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