Biological
Recovery of Coho
in Goldsborough
Creek
John Konovsky
Squaxin Island Tribe
Photo by Joe Puhn
The Good, the Bad & the Ugly
• Good = acceptable ecological function
• Bad = biologically recoverable
• Ugly = don’t have ...
(GC = 40%)
Simpson
Dam
(Area = 150 mi2
)
Goldsborough
Main stem
(GC =
40%)
Simpson
Railroad
Playing Field
A Success Story!
• Order of magnitude increase in coho smolt production
(103
→ 104
, ~29,000/year)
• Now #
2 producer in S...
Goldsborough Coho Outmigrants
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
#Smolts
Pre-d...
Influence of Marine Survival on Goldsborough Coho (post-dam)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3....
Headwaters, Wetlands, Canyon,
City & Harbor
The Good!
• Impervious surface = ~8%, < above Shelton
• Capitol Land Trust = ~350 acres conserved riparian
habitat
• Headw...
Goldsborough Dam
• Dam constructed
1921
• 14’ high x 100’
wide
• By 1996 = 35’
high
• Provided H20 for
steam generation
• ...
Dam Removal
• Damaged in 1996 flood
• Removed September 2001
• Restoration Goals
– Provide full fish passage
– Protect dow...
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 ...
Goldsborough Summary
Good Bad Ugly
Headwaters X Winter Creek
(lacks flow)
Wetlands X (address invasives)
Canyon X RR
(re-c...
Keys to Success
• Fast response of a relatively healthy system
• Systematic approach to biological recovery
• Tribal leade...
Recent Dedicated Funding
• EPA WEI grant = $625K
• EPA WMA grant = $975K
• SPSSEG grants
= $385K
• EDT = $50K
• TIR = $5K
...
Konovsky biological recovery of goldsborough creek 11.04.11
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Konovsky biological recovery of goldsborough creek 11.04.11

759 views
655 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
759
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Konovsky biological recovery of goldsborough creek 11.04.11

  1. 1. Biological Recovery of Coho in Goldsborough Creek John Konovsky Squaxin Island Tribe Photo by Joe Puhn
  2. 2. The Good, the Bad & the Ugly • Good = acceptable ecological function • Bad = biologically recoverable • Ugly = don’t have a clue
  3. 3. (GC = 40%) Simpson Dam (Area = 150 mi2 ) Goldsborough Main stem (GC = 40%) Simpson Railroad Playing Field
  4. 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. 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. 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. 7. Headwaters, Wetlands, Canyon, City & Harbor
  8. 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. 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. 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
  11. 11. The Bad! • Shelton Harbor – Always a working harbor – Incremental habitat improvements possible
  12. 12. Options for Shelton Harbor Estuary Recovery
  13. 13. More Bad! • Simpson Railroad – Reconnect floodplain to river channel
  14. 14. The Ugly! • Winter Creek – Why the loss of flow? – Hydrogeology study coming
  15. 15. More Ugly! • Downtown Shelton reach – Migratory corridor -- Widespread panic w/flooding history whenever a tree falls in
  16. 16. 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)
  17. 17. 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)
  18. 18. 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
  19. 19. 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

×