Imperiled Steelhead Caught in Dam Plans

A proposal to remove Matilija Dam to save the endangered southern steelhead trout has gained favor with environmentalists, but a growing number of critics say it would be costly, complicated and potentially dangerous for the few remaining steelhead left in Southern California.

A variety of scientists, government officials and two recent studies contend that there are cheaper and simpler ways of restoring the steelhead’s habitat than spending millions to dismantle a 145-foot-tall dam.

Removing the dam is “very attractive to talk about, but it’s mind-boggling to do,” said Alex Sheydayi, deputy director of public works for Ventura County. “Someone needs to look at this whole picture other than tearing down the dam. It’s very complicated.”

The proposal to remove the 51-year-old dam on a tributary of the Ventura River is part of a national dam-busting crusade that has led to the destruction of dams in several states. The campaign against Matilija is being led by Ed Henke, who lives in Oregon and has championed recovery efforts for the salmon in the Northwest. He returned to his boyhood home in Ventura in November and began rallying support against Matilija.

“That dam was a historical error that needs to be corrected,” said Henke. “If we’re going to have a great river and a great fishery, then we’re going to have to take that dam down. There’s no way around it.”

Groups such as Friends of the River, the Surfrider Foundation and the Environmental Defense Center have signed on to the proposal. Officials at the National Marine Fisheries Service endorse the dam’s removal, provided it’s done properly. Ventura County’s Washington lobbyist is seeking federal aid for the project.

The reason for the concern is the fact that Matilija Dam sits on one of the last remaining stretches of steelhead trout habitat in Southern California, 19 miles of spawning streams in Matilija Creek, enough to sustain 1,100 adult steelhead.

As recently as 60 years ago, tens of thousands of the metallic-colored, ocean-going trout migrated up the Ventura and Santa Clara rivers to the mountains, where they spawned in shallow creek beds. Prized by anglers for their cunning and power, the steelhead can leap 5-foot barriers and muscle through currents powerful enough to sweep a man away. But today, as a result of development, pollution and water barriers such as dams, the number has dwindled to a few hundred fish in Southern California.

The southern steelhead was declared an endangered species in August 1997.

So far, the National Marine Fisheries Service, charged with protecting steelhead under the Endangered Species Act, has not developed a strategy for restoring the fish. Without such a plan, Matilija Dam has become a target for environmentalists, in part because if the fish is to be saved, it will be saved in Ventura County, with its extensive back country and freshwater streams.

“Ventura County is ground zero with respect to recovering steelhead south of San Francisco,” said Jim Edmondson, conservation director of California Trout, a sportfishing organization. “If we’re going to have any hope in the next 10 years of recovering the steelhead, these efforts will have to be focused on the Ventura and Santa Clara rivers.”

Built at a time when the nation’s dam-builders were taming rivers across the continent, Matilija Dam was designed to prevent flooding on the Ventura River and store water for farmers and Ojai Valley residents. But it has been dogged by problems for years. In 1965 the top 30 feet of the dam, made of unstable concrete, were removed. The reservoir filled nearly to the brim with sediment years ahead of schedule and no longer protects against floods or holds much water, according to officials.

“It was a fiasco from the start,” Sheydayi said. “Its value is not very significant. If the dam all of a sudden disappeared, it would have a minuscule impact on the water supply. I don’t think anyone would be hurt by [removing] it. I don’t think we’d notice.”

The fate that may await Matilija Dam has been carried out elsewhere. Around the nation, obsolete dams are coming down to help migratory fish. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt has taken a sledgehammer to small dams in North Carolina and Northern California. Three were removed in Wisconsin, one in Maine and another in Oregon during the last two years.

“We breached the dams and the fish came back immediately,” said Babbitt spokesman Jamie Workman. “It’s a whole new way of thinking. Dams are not forever.”

But some experts are beginning to have second thoughts about the wisdom of pulling down Matilija Dam. Two recent studies raise questions about the project. One of the studies was prepared in April as a thesis project by graduate students at UC Santa Barbara’s Bren School of Environmental Science and Management. The other was prepared by Walnut Creek-based ENTRIX Inc. and Woodward-Clyde Consultants of Santa Barbara in December 1997.

The UC Santa Barbara study says it would cost $64 million to $82 million to remove the dam and the sediment that has backed up behind it. Though expensive, excavating sediment is necessary because it reduces the impact on fish and property owners downstream.

The cost could soar to $150 million if habitat above and below the dam is restored and debris from the demolished dam is hauled away, according to the ENTRIX report.

Henke said he hopes the dam could be removed for less. He also said there are benefits to removing the dam that have nothing to do with steelhead recovery. Without the dam, sand could be flushed to beaches to stem coastal erosion.

In an August 1997 letter to California Trout, California Department of Fish and Game Director Jacqueline Schafer estimates that removing Matilija Dam could cost as little as $3 million or as much as $45 million, depending on how sediments are handled. However, that figure underestimates by nearly half the amount of debris in Matilija Reservoir.

Digging and disposal of the 6.1-million cubic yards of mud, boulders and trees behind Matilija Dam account for about 90% of its removal cost, according to the UCSB study.

A cheaper alternative would be to gradually lower the dam and allow the river to skim away mud over several years and wash it downstream to beaches. But that option could release enough silt to “decimate the remaining steelhead populations” in the Ventura River and increase danger of destructive floods, according to the UCSB report.

The report by ENTRIX warns that “the adverse environmental impacts associated with removing Matilija Dam are greater and more complex than those impacts associated with removal of other dams that are closer to the ocean. Increased sediment loading in the highly developed Ventura River would . . . potentially increase property damage due to flooding.”

Moreover, even if Matilija Dam was eliminated, steelhead might never reach that far upstream. Other impediments--such as the Robles Diversion Dam two miles below Matilija--block their passage. Critics say any recovery plan must deal with Robles Dam, even before Matilija.

“Robles is the place to focus our immediate attention,” Edmondson said. “It is the No. 1 problem.”

Since 1960, Robles Dam has diverted water from the Ventura River and Matilija Reservoir into Lake Casitas. Robles lacks a fish ladder, which would give steelhead access to several miles of quality habitat in the north fork of Matilija Creek even if Matilija Dam was left alone. Fish screens would also help, officials say.

“Providing access to habitats upstream of Robles Diversion Dam is one of the most important actions that can be taken to improve steelhead populations in the Ventura River,” states the ENTRIX study.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Steelhead Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

* Size: Some full-sized adults in Southern California measure up to 20 inches in length. Northern strains can reach 40 pounds.

* Coloring: A steel-blue color, which distinguishes them from the multihued rainbow trout.

* Habitat and diet: Steelhead require cool, clear water. At sea, adults are typically found close to ocean’s surface and prefer to eat squid, small fish and crustaceans.

Sources: National Marine Fisheries Service, “California Coast and Ocean”; “Field Guide to the Pacific Salmon” California Trout.

Researched by JULIE SHEER / Los Angeles Times