FA_2019_BIO_230

The Effects of the Matilija Dam on the Oncorhynchus mykiss (Steelhead

Trout) Population in the Ventura River
Maximilian R. Graves
Division of Science & Environmental Policy, California State University Monterey Bay, Seaside, CA, USA.
Abstract
The Oncorhynchus mykiss (Steelhead Trout) is a native fish to the Ventura River. Since the Matilija dam was built in 1947,
sightings of the fish have been rare. The conditions imposed on the river by the dam have not been suitable for the anadromous
fish. The rivers estuary where it meets the sea no longer directly flows due to the limited sediment flow to the beaches. Recent
studies show that fish still want to go back to their breeding grounds and are not able to because of low river discharge caused by
the dam as well. Overall, the removal of the dam will result in a population increase of steelhead trout and beaches restored to
their pre-dam state.

Introduction
Steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) are an anadromous species of fish that are native to the west coast of North
America. They are the only species of anadromous that instinctively reproduce within the coastal watersheds of
southern California (NMFS 2012). The National Maine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in 1997 listed the steelhead as
endangered. Areas where these fish naturally occupy are used as high-priority areas where it is necessary to be
protected. The are I am focusing on has been a very controversial issue in Ventura for quite some time. The
surrounding community wants to get rid of it because the benefit of keeping the dam is not worth the upkeep of the
dam, as well as the environmental impacts that it has. It simply does not have any purpose anymore. The only thing
it does is create more environmental issues worse than what it intended to protect (CDFW 2017). It effects the
sediment output of the river, so as a result the beach’s natural landscape change. If this dam is taken out it will be
one of the largest dam removals in California history. 27 percent of the steelhead’s spawning habitat will be
restored. More than 31 miles of spawning habitat for the steelhead will be opened up as well as 116 miles and 154
acres of the Ventura River will be restored. Roughly 4 million cubic yards of sediment will be distributed along the
channel bed which would restore it to its pre-dam levels in around 10 years (Johnson 2017).

With all of this in mind one might ask why we don’t tear it down now. The problem is the lack of funding needed
for a project of this scale. In 2007, congress approved for funding to remove the dam but since then funding has
come to a halt. More recently in 2016 an alternative plan to remove the dam was proposed. The new plan would cost
around half of the plan before at a whopping $111 million. Since then large donations which seem small compared
to the $111 million have been made towards the dam’s removal. This $3.3 million grant from the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife will result in progress towards the finalization of the design for removal. We are on
our way towards prosperity for the steelhead but some might wonder if it is all going to be worth it. Since 1947
when the Matilija dam was built the steelheads population have been greatly affected. Officials say the Ventura
rivers water levels will be back to its pre-dam levels within 10 years of the removal but I wonder if the steelhead
will be able to make its comeback after 72 years. If the river can get back to pre-dam levels like researchers predict
then the numbers of fish will increase. Only a few have been tagged within the last few years and none at all in 2017
(Johnson 2017).

Figure 1 shows two steelhead trout blending into the mossy bottom of a river. From what I can
observe from the photo is the fish in front is male and the other being female. The distinct
features I am looking for are that elongated jaw and pink stripe down the body that males get
before they mate.

1
FA_2019_BIO_230

H1: Oncorhynchus mykiss population numbers have been affected by the Matilija dam and it’s removal will result in a population
increase.
AB
H0: Oncorhynchus mykiss population numbers have not been affected by the Matilija dam and will stay the same after it’s
removal
AB

Methods
In 2017 there were no steelhead detected in the Ventura River so the goal is to look at whether or not the river will
be able to sustain salmonid life if and when the Matilija dam is removed. My research started looking at the
relationship between streamflow and habitat necessary to a sustain steelhead population in the Ventura River and
San Antonio Creek. This information is very useful for ensuring that salmonids will be able to populate these rivers
again. I first wanted to look at the USGS recordings of velocity at the Ventura river to see the impact that the dam
has over the last century. The dam was constructed in 1947 so I wanted to look at the daily discharge before and
after the dam was built. Surveying rivers is something I am comfortable doing and I know that USGS does it
automatically does in intervals all around the country. Doing it in real life, shown in figure 2, lets me observe the
real time conditions that the river is in rather than trusting the USGS data alone.

Figure 2 shows a man getting ready to place down the transect tape measure to
record the discharge in feet/sec on various paces along the line.

Results
Count 25 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30
Max 3.15 4020 3620 1310 68.5 44.3 27.8 18.9 13.3 8.83 7.87 6.70
Min 1.75 2.20 67.2 73.7 34.4 25.0 16.3 11.0 8.68 6.89 6.16 4.62

Table 1: Daily Mean Discharge at the Ventura river gage near Ventura in cubic feet per second from 2018-12-07 to 2019-
12-07. The Count row is how many days out of the month they surveyed, starting with Dec 2018 to Dec 2019.

Year Number of Steelhead recorded at Ventura River

1948 4,150
2006 4
2007 0
2008 6
2009 0
2010 1
2011 0
2012 0

2
FA_2019_BIO_230

2013 0
Annual cumulative rainfall in the City of Ventura from 2002-0
2014
2012 2015 0
2016 0
40 2017 0
35
Table 2: Number of
30 steelhead
Number of Steelhead recorded at Ventura River recorded before
25
4,500
Total and after the
Rainfall (in)

construction of
20
4,000 the Matilija
dam.
15
3,500
10
3,000
Number of Fish

5
2,500
0
2,000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

1,500

1,000

500

0
Year

Graph 1: This graph corresponds to Table 2 showing the steelhead count in the Ventura River before and after in more
recent years

3
FA_2019_BIO_230

Graph 2: This graph shows the annual cumulative rainfall in Ventura from the year 2002 to 2012

Discussion

There has been a clear cause and effect relationship between the construction of the Matilija Dam and the population
of steelhead trout in the Ventura river as shown in Table 2. This means that this massive change in environment for
the steelhead trout was too much for it to handle. We know that conditions can be restored back to their habitable
state if the dam is removed. Rainfall has been stagnant in recent years as shown in Graph 2 which was able to
sustain a few steelhead here and there throughout the years as shown in Table 1. I can reject the null hypothesis
because the effects of the dam have been overwhelming for fish population numbers. The population has been
practically wiped out. Like most anadromous fish, the Oncorhynchus nerka (Sockeye salmon) provides nutrients to
an entire ecosystem when it swims up stream as a part of its life cycle. There must have been other animals who rely
on the fish coming back, so his means that once the fish is reintroduced, we can see what sorts of animals they
affected firsthand by not being present.

Conclusion

Knowing how much of an impact that the Matilija dam has had on the steelhead trout locally has made me more of
an advocate for its removal. I had always known about its effects on the steelhead trout and sediment flow, but not to
this extent. I thought as a kid that the population has decreased to just lower numbers. I did not think that there
would be years where none were sighted at all. This means that the steelhead has a bright future if the removal
project happens soon before no more fish are in the area in total. Next time I would go do survey’s of the river
myself. I would also want to compare old photos to how the river looks now. I saw quite a bit of studies assessing
the conditions that are needed for it to be habitable for the steelhead, but not much about how long it will be until
those conditions are achieved. Once the dam is removed it does not mean that everything will go back to normal
again and everything will be okay for the steelhead. I have seen the water trapped by the dam, and it does not look
like the cleanest water free of bacteria. A number of new environmental problems may be introduced as a result.

References

 Capelli, M.H. 1997. Ventura River steelhead survey, Ventura County, California. California Department of
Fish and Game, Region 5.
http://www.matilijadam.org/documents/Steelhead_Surveys/steelhead_assessment/Stage2Final.pdf

This paper helped me with my conclusion. Even if the dam is removed it does not mean that everything will go back
to normal immediately. also used it to gain more information about what the fish needs in order to survive. The
habitat must be perfect or close to it and the fish must have access as well.

 Moore, M.R. 1980. Factors influencing the survival of juvenile steelhead rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri
gairdneri) in the Ventura River, California. M.S. Thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California. 82
pp https://cuca.humboldt.edu/theses

I used this paper to look at some earlier population surveys that were not so recent. They did a test in the 1970s to
see if the river can even sustain a healthy population of steelhead trout anymore. This study helped me determine if
the Ventura River being blocked off by water supply development effects were observed as early on as the 1970s.
With this information I could determine that people have stopped trying to reintroduce steelhead into the river as
they know that it will no longer be suitable.

 Normandeau Associates. 2011. Steelhead population assessment in the Ventura River/Matilija Creek Basin,
2010 Data Summary. Report by Mark Allen, Tim Salamunovich, and tom Gast to the Surfrider Foundation
and California Department of Fish & Game. 35pp.

4
FA_2019_BIO_230

http://www.matilijadam.org/documents/Steelhead_Surveys/Ventura%20Steelhead%20Assessment
%202012%20FINAL.pdf

This was a much more recent study which gave me a new perspective about the issue to look at. I used the
information in my intro to explain why the steelhead trout has now been put on the endangered list by the
Department of Fish and Wildlife.

 Thomas R. Payne & Associates. 2010. Steelhead population assessment in the Ventura River/Matilija
Creek Basin. 2009 Data Summary Report by Mark Allen to the Matilija Coalition, and Patagonia, Inc. 15pp
http://www.matilijadam.org/reports/Matilija%20Data%20Summary%202009%20Final.pdf

This was a simple population assessment. I used the most recent data in Table 1 and Graph 1. It also talks about a
heavy infestation of a black-spot disease that was observed on the O. mykiss juveniles but did not go into more depth
about it. I did not work that into my paper but I thought it would be interesting to note.