AlthoughtheCorpsofEngineershasbeentellingSkagitCountytomovetheleveesbacksinceatleast1897,(SeeCapt.
HarryTaylorAnnualReport),thedikedistrictshaverespondedbyactuallymovingtheleveesclosertotheedgeoftheriver.
Settingtheleveesbackhasbeenopposedbythelocalfarmingcommunityduetothelossofprimefarmlandrequired,estimatedatbetween5,000to8,000acres.
AspartofthisalternativethereappearstobealeveeatSterling.
Theimpactsofthisaswastoldtothelocalresidentsin1979wouldbetoaddanother3to4feetofheightinfloodwaterlevelstotheNookachampBasinwhichinturnsmakesadeeperlakeupstreamoftheBurlingtonUrbanArea.
Ifpartoftheprojectistowidenthe3bridgecorridorthenthatamountofwater(estimated40-50,000cfs)wouldbeforceddownstreamthusincreasingthecostofanyleveeand/orbridgereplacementproject.
CommentsPMreceivedatthePublicHearingStoragebehindLowerBakerDamscomponent:StorageatLowerBakerDamandachangeintheseasonaloperationofthedrawdownforUpperandLowerBakerDamaswellasanimminentdrawdownclause.
WhileIstronglysupporthardstorageandachangeintheseasonaloperationalchangestothedrawdowndates,oneoftheadverseimpactsofimminentdrawdownisthatitwillfilluptheoverbankareas,whichisokayiftheweathermanhasitrighthoweverifasecondstormhitstherewillbenooverbankstorageoratleastamuchdiminishedareawhichcouldhavecatastrophicimpacts.
TheCorpsisinaCatch-22position.
Sortofadamnedifyoudoandfurtherdamnedifyoudon'tposition.
6Dredging:SeetheissuepageonSkagitRiverHistory.
comincludingbutnotlimitedto2/5/2006HistoricalDredgingOnTheSkagitRiver(1920-1966),7/20/2007WhyDredgingWon'tWorkand1/20/2009SkagitRiverDredging:ThePerceptionvs.
TheTruth.
FlowageEasement:SeeFlowageEasementsDredgingtheMouthoftheRiver.
DoingthiswouldhelpthedrainageonadjacentfarmlandatlowtidehoweveritwouldhavenoimpactonfloodwatersathightidesincethetidesimpacttheriverallthewayuppastSterling.
See7/20/2007WhyDredgingWon'tWorkand1/20/2009SkagitRiverDredging:ThePerceptionvs.
TheTruth.
KeepingI-5open:I-5wasdesignedbyWSDOTtoovertopfromGagesSloughtojustnorthoftheTargetStoreandagainnorthofBEHStoCookRoadduringaseriousfloodevent.
TheCorpstoldthemnottodothatbuttheydiditanyway.
InteriorDrainage:Anabsolutenecessityinanyfloodwayconcept.
Youwon'tbeabletosellthefloodwayconceptwithouthelpingthefarmersimpactedwithinteriordrainagethefloodingwillcause.
ArethereanyadditionalfeaturesorconcernsthatshouldbeconsideredinthestudyPleasebespecific.
CommentsPMreceivedatthePublicHearingStoragebehindLowerBakerDamscomponent:StorageatLowerBakerDamandachangeintheseasonaloperationofthedrawdownforUpperandLowerBakerDamaswellasanimminentdrawdownclause.
WhileIstronglysupporthardstorageandachangeintheseasonaloperationalchangestothedrawdowndates,oneoftheadverseimpactsofimminentdrawdownisthatitwillfilluptheoverbankareas,whichisokayiftheweathermanhasitrighthoweverifasecondstormhitstherewillbenooverbankstorageoratleastamuchdiminishedareawhichcouldhavecatastrophicimpacts.
TheCorpsisinaCatch-22position.
Sortofadamnedifyoudoandfurtherdamnedifyoudon'tposition.
Dredging:Seetheissuepageonwww.
skagitriverhistory.
comincludingbutnotlimitedto2/5/2006HistoricalDredgingOnTheSkagitRiver(1920-1966),7/20/2007WhyDredgingWon'tWorkand1/20/2009SkagitRiverDredging:ThePerceptionvs.
TheTruth.
FlowageEasement:SeeFlowageEasementsDredgingtheMouthoftheRiver.
DoingthiswouldhelpdrainageonadjacentfarmlandatlowtidehoweveritwouldhavenoimpactonfloodwatersathightidesincethetidesimpacttheriverallthewayuppastSterling.
See7/20/2007WhyDredgingWon'tWork&1/20/2009SkagitRiverDredging:ThePerceptionvs.
TheTruth.
KeepingI-5open:I-5wasdesignedbyWSDOTtoovertopfromGagesSloughtojustnorthoftheTargetStoreandagainnorthofBEHStoCookRoadduringaseriousfloodevent.
TheCorpstoldthemnottodothatbuttheydiditanyway.
InteriorDrainage:Anabsolutenecessityinanyfloodwayconcept.
Youwon'tbeabletosellthefloodwayconceptwithouthelpingthefarmersimpactedwithinteriordrainagethefloodingwillcause.
7DoyouresidewithintheSkagitRiverBasinYesNoWouldyouliketobeaddedtotheSkagitRiverGeneralInvestigationStudymailinglistYesNoIfyes,provideuswithyourcontactinformationsowecanaddyoutotheprojectmailinglist(pleaseprint):Name:LarryKunzlerAffiliation(Optional):skagitriverhistory.
comAddress:City:Sedro-WoolleyState:WAZip:98284Email:Formoreinformationortosubmitothercomments,pleasecontactDanielJohnson,U.
S.
ArmyCorpsofEngineersatPleasesendyourcommentsnolaterthanMay24,2012.
Thankyou!
AffixPostageHereDanielJohnsonU.
S.
ArmyCorpsofEngineersP.
O.
Box3755Seattle,WA98124-3755Pleasefoldforminhalfandtapeclosedtomail