The $2.1 million study by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on whether removal of the dam would restore critical habitat for the Southern steelhead trout and clean up the local watershed has been underway for more than four years. Critics speak out for and against removal.
By Vive Decou / Special to The Malibu Times
In mid-March an urgent message was forwarded to members of the Malibu Creek Watershed Advisory Council, imploring them to draft letters and gather support to reestablish funding for the Malibu Creek Environmental Feasibility Study, or Rindge Dam Study. The study has been underway for many years and is environmentalists’ best hope to begin restoring the watershed ecosystem. According to the message, the feasibility study, which is about 75 percent complete, will be without federal funding in the fiscal year 2007.
This news came only days after the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced in a news release that the study was proceeding according to plan.
Jodi Clifford, the Rindge Dam Study manager for the corps, said the corps has been working on preparing a baseline conditions report, which examines existing conditions of the dam, the hydrology, the vegetation and stream flow of Malibu Creek and its watershed, as well as a cultural resource evaluation, which includes a report conducted by the National Register of Historic Places.
“We’re mandated to look at all those issues,” Clifford said, “and are now in the process of developing project alternatives, to see whether restoration is feasible.”
The $2.1 million study should be completed by the end of the fiscal year, Clifford said, depending on federal and state funding.
The 102-foot tall Rindge Dam was built in 1926, three miles up Malibu Creek and was intended for irrigation and domestic uses, but quickly filled to the top with sediment after less than 30 years. The dam has been a source of controversy for decades as environmentalists and other stakeholders fought over whether it posed any significant problems for the watershed. Foremost of the issues considered is that of the habitat connectivity of the Southern steelhead trout. In addition, proponents of keeping the dam in place, point to its historical significance. The report by the NRHP recommends to the corps that Rindge Dam be formally nominated for listing in the NRHP. This would mean the dam would not be removed, a consideration under study by the corps.
The Southern steelhead has been on the federal endangered species list since 1997, but the history and origin of the fish in the Santa Monica Mountains has been debated. The steelhead’s profile has only increased in recent years, as it has become something of a symbol for environmentalists and other parties interested in encouraging fishing, recreation and tourism in the Santa Monica Mountains.
In February, the 24th annual Salmonid Restoration Conference was held for the first time ever in Southern California. The conference included a film festival and presentations about Rindge Dam and Solstice Creek fish projects.
The Rindge Dam, critics say, is an impassable barrier to the trout, which remain in the sea in drier years and return to spawning grounds above the dam when increased water flow in streams allows them passage. The number of steelhead that spawn in Malibu Creek is said to have been around 1,000 in the 1920s and has held steady at about 100 since a count was done in the 1980s.
Opponents of dam decommissioning say there is no correct historical evidence that the fish is native to the region but was introduced early in the 20th century as a game fish in Southern California lakes and streams. Ronald Rindge, a longtime advocate for keeping the dam intact, said taxpayer funds are ill spent on trout restoration.
“Trout found in the upper watershed were there only because they were planted for many decades, mainly prior to World War II,” Rindge wrote in a public comment on the proposed critical habitat for the fish. “The fish lobby has improperly characterized the upper watershed as ‘historic spawning grounds’ for steelhead, giving the impression that ocean-going trout once reached the upper watershed to spawn.”
Rindge is not alone in questioning the accepted science in regard to restoring local creeks. In a recent letter to The Malibu Times, resident Don Michael suggested that scientists do not know how to turn back the hands of time.
“Efforts toward legitimate environmental improvement is one thing; boondoggling for funds badly needed elsewhere is another,” Michael wrote.
Restoration advocates like David Pritchett, a board member on the Salmonid Restoration Federation, say historical evidence for the trout being native is sound. Pritchett also said the argument that funds are being misappropriated holds no water.
“As for the financial costs of the Malibu Creek project, those funds certainly could pay for public libraries or schools as Rindge and his allies often point out; however, that is not how agency budgets really work with such choices,” Pritchett wrote in a letter to The Malibu Times.
The argument of historical significance of the dam comes into play as well.
Malibu resident Louis T. Busch belongs to the Committee to Preserve the Rindge Dam, and wrote, after learning of the NRHP’s recommendation for formally listing the dam on the register, “This report bolsters our continuing effort to have Rindge Dam preserved and formally designated a historical landmark.”
The NRHP report gave two criteria as to why it urges the dam be considered historically significant: because of its association with May K. Rindge (“according to the National Park Service,” the registers’ report states, “properties eligible under Criterion b must be ‘associated with individual whose specific contributions to history can be identified and documented'”), who “had a profound impact on the region” in the early 1900s; and that “Rindge Dam represents a significant engineering feat and is considered eligible under Criterion c.”
While many argue over historical details, others say that the dam should come down for other reasons. Beach replenishment and structural integrity were both cited as reasons for dam removal.
Mark Abramson, captain of Heal the Bay’s Stream Team, which monitors conditions in Malibu Creek watershed, said the dam could be a threat to residents living below.
“The dam is obsolete and will pose a danger if it doesn’t already,” Abramson said. “The concrete in the dam is 80 years old and it doesn’t last forever.”
Abramson said he would like to see the dam at least altered for safety and to allow trout to pass. He said conditions in the creek are good for trout and they would be able to return to native spawning grounds.
“The water quality in Malibu Creek is plenty good to support steelhead; there is plenty of food supply and plenty of bugs,” he said.
While the study on the Malibu Creek Watershed continues, other creeks in the Santa Monica Mountains are already being restored. Solstice Creek has already had all steelhead barriers removed on National Park Service lands and only requires the removal of two more barriers at Corral Canyon Road and Pacific Coast Highway. The work will be paid for by grants the city received from the Department of Fish and Game and also with funds from Caltrans.
Gary Busteed, park biologist for the National Park Service, said the improvements are the result of many agencies working together to restore not only steelhead trout habitat, but create a healthier ecosystem for all species. When the barriers are removed, native species are reintroduced to heal the damaged area, he said, adding that dams also hold back sediment, which plays an important part in beach replenishment.
“Our restoration efforts are all connected,” Busteed said of the progress in Solstice Creek. “You can’t concentrate on one part of the ecosystem and ignore another, everything is connected.”