March 23, 2015

Dear Robert Everitt:

I see on the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office web page for the “Barnaby Reach Feasibility” project that you wrote a “concurrence letter” to the steering committee members for this project, expressing approval and endorsing their selection of “alternative #4.”

Were you aware at the time that you sent this letter that the Skagit River System Cooperative leadership had not yet met with landowners, homeowners, residents and farmers in the affected area and that people in the area were not aware of the projects intentions as reported? Are you are aware that there is great concern among these people about this project and virtually no support for alternative #4 whatsoever?

Are you aware that the study work done thus far fails to honestly represent and discuss the exposure to flood risk that will be caused as a consequence of implementing alternative #4? Are you aware that Devin Smith and Steve Hinton have both made representations about this project, their findings and its status which leave us highly distrustful of them?

Among other things, they stated in public meetings that they had not yet selected an alternative. Not only had they selected an alternative, they’d already secured funding to take alternative #4 to the next level.

My greatest concern at the moment has to do with exposure to flood risk associated with “alternative #4.” It’s obvious to me that the particular action of cutting a channel to divert Skagit River flow into and through the Barnaby Slough creates exposure to flood risk that cannot be fully mitigated. In other words, once that is done the risk of flooding to my property and others along Martin Road is increased and nothing can be done to completely eliminate that risk. The channel is an unacceptable design feature as far as I am concerned.

With this in mind, I asked Mr. Hinton at the Sedro-Woolley public meeting if worst case scenario analysis had been done with respect to their project, and he stated to the audience that, yes, they had done some analysis of that kind but when they saw the flooding that would result on Martin Road, they “pulled back from that.”

So, we’re supposed to trust the Skagit River System Cooperative and its study findings that their alternative #4 is not going to represent flood risk? The study lacks honest full disclosure and cannot be relied upon.

I realize that much study and analysis is in order with respect to whatever project design option is selected. Hopefully, the SRSC folks will come up with a solution with manageable risk. Their conduct as I’ve witnessed it is deeply troublesome, and I ask that you and other public officials charged with caring for the public interest assure the integrity of whatever is done.

Regards,

Dave Hallock