Local resident Ronald L. Rindge sends letter and documents citing the dam as a historical structure and blasts government agencies for “folly” of spending funds on a project that may, or may not, reintroduce steelhead trout.
By Laura Tate/Editor
The highly contested proposal to remove Rindge Dam to reintroduce steelhead trout in the upper watershed of Malibu Creek is continuing with a feasibility study to be conducted by the U.S Army Corps of Engineers.
The Corps conducted a meeting on May 29 in Malibu to discuss the beginning phase of the study.
The issue is hotly contested by many, and very much so by Ronald L. Rindge, descendant of the Rindge family who built the dam.
Rindge is opposed to tearing down the dam, which he states is a historical structure “protected by the laws of the United States as well as in California.” He also believes the trout could not exist in the upper watershed above the dam because temperatures are too high during much of the year and because of poor water quality caused by urbanization in the upper watershed, and effluent being discharged from the Tapia sewer treatment plant.
In a letter to the Corps, Rindge states, “The pristine and cool water quality required by steelhead in their natural habitat has been absent since 1965-1968 …”
He contests it would be a “folly to continue to spend money on this project until the water in Malibu Creek is once again pristine and capable of sustaining steelhead below the dam,” which is where, he said, the “trout flourished for 40 years after the dam was built in 1924.”
Cost estimates of removal of the dam are as high as $40 million.
The corps previously conducted a federally funded $100,000 reconnaissance study, which basically was a cursory study to decide whether there would be an interest in a feasibility study.
The Feasibility Study will cost $2.1 million and last approximately three years, said Jason Shea, the study manager for the project. The completion date of 2004 depends on whether the project will be fully funded by the federal government, said Shea, which, with current budget deficit projections, might not happen.
The California State Department of Parks and Recreation is paying for 50 percent of the study.
In a summary of a 1998 recon analysis, the main purpose of the study is to look at restoring the Malibu Creek ecosystem and terrestrial and aquatic habitat, as well as the restoration of the wildlife movement corridor within the watershed.
Shea said the purpose of the meeting last week was to identify concerns in the area if the dam is kept in place and if it were to be removed.
Some conditions that were identified with the dam in place are: endangered species; impaired steelhead habitat; sedimentation behind the dam that has “starved” Malibu beaches; existence of nonnative vegetation; water quality; and recreation.
If the dam were to be removed, the following are the expected concerns: impacts to the estuary; depletion of water supply (it was noted the dam is currently “nonfunctional in storing water”); water quality; bank erosion; recreation; cultural resources (the dam as a National Historic Site).
The study would also look at removing the dam and stabilizing sediment upstream and downstream, with the sediment being marketed offsite or to be used on beaches. Another option would be to remove the dam in phases and let the sediment “flow naturally” downstream. This could take up to 25 years. Or, a one-phase removal, meaning the dam would be removed and the sediment allowed to flow downstream naturally. Impacts, such as flooding and environmental, would be studied if this were used as an option.
Other ideas to reintroduce steelhead are to install a fish ladder, or pool and riffle structures.
Rindge believes nothing should be done to restore the trout until the water quality issues are addressed.
Shea said some who spoke at the May 29 meeting claimed to have caught fish in the creek above the dam, disputing Rindge’s claim that trout cannot exist there.
“We’ll do all the data collection we can,” Shea said of the feasibility study, which would include investigating whether trout were in the area before and after the dam was built.