1. Biological
Recovery of Coho
in Goldsborough
Creek
John Konovsky
Squaxin Island Tribe
Photo by Joe Puhn

2. The Good, the Bad & the Ugly
• Good = acceptable ecological function
• Bad = biologically recoverable
• Ugly = don’t have a clue

3. (GC = 40%)
Simpson
Dam
(Area = 150 mi2
)
Goldsborough
Main stem
(GC =
40%)
Simpson
Railroad
Playing Field

4. 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….

5. Goldsborough Coho Outmigrants
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
#Smolts
Pre-dam Post-dam
3-year running average

6. 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
GoldsboroughSmoltProduction
After dam removal, no apparent relationship between marine survival and smolt
production, therefore ↑ habitat access likely produced observed ↑ smolts…

7. Headwaters, Wetlands, Canyon,
City & Harbor

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

12. The Bad!
• Shelton Harbor
– Always a
working harbor
– Incremental
habitat
improvements
possible

13. Options for Shelton Harbor
Estuary Recovery

14. More Bad!
• Simpson Railroad
– Reconnect
floodplain to river
channel

15. The Ugly!
• Winter Creek
– Why the loss
of flow?
– Hydrogeology
study coming

16. More Ugly!
• Downtown Shelton reach
– Migratory corridor -- Widespread panic
w/flooding history whenever a tree falls in

17. 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
throughout
Oakland Bay)

18. Goldsborough Summary
Good 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)

19. Keys to Success
• Fast response of a relatively healthy system
• Systematic approach to biological recovery
• Tribal leadership important to motivate partners
• Large, diverse & eager
partnership
• Initial success brought
additional financial support
Photo by Joe Puhn

20. 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