Biological Recovery of Coho in Goldsborough
Creek
John KonovskySquaxin Island Tribe
Photo by Joe Puhn
The Good, the Bad & the Ugly
• Good = acceptable ecological function• Bad = biologically recoverable• Ugly = don’t have a clue
(GC = 40%)
Simpson Dam
(Area = 150 mi2)
Goldsborough Main stem
(GC = 40%)
SimpsonRailroad
Playing Field
A Success Story!
• Order of magnitude increase in coho smolt production (103 104, ~29,000/year)
• Now #2 producer in South Puget Sound
• Only Puget Sound system with recent production increase
• Mostly because dam removed in 2001
• Opened > 25 miles of stream channel habitat
• Wasn’t always this way….
Goldsborough Coho Outmigrants
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
# Sm
olts
Pre-dam Post-dam
3-year running average
Influence of Marine Survival on Goldsborough Coho (post-dam)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0%
Deschutes River Coho Marine Survival
Go
lds
bo
rou
gh
Sm
olt
Pro
du
cti
on
After dam removal, no apparent relationship between marine survival and smolt production, therefore habitat access likely produced observed smolts…
Headwaters, Wetlands, Canyon, City & Harbor
The Good!• Impervious surface = ~8%, < above Shelton
• Capitol Land Trust = ~350 acres conserved riparian habitat
• Headwaters = working forestlands w/landmark Green Diamond HCP signed in 2000
• Large functional wetlands downstream of headwaters
• Meets WQS for temperature in spawning reaches
• Last dam year = 2001!
August 13, 2004
Goldsborough Dam• Dam constructed
1921
• 14’ high x 100’ wide
• By 1996 = 35’ high
• Provided H20 for steam generation
• Partial fish passage built in 1939
Dam Removal• Damaged in 1996 flood
• Removed September 2001
• Restoration Goals– Provide full fish passage– Protect downstream property– Compensate for upstream
aggradation/downstream degradation
• Placed 36 concrete weirs over 1700’ (because ACE project)
• Cost = $4.8M
• Environmental Benefits– Opened > 25 miles of stream– 2/3 of spawning now above
dam site
The Bad!
• Shelton Harbor
– Always a working harbor
– Incremental habitat improvements possible
Options for Shelton Harbor Estuary Recovery
More Bad!
• Simpson Railroad
– Reconnect floodplain to river channel
The Ugly!
• Winter Creek
– Why the loss
of flow?
– Hydrogeology
study coming
More Ugly!• Downtown Shelton reach
– Migratory corridor -- Widespread panic
w/flooding history whenever a tree falls in
Environmental Outcomes• By 2020, increase coho smolt production by
15%
• EDT prediction of potential = 34,000/year
• (By 2020, achieve approved status for shellfish harvest throughoutOakland Bay)
Goldsborough SummaryGood Bad Ugly
Headwaters X Winter Creek(lacks flow)
Wetlands X (address invasives)
Canyon X RR(re-connect floodplain)
City X (constrained by flood
risk to city)
Harbor X(re-establish estuary functions in working
harbor)
Keys to Success
• Fast response of a relatively healthy system
• Systematic approach to biological recovery
• Tribal leadership important to motivate partners
• Large, diverse & eagerpartnership
• Initial success brought additional financial support
Photo by Joe Puhn
Recent Dedicated Funding• EPA WEI grant = $625K
• EPA WMA grant = $975K
• SPSSEG grants = $385K
• EDT = $50K
• TIR = $5K
• CLT = $2.7M
TOTAL: Dam removal = $4.8M, Recent actions $4.8M