Any body notice the change?
Some locals change the river!

WFDW
Army Corps
Snohomish County
US FOREST Service
NOAA

It's time to show your colors, and get the local guy!

Violations:

Wild and Scenic River Act
Federal ESA listed fish
Building and Critial area codes
Hydraulic permint requirements
And many more!

Lets put this on every TV and Radio station and news paper!
This guy should be put away for YEARS!

Don't let this one die!
Wild Steelhead are haveing a bad time already

This is what Brian is talking about...

was that a recent bulldozer job?
looks like the area that took a few boats last year, kid sauk posted a photo of it.
cant beleive that someone would think that they could get away with that?

Homer 2..

I don't know the Sauk well, but I don't live far from it either.

Can you tell me more accurately where that area is located? I'll be glad to run out there and take a few pics...

Mike

FishDoctor

Two weeks ago!
I will be up there the next two days

Homer2Handed,

Have you seen that with your own eyes?

It looks like a side channel in the picture.

That might be Kid Sauks new boat launch. Nothing like having a nice gentle chute to warm up your arms before hitting the main water.
Not to worry! It's strictly legal!

Is it excavation or did it change from the floods?

This is part of an email I received about this

Then on a lucky stab, I decided to send a copy of all the e-mails on it
to Dave Pflug, the fish bio for Seattle City Light, when I heard that
some SCL land was recently purchased in the same vicinity within the
last year or so specifically for fish habitat mitigation for the upper
Skagit dams. BINGO! They flew over it the next day and went ballistic.
Appears the rogue inchannel work by the landowner on the opposite bank
may have taken out a logjam along the SCL property (one of the good fish
attributes they bought it for) because they thought it was deflecting
flow against their bank, and they then put big rip-rap in to harden
their own bank and to attempt to get the river to go back the other way.


The river had been gradually drifting that way for 20 years according to
an aerial photo SCL (and sent one to me) showing how the river has kept
developing a long point bar upstream gradually consolidating two
channels around an island gravel bar into one main channel. The big
Oct. flood completed the job of vacating the one smaller channel on the
SCL side of the river from the property owner. The cat and trackhoe
work extensively dug out that smaller channel again hoping to divert the
river back into it.

Of course, this time of year chum, pinks, and chinook are all coming out
of the gravel and are in migration downstream. Potentially ESA listed
chinook redds were in that very area. Chum are known to have spawned in
that area by the thousands this fall as well as pinks. Whatever
survived the flood is toast now. An extensive length of river was
channelized with the big equipment running all through it. Bull trout
and juvenile steelhead were likely impacted as well.

Jerry,

If what you say is true (and I have absolutely no reason to doubt it) then are the Authorities preparing charges against the landowners?

Mike

Just a stab in the dark here but...

Has anyone considered that the landowners are probably the Sauk-Suiattle Tribe?

Lots of accusations and inuendo flying about this excavation but very few facts are being presented. I would suggest getting ahold of the Darrington Ranger Station and asking them about the situation.

I floated the upper Sauk a couple of weeks ago and saw the berm in the picture. It is located near the Sauk Prairie. The farm in the background has lost a few feet of bank each of the last 3 or 4 years. When I floated it the mai river channel was still to the left in the photo and none of the main river area had been altered so any of the reds in that area shouldn't have been damaged. With the flow at around 4.5 there wasn't any water flowing down the "new" channel. I don't think that the land belongs to the tribe as this area is upriver a few miles from the res.

Plunker:

I'm not wanting to be argumentative, but can you give some clarification on your comment, below:

"Has anyone considered that the landowners are probably the Sauk-Suiattle Tribe?"

If it was the Sauk-Suiattle Tribe, and the damage to the redds was as Jerry Garcia has suggested, then would they (Tribes) have any justification for doing the damage they did?

If it was the Tribe, would/should/could the Federal Government have any legal recourse for the damage done to these fish stocks?

I don't give a rip who did the damge, if it has seriously damaged the potential recovery of these fish then some action must take place in response.

Mike

WDFW is taking the lead on the ivestigation!

It is 2 miles south of TRIBAL LAND!

I talk with WDFW and SCL today there taking to the air and taking more pictures.

What I've seen of it they drove across the river to do the work, and that what WDFW told me!

The S-S Tribe is pretty unhappy about this situation, too.

Fish on...

Todd

ITS NOT THE S-S TRIBE!

It's up river of them!

The best way to see it, is to FLOAT IT!

It's all private land all around it!

Very interesting stuff here. I haven't heard anything about that up that way. Where is the whole story? Right there in my neck of the woods, but wasn't my bulldozer....mine's broke down

I'll go up there and check it out, but it looks like it's upstream from my place. The floods really screwed things up on the Sauk. The upper float is screwed for a while that's for sure!

kid sauk,

2 river miles below Darrington bridge!

When I wrote this is was mad, I didn't do it justice.

Heres part of and E-mail I got yesterday!

" Investigations are currently being conducted by the
enforcement branches of WDFW, Army Corps, and Snohomish County. WDFW is
taking the lead on the investigation right now, since the primary damage
was to state lands (i.e., the active river channel). I received a call
today from the enforcement division of NOAA Fisheries, who will be
looking into Endangered Species Act violation The Forest
Service has also been involved due to violations under the
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The excavation has violated county building
and critical areas codes, state hydraulic permit requirements, federal
dredging permit requirements, as well as federal ESA and Wildlife and
Scenic River regulation. "

I hope they nail his (the offenders) arse to the wall...

Sad part of it is, no matter what fines or penalty the idiots pay, it won't bring back those fish.

Crap.

Mike

Mike,

You got it!

Brian - You're information is becoming coherant at last. Thanks for finally posting something substantial.

I'm hopng that most of the chinook will have hatched and removed themselves from danger before the dig happened. I believe that quite a few chums and silvers also spawn in that area and their redds will probably have been destroyed.

Have you informed the news media?

Yes!
King 5
4 news papers

And there were dead smolts!

I'd be suprised if anything survived that oct catastrophic event. The river has been severely
scoured and most all the holding water has silted in. I bet it will be at least a year or more before she flushes. At the confluence of the skagit it looks like a class 4 hurricane has hit, wood and debris as far as the eye can see.
Very very sad indeed.
Chrome

Watch KING 5 TV tonight

Now I'm Happy! (No I'm not)

KING 5 TV just ran the story!

Homer,

If this was your doing (alerting the media) then GOOD JOB!

http://tinyurl.com/3hgqk

I watched the 6:30 report (just missed the end of it at 5:10) and it was a good story. Now what they need to do is PUBLISH the names of the owners of that land adjacent. The WDFW said in the broadcast that they know who did it...now they need to let us know.

The article (at the link) says the fines "could be astronomical".

I hope so, enough to build and maintain a new hatchery or 5, and develop a good SUMMER run of Steelhead and Chinook in the Skagit/Sauk.

Mike

This mentality is everywhere.

Came across a guy yesterday clearing about 100 yards of Class 2 salmonid stream buffer yesterday. The small stream was an upper trib of the White River. Then he piled up all the slash 5 feet from the edge of the stream and starts burning, the creek was turning grey from the ash that was seeping into it. A few hundred yards below the site I witnessed a pair of wood ducks and numerous smolts in the shallows. Told him to stop work and he began to claim that he didn't know he needed a permit for the work, got back to the office and found out that he has already been turned in many times for clearing violations, he played me, but I knew he wasn't innocent by any means!

BD

Who ever told the press and the two station good job!

Sauk was bad from the flood back in Oct. and this only making it worst!

Funny how timing can be.... I just got back from fishing the Sauk/Skagit for a few days and we took note of the news helicoptor overhead. As we floated down to the area pictured above, I remember saying, "that gravel doesnt look natural, I dont think the high water can do that?"

As we got back to the put in, there was King 5's news truck parked just above the log mill/put in for the upper Sauk float.

We were camping in the sticks so now I know what all the "hub-bub" is about.

If my memory is right, that area affected looked to be very small(the picture shows all the damage), and I hope any damage is limited to the small area we witnessed. The work done on the river isnt going to work anyway, any high water is going to blow the new mounds bye-bye.

Gusty,
Out of curiousity how did that upper float look.
Was it silted in like the middle and lower stretch?

Last night on King 5 there was a report on a group of Sauk River landowners. A woman was interviewed on air about the meeting and how they seemed to want some kind of Government protection of their land from floodwaters. The interesting part was that her last name is the same as a guide who advertises in STS every month. Now, I have no idea if this woman and the guide are related, but folks, its time to wake up. If you buy land bordered by a river, you are always at risk of losing that land to the river. The Sauk (or any other river) is not going to be diked and leveed. And if you make your living from the river, you have to accept the realities of the river.

Chrome,

The silt answer is yes, its very sandy and silty, you can see it literally piled up on the sides of the river in places.

Not as fishy as it used to be, probably going to need a year to get it to normal in terms of a rocky bottom.

Obviously from these postings the vast majority of you do not live in or around Darrington. While I'm not an advocate of the purposeful destruction of our environment or protected fish, I will say that you are a bunch of NIMBY’s. (Not In My Back Yard) If you owned land that was in danger of loosing everything, perhaps you would have a different perspective on these things. Making a mortgage payment of $1400 per month on basically all river property that used to be your home is not fun. I know, I know, it’s a wild and scenic river and people are stupid for building close to it’s shores. No doubt. But when the river meanders during a flood and is now a mile from it’s channel it was in 10 years ago, come on. I know the person who did this. They protected their land the same as any of you would. It is a husband, parent, taxpayer and fisherman just like most of you. You can believe they will get his punishment from the governmental agencies. The postings from most of you are absurd. Statements like, “and get the local guy!” or “nail his arse to the wall” don’t fly. Isn’t nice to hide behind a computer screen and type smack? I know for a fact you wouldn’t stand in the parking lot of JV’s Deli yelling those statements. You are the very ones that go to Darrington, fish the Sauk and leave your trash, urine, excrement, and whatever else litter may fall on our lands! The Sauk is a river for everyone. However, it’s banks are the blood sweat and tears of private landowners. In fact, the property lines may even run in the center of the river. So most of the time you are floating or bank fishing, you are on private land. Your vehicles are often parked on private land and you have to go through private land to get to the fish. Respect it or lose it. And if you want to debate about the destruction of the enviroment, how many of you pour fertilizers on your suburban or river front lawns? That’s much worse than moving a few yards of dirt and gravel. Watch your words in forums. You never know who is watching you.

ty1over:

One part of me wants to welcome you to the forums...the other part wants to show you the door.

I had written a lenthy reply to your post, but deleted it. Serves no purpose.

There is a right way and a wrong way to get things done. Your "local" took the wrong way to do it, and got caught with his hand in the cookie-jar. He could most likely have gotten permits if your locals had banded together and went to your local politicians and congressmen, state senators, etc. Instead, he decided to try and get away with it on his own, and now must pay the penalty.

BTW, not all of us are NIMBY's..in fact, probably less than 5% are.

Mike B

March 29, 2004


Thank you for your e-mail concerning the hydraulics violation on the Sauk River. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Enforcement Officers and Habitat Biologists began to work on this case immediately upon receiving information the violation had occurred on February 26. A WDFW Enforcement Officer was immediately assigned to work full time on this case.

Our investigation has thus far determined a major excavation of a side channel to the Sauk River, creation of a berm and movement of rock and woody debris occurred without the required local, state, or federal permits. An estimated 12,000 cubic yards of streambed was removed along 1,200 to 1,400 lineal feet of stream.

Spawning steelhead, and chinook, chum and pink salmon uses the portion of the Sauk River where this work occurred. Coho salmon and Dolly Varden/bull trout also are present in the river.

Since the discovery of this violation, WDFW staff has been vigorously and aggressively investigating this crime. With the publicity generated on the violation, WDFW hoped any potential witness's would come forward who may have observed the actual work. To date no one has contacted us. We are working cooperatively with other regulatory agencies investigating this crime, including the Department of Ecology, NOAA Fisheries, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the United States Corp of Engineers and Snohomish County, who also have jurisdiction over these illegal activities.

Let me assure you I have placed the investigation of this case as a high priority. I am concerned that these actions are a threat to one of our state's most treasured river systems. I am committed to conducting and completing a thorough and factual investigation. As soon as our investigation is concluded, the case will be presented to the Snohomish County Prosecutor's Office for criminal charging decisions.

Sincerely,


Jeff Koenings, Ph.D.
Director

Hey Ty1on - Since 12,000 is a few yards to you, will you give me a few dollars?