Management Plan
Mad River Bluffs
Background Description and Management Plan
Prepared for the McKinleyville Land Trust by Sabra Steinberg with funding provided by the California Coastal Conservancy
November 2003
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements……………………………………………… iv List of Figures…………………………………………………… vi Introduction……………………………………………………… 1
PART 1: BACKGROUND DESCRIPTION Location & Climate……………………………………………… 3 Geology………………………………………………………….. 5 Geology and Soils……………………………………….. 5 Groundwater and Drainage……………………………… 5 Erosion and Geological Stability………………………… 6 Seismic Issues…………………………………………… 8 Historical Conditions……………………………………………. 8 Habitats and Vegetation…………………………………………. 12 Beach Pine/Spruce Forest……………………………….. 12 Coastal Grassland/Shrub………………………………… 19 Coastal Bluffs……………………………………………. 20 Riverbank………………………………………………... 20 Beach and Dunes………………………………………… 20 Mad River Estuary………………………………………. 21 Wetlands………………………………………………… 24 Fish and Wildlife………………………………………………… 26 Aquatic Life……………………………………………… 26 Terrestrial Wildlife………………………………………. 29 Historical Use……………………………………………………. 32 Wiyots…………………………………………………… 32 Ownership and Land Use since 1850……………………. 34 Current Use Patterns…………………………………………….. 42
PART 2: MANAGEMENT PLAN Management Goals and Objectives……………………………… 45 Executive Summary ……………………………………………... 45 Regulatory Environment…………………………………………. 52 Public Input………………………………………………………. 56 Public Access…………………………………………………….. 59 Open Hours………………………………………………. 59 Vehicular Access and Parking…………………………… 59 Pedestrian Access………………………………………... 60 Bicycle Access…………………………………………… 60 Handicap Accessibility…………………………………... 61 Dogs……………………………………………………… 62 Equestrian Use…………………………………………… 66 Organization/Agency Use……………………………….. 68
ii
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Facilities………………………………………………………… 69 Trail System…………………………………………….. 69 Overview of Planned Trail System……………... 69 Blufftop Trails………………………………….. 72 Vertical Access Routes…………………………. 73 Recommendations………………………………. 76 Scenic Overlooks & Benches…………………………… 80 Picnic Area ……………………………………………... 83 Dogi-pot Stations……………………………………….. 84 Other Facilities………………………………………….. 85 Facility Monitoring and Maintenance…………………... 85 Public Education & Outreach…………………………………… 87 Signage………………………………………………….. 87 Types and Locations for Signs………………….. 88 Design/Format…………………………………... 89 Sign Content…………………………………….. 90 Educational & Interpretive Displays……………………. 91 Educational/Community Events………………………… 93 Volunteer Activities to Support MRB…………………... 95 Cooperative Research Opportunities……………………. 96 Resource Restoration & Protection……………………………... 98 Invasive Weeds………………………………………….. 98 Control/Removal of Invasive Weeds……………. 99 Targeting Invasive Plant Hot Spots at MRB…….. 101 Invasive Weeds: Descriptions & Specific Controls 104 Additional Concerns—The Watch List………….. 110 Calendar of Weed Control Activities……………. 112 Managing Beach Pine/Spruce Forest…………………….. 113 Prairie Restoration……………………………………….. 114 Erosion Control & Water Quality Protection……………. 115 Limitations to Access……………………………………. 115 Cooperative Management with MCSD………………….. 116 Safety…………………………………………………………….. 117 Patrols & Enforcement…………………………………... 117 Tree Safety Program……………………………………... 118 References………………………………………………………... 121 Appendices……………………………………………………….. 131 A. Flora of Mad River Bluffs…………………………….. 131 B. Preliminary Mushroom List for Mad River Bluffs……. 137 C. Wildlife and Fish of Mad River Bluffs………………... 138 D. Bird List for Mad River Bluffs………………………... 140 E. Cost Estimates for Northern Bluff Trail Work………… 143 F. Correspondence………………………………………... 145 G. Application for Coastal Development Permit
iii
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The list of individuals and agencies I need to thank is long. There really is a community of helpful people interested in this stunning slice of the California coastline. First, I must thank Sheila Seamans and The Coastal Conservancy, without whom this property would not now be protected and available to the public for recreational opportunities. I thank them also for providing the grant that funded development of this management plan. And next, I thank McKinleyville Land Trust (MLT) for giving me this opportunity to work again on this property. Almost ten years ago, as then-President of the land trust, I began work on a project to acquire this property, then known as Hiller West. Though others continued and then finished that project when my time on the board was over, I now get a unique sense of closure, making recommendations for the management of Mad River Bluffs. I would also like to thank the MLT board members for their support throughout this process and their help at the public meeting (plus a personal thank you to Gina Rimson, MLT treasurer and check writer).
Special thanks go to Johnny Caulkins and Steve Fisher (and their respective agencies, the California Conservation Corps and the California Dept. of Parks and Recreation) for their willingness to help and their expert guidance on trail issues. They visited the bluff trail sites and provided information and estimates for materials and costs for various trail options under consideration in this plan. I also want to thank Mike Sparkman at California Dept. of Fish and Game (CDFG) for providing information and insight on the lower Mad River and estuary.
I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude to Traci Ferdolage, Director of Recreation at McKinleyville Community Services District (MCSD), and to Tom Marking, Manager of MCSD for their willingness to coordinate and cooperate on recreation issues involving MLT’s and MCSD’s adjoining properties. I also appreciate their helpfulness in sharing documents and information on grants, volunteer groups, and various sign and park-related possibilities. Tom also attended and participated in our public meeting, which was very helpful.
I would like to thank the folks at Humboldt County Historical Society, especially Matina Kilkenny and Katherine Mace. When I was doing historical research, they were so friendly and helpful in assisting me find historical “bits and pieces” that might be useful. The Historical Society office is a truly wonderful repository of community history, and I appreciate being given access to its resources. I also want to thank Joan Berman, head of special collections at HSU Library, for her help searching out references there--this isn’t the first project she has helped me with, and probably won’t be the last! A special thanks goes to Alan Compher for providing a wealth of additional information about the property and its history. And I want to thank Steve Moser for letting me use his copy of the Sand Pointe EIR, which saved me from another excruciating visit to the County Offices in Eureka. I also want to thank someone I have never met, Stephen Outlaw, who is an Information Specialist with Land Trust Alliance. My request to Land Trust Alliance (LTA) for information on public access liability issues was routed to him, and he sent me a series of articles from LTA publications and email strings from the Land Trust Listserve.
iv
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
I want to thank Dennis Halligan and Natural Resources Management Corporation (NRM) for providing recent air photos, for help with the neighborhood address list, and use of GPS units for trail mapping. I would also like to thank Mike O’Hern for his assistance on boundary questions. I thank John Moseman, working for MLT under Americorps, for his assistance at the public meeting, for help collecting visitor-use data, and his work with Cedar Academy students. Thanks go to the Cedar Academy students for producing a large-scale aerial photo for use at the public meeting. A most grateful thank-you goes to HSU students Theresa Wong and Jeremy Hunter for ground work and initial GIS mapping of most of the trails, and for reconciling the air photo map with the GIS trail map, respectively. A big heartfelt thanks also goes to Jeff Dunk, HSU faculty (and my husband), for his work with these students, adding the final trail segments to the maps, producing the final maps, wrestling graphics into the document, and companionship on many site visits. (He also deserves thanks for making dinner for our family every night for several months while I was being consumed by this project).
I am grateful to Jen Kalt of California Native Plant Society (CNPS) for her help with the plant list, and to Andrea Pickart, also of CNPS, for review comments on the plan. I want to thank Shayne Greene who made time for a site visit, shared his expertise on beach pines, and provided insight into current and potential future conditions of the forest at Mad River Bluffs. I also thank Dr. William Wood for his contribution of a list of the mushrooms he has found in the Mad River Bluffs area, to Linda Doerflinger and Ron LeValley for the bird list for the vicinity of MRB, and to Greg Goldsmith and Bradford Norman for information on aquatic life in the estuary. I also thank Darci Short for providing information on several park-related issues. I am grateful to the following reviewers for their helpful comments: Dennis Halligan, Kristin Schmidt, Andrea Pickart, Sheila Seamens, and Jeff Dunk.
I would also like to thank all the citizens who took time from their busy lives to participate in a public meeting to discuss options and concerns about Mad River Bluffs. And finally, I think we all owe a debt of gratitude to Dorothy Blade, to Alan Compher and his neighbors, and to the many others in the community who worked for so long to keep this property safe until it could be purchased and protected in perpetuity for preservation and recreational use.
v
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Location of Mad River Bluffs in McKinleyville, Humboldt County, California …...3
2. Mad River Bluffs boundaries and existing trails……..………………………….…..4
3. Mix of forested and open habitats in and around part of Mad River Bluffs in 1942, 1971, and 2000……………………………………………………………….11
4. Young beach pine regenerating at Mad River Bluffs……………………………....13
5. Winter/spring pond on main north-south forest trail near Ocean Dr. entrance…….24
6. Recommended changes to trail system and additional facilities proposed at Mad River Bluffs……………………………………………………………….72
7. Cable steps at Houda Point in Trinidad…………………………………………….75
8. Diagram of crib steps and cable steps……………………………………………...77
9. View from scenic overlook with the mouth of the Mad River and Trinidad Head in the background…………………………………………………………………..80
10. Countour bench and recycled plastic bench available from Pilot Rock……………82
11. Dogi-pot “Pet Station”……………………………………………………………...84
vi
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
INTRODUCTION
Mad River Bluffs, previously known as Hiller West or the Massae property, is a 73.9 acre property (Figure 1), of which approximately 19.5 acres are upland beach pine/spruce forest and grassland on coastal blufftops overlooking the lower Mad River and the Pacific Ocean; the remainder encompasses riparian, estuarine, and dune habitats below (Figure 2). The property contains a large portion of the Mad River estuary, a small amount of barrier spit west of the river, and “is part of a critical regional dune management area” (Coastal Conservancy 2001). The Mad River County Park is nearby. Mad River Bluffs (MRB) is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean and by the two narrow parcels (together forming a wedge shape) that were acquired by the County. To the south and north, the property is bounded by residential development, at the north end by a gated neighborhood known as Knox Cove. MRB is bounded on the east by Hiller Park and the McKinleyville Community Service District’s (MCSD) wastewater treatment facility. Taken together, MRB and the MCSD-owned Hiller Park provide parklands with public access now extending from the Pacific Ocean eastward nearly to Highway 101.
This property is a vital remnant of the north coast’s natural heritage. The beach pine/Sitka spruce forest on the terrace above the river is an increasingly rare habitat in California, with development threatening much of what remains. As McKinleyville and other north coast communities have been growing, coastal bluff habitats have been replaced with ocean-view residential developments. The forested blufftop at MRB, with its beautiful vistas, is a landscape eminently worthy of protection and appreciated by local residents as a recreational gem. The riparian and estuarine habitats on the edge between the land and sea are important areas for wildlife and are rich in species diversity and abundance. Historically, the Mad River supported exceptional fisheries of coho salmon, chinook salmon, steelhead trout and other fish species, which at lower population levels still exist there today. A diverse array of shorebirds, waterfowl, and land birds, as well as marine mammals, use the Mad River estuary and the associated habitats.
Over the last 15 years, several subdivision developments had been proposed for this site, but none were finalized. The purpose of acquiring the property was to preserve public access to the coast (the site has significant prescriptive rights), provide recreational opportunities, and protect the scenic and visual qualities of the open space in perpetuity. Purchase of the property was funded with money from Proposition 12 (“Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Fund”), and funds for initial property management came from California Coastal Conservancy’s “Coastal Access” account. The Coastal Conservancy and MLT worked cooperatively to acquire the property; with Coastal Conservancy funding the purchase, MLT took title to the property to manage MRB in perpetuity.
MLT’s general “management goals for this area are to maintain the natural integrity…while providing the public an opportunity for recreational access and educational opportunities” (California Coastal Conservancy 2001). Several specific goals identified in acquisition documents and agreement include linking the MRB property to the Hammond Trail system, providing public access to the river and beach, and providing recreational opportunities for hiking, beachcombing, bird and whale watching, picnicking, and native plant walks (California Coastal Conservancy 2001). The major challenge for MLT is to find a way to provide the public with access to/through the property and recreational opportunities while still protecting the natural heritage found here. This plan is intended to help MLT find that balance. 1
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
This document is divided into two parts. The first part provides a background assessment of the property, describing the natural and cultural history of the local area and the existing site conditions in terms of habitats, wildlife, and current recreational use. The second part, the management plan, provides management options for public access and use; public education and outreach; management/conservation of natural resources; opportunities for cooperative research, monitoring, and management with local agencies, organizations and individual citizens. An executive summary with a list of actions recommended in the plan is provided at the beginning of second part.
2
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
LOCATION AND CLIMATE
Mad River Bluffs is located on the California coast in the unincorporated community of McKinleyville, approximately 290 miles north of San Francisco and 70 miles south of the Oregon border. Moderated by the proximity to the Pacific Ocean, the climate is maritime. It has been said that nearby Eureka has the shortest thermometer in the nation, presumably because the Humboldt Bay region has the smallest annual range of temperatures in the continental United States. The mean annual temperature hovers around 51 degrees F, and there is a difference of less than 12 degrees F between highest and lowest monthly mean temperatures. The record high temperature in Eureka is 85 degrees F., and the record low temperature is 20 degrees. Generally, winter lows are in the 30’s-40’s, and summer highs are in the high 60’s, though just a few miles inland temperatures get considerably colder in winter and hotter in summer.
The climate has distinct Mediterranean wet and dry seasons. Nearby Eureka receives about 36 inches of precipitation per year (Nat. Weather Service 1998), and McKinleyville gets about 25% more, with almost all of it occurring between the months of October and April. Summer months are generally dry, but fog and low clouds are common. Weather here is determined by the “interactions of high and low pressure systems over the eastern north Pacific, as well as the location of the jet stream. During the summer months, high pressure dominates, keeping the region dry by diverting storms well to the north” (Haynes 1986). Prevailing winds are north to northwest from March- October; maximum velocities reach 40-55 mph. As winter approaches, the high pressure system is weaker; low pressure currents circulate Figure 1. Location of Mad River Bluffs in McKinleyville, Humboldt counterclockwise, bringing County, California. warm air from the south (Van Hook 1985). Being exposed to the full force of the onshore flow, winds are a dominant force at Mad River Bluffs.
3
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan Mad River Bluffs – Boundaries and Existing Trails
NBT3/NO3
NBT2/NO2
Goodyera Glade
NBT1/NO1 Hiller Loop Spur
grassy round
long meadow
South Trail -
S06 Main North
SBT2 S05 SBT1/S03 S04 -West Trail Main East S02 S01
Figure 2. 4 Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
GEOLOGY
Geology and Soils The upland portion of the Mad River Bluffs property is located on the western edge of the McKinleyville Terrace, an abrupt uplifted terrace of marine origin extending north from the lower Mad River. In recent decades, the river mouth has largely migrated north, eroding the western edge of the terrace. Currently the river makes a wide northerly sweep at the western edge of the terrace, and empties into the Pacific Ocean at the base of Mad River Bluffs.
The mid-Pleistocene age Falor formation underlies most of McKinleyville, including Mad River Bluffs. “In the McKinleyville area these deposits are typically up to 400 feet thick and are predominantly composed of moderately indurated, massive, fine grained sands; medium to coarse grained, cross bedded sands, and gravels; and minor, thin bedded deposits of silts and clays.” (SHN Consulting Engineers & Geologists 1990). Overlain on the Falor formation are late Pleistocene age (to 11,000 years before present) deposits of the Hookton formation, which is an “uplifted, folded, and dissected terrace” of “softly consolidated sediments” (McLaughlin and Harradine 1965). Hookton formation deposits are laid down in shallow waters of fluvial, estuarine, or marine conditions; at MRB, the Hookton formation terraces are thought to be of marine origin.
MRB’s coastal bluffs rise 40-60+ feet above sea level. According to SHN (1990), the terrace deposits there “appear to range in thickness from 10-15 feet and consist of friable to slightly indurated, fine to medium grained sands with minor gravel beds”. On the upland portion of Mad River Bluffs, the terrace is topped with soils in the Hookton series—mostly Hookton 8, but at the eastern end, also Hookton 2 (McLaughlin & Harradine 1965). Hookton soils are similar to Arcata, Ettersberg, and Wilder soils. “The Hookton series consists of moderately deep prairie regosols of medium texture…. Drainage conditions of Hookton soils depend on the density of the substratum” (McLaughlin and Harradine 1965). At MRB, the Hookton soils “are well drained with occasional spring and seep areas of artisian water. Permeability is moderate and runoff is medium to rapid.” SHN (1990) reported that, “low density topsoil depths encountered at the project site ranged from 1 foot to 2.8 feet below the ground surface. Underlying the topsoil layer, native soils encountered consisted of interbedded, yellowish brown, fine grained, silty sand; yellowish brown and light brown, clayey sand and sandy clay and gravelly sand.”
On the bluff face itself, exposed sedimentary deposits “…typically consist of a basal lag deposit overlain by a thin veneer of marine, alluvial, colluvial, and eolian deposits” and the “lower portions of the bluff slope are mantled by colluvial materials…” (SHN 1990). Near the base of the bluffs, an (currently narrow) alluvial plain lies between the bluff and the Mad River. “The alluvial plain materials consist of back beach deposits predominantly composed of unconsolidated dune sands, driftwood, and tidal debris” (SHN 1990).
Groundwater and Drainage In 1990, SHN dug test pits up to 12.2 feet deep; no groundwater was found in any of the pits. But groundwater springs and seeps do occur on the property. SHN noted two locations with seeps or springs in the southern portion of the property at the base of the bluffs. And there appears to be at least one seep or spring near the bluff top edge, just a few feet upslope of the big
5
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan dip in the main north/south forest trail (the depression is probably due to the presence of the seep in combination with foot traffic on the trail); (See “Wetlands” section).
Much of the upper terrace is relatively flat. But the western edges of the bluffs descend steeply to the alluvial plain. Also, near the northern boundary of the property, the terrace drops steeply into a channel that has deeply incised “the marine terrace and Falor Formation to depths of up to 40 feet” (SHN 1990).
A 1991 Preliminary Biological Report (Roberts et al. 1991) identified three main drainage “channels” on the property. “Two smaller channels drain the southern and middle portions…” of the property, and the third and “largest is a deeply-incised channel which presently collects water from the northern portion …”. This same channel was a subject of discussion in SHN’s (1990) report: the construction of the waste water treatment ponds, located adjacent to the northeastern boundary of the project, has resulted in modification of natural drainage characteristics of an unnamed creek located at the project’s northern property line. Upper portions of the drainage have been converted into sewage treatment and/or percolation ponds. A dike-perimeter surface drainage system discharges into the natural drainage feature through a steeply sloping, rock lined channel that has been excavated into the highly erodible Falor formation. The rock-lined portion of the channel extends across the creek to form a “rock-lined” reach of the creek channel. Most of the base flow of this creek is presently produced by groundwater emerging from the pervious Falor formation.
Since SHN’s report, the rocks lining the upstream portion of this drainage have been cemented over, probably in an attempt to stabilize it and stop the incising action. That northernmost drainage channel is depicted on a (large-format) 1970 topographic map (at the MCSD office), so it existed prior to construction of the treatment facility. However, it is clear that the channel has incised significantly since then. MCSD manager, Tom Marking, said that Humboldt County has a drainage easement through the MCSD property, and presumably through MRB. This “gully” currently carries water from the east side of Highway 101, including the Thiel Rd. area (subdivision); when the Miller subdivision is built, water from that subdivision will be diverted into this drainage channel as well, though the additional flow from the Miller subdivision will be taken care of by a marsh MCSD is planning to build (Marking, pers. comm.).
Erosion and Geological Stability SHN conducted a Geologic Hazard Evaluation and Preliminary Soil Evaluation (Nov. 1990) of the site. Their report included figures showing locations of the river shorelines and bluffs between 1891 and 1983. Between 1983 and 1990, the mouth of the river moved northward another 500 ft. (See also “Mad River Estuary” section). SHN compared 1974 air photos with field measurements taken by their engineers in 1990 and reported at that time that it appeared that “minimal river bank erosion has occurred in this area (MRB) over the last 30 years.” However, they also noted that when the mouth of the river was north of MRB, “during the winters of 1980/81 and 1981/82, exceptionally high river flow, off-shore ocean currents, and strong surf conditions removed a significant portion of the low lying flood plain east of the Mad River north of the project site.” (SHN 1990). This is of import because currently, the mouth of the river is at the north end of the property and this same phenomenon seems to be in process at that site now. SHN (1990) noted that “…similar conditions could occur that could initiate substantial bluff toe erosion east of the present Mad River. The southern portion of the existing 6
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan bluff has noticeably less protection in the form of tidal accumulation and back beach alluvial deposits than the northern portion of the project…..Conditions that are conducive to bluff slope failure and erosion generally occur when the location of the mouth of the river or a breach in the spit allows waves to directly attack the base of the bluff instead of being dissipated on the spit. Since sea waves enter the mouth of the river during high tide periods, the east bank near the river mouth is subject to accelerated erosion when high surf conditions occur. As a result, various segments of the coastal bluff may be subjected to episodic, accelerated erosion and bluff retreat processes as the mouth of the Mad River changes location”.
SHN reported that “an approximately linear form of the top edge of bluff has been preserved since approximately 1891”. Noting the mature trees and shrubs which thickly cover much of the bluff top and slope, SHN (1990) reported that it appeared that “no significant bluff retreat has occurred during the growth period of these trees (approximately 75 years)”. Furthermore, the lack of major deviations in the bluffs’ linear form, indicated that no “large-scale sliding, fault displacement, or river migration has occurred during the last few hundred years.”
SHN did note that there were isolated areas with “actively eroding gullies”, and that three areas had the potential for gully erosion, caused by concentrated run-off in areas with unprotected soils. “Because these natural swale-like features offer a lesser gradient and ease of travel they are popular for beach access. Continued use has created trails which are void of vegetation and are therefore susceptible to erosion”. They also reported that they thought it possible that the modifications (off-site) to the stream channel of the unnamed creek at the northern boundary (see “Groundwater and Drainage” section above) “could adversely affect the slope stability characteristics of the northern portions…” of the property.
In 1990, summarizing their findings, SHN stated that a “low to moderate rate of bluff retreat should be anticipated …” in the next 40 years, probably due to “sheet and gully erosion; shallow, small scale slope failure; and surface disturbance by man, animals, and/or falling trees.” However, since bluff top retreat processes usually start at “the bluff base and/or on the bluff slope”, they noted that “It is conceivable that high rate bluff retreat could occur if the Mad River changes course such that river bank erosion removes the base of the bluff slope or if the river erodes through the barrier bar (the beach between the ocean and the river), exposing the base of the bluff to sea wave attack. If support is removed from the base of the bluff slope, slabs of bluff materials will eventually loosen and fall to the base of the bluff. A progressive cycle of bluff base erosion and bluff slope failure could result in a substantial amount of bluff top retreat.” Such “accelerated erosion processes…typically occur in an unpredictable episodic manner so that retreat rates are very low over extended periods and then increase markedly for short periods.”
This, in fact, may be occurring now, 13 years after SHN’s site evaluation and with the relocation of the river mouth directly opposite the northern bluffs. In recent years, MCSD has been recording an average loss of 3 ft of blufftop per year at the Fischer Ranch site at the west end of School Rd. but the erosion is due to punctuated events where 20-30 ft are lost at a time (Marking, pers. comm.). No monitoring measurements were taken in the winter 2002/2003 at Mad River Bluffs, however, based on personal observation, exactly the combination of events that SHN described (with regard to potential for accelerated erosion) occurred this last winter at MRB. And after large Dec./Jan. storms, significant new sloughing of the bluffs was noted in some areas (though not where the recommended trail work is located). 7
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Seismic Issues This site is subject to seismic activity from a variety of sources (all of the following information is from SHN 1990): --Cascadia Subduction Zone (from about Cape Mendocino and extending 750 miles north) --Mendocino fault zone (40 miles south, offshore of Cape Mendocino); --Internal deformation of the subducted Gorda oceanic crustal plate (west of the site); --Mad River fault zone, which is part of the “complex northwest trending system of compressional faults” surrounding Humboldt Bay region. The Mad River fault zone has faults that are considered active, though earthquakes generated by it are uncommon (4 from 1900- 1974 between 5.0 and 6.6 magnitude). Several low-angle thrust faults have been identified in the general vicinity…” of MRB. “Evidence suggest that large to very large magnitude earthquakes would be generated during fault rupture events in the McKinleyville area.” There is an Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zone to the east of MRB. Special Studies Zones are delineated where there are potentially active faults that may rupture the ground surface. “At its nearest point, the mapped fault trace is located approximately 1,000 feet east of the subject property.” “The potential for surface fault rupture on the project site is considered to be low.”
HISTORICAL CONDITIONS AT MRB AND VICINITY
There do not seem to be any early descriptions specific to the MRB site or its immediate vicinity, or at least any that have been preserved. Notes from early surveyors (e.g. the Humboldt Meridian line run by US surveyors in 1854, surveys of township lines) include descriptions of southeastern McKinleyville along the boundary between T6N and T7N line, but I could find none for this western portion of that line (the southern boundary of the MRB property). In fact, the “Trinidad” area (of which this was part) was not divided into sections until 1867 (Coy 1982), and even after that, T7N,R1W, S36 (the section where MRB is located) for some reason was excluded from the early (1870) Plat Books. The land was being settled and changed even before it was surveyed: “…the early preemptions north of the Mad River were upon unsurveyed land” and “…were described only by metes and bounds…”(Coy 1982). Thus, determining the natural conditions existing at this site prior to settlement by Euro-Americans in the later half of the 19th century necessitated extrapolating from a variety of written sources from the early period of exploration and settlement in the general area.
There are earlier accounts of Trinidad and Humboldt Bay, but the first description of the area around MRB was from L.K. Wood, a member of the Josiah Gregg expedition that traveled overland from the Trinity mines in late fall of 1849 and whose members were nearly starving by the time they reached the coast. In his journal, Wood recounts how “the Doctor” (Josiah Gregg) detained the ragged and anxious group to take yet another set of measurements, and how this led to the naming of the Mad River: Little River was soon recrossed, after which nothing occurred to interrupt our progress until we reached another stream, which was then a large river, being swollen by the heavy rains. Its banks ran full, and its waters, near the mouth, appeared deep and moved so slowly and gently that we concluded it must be a navigable stream. Our next difficulty
8
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
was to cross this river. Here the harmony that had existed for so short a time was again disturbed. The Doctor wished to ascertain the latitude of the mouth of the river…this was of course opposed by the rest of the company. Regardless of this opposition, he proceeded to take his observation. We were, however, equally obstinate in adhering to the determination of proceeding without delay. Thus decided, our animals were speedily crossed over, and our blankets and ourselves placed in canoes—which we had procured from the Indians for this purpose—ready to cross. As the canoes were about pushing off, the Doctor, as if convinced that we would carry our determination into effect, and he be left behind, hastily caught up his instruments and ran for the canoe, to reach which, however, he was compelled to wade several steps in the water. His cup of wrath was now filled to the brim; but he remained silent until the opposite shore was gained, when he opened upon us a perfect battery of the most withering and violent abuse. Several times during the ebullition of the old man’s passion he indulged in such insulting language and comparisons, that some of the party, at best not any too amiable in their disposition, came very nearly inflicting upon him summary punishment by consigning him, instruments and all, to this beautiful river. Fortunately for the old gentleman, pacific councils prevailed, and we were soon ready and off again. This stream, in commemoration of the difficulty I have just related, we called Mad River.
According to the route delineated in Haynes (1986), it appears that Josiah Gregg’s group crossed the Mad River right at the mouth, and though the mouth of the river was not at its current location, from the route depicted, they traveled along the dunes at what is now MRB. Presumably, the area below the bluffs would have supported a dune community similar to what still exists at Lanphere Dunes Unit of Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge (hereafter, Lanphere Dunes).
Just a few years after the Gregg expedition, George Gibbs, in his journal of the Redick McKee Expedition (1853), reported that, “Near Union, and upon Mad river, a few miles distant, there is some farming country, but as yet very little under cultivation”. Later “Joe Dows bought the tract of land on the river in Union Township in 1866—on the north bank of Mad River (in Klamath County at the time). The prairie ran from Mad River to Little River. This area was known as Dows” (Turner 1993). The well-traveled General Isaac Wistar provided an enticing description (dating from sometime between 1850-1857) of that area, which presumably included the MRB site: In order to rest and improve my hard worked stock, I camped some ten miles below the town [Trinidad] on a large and lovely prairie not far from the beach of the Pacific though surrounded by forest, known as Dow’s prairie. The place was well grassed and watered, full of strawberries even at that season, and teeming with game, especially elk, in great numbers. At daybreak almost any morning, one might find immense droves of that noble deer feeding and sporting in the numerous deep bays of the prairie projecting in all directions into the surrounding forest. (Wistar 1937).
According to Wistar and other sources, edible plants and wildlife abounded in this area. “Old McKinleyville had an abundance of huckleberries, blackberries, salmonberries, strawberries, and other edible plants. There were so many strawberries that the prairie above Clam Beach was named Strawberry Prairie, and the creek cutting through its south side was named Strawberry Creek.” (Nielsen 1994). Regarding the McKinleyville area:
9
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
One Indian gentleman recalled, “It was so beautiful, all this land, you can’t imagine how beautiful it was before….And right here it was all prairie with huge herds of elk, not cows. The sky would grow dark with the passing of the ducks and geese and birds of all kinds, that’s how many there were. It was so rich here. The rivers were full of fish. You could see them jumping out of the water. And along the beaches, too, life was plentiful: clams, mussels, crab, sea lions. Everything was plentiful… (Nielson 1994)
The estuary and lower reaches of the river must have teemed with fish. One pioneer reported that he was “afraid to drive a horse across the river, the salmon ran so thick” (Loud 1918, “Wiyot Territory” p 237). Sea otters were well known off the coast at Trinidad, but were hunted out relatively early (fur traders) and were already uncommon by the first decades of the 1800’s. Grizzlies were present throughout the local area, and were especially common in the huckleberry thickets and sloughs of the Arcata Bottoms, so it is likely they were also found in the vicinity of MRB.
When the Euro-Americans arrived, the area we know as McKinleyville was “mostly prairie and gently rolling forested land.” (Nielsen 1994). Whether the prairies were “natural” (self- maintaining in the absence of human manipulation) or maintained by Native American burning practices is uncertain. But Wiyot people were managing the prairies here with fire when whites arrived on the scene. Settlers came to watch as the Indians would annually “gather on Dow’s Prairie and burn the grass, rounding up and killing the jackrabbits for part of their winter meat. Constant burning kept the area as a prairie” (Nielson 1994).
John Muir didn’t have much to say about the area between Trinidad and Arcata when he traveled through in 1896, except to observe that the coastal part of McKinleyville did not support redwood forest: “gradually we climbed into the wood but saw little good sequoia—mostly Picea sitchensis, and passed many small ranches where the tall spruces were girdled and the branches cut off at around a foot from the trunk, making curious ruins” (Muir 1938). Other (later) sources agreed with this observation. “Most of the flat land soils of McKinleyville did not produce redwoods. Instead there were groves of Sitka spruce and grand fir bordering the natural prairies” (Watson et al. 1921). Haynes (1986) states that “dense redwood” forest didn’t extend west of the Mill Creek Falls area.
In summary then, within historical times, coastal McKinleyville was a mix of spruce, fir, and pine forest projecting into large prairies of bracken fern, native grasses, strawberries, and other forbs. This mix of habitats, in combination with the coastal streams that flowed through the area and the ocean to the west, supported a multitude of wildlife. In early air photos (from 1942) of the area, boundaries between forest and clearings (either grassland or farmland) in some parts of the MRB property are similar to those existing today, but they also show that a large swath of the current western forest was non-forested agricultural land at that time (Figure 3). Determining the
10
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Figure 3. Mix of forested and open habitats in and around part of Mad River Bluffs in 1942
(left), 1971 (right) and 2000 (below).
exact pre-settlement boundaries of forest and prairie are beyond the scope of this plan, but it is likely that the upland area of what is today MRB and Hiller Park was then a patchwork of forest similar to that which exists there today (beach pine and spruce) and native prairie. The lowland portion of MRB was almost certainly a mix of dunes and sandspit; inclusion of the Mad River estuary would have depended on the location of the river mouth at any given point in time (e.g. at times it was located near what is now School Rd., or even further south).
11
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
HABITATS AND VEGETATION
BEACH PINE/SITKA SPRUCE FOREST Description of Current Conditions The upland portion of MRB property is dominated by a natural Beach Pine Forest series integrating with Sitka Spruce series, as defined by Sawyer & Keeler-Wolf (1995), and hereafter identified as the beach pine/spruce forest. Although beach pine (Pinus contorta contorta, also known as shore pine) dominates the canopy in some areas and Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) dominates it in others, this forest habitat is a blending of both series and should probably be considered a single vegetation type (Roberts et al. 1991).
From my observations at MRB, it appears that the forest in the southern half of the property is dominated in most areas by beach pine (including some stands of pure beach pine), though some spruce occur there. In some parts of that southern forest, the understory is dominated by evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum), but there is also much elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), cascara (Rhamnus purshiana), wax myrtle (Myrica californica), sword fern (Polystichum munitum) and salal (Gaultheria shallon). A few forested areas have a more open canopy and lack a well-developed shrub layer; in these areas, the understory is made up of grasses with bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), and false lily-of-the-valley (Maianthemum dilatatum), and in a few places, patches of rattlesnake plantain (Goodyera oblongifolia). The forest canopy at the north end of the property is slightly different. While beach pine still seems to be the major component in the canopy, there are more large spruce trees interspersed among them, and in general, the canopy level seems to be higher than in the more southern part of the forest. In that northern forest, there are small open areas where light penetrates down to the understory, and red-flowering currant (Ribes sanguinium), twinberry (Lonicera involucrata), salal, and evergreen huckleberry form a dense understory. It, too, has a few places where the canopy is more open and instead of shrubs, the understory is characterized by herbaceous plants: grasses with bracken fern and false lily-of-the-valley, and often quite extensive patches of rattlesnake plantain. In particular, one large patch of rattlesnake plantain (mixed in with false lily-of-the-valley) near Northern Bluff Trail #2 appears to be somewhat unusual in the extent and density of the patch; hereafter this site is referred to as “Goodyera Glade”. Another area that seems to be significant is a thick patch of fairy bells (Disporum smithii) and false Solomon’s seal (Smilacina stellata) which is just inside the forest edge on the east side (and mostly on the MCSD side of the boundary line). See Appendix A for a complete list of plant species found in the beach pine/spruce forest.
The beach pines in the forest are often limbless for most of their height, or have large dead branches in the canopy. Only near the top, where sunlight is significant, do they retain green vegetation. Despite their appearance, the condition of these beach pines is typical of natural, mature beach pine stands (Green, pers. comm.). Throughout the forest, the ground is littered with woody debris—from downed pine limbs to entire trees—and there are many standing (mostly pine) snags. Some very large-boled spruce trees occur at various locations throughout the upland forest. The density of beach pine and spruce trees in the forest appears normal (Green, pers. comm).
Sitka spruce is regenerating within the forest; spruce saplings, though not common, can be found with regularity. On the other hand, there is very little evidence of regeneration of beach pine
12
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan anywhere within the existing forest. It is distinctly possible that in the absence of large-scale disturbance events, over time spruce will become dominant since they grow faster and taller than beach pine (eventually shading out the beach pine), and since young spruce are more shade tolerant. However, at the southeastern edge of the existing forest, there is a patch of young beach pine that has become established in the grassland near the main east/west trail. These trees were estimated to be approximately 15 yrs. old (and were not present in 1971 air photos), and density was roughly estimated to be about 20 trees/per 10th acre, and thus at the upper end of “normal” density (Green, pers. comm.). Just north of that area, another older patch of pines recolonized pastureland between 1949-1971.
Beach Pine/Spruce Forest Ecology Because of its importance and Figure 4. Young beach pine regenerating (rectangular box) at rarity, management of the beach Mad River Bluffs. pine/spruce habitat will be an important issue for MLT. To assist MLT in understanding the resource they are stewards of, and deciding how to manage it, the ecology of this habitat is discussed at some length below. It should be noted that virtually all of the published information on forests with beach pine and spruce together is from coastal dune habitats where conditions (soils, substrate stability, soil moisture, soil salinity, etc.) are somewhat different than on the upland terrace at MRB. Still, these dune habitats with beach pine/spruce forests are the best “comparables” available, and in particular, reasonable inferences can be made from the abundant research conducted in forest stands at nearby Lanphere Dunes.
Beach pine is one of four ecologically distinct subspecies of lodgepole pine (Lotan and Critchfield 1990); the subspecies in this area is Pinus contorta var.contorta Doug. Ex Loud (Sugihara 1980). Beach pine has a patchy distribution along the Pacific Coast from Mendocino County, California to southern Alaska (Wiedemann 1984), and is mainly found on nutrient-poor or otherwise marginal sites. Sitka spruce is also a dominant component of forest communities along the coast from Alaska to Point Arena in California, often in association with beach pine or western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla).
The beach pine and Sitka spruce forest at MRB is a habitat type usually “associated with coastal dunes near river mouths, bays, or on broad sea-cut terraces” (Green 1999). On the coast in northern California, intact stands are located near the mouth of the Smith River, and between 13
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Humboldt Bay and the Mad River, but beach pine/spruce forest, as a vegetation type, does not occur south of Humboldt Bay (Pickart and Sawyer 1998). Beach pine/Sitka spruce forests are considered rare and declining in California (Calif. Natural Diversity Data Base 1997). Much of this forest type has been lost to coastal development, and the increasing rarity and fragmentation of this habitat was one reason for community and state-level interest in protecting this property.
To exist, forests in coastal dunes must be able to tolerate harsh environmental conditions, including a “low-nutrient substrate [generally mostly sand], air-borne salt spray, desiccating summer winds, and gale force winter gusts, fluctuating water tables, and episodic disturbance by sand inundation and fire” (Wiedemann 1984). While the upland pine/spruce forest at MRB is not faced with inundation by sand or the same level of nutrient-deficient soils, it does face some of the same difficult conditions as those in nearby coastal dunes: salt spray, gale force winds in winter and drying winds in summer, and the possibility of occasional fires.
One reason for the dominance of beach pine and Sitka spruce in narrow coastal strips, is that both are quite tolerant of salt spray, with spruce being slightly more tolerant (Green, pers. comm.); in fact Sitka spruce was ranked as the British Columbian tree species most tolerant of ocean spray (Krajina 1969). Sitka spruce is relatively susceptible to stress from lack of moisture, but its “natural occurrence on floodplains of river valleys in British Columbia and the Pacific Northwest is an indication of a relatively high tolerance to flooding.” (Peterson et al.1997). It is tolerant of extended periods of standing water as well as of shallow water tables.
Beach pine is slow-growing, with a mature height of 10-20 m (Sugihara 1980). In Alaskan peat bogs, 300-year old beach pines have been found (Wheeler and Critchfield 1985), but in coastal dunes of Oregon, Washington and northern California, the maximum life span of the subspecies appears to be between 100 years (Egler 1934) and 150 years (Green 1999, Wiedemann 1966). “Whether the upper age-limit is determined by life-history traits or reflects canopy turnover rates as a result of disturbance remains unclear” (Green 1999).
Species Composition Egler (1934) concluded that in dune forests with beach pine and spruce in the canopy at Coos Bay, young stands had understories of bearberry (Arctostaphylus uva ursi), while older stands had understories of salal, wax myrtle, evergreen huckleberry and Rhododendron. At Humboldt Bay, Johnson (1963) concluded that the climax dune forests were made up of beach pine, grand fir, Sitka spruce, and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) in the canopy, with a shrub layer of bearberry, evergreen huckleberry, salal, silk tassle (Garrya elliptica), wax myrtle, and coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis). In his description of dune forests, Wiedemann (1984) listed 7 “distinct forest types” based on characteristic species, and suggested that different environmental gradients may dictate successional pathways. In a quantitative study of beach pine and Sitka spruce in Lanphere Dunes, Green (1999) found three basic stand types: pure beach pine, Sitka spruce, and mixed-species types, which all differed significantly from each other in compositional and structural characteristics. In stands composed mostly of beach pine, evergreen huckleberry (46.7%) was the dominant understory plant, followed distantly by salal (9.4%), bearberry (8.6%), and wax myrtle (7.5%). In spruce stands, evergreen huckleberry (39.8%) was again the dominant understory component, followed by waxmyrtle (17.3%), and twinberry (6.3%). In the mixed pine/spruce stands, evergreen huckleberry (50.6%) and salal (20.7%) were by far the most important understory species. All 3 stand types had “dense 1-2.5 m tall shrub layer that is pervasive across most of the forest”, with shrubs making up the great 14
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan majority of vegetative cover (74-90%), compared to trees (3.3%-17.8%) and ground cover (0.6%-16.9).
Clearly, there are differences between the forest at Lanphere Dunes and MRB. For example, I saw no evidence of either bearberry in the understory or grand fir (Abies grandis) in the canopy of the upland forest at Mad River Bluffs, nor were these species listed for the site in the preliminary biological report prepared for Sierra National Trust (Roberts et al. 1991). With regard to bearberry, this absence may be due to lack of sand dune substrate, or to a more advanced age of the forest since bearberry seems to be typical of younger beach pine forests but drops out as the forest matures. However, given the overall appearance of the forest at MRB, the stand characteristics may be fairly similar in nature to those described by Green (1999) at Lanphere Dunes.
Mycology Beach pine and spruce forest stands in the dunes of nearby Lanphere Dunes have been studied relatively intensely, and are known to support a diverse and rich array of mushroom species (Van Hook 1985, Lindsay 1973). In one study at Lanphere Dunes, over 206 species of fungi were found, most in association with beach pine forest habitat (Van Hook 1985). It is reasonable to expect that with appropriate study, the forest macrofungi flora at Mad River Bluffs, which has already been reported to be “abundant”(Miller 1990), will prove similar in richness and diversity to that found at Lanphere Dunes. Though no systematic surveys for macrofungi have been conducted at MRB, Dr. William Wood, a chemistry professor at Humboldt State University (HSU) who has conducted research on the chemical properties of mushrooms, has compiled a preliminary list of mushrooms at the site (Appendix B). Eighteen of the 29 species on his list are also listed in Van Hook (1985) as present at Lanphere Dunes.
Some of the fungal species are saprophytic, and contribute to the weakening and demise of beach pine in particular. But the vast majority are species that form mycorrhizal associations with the trees. At Lanphere Dunes, 37 of the 43 “dominant, sub-dominant, and common” fungi species had mycorrhizal relationships with beach pines (and sometimes with several common ericaceous shrubs in the forest) (Van Hook 1985). Some of the fungi with ectomycorrhizal relationships with beach pine on the Samoa Peninsula include: Amanita gemmata, A. muscaria, Chroogomphus rutilus, Cortinarius humboldtensis, C. phoenecius var. occidentalis, Lactarius deliciosus, Tricholoma flavovirens, Cantharellus cibarius, and Rhizopogon ochraceorubens (Sugihara 1980). It can be expected that many of the same fungi species are associated with beach pine at Mad River Bluffs. Sitka spruce also have ectomycorrhizal relationships with many species of fungi (Trappe 1962), though none of these appears to be host-specific to the spruce (Molina and Trappe 1982). “Distribution of some mycorrhizal species may be explained by the age of the host plant”(Van Hook 1985), either being found only in young stands or only in mature stands. Not only are there numerous species of mycorrhizal fungi, but many appear to be important to the health of forest trees. Some studies have found that mycorrhizal fungal diversity peaks around the time of canopy closure, when forest floor litter depth is highest and when trees reach a peak of nutrient deficiency (Dighton 1987, Dighton et al. 1986). Mycorrhizal relationships appear to provide increased nutrient availability and uptake by their host plants (Lehto 1992), an especially important contribution in habitats with nutrient-deficient soils, a situation in which beach pine frequently occur.
15
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Structural Characteristics At Lanphere Dunes, Green (1999) found that in terms of mean basal area (m2/ha), stands that were mostly spruce had almost twice as much basal area as pure pine stands, with mixed pine/spruce stands being intermediate. He found that mean density (number of stems per unit area) in stands that were mostly pine, was more than three times the mean density in stands that were mostly spruce. And again, mixed pine/spruce stands were intermediate. Basically, he found that there were more but skinnier trees when the stand was mostly beach pine. And when the stand was mostly spruce, there were fewer trees per unit area, but the ones that were there were bigger around. Mixed species plots (1/10 acre) also had more snags (3.1/plot) than either pine plots (2.7/plot) or spruce plots (1.2/plot). Green found a mean density of 21 trees per 1/10 acre in beach pine stands at Lanphere Dunes. From ocular estimates during a site visit to MRB, he thought that in area adjacent to the main east/west trail where beach pine is regenerating, the density is probably around 20 trees/per 10th acre, and though at the upper end of what he found at Lanphere Dunes, this density does not appear to exceed what Green (pers. comm.) considered “normal”.
Age Structure At Lanphere Dunes, Green (1999) found that trunk diameter was not a good indicator of a tree’s age for either beach pine or Sitka spruce. He found that beach pine stands there included multiple age classes with at least 12 age classes that are probably all under 250 years. Green found age structure of spruce trees in his study to be similar to that of the pines, though age classes of spruce were consistently about five years younger than the pine age classes—possibly due to the time (after a disturbance event) it takes for downed logs decay into suitable “nurse logs” for spruce seedling establishment (Harris 1990, Agee 1993). According to Green (1999), “The most striking aspect of Sitka spruce age distribution is the relative youth of stands with respect to the life span of the species, which may exceed 700 years (Harris 1990). At Lanphere Dunes, no sampled trees exceeded 131 years of age…which was similar to life expectancies presented by Egler (1934)….Judging by the long life span of the species in other habitats and parts of its range, it is reasonable to conclude that the 150-year mark reflects canopy turnover rates resulting from disturbances rather than life-history traits”. Green found age distribution in mixed stands to be similar to the pine and spruce stands, even though spruce trees were generally slightly younger than pine trees in the mixed stands. He found that “…similarities in the age structures of pine, spruce, and mixed-species stands are more pronounced than are the differences, implying similar disturbance histories”. The age structure of forest trees in Green’s study on Samoa Peninsula, “indicate past pulses of regeneration which typically result when disturbance events disrupt the overstory canopy”. The stand age structures and spatial patterns Green found in all 3 forest types “suggest that frequent, small-scale wind disturbances (causing windfall), probably exacerbated by pathogenic decay, have been the most important factor driving forest development (underlying seedling establishment) during the last 150 years….Beach pine stands generally appear to be self-replacing over a period of many decades.”
Disturbance Factors At Lanphere Dunes, frequent disturbance events seem to be a major factor contributing to the range of age classes in beach pine stands (Green 1999). Green’s data also “imply variation in the severity (or impact) of disturbance events across the forest….and that individual disturbance events are typically forest-wide in extent….The uneven age distribution of trees…suggests that disturbances have been low to moderate severity events, as opposed to catastrophic, stand- 16
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan replacing ones”. Furthermore, the range of ages also implied that the average disturbance patch size was small, the result of removal of one or a small group of trees.
Sitka spruce has shallow roots, has very thin bark, has a “moderately dense branch habit, and medium foliage flammability” (Spalt and Reifsnyder 1962, Lotan et al 1981), all of which make it one of the most fire-susceptible tree species in coastal areas (Minore 1979). A pattern of infrequent but severe fires is thought to be the norm for coastal forests along the Pacific Northwest (Agee 1993). Ripple (1994) estimated a fire return cycle of 242 years for natural forests near the northern coast of Oregon. Wiedemann (1966) believed that fire was an “important factor shaping historic and pre-historic coastal dune forest stands in Oregon”. Historically, large-scale, stand-replacing fires have occurred along the Oregon coast, resulting in the establishment of beach pine (Wiedemann 1966), which benefits from the bare seed bed and access to sunlight provided in the aftermath of stand-replacing fires. There are indications of prior fires along the coast around Humboldt Bay (Green citing pers. comms. 1999), but Green found no written records or physical evidence of catastrophic, or less intense fires in the general area since white settlement. A detailed analysis of the fire history at MRB has not been conducted, but catastrophic fire is obviously a potential disturbance factor.
While fire is considered to be an important factor in stand replacement, it may only occur every few hundred years along the coast in the Pacific Northwest; in the interim, wind appears to be the dominant disturbance factor (Egler 1934, Wiedemann 1966, Agee 1993). Although the occasional hurricane-force winds can do significant damage, even lesser winds can cause windthrow losses, especially at edges of a stand, and blowdown is more likely in uneven-aged, older stands (where some trees stick up above the rest of the canopy). Beach pines are susceptible to many types of fungal pathogens, which then make the pines more vulnerable to blowdown and limb loss. In his study area, Green (1999) observed numerous beach pines that had been snapped off within several meters of their base, but did not often see completely uprooted trees. In my site visits to MRB, I noticed similar patterns in blowdown from beach pines after several winter storms. Sitka spruce is not immune to the effects of wind. In fact, since Sitka spruce tends to grow taller than surrounding beach pine, and has a relatively large crown surface area, they may be at least as vulnerable to blowdown. Additionally, Sitka spruce is especially prone to windthrow where it grows in sandy soils that provide little resistance against heavy winds and where a high water table promotes development of a shallow root system (Harris 1990).
In inland forests, a combination of factors such as fire, insects, and pathogens (fungi) affect the longevity of stands of lodgepole pine (another Pinus contorta subspecies) (Agee 1993). Lodgepole pine is susceptible to many fungal pathogens (Lotan and Critchfield 1990), and Green (1999) often found pathogenic fungi, especially red ring rot (Phellinus pini) “damaging or killing beach pines” in his study area, but not to the extent that pathogens alone could explain the age distribution in pine stands. Also, he did not find disease to be a major mortality factor in the spruce trees. Fungal pathogens do, however, “…increase the likelihood of blowdown…” (Sinclair et al. 1987, Allen et al. 1996).
Of course, no one disturbance factor is at work alone. Researchers (Egler 1934, Wiedemann 1966, Green 1999) identify a range of disturbances that operate at various spatial and temporal scales on coastal dunes, “including sand movement, fire, human activity, pathogens, and wind”. While sand movement is probably not a disturbance factor on the upland forest at MRB, erosion 17
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan due to movements of the river and periodic wave against the bluffs might well be factors at the leading (western) edge. The MRB forest seems to be the “poster-forest” (conditions are prime) for vulnerability to wind effects: the narrow forest strip with a significant portion (if not all) of its trees subject to edge effects, a sea-side location where strong winds occur with regularity, sandy soils, and a shallow water table in at least some areas.
Regeneration Beach pine seedlings germinate and grow best on bare mineral soil in full sun conditions, but they will also grow on an organic seedbed as long as it is free of competing vegetation and shade (Lotan and Critchfield 1990). Sitka spruce (and red alder) also germinate well on bare mineral seedbed. And Sitka spruce is well-known for germinating on decomposing logs (‘nurse logs’); where vegetative competition is high, moist decomposing logs provide suitable microsites for germination and survival of spruce seedlings. Heilman (1990) noted that for occasionally flooded and/or poorly drained areas, especially in acidic soils (e.g. the coastal Sitka spruce zone), root development of seedlings is actually better on decomposed wood than in mineral soil. At least part of the explanation may be the existence of fungal pathogens on humus seedbeds that kills seeds of some conifers (Daniel and Schmidt 1972), but which does not occur on mineral soil or rotten logs (B. van der Kamp, pers. comm cited by Peterson et al. 1997).
Green (1999) reported that he sometimes found conifer seedlings in a dense understory of shrubs but only in large gaps in the forest canopy where shrubs were exposed to direct sunlight. He concluded that successful seedling establishment might therefore require canopy gaps big enough to cause die-back of understory shrubs. This seems to suggest that the very thing that destroys the older, tallest trees (disturbance factors such as wind or fire) is necessary for regeneration within a stand of beach pine. Green also found that Sitka spruce and Douglas-fir were rare in the overstory but made up nearly 22% of the seedlings and saplings—suggesting that their recruitment into stands that were predominantly beach pine was relatively recent. He believed that over time, Sitka spruce and Douglas-fir may become more important components of the overstory in some pine stands. This seems particularly possible in the absence of future disturbance events that would create large gaps in which beach pine can germinate. At MRB, as mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, Sitka spruce regeneration is occurring within the forest but beach pine is only regenerating in open areas outside the forest edge.
Forest Composition Succession/Stability Is the current forest at MRB the “climax” composition of species? And is the current forest structure and composition likely to be self-maintaining? The short answer is that this probably isn’t the “climax” composition of species, which might be pure spruce, or spruce and hemlock. But a climax community would only occur in the absence of mid-to-large scale disturbances every few hundred years. Given the likely historical and future disturbance patterns here, the current combination of species (in similar abundances), or a variation on it (e.g. more spruce, fewer pine) is likely to be self-maintaining. On the scale of hundreds of years, the longer the period of time between disturbance events, the more spruce and less pine there is likely to be. The longer answer to these questions follows.
Successional pathways are determined by such factors as competition for light, nutrients, and water, adaptation to moisture and drought, shade, plus all of the factors affecting seed germination and seedling survivial (Johnson 1963). Clearly, frequency and severity of 18
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan disturbance play a role, particularly in dynamic habitats like the leading edge of the marine terrace at MRB.
By creating gaps in the canopy ranging from the size of a single windthrown tree to large blowdown areas, wind affects where, and at even whether, a given species regenerates in a given area. Generally, shade-tolerant tree species (e.g. western hemlock) are favored over time where wind-caused mortality is a dominant disturbance factor; shade-tolerant species can regenerate under the canopy of larger trees and are “released” when wind-caused mortality creates gaps in the canopy.
Egler (1934) studied forest communities that had resulted from a catastrophic fire 100 years previously, and from this he concluded that beach pine is strictly a “one-generation” tree that was widespread along the Oregon coast as a result of fire. He maintained that beach pine is generally unable to reproduce in the shade of its own canopy, and is therefore rapidly replaced by Sitka spruce as the dominant species. Egler considered Sitka “spruce stands to represent the ‘aeolean subclimax’ condition, which continues in the absence of fire because successive windfall events through the centuries favor Sitka spruce over other species that reproduce less prolifically following such disturbances” (1934). Wiedemann (1966) agreed with Egler that Sitka spruce eventually replaces beach pine as the dominant species in most dune forest stands. However he observed that pure stands of both beach pine and Sitka spruce were found that showed no signs of compositional change and which had probably been pure stands since initiation. He concluded that the theory that one mature forest is replaced by another growing up through it is not necessarily accurate for sand dune pine and spruce forests.
Sitka spruce, itself, is commonly assumed to be replaced by western hemlock over time in forest communities, but Taylor (1990) presented evidence that in the Pacific Northwest, spruce may persist through gap-phase regeneration after small-scale disturbances. Gaps of 800-1000 m2 appear to be large enough for Sitka spruce to regenerate sufficiently in these forests. It is possible that without large-scale disturbance, over hundreds of years the forest could become dominated by spruce. As described in the section on regeneration, Sitka spruce can germinate and grow in the shade of the forest. Since Sitka spruce grows significantly taller than beach pine, with enough time the young spruce will emerge from beneath the pine-level canopy and begin to shade out the shade-intolerant pines, thus leading eventually to spruce replacing beach pine in the canopy. And the shorter-lived pines will eventually die out without recruitment of new pines. Of course, this scenario is one played out in a static environment (i.e. without large- scale disturbance events). It seems more likely, however, that the current regime of periodic catastrophic disturbance events, and more frequent, smaller scale events will continue. In which case, beach pine will also continue to exist here.
COASTAL (UPLAND) GRASSLAND/SHRUB HABITAT On the uplands, there are two grassland areas, one at the southeastern end of the property and one near the northeastern end of the property; both are dominated by a variety of naturalized (European) grasses, mixed with naturalized herbaceous plants such as ox-eye daisies, and flax, as well as native asters and blackberry vines. (See Appendix A for complete species list). This plant association was called a “meadow” by Roberts et al. (1991), and would be identified as an “introduced perennial grassland series” by Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf (1995). The northern grassland area, identified as the “grassy round” in Figures 2 and 6, is periodically mown by 19
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
MCSD staff when they mow the adjoining long narrow grassland area which is part of MCSD property. The southern grassland area is not mowed and has a significant shrub component, much of which is composed of invasive weed species. But one of the woody plants (re)colonizing this southeastern area is the native beach pine. Both areas were treated together when compiling the flora for the site, and are identified in the flora list as “coastal grass/scrub habitat”. One area of particular interest is next to the main east/west trail; mixed in with the regenerating pine stand and one of the large blackberry patches is an isolated patch of native red fescue (Festuca rubra) and rush (Juncus effusus). This patch appears to be just outside MRB’s eastern boundary line (thus, part of MCSD’s Hiller Park), but it is worth noting since the grass is uncommon, and because of its proximity, protecting it has potential implications for management activities on MRB.
COASTAL BLUFFS Another woodland community vegetates both the riparian slope-face and the moist flat base of the slope until it transitions into open riverfront. The upper strata of this wooded habitat is dominated in some areas by several species of willow and in other areas by red alder, but small beach pine and some large isolated spruce are also present. Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) and elderberry are common species in this habitat, as are sword fern, lady fern (Athyrium filix- femina), and giant horsetail (Equisetum telmateia); see Appendix A for complete species list. This habitat has been previously characterized as “Red Alder Riparian Forest” (Miller 1990— using California Natural Diversity Data Base and Holland 1986) and “Riparian Forest” (Roberts et al. 1991—using Holland 1986). Using the more recent Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf system (1995), although willows are co-dominant in the canopy, it is probably most appropriate to classify this habitat as “red alder series”, especially given the abundance and species composition of the understory vegetation. In this plan, it is referred to as “Coastal Bluff Habitat”. The plant community here grades into the riverbank habitat.
RIVERBANK Currently, the edge of the riverbank is almost completely denuded, although it was vegetated when the plant list was prepared (Appendix A). The entire bluff edge area, especially the relatively flat area between river and base of bluffs (some of which is clearly riparian in nature) is very dynamic. During a series of winter storms in January 2003, there was a major “cleansing” of the willow/shrub/tree vegetation along the eastern riverbank, as well as some sloughing of the bluffs (trees and soil fallen to the base), as well as quite a bit of sand deposition. This left a wide, bare sand area (elevated quite a bit above the low-tide river level) along the riverbank. Without the vegetation, the entire eastern riverbank is accessible to foot traffic; it is possible to easily walk from the southernmost bluff trail’s terminus to the northernmost bluff trail’s terminus and even for several hundred yards beyond into the back lagoon area. Previously, this was impossible due to the extremely tangled thicket of willow and other shrubs that reached the riverbanks.
BEACH AND DUNES At various times (depending on the location of the river), extensive dunes have been present along the western edge of the property, a component of the dune/sand spit system that extends
20
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan from Humboldt Bay to the north end of McKinleyville at Little River. Due to the vagaries of the river’s movements at its lowest reaches, the extent of dune habitat has been reduced in recent decades at this site as the river cut a channel northward through the middle of them. In addition, tidal action certainly affects the amount and location of dunes.
Currently, almost no dune habitat exists at MRB--only at the extreme southwestern and far northwestern (north of the river mouth) corners of the property. Along almost all of the west end of the property, a narrow barrier sand spit now separates the Mad River channel from the ocean; as recently as the fall of 2002, the spit was covered in sand dunes with vegetation dominated by European beachgrass (Ammophila arenaria) an invasive and undesirable weed (see “Invasive Weeds” section for details). However, the flow from winter storms and high tides completely eliminated the dunes on a long stretch of the spit. During the spring of 2003, dunes began rebuilding along the spit but areas were still sometimes overwashed by the ocean at high tide. Layia carnosa, a rare plant species, (federally and state listed as endangered) was documented in the vicinity in 1963 (California Natural Diversity Data Base 1997). It was not observed subsequently, and the population of this plant in this area is considered to have been extirpated by the northward migration of the Mad River (California Natural Diversity Data Base 1997) as it cut through the dunes from Mad River County Park to Clam Beach. This annual plant grows on relatively barren, semi-stabilized coastal dunes (usually behind the foredunes), so it is possible that it may occur again if dunes in this area are rebuilt (especially if the river retreats southward). Most of what could become appropriate habitat for this species is on what is now County-owned land near the western boundary of MRB. Clearly, this is a very dynamic habitat, and conditions can change very rapidly.
MAD RIVER ESTUARY MRB includes approximately 2500 linear feet of river and backwater lagoon frontage along the lowest stretch of the Mad River. The mouth of the river is currently located near the northern boundary of the property, due west of Northern Bluff Trail#2. Historical maps show that at almost all times, regardless of location of the river, a backwater lagoon(s) has existed between the base of the bluffs and the ocean. At times such as the present, the lagoon is connected to the river, at other times it is left as an isolated body of water.
The location of the mouth at this site is a relatively recent phenomenon. George Gibbs, a member of the Reddick McKee expedition, suggested back in 1853 that the Mad River “possibly once ran into the bay [Humboldt Bay] itself; for a dry channel remains, which with but little cutting, would connect it with one of the sloughs near the town”. In fact, geological studies suggest that at one time the Mad River did empty directly into Humboldt Bay (Thompson 1971). Thompson (1971) hypothesized that in the late Holocene, when sea levels rose, the Mad River ran southwest from Arcata near Liscomb Slough and then into the bay, and that later it may have followed routes through McDaniels Slough. Later still, the river course gradually shifted to the north. Based on the locations of important Wiyot villages along the lower reaches and near the river’s mouth, Haynes (1986) suggested that the river has been located at the base of the McKinleyville Terrace at least since the early 1800s. According to Haynes (1986), when the Josiah Gregg Party crossed the river in 1849, the mouth was located “near its present location”. George Gibbs (1853) reported that in 1851-2, “the Mad River enters the sea about 6 miles above Union [Arcata]”. Review of historic maps (see references), charts, and reports, show that between 1865 and 1970, the mouth of the river ranged back and forth in an area bounded 21
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan between the southern 1/3 of Section 1 of T6NR1W (in the Arcata Bottoms) and just north of School Rd. in McKinleyville. For considerable periods, the location of the mouth of the river remained relatively stable almost due west of the boat launch at Mad River Beach County Park. Then, during winters from 1969-1972, the mouth of the Mad River moved northward between the base of the marine terrace and the foredunes, paralleling the coastline and effectively bisecting the dunes at MRB (SHN 1991). In the 1970s and 1980s, the mouth of the river continued migrating north. By 1991, CalTrans determined that the northward migration of the river was a threat to the Clam Beach segment of Highway 101. By 1992 the river had reached all the way up to the airport, more than 2 miles north of its “usual” range. And though northerly migrations had occurred before, the magnitude of this movement (distance it traveled northward) was unprecedented, at least in historical times (SHN 1991). To “stabilize” the north bank and curtail further northward movement of the river, CalTrans initiated a “Rock Slope Protection project” on the north side of the river, which was completed in the summer of 1992 (Borgeld et al. 1993). Since the mid-1990’s, the river mouth has been retreating southward, and is currently near the northern boundary of MRB.
It was possible to identify the location of the river mouth at discrete moments over the last 130 years through the use of historical maps, aerial photos, etc. (1865-1970 maps and air photos are identified by date in References;). In addition, a report for the Matthews Subdivision (Northcoast Geotechnical Services 1981) provided delineations of the inlet location for various years (1891, early 1900s, 1941, 1958, 1962, 1966, 1970, 1974, 1979) based on their interpretation of US Coast and Geodetic Surveys, charts, aerial photos, and quad maps. The following are snapshot views of locations of the mouth of the river: 1865 –mouth of Mad River just south of Humboldt County/ Klamath County border, in T6NR1W 1888-- mouth at southern 1/3 of Section 1 in T6NR1W (south of School Rd) 1898—mouth still at southern 1/3 of Section 1 T6NR1W 1909—mouth further south, near southern boundary of sect 1 T6NR1W 1914—mouth in approximately the same place as 1898 1922—mouth in northern part of Sect 1 in T6NR1W 1942—mouth just north of School Rd. 1958—“ “ “ 1960s—mouth at Hiller Rd./ south end of Mad River Bluffs 1970—mouth just about where it is today (north end of MRB) 1974—mouth at Murray road 1979—mouth approximately 3000 ft. north of Murray Rd. 1981—mouth one half mile north of Widow White Creek, near Airport Rd. 1992—mouth west of the airport runways
Borgeld et al. (1993) separated historical river mouth locations into three zones of “inlet behavior”. The area in which the river wandered between the Arcata Bottoms and what is now the southern half of MRB (1870-1969) was depicted as the “Oscillation Zone”. A narrow “Transition Zone”, which appears to be located at the northern half of MRB, was identified as representing “a period of predominantly northward migration”. And the area stretching from approximately the northern boundary of MRB to a point west of the intersection of airport runways was identified as the “Progressive Migration Zone” which “delineates the period of steady northward inlet migration”. In historical times, when the lower river has migrated northward along the McKinleyville coastline, it “maintains an approximately straight channel 22
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan through the dune area prior to bending westward to the ocean at the river mouth” (Northcoast Geotechnical Services1981). When the river migrates north, the “Mad River channel reach from Hiller Rd. to the mouth is relatively straight”, presumably because the composition of the bluffs at the edge of the McKinleyville terrace (Falor formation) is more stable than the “unconsolidated coarse grained alluvial and sand dune depositis along the western bank of the river” (SHN 1994). As a result, it has been suggested that the lower river does not have a tendency to meander (SHN 1994).
During the last several decades, it has been observed that wherever the location of the mouth of the river, the river bank directly east of the mouth is periodically subject to erosion from tidal action. This is particularly true during winter storms; at such times, the surf pushes into the mouth of the river and waves pound directly on the eastern bank. These forces erode the bank and can undercut the bluff at the base. This, in turn, can lead to sloughing of the bluff itself (LACO letter –Sand Pointe EIR, SHN 1991, etc.); (see also “Geology and Soils” section). These processes currently seem to be at work at the north end of MRB, where the river mouth is now located. During severe winter storms of December 2002 and January 2003, very high river discharges combined with heavy surf resulted in breaching of a long swath of dunes along the beach. This permitted direct tidal access to a stretch of eastern riverbank that was then severely eroded by waves crossing the river and pounding the shore. Large expanses of scrub and forest vegetation (on the east side of the river) at the base of the bluffs were destroyed, and wood and other debris was piled up in a wrack line that extended several meters into the flat riparian forest at the base of the bluffs. Sloughing from the top of the bluffs in some places also occurred at that time, with the loss of some trees from the forest edge above.
“The Mad River estuary is a drowned river, coastal plain system typical of southern Oregon and northern California estuaries” (Taniguchi 1970). In the early 1990’s when the mouth of the river was much further north, estuarine conditions in late summer and early fall extended from the mouth (near Murray Rd.) upstream to the vicinity of the Highway 101 bridges (Borgeld et al. 1993). Given that the mouth has migrated south again, it can be expected that the estuary now extends upstream past the bridges. Records from he U.S. Geological Service gaging station on the Mad River at the Highway 299 bridge (between Arcata and McKinleyville) record late summer flows as low as 43 cubic feet per second to winter high flows of 3,683 cubic feet per second (USGS 2002). Water temperatures increase during very low river discharge during the summer, with maximum water temperatures in lower sections reaching 25 degrees C (77 degrees F) (Halligan 1997); however, near the mouth of the river, water may be cooled to an unknown extent due to proximity to the coastal influence (e.g. fog) and the mixing with cool ocean water in the estuary. In the winter, the river has high flows and suspended and bedload sediment transport are also high (Ridenhour et al. 1961). At certain times of the year, treated wastewater from MCSD’s sewage treatment facility (located at Hiller Park) is released into the lower Mad River, not far upstream from MRB.
A dominant feature of estuaries is the mixing of freshwater drained from the land and saltwater from the ocean. Salinity levels and distribution are a result of the rate in which freshwater enters the system (river discharge rate), tidal amplitude and local geography (Dyer 1973). In the winter, the high river flows push the mixing zone downstream, and flood-level flows may push it all the way out of the river mouth (Roberts 1995). “Estuaries are typically stratified by salinity for most of the year; that is the denser saltwater often does not mix completely with the less dense (lighter) fresh water, causing the formation of a ‘salt wedge’ along the bottom of the 23
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan estuary. The salt wedge…. can be substantially warmer than the overlying freshwater layer, and may be depleted of dissolved oxygen. In addition, a limited water exchange may mean that pollutants introduced into the estuary may not be flushed out of the estuary for several to many tidal cycles” (Roberts 1995). Salinity levels may be very different in different “compartments” in an estuary (Buttolph 1987). Salinity levels, along with temperature, have large effects on the biological life in the estuary (Khlebovich 1969). Biotic life of the Mad River estuary is described in the “Aquatic Life” section of the”Fish and Wildlife” chapter.
WETLANDS Official wetland delineations have not been conducted on this property. But in addition to the Mad River itself and the unnamed creek in the ravine near the northern boundary, other wetland- type areas are located on the property. All are associated with either the beach pine/spruce forest on the upland terrace, or with the bluff-slopes and base.
In 1991, biologists working for Oscar Larson and Associates stated that there were a number of areas that might meet wetland delineation criteria (Roberts et al. 1991). They specifically identified 3 areas on the bluff top with wetland characteristics on the property. “These areas have vegetation that exceeds 50 percent cover by hydrophytes, and also have soils that indicated reducing conditions” (Roberts et al. 1991). One was located near the western edge of the “grassy round”, in the forest edge southwest of the area now covered in berry brambles. The other two were associated with the tops of bluff face “gullies” in the southern 1/3 of the property. The southernmost wetland area was the most extensive and (seems to) includes the seasonal pond around the base of a large spruce. Based on my observations, the upland wetlands are seasonal in nature; none of them hold water for the entire year. But the southernmost wetland identified in the preliminary biological report did form a pond (at least 2 ft. deep) from the onset of winter storms through late spring in 2002/2003. This ponding appears to be the impetus for the proliferation of trail detours around the main north-south trending trail at the southern end of the property. I searched for the wetland near the grassy round at the location depicted in the preliminary biological report, but was unable to find a site with wetland characteristics of the size depicted in the 1991 report. I did, however, find a small (approximately six feet in diameter), circular shallow depression in the forest in the forest just west of the grassy round. When I observed it at the end of spring, it had no standing water but was vegetated entirely with Carex obnupta. The other upland site associated with bluff-face gullies depicted in the preliminary report Figure 5. Winter/spring pond on main north- appears to be located at the head of a spring south forest trail near Ocean Dr. entrance. which starts just on the east side of the main 24
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan north/south forest trail where a large depression/ditch has formed in the trail.
The riparian forest on the bluff-slope and at the toe of the bluffs is a wetland association. There are a number of springs sites on the bluff face and at the base of the bluffs, some of which flow even in the driest part of the fall season (e.g. beginning of November in 2002, before the rains began). These trickles of water support lush vegetation: watercress (Rorippa nasturtium- aquaticum), sticky monkeyflower (Mimulus guttatus), water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa), and other wetland-associated plants. Horsetail, Carex obnupta, skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanum), Angelica sp., etc. often grew in the swampy areas at the base of the bluffs and on the flat alluvial plain; a particularly good (and accessible) example of this is at the base of the northernmost bluff trail. Some of the existing bluff-face trails are located on sites with springs, and were still sodden (especially on the flat portions at the base of the bluffs) in late fall 2002 before the seasonal rains began.
Because of the location of the mouth of the Mad River at this time, most of the backwater lagoon/marsh system associated with the river currently occurs beyond MRB boundaries. The only part of this system at MRB is at the extreme northern end of the property, and because of its close proximity to the river mouth, this wetland area is open to the river and tidal influence at all times of the year. In this very dynamic environment, no aquatic or emergent wetland vegetation occurs at this time. However, north of MRB, there are linear brackish marshes with significant plant diversity. According to Andrea Pickart (pers. comm.), these unique and valuable communities contain native salt marsh vegetation (including a rare species), as well as the invasive Spartina densiflora.
25
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
FISH AND WILDLIFE
The size of the property and the diversity of habitats make MRB ecologically meaningful to a wide variety of animal species, both terrestrial and aquatic.
Aquatic Life According to CDFG fisheries biologist Mike Sparkman and other local fish biologists, not much is known about aquatic life the Mad River estuary. To date, most of the fisheries research and monitoring that has been conducted on the lower Mad River has been associated with impacts to salmonids from gravel mining operations in the Blue Lake area, approximately 14 river miles upstream from MRB. Information on the biotic life of the estuary itself, particularly with regard to invertebrate species, is generally lacking. Previously, inferences and assumptions about the Mad River estuary have been made based on information from Humboldt Bay, but though these two estuarine systems have similarities due to their proximity, they are also extremely different in size, configuration, and presence of certain aquatic habitats, etc. The following discussion does not include inferences based on aquatic life in Humboldt Bay and focuses entirely on what is known about the Mad River itself.
In terms of numerical abundance, zooplankton are the most common group of animals in estuarine communities, and are one of the cornerstones of estuarine food webs. In the Mad River estuary, 35 species of zooplankton were found, with the most common being Eurytemora affinis (Buttolph 1987). The most important factor controlling distribution of copepods in the Mad River estuary is tidal transport; salinity and water temperature are critical factors in their survival and growth (Buttolph 1987).
The runs of anadromous salmonid species make up the main fishery resource of the lower Mad River: fall chinook (king) salmon (Onchorhynchus tshawytcha), coho (silver) salmon (O. kisutch), winter steelhead (O. mykiss), summer steelhead, and coastal cutthroat trout (O. clarkii clarkii). Occasionally, sockeye salmon (O. nerka) and chum salmon (O. keta) are found in the river, but since no spawning runs for these species exist in the river, they are believed to be vagrants. Anadromous fish use the estuary as a migration corridor to/from the ocean and as rearing habitat for young fish. Estuaries are well-known as critical rearing habitats for salmonids preparing to migrate out to sea (Taniguchi 1970).
Timber harvest, gravel mining, the effects of upstream dams, the fish hatchery, ocean conditions, seals and seal lions concentrated at the mouth of the river, poachers, removal of large woody debris, and fish-eating birds all affect, to a greater or lesser degree, the abundance of salmonids in the river, and thus migrating through the estuary. In general, it appears that the lower reaches have been filling in with sands and silts, and biologists recognize a lack of complexity in the system (e.g. lack of large woody debris, and thus fish habitat) (Sparkman pers. comm.). One example of habitat degradation is the lack of large, woody debris, which is an important component of salmonid habitat. Much of the woody debris that would naturally accumulate in the lower river, estuary, and on the beaches was purposely diverted from the river for years because of “water quality concerns” (National Marine Fisheries Service 1997, and Sparkman pers. comm.). Since the importance of large woody debris to salmonids became evident, that practice was discontinued, but the wood is still being removed from the system by wood cutters-- in late winter/early spring when high flows begin to recede, people scavenge wood from the
26
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan gravel bars along the lower river. This has negative effects on the quality of downstream habitat. (National Marine Fisheries Service 1997, and Sparkman pers. comm.)
Compared to historical estimates, abundances of coho, chinook, and steelhead are all very low, and populations trends are decreasing for stocks for which there are data (Busby et al. 1996), and runs of coho and steelhead are now composed mostly of hatchery fish. The Southern Oregon/Northern California coast coho salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) is federally listed as threatened, and critical habitat has been designated. Chinook salmon and the Northern California steelhead trout ESU are also both listed under the ESA as threatened species; for both species, critical habitat was designated but then withdrawn. Although the American Fisheries Society has concluded that coastal cutthroat trout are threatened by a moderate risk of extinction, it is no longer even a candidate species for federal listing, a determination having been made that listing is not warranted.
Coho salmon are present in the estuary during upstream and downstream migration. As three- year olds, coho return to the Mad River from the sea around mid-October (Halligan 1999), and head upstream to spawn. They usually spawn in creeks or tributaries (smaller streams than chinook usually use). Rearing usually takes place in cool, well-shaded pools in tributary streams; juveniles cannot survive temperatures that exceed 22-25 degrees C (71-77 degrees F) for long—temperatures which are reached or exceeded in summer months in the lower Mad River. Juveniles rear for a year in freshwater, and then smolts migrate out to sea in April and May (Weitkamp et al. 1995).
In the Mad River, adult chinook usually begin entering the river in early September and seem to spend some time in the lower reaches for a month or two before migrating upstream to spawn (Halligan 1999). In their first year, chinook salmon typically move downstream and then spend several months “rearing” in the estuary before heading out to sea. During this critical rearing stage, young chinook generally grow several inches, giving them an added chance for survival when they reach the ocean.
CDFG monitoring indicates that 85% of the steelhead in the river are hatchery fish (the hatchery, which has been in operation since 1971, is about 14 miles upstream). Most wild steelhead in the river are the remnant summer run (Tuttle 1998). In one recent year, the entire wild population was estimated to be less than 2000 fish. In the last few years, CDFG’s Steelhead Research and Monitoring Program has been tagging adult winter-run steelhead and conducting radio-telemetry studies to investigate their behavior and migration patterns in the Mad River. The biologists are also trying to identify any differences based on gender of the fish, and whether fish are wild or hatchery fish. So far, many of the movement patterns are unclear, with individual fish making many seemingly chaotic movements up and downstream (Sparkman 2000). Halligan (1999) found that adult steelhead may begin moving into the river in early September. But in general, winter run steelhead return from the ocean in late fall, move quickly through the Mad River estuary and lower reaches’ and head straight upstream to begin spawning in December (Sparkman pers. comm.). Juvenile steelhead migrate out into the ocean between April and May. Summer steelhead enter the rivers in late spring and hold over the summer months in deep pools with shelter from large woody debris or rocks; they spawn in the late fall or early winter. Juvenile steelhead remain in freshwater for 1-3 years, then migrate to the ocean. Most migrate out in the spring and early summer, though a small smolting run in the fall has also been identified (Halligan 1999). They return to spawn after two years in the ocean, although some 27
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
“half-pounders” return and then overwinter in freshwater before returning to the sea. Unlike the other salmon species, steelhead can survive to spawn in subsequent years. CDFG data showed that about 50% of the Mad River fish survive and make it back downstream to the ocean after spawning (Sparkman pers. comm.).
A list of fish species known to occur in the estuary and/or in the lower reaches of the river is included in Appendix C. Herring, dayfish, and starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus) have been captured in CDFG seines in the estuary (net openings were too large to capture small fish like sticklebacks and sculpin)(Sparkman pers. comm.). Starry flounder, smelt, sculpin, sticklebacks, and other fish and aquatic invertebrates were found in the backwater lagoon on the northside of the river mouth during USFWS surveys this summer (2003) (Goldsmith pers. comm.); in addition, hundreds of other larval and juvenile fish not indentifiable to species in the field were also found during those surveys (Norman pers. comm.). According to a list in the Gravel Mining EIR (Jager 1994), other fish species commonly found in the lower Mad River (specifically around the gravel mining areas near Blue Lake) also include: threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), coastrange sculpin (Cottus aleauticus), staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus), shiner surfperch (Cymatogaster aggregata), Sacramento sucker (Catostomus occidentalis), and Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata). These are all likely to occur in the estuary as well, though the Sacramento sucker would not be found in the more saline microhabitats (Goldsmith pers. comm.). Riffle sculpin (Cottus gulosus) was also on the list for the lower Mad River, but this species is less tolerant of salinity than the other sculpins, and so would be less likely to occur near the mouth of the river (Goldsmith pers. comm.). Eulachon or candlefish (Thaleichthys pacificus) was also included on the EIR list, but though this species is known to have occurred historically in the Mad River, it has not been reported in recent years (this species has also virtually disappeared from the Klamath River, where it was once common (Goldsmith pers. comm.). Much more likely in the estuary would be Osmerid smelt species (with which Eulachon are easily confused) like day, night, and top smelt; these species move in and out of the mouth of estuaries.
Another fish species that might possibly be present at the estuary or backwater lagoon is the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi), which is federally listed as “endangered” under ESA, and is a “species of special concern” in California. Tidewater gobies are found exclusively in brackish coastal waters, such as lagoons; they spawn in sand and the juvenile fish rear in marshy areas. The habitat in the back lagoon of the Mad River estuary may be suitable for this species, though there are no historical records of tidewater gobies in the Mad River and previous search efforts have not detected them in the estuary. As part of a large-scale effort throughout the range of the tidewater goby (Goldsmith pers. comm.), the USFWS is currently conducting surveys in this area. This summer, the backwater lagoons on the north side of the mouth were searched, but no gobies were detected there; surveys also will be conducted soon in the main estuary from the mouth of the river southward (Goldsmith pers. comm.).
Reports of green sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) in the Mad River in recent years are few and far between, and as far as I can determine, consist of the following: green sturgeon were observed in the Kadle Hole in 2000, and on another occasion, sturgeon were seen in the estuary (by local resident Larry Margler) on the bluffs at the foot of School Rd. (Halligan pers. comm.). But the species was once present in large enough numbers to support a fishery; Haynes (1986) reported that Wiyots fished for both salmon and green sturgeon at the big meander that existed in the lower river near where Valley West (in Arcata) is now. In addition to the fish species, 28
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Dungeness crab (Cancer magister), stone crab, and red rock crab (C. productus), are probably also present in the estuary (Halligan pers. comm.).
Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) are by far the most common mammal in or around the mouth of the river; they swim in the river/estuary and they use the spit year round to haul out. On occasion, California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) are sighted in the area as well (Goley pers. comm.). Though seals are infrequently seen foraging in the Mad River estuary, they are recognized as significant predators of salmonids (Sparkman pers. comm.). Twenty percent to 30% of the Mad River salmonids caught during CDFG research activities had predator wounds indicating close calls with seals or other large predators (though there is no way to know whether the wounds were inflicted in the river mouth or at sea)(Sparkman pers. comm). Dogs and people have been observed approaching, and in some cases harassing, seals hauled out near the mouth of the river. Disease transmission is possible between dogs and seals or sea lions. Given that canids are terrestrial creatures and pinnipeds are aquatic, these species generally have no interaction with each other; however, under special circumstances, such as at the haul-out here, the species occasionally come in contact, and this creates the possibility for disease transmission. For example, canine distemper (or something very similar) has been decimating the sea lion in the North Sea (Botzler pers. comm.). Though it is unknown how this disease became established in the sea lion population, it certainly raises the question about transmittion from wild or domestic canids. The disease has not been identified as present in pinniped populations elsewhere at this time. Another disease known in both dogs and pinnipeds (and which, presumably, they can transmit to each other) is Leptospirosis. Leptospirosis is present in the local sea lion population, its status in local seal populations is unknown (Botzler pers. comm.). This potentially fatal disease can also be transmitted to people.
Terrestrial Wildlife As with aquatic invertebrates, there is virtually no information on terrestrial invertebrates at this site. Banana slugs (Ariolimax columbianus) and land snails (e.g. Monadenia fidelis) are regularly encountered in the forested portions of the property, and ground-nesting yellow jackets are an occasional problem. An uncommon species of millipede, Buzonium crassipes, (identified by Professor Richard Hoffman at the Virginia Museum of Natural History) has been found at MRB; its range is restricted to northwestern California and southwestern Oregon (Wood pers. comm.). Dr. Wood, a chemist, discovered a new chemical compound in the defensive secretion of this millipede, which he named “Buzonamine” (Wood et al. 2000).
To my knowledge, surveys for mammalian species have not been conducted at this site. However, reasonable inferences can be made about species likely to be found in the beach pine/spruce forest and coastal scrub habitat based on the abundant research conducted at Lanphere Dunes, and from research conducted elsewhere in coastal McKinleyville. In addition to the list of wildlife observed detected at MRB by knowledgeable and reliable sources (Appendix C), rough-skinned newts (Taricha granulosa), vagrant shrews (Sorex vagrans) and/or Pacific shrews (S. pacificus), shrew-moles (Neurotrichus gibbsi), Douglas squirrel (Tamiasciurus douglasi), western harvest mice (Reithrodontomys megalotis), deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), and California redback voles (Clethrionomys occidentalis) are also likely to occur here. Especially if the dune habitat returned, jackrabbits (Lepus californicus) could become more common as well. Because of the mature forest habitat and the river, a large number of bat species may also occur here, including: big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), 29
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
California Myotis (Myotis californicus), little brown Myotis (M. lucifugus), Yuma Myotis (M. yumanensis), long-legged Myotis (M. volans), Western long-eared Myotis (M. evotus), fringed Myotis (M. thysanodes), Mexican free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis), silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorinus townsendii)(Weller pers. comm.). There is no evidence of use of this area by deer (Odocoileus hemionus) or other large (non-human) mammals.
In terms of avifauna, the property is used by shorebirds, waterfowl, songbirds, raptors, etc. An extensive list of bird species observed over a number of years in the vicinity of the estuary is included in Appendix D; that list was compiled by Ron LeValley and Linda Doerflinger. It includes nearly 200 bird species that are found at and in the immediate vicinity of MRB. Although not included in the bird list, a number of rare bird sightings have been made at the estuary, which is a mecca for birdlife. Although Mad River estuary is used only minimally by waterbirds as a breeding area, it is an important foraging and loafing area for many species (cormorants, brown pelican, gulls, terns, ducks, herons, etc.). It is also an important stop for many species during migration. Mad River estuary is “part of a large wetland complex, that includes Humboldt Bay, the Eel River estuary, and the diked former tidelands near the estuarine areas, of great significance to migratory shorebirds” (Roberts 1995). The Humboldt Bay area, “…is second only to San Francisco Bay in the numbers and variety of migratory shore and waterbirds wintering in the coastal segment of the Pacific Flyway of California. It is one of California’s most important stopovers for migrating birds” (California Coastal Conservancy 2001). An estimated 1,000,000 shorebirds migrate along the Pacific coast twice each year, with upwards of 80,000 wintering in the greater Humboldt Bay region (Roberts 1995). For example, many of the waterfowl and shorebirds that breed in Alaska, including a large portion of the Alaskan breeding population of marbled godwits (Limosa fedoa), spend part of the year in the Humboldt Bay area (Gibson and Kessel 1989).
Although most of the beach and foredunes area west of the river are not part of MRB, it is worth noting that this habitat could become suitable for Western snowy plovers (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) nesting and/or foraging when the mouth of the river moves again. The snowy plover is federally listed as a threatened species. It generally nests on dune-backed beaches, although it is also known to nest on gravel bars along the lower Eel River (LeValley pers. comm.). At this time, snowy plovers are not using the beach areas on or adjacent to MRB (LeValley pers. comm.). Locally, it breeds along Clam Beach. Currently, the nearest nest sites are near the mouth of Widow White Creek, but up until the early 1990’s when the river mouth was located further south, plovers were using the beach at the west side of MRB for nesting (LeValley pers. comm.). As long as the mouth of the river stays at its current location, plovers are unlikely to be attracted to the beach area around the property. Suitability of habitat for plovers here will depend on the configuration of the mouth of the river in a given period of time and the condition of the beach. If the mouth moves southward significantly, then plover habitat will likely become a consideration for both MLT and the County at this site (e.g. as the river migrated south from below the Airport vista point and then Murray Rd. in recent years, the beach areas below both sites have been used consistently by snowy plovers) (LeValley pers. comm.). This species is susceptible to disturbance and chick mortality/nest destruction by recreational activities on beaches—particularly by vehicles (running over nests and/or chicks) and dogs (killing chicks).
30
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
The tall trees overlooking the estuary and ocean provide perch sites for peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) which use this area for hunting; they are most common here in the winter. In addition, other raptors such as merlins (F. columbarius), bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and osprey (Pandion haliaetus) forage at the estuary. White tailed kites (Elanus caeruleus), American kestrels (F. sparverius), northern harriers (Circus cyaneus), sharp-shinned hawks (Accipiter striatus) and probably Cooper’s hawks (A. cooperii) also hunt in the upland part of the property. Many of the birds of prey found at MRB are listed by CDFG as “species of special concern”. Peregrine falcons were on the federal list of threatened and endangered species for many years, but they have been de-listed in recent years as the populations recovered. Bald eagles are still federally listed as a threatened species.
31
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
HISTORICAL USE
Wiyots Wiyot territory extended from Cape Mendocino to the south side of the mouth of the Little River, and inland approximately to the first range of coastal mountains, although it extended further (perhaps 15 miles) inland along the Eel and Mad Rivers. Alone among the local Athabascan-speaking tribes, the Wiyots and their immediate neighbors to the north, the Yuroks, spoke Algonquin-based languages (the two languages were not closely related to each other, however), a linguistic group based in Northeastern U.S. and the Great Plains. In his journal, George Gibbs, part of the Redick McKee expedition of 1851, wrote of the Mad River Indians: Beyond the Mad river a different one (language) prevails. The Bay Indians call themselves as we were informed, Wish-osk; and those of the hills, Te-ok-a-wilk; but the tribes to the northward [the Yuroks] denominate both those of the Bay and Eel river, We- yot, or Walla-walloo. The name “Wiyot” is actually the name given to the Eel River by the native people who lived there; this term came to be used to refer the entire tribe, of which there were three main subgroups: the Wiyots on the lower Eel River, the Wiki centered around Humboldt Bay, and the Patawat, the northernmost group which were associated with the lower Mad River. Of course, prior to the coming of whites, the river was not called the Mad River. Both the river and the Wiyots living near it were known to their Yurok neighbors as “Batawat” (Haynes 1986), and early settlers then sometimes called the Mad River Wiyots the “Batawat”. The name has had various other spellings including “Patawat” (Powers 1976), “Patuwat” (Curtis 1970), and “Pattewott” (Humboldt Times Dec 2, 1854, in reference to the river itself). Currently, the United Indian Health Services facility in the Arcata Bottoms has been named “Potawot” in recognition of this connection.
Although the Mad River Wiyots generally avoided the redwood forests, except to travel on trails for trading, redwood logs were made into canoes and were used to construct their typical plank houses. Salmon were an important food source, as were other fish and shellfish (eels, sturgeon, clams, perch and smelt). Of the land animals, deer and rabbits and hares were among the most important for both food and clothing (e.g. hareskin robes).
Wiyot people probably had some interactions with early ships and fur traders (e.g. Russian and/or Hudson’s Bay Co.), as the Yuroks to the north at Trinidad Bay certainly did between Cook’s voyage in 1778 and 1835 (at which point, sea otters had nearly been hunted out). But the first documented account of contact between whites and Wiyots is from one of the expeditions of the “O’Cain”, captained by Jonathon Winship, when it entered Humboldt Bay in 1806. That encounter wasn’t a great start—with hostilities between the landing party (sea-otter hunters from the Aleutian Islands) and the Wiyots. There are Wiyot stories about the encounter with the O’Cain, as well as one about a group of 5 white men with seven horses traveling south a year prior to the 1849 trip of Josiah Gregg. The subsequent encounters with the Gregg party were described by L.K. Wood. Then, all in the matter of about 15 years, everything changed for the Wiyot people. To their great misfortune, discovery of Humboldt Bay by whites coincided closely with the start of the California Gold Rush. As was the case with numerous northern California tribes, the gold rush and the activity associated with it resulted in the decimation of the Wiyot population and the displacement of those who were left. Humboldt Bay quickly became a shipping port for passengers and goods to/from the inland mines, and towns grew on the flat lands around Humboldt Bay, while the rich soils of the alluvial plains around local rivers 32
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan and the bay attracted homesteaders intending to farm or ranch. At about the same time, a timber industry began with the harvesting of redwoods, which were bigger than any trees the newcomers had ever seen. Thus, between 1850-1865, the Wiyot homeland became the “center for the largest concentration of whites in California north of San Francisco” (Roscoe 1990), with a sadly typical outcome for the native population—the Wiyots were decimated by introduced diseases and violence perpetrated (in fear and greed) largely by whites. Lands were taken from the Wiyots, and those who were not killed outright were forced onto reservations or other undesirable land.
The population of Patawat Wiyots prior to the coming of whites was estimated to have been between 200-300, with a total Wiyot population of approximately 1,000 (Curtis 1970, Kroeber 1972, Loud 1918). Wiyot villages were largely confined to areas along the Mad River and its tributary streams. They were generally located on the terraces, where they would be less likely to be flooded. There were over a dozen Wiyot ancestral (“Old Nation”) sites, ceremonial sites, and villages along the lower Mad River between Water Gap (near Blue Lake) and the Pacific Ocean. The area between the mouth of the Mad River and the mouth of Mill Creek was one of the most important areas, with several important dance sites, and wealthy villages. Near the present location of Valley West in Arcata, the large meander (no longer existing) in the river was an important fishing area—for both salmon and sturgeon.
Several Wiyot sites are known to have existed in the vicinity of the MRB property. In 1918, Loud documented the locations of two villages, Kolike’me and Kliwatkut about ½ mile north of the Mad River Bluffs property (at that time, “immediately north of the mouth of the Mad River”). According to Loud’s sources, in 1855, Kolike’me had 10-15 plank houses and about 80 people living there. By the time of Loud’s visit in 1918, a few house pits were still identifiable but much of the village had been destroyed by flooding. Kliwatkut, the other village, was just north of Kolike’me, and was described by Loud as an ancestral (Old Nation) site consisting of a black earth midden lacking shell deposits.
In 1990, as part of the subdivision permit process, local archaeologist Jamie Roscoe conducted an archaeological survey of the property. He searched records at the Northwest Information Center of the California Archaeological Inventory (repository at Sonoma State Unversity) for reports of previously identified archeological resources, but found none for this site. Roscoe and an assistant then spent 2 days in field reconnaissance on the property in September 1990. They walked transects 10-20 meters apart on the upland portions of the property and also looked for evidence of midden deposits on sections of exposed bank above the Mad River. Roscoe found no evidence of archaeological sites on the MRB property itself. Prior to Roscoe’s survey, the nearest archaeological work was a 1975 study (Fredrickson et al.) for the McKinleyville Sewage Collection and Treatment Facility; those surveyors identified five archaeological sites but did not survey any of the land west of the MCSD project site, and all identified archaeological resources were more than 1 mile from MRB.
33
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Ownership and Land Use Since 1850
Chain of Ownership As part of northwestern California north of the Mad River, the land that is now known as Mad River Bluffs has been affiliated with three different counties since 1850, which in turn affects ease and efficacy of historical research concerning ownership and use of the property. It is located in Section 36 of T7N,R1W, which was first considered part of Trinity County. Then in 1851, boundaries were shifted and it became part of the southwest corner of the short-lived Klamath County. The boundary line between the newly created Klamath County and Humboldt County started at a point in the ocean three miles due west of Mad River, thence due east to the Trinity River. MRB finally became part of Humboldt County in 1874 when the old Klamath County was dissolved by the state legislature. Records of patents, grants and deeds are usually recorded and held at the county seat. In the case of properties located in what is now McKinleyville, the town where such records were filed changed each time the county boundaries changed, and on at least one additional occasion (due to rivalry between towns vying for the county seat within the county). As a result of these changes, some early Klamath County records are missing and those that exist are not all in one central location but scattered among offices in Del Norte, Humboldt, and Trinity counties.
Although most of the prime agricultural lands around Humboldt Bay and the Arcata Bottoms were already “occupied by permanent settlers as early as 1853” (just four years after the area was re-“discovered” by the Gregg party), the McKinleyville terrace was not settled so early, except at the north end near Little River (Coy 1982 citing Archives of Humboldt County Recorder, Preemption Claims, Klamath Co. 1851-1853.). Only 10 votes were cast in the Dows Prairie Precinct in the General Election on Sept., 1867 (Gwin 2000). Before bridges or even a ferry, travel to and from what is now McKinleyville was difficult; crossing the Mad River had to be done in canoes or by fording near the mouth which, depending on the flow and the tides, could be extremely dangerous.
According to a map in Coy (1982), the land adjacent to MRB in Section 31 T7N,R1E (where Hiller Park is located) was patented sometime between 1866 and 1875, but the land in section 36 T7N,RW (where MRB is located) still was not patented by 1875. The MRB area may have been included in disposition of Excess Land. According to Coy (1982), early preemptions north of the Mad River were upon unsurveyed land, and were described only by metes and bounds (Archives of the US Land Office, Eureka, plat books). The 1870 book of township plat maps of Humboldt County did not include Section 36 in T7N,R1W--perhaps because this area was still part of Klamath County at the time the plat maps were published. Thus this usually rich source of early information is mute concerning early ownership of this property. It is possible that the MRB land was not owned by anyone for a while in those early years of settlement, though more research into Klamath County records might be able to fill in gaps between 1851-1871.
According to Klamath County records (Grantee book 1850-1874), on August 31, 1871, Jacob and Margret Barnes sold 160 acres to Frederick Hiller for the sum of $500. Although some of the boundary information could not be deciphered (northern and eastern boundaries were identified by adjacent farmers’ names), from the description of the southern and western boundaries (the county line between Klamath and Humboldt Counties and the Pacific Ocean respectively), it appears that the MRB property was part of the 160 acres in that transaction. But Klamath County records at the Humboldt County Recorders Office (Klamath County book of 34
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan preemption claims, Klamath County mortgage book, Klamath County homestead book, Klamath County Grantor/Grantee books) provided no information about how the Barnes’ themselves acquired the property or how long they had owned it prior to selling it to Frederick Hiller. Frederick’s brothers George and Michael purchased adjoining lands in Section 36 and other properties in Dows Prairie. By the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, the family owned a great deal of property in what is now McKinleyville, along with a number of other properties elsewhere in Humboldt County (in Eureka, Alton, etc.).
To begin, this first generation of the Hiller family came from Alsace-Lorraine, in northeastern France. Alsace is rich river land, isolated from the rest of France by the Vosges Mountains on the West. Due to its proximity to Germany (Alsace is bound on the east by the Rhine River which is the border between France and Germany), and many centuries actually ruled by Germany, Alsace was at that time, and still today, imbued with a strong German influence and traditions, and a German dialect is still spoken there, even today. Frederick, Michael and George’s mother was likely named Catherine (a Catherine Hiller listed as 74 yrs. old and having been born in France was identified in the 1880 McKinleyville census). Their father was identified in George Hiller’s obituary as “Steven Hiller”. I did not discover when and how Frederick arrived in the U.S., but George, Michael, and a sister immigrated to the United States in 1847. They went to Buffalo, N.Y. where another brother, Jacob, was already living. George learned and practiced the shoemaker’s trade while there. In 1851 (just about a year after Humboldt Bay was “discovered” by the Gregg party), Michael made the trip to California via Cape Horn, and settled in McKinleyville as a farmer. George came to California in 1852 or 1853, starting in Shasta County, then settling in the Rohnerville area in Humboldt County, but also acquiring large blocks of land in McKinleyville. Philip Hiller (8 years younger than George, and presumably another brother) also went first to Shasta County, then moved to Humboldt County and became a farmer and raised a family in McKinleyville.
In any case, once Frederick Hiller purchased MRB, it and adjacent lands, remained in the hands of the Hiller family for nearly a century—and the family is commemorated in the names of the adjacent Hiller Park and Hiller Road (as well as the old Hiller Grove—across from Morris School-- where Farmers’ Picnics were sometimes held). Tracing the exact chain of ownership of MRB through the Hiller family is a bit complicated. For one thing, the property was seldom in sole ownership of one person in the family. Ownership of the property moved back and forth through various members of the Hiller family a considerable number of times in addition to transfers due to inheritance, with one member selling ½ or ¼ interests (as part of a larger parcel) to other family members (usually for sums not exceeding $10) who then later sold the interests back to the first party, and so on….In addition, male names were recycled through each generation of the family, so at any given time in the late 1800’s, there were multiple males in the extended Hiller family with the same first name (e.g. George Sr., his son George, and George Sr.’s brother Michael’s son George). Furthermore, recorded documents were not always specific, since middle initials were sometimes missing. And finally, as is not unusual with historical information, different sources sometimes provided conflicting information, from which it is hard to tease out the truth.
It is clear, however, that Frederick sold approximately 159 acres adjoining MRB that is now known as Hiller Park (southwest quarter of Section 31 T7N, R1E) to Michael Hiller for $400 in 1877, and in 1886 Michael Hiller sold the western half of that property (western half of southwestern quarter of Section 31) to George Hiller for $600--triple the price per acre he’d paid 35
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Frederick for it not quite 10 years before. And this portion of Section 31 was shown in a 1898 map as part of the contiguous holdings of George Hiller that included most of Section 36 and MRB. I could not find information in either Klamath County or Humboldt County Grantor/Grantee books about initial sales or transfer of ownership of the MRB property itself from Frederick Hiller to other members of the family. However, the tax assessment ledger for 1876-77 lists George, Michael and Frederick Hiller as owners of adjoining McKinleyville properties that included MRB, with George Hiller being the owner of what is now MRB. He was taxed on 160 acres of property located “fr. E ½ of fn? [indecipherable handwriting] E ½ Section 36 T7NR1W” which was valued at $200. Michael Hiller owned the “ranch on Dows Prairie known as the Barnes place and improvements” located at the “W1/2 of SE1/4 (something?) the SW1/4 of NE ¼ Section 36 T7NR1W” for a total of 120 acres….(it might have been 2 properties because the value of land had 2 lines--$500 and $160). Frederick Hiller was listed as owing tax on 160 acres of adjoining property “The SW ¼ Sect 31 7N1E; his 160 acres was valued at $500 with improvements valued at $200 and personal property valued at $400. A list of Frederick Hiller’s improvements and personal property was included: 1 wagon—$40, harness—$12, utensils—$15, 2 houses—$100, 1 colt—$20, 6 cows—$90, 4 calves—$12, 8 stock cattle—$80, furniture—$15, poultry—$16. This listing is the only indication of residences or buildings on or near the land at that time, and they were on the Section 31 property.
The information in the tax assessment is corroborated by the later 1898 Lentell map which shows George Hiller owning all of Section 36 except small piece of the northern ½, as well as owning W ½ of SW ¼ of Sect 31. George Hiller clearly owned the property in 1905, when he deeded a 50 ft. right of way on a portion to Humboldt Northern Railway Co. (Book 93 of Deeds, p. 338). George Hiller owned the MRB property until his death in 1914. Because George Hiller became such a prosperous farmer, a fair amount of information could be found on he and his wife. George Hiller was born in Alsace-Lorraine, in northeastern France on January 1, 1832. After emigrating to the U.S. in 1847, George came to California in 1852 or 1853 via the Isthmus of Panama. George spent 11 years gold mining in Shasta County, “in which he made a very good start in life” (Irvine 1915). While there, he also became a naturalized citizen in June, 1856. After following his brothers’ footsteps to Humboldt County in 1857, George began to split his time between mining in Shasta County in the winter and farming in Humboldt County in summer. He loaned money to John C. O’Connor, with O’Connor’s farm near Alton (in southern Humboldt County) serving as security. When O’Connor defaulted, Hiller foreclosed and acquired ownership of the Alton farm, which served as his homebase for the rest of his life.
Charlotte Hiller was born Charlotte Catherine Joerrs (or Jorres—as spelled by the Ferndale Enterprise) on September 15, 1838 in Hildesheim, Hanover, Germany. Her parents were Valentine and Bernardina Joerrs, who resided in Hanover. Charlotte’s father was a blacksmith and a land surveyor, and apparently died doing survey work when he was only in his thirties. Charlotte was the only one of Valentine and Bernardina’s children to reach adulthood. She was educated in Hanover, and when about 22 years old, she came to San Francisco (via Panama), where she had two uncles living (Henry and William Joerrs); they had come from “Buenos Ayres” in 1847, and were “the pioneer carpenters and builders in San Francisco” (Arcata Union 1914, Humboldt Standard 1929, Irvine 1915). Her boat reached San Francisco on Christmas Day 1863, but she didn’t stay there long….
She and George Hiller were married in San Francisco in 1864, and then settled permanently in Alton in Humboldt County. George and Charlotte made many improvements on their Alton 36
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan farm. They raised livestock and grain, and hauled the “produce” with oxen 22 miles to Bucksport. George was known as a prosperous farmer and landowner, “one of the best known pioneer residents of southern Humboldt….He was a respected and honored citizen…” (Ferndale Enterprise, 30 June 1914). In addition to the original Alton farm, George owned another 240 acres in Alton, two farms at Grizzly Bluff, and a farm [presumably the property in section 36 that included MRB] in what is now McKinleyville, plus 1200 acres of “stock and timber land”. He raised hogs, which he slaughtered himself and “put up a brand of bacon known as the Eel River Bacon, which was in good demand at mining and lumber camp.” (Irvine 1915).
George and Charlotte had 9 children, two (including the only girl) of whom died within a week of each other during the whooping cough epidemic of 1873. When they grew up, most of the surviving sons (Philip, Theodore, Charles, and Henry George) stayed in Humboldt County, continuing on in ranching and farming. Benjamin became an attorney and practiced locally in Ferndale; Frederick M. became a businessman with Crane and Co. in San Francisco, and the youngest, Albert, became a physician in southern California.
George and Charlotte’s home was destroyed by fire on June 30, 1910. He then built “a substantial and attractive farm residence in the bungalow style on the old Hiller homestead near Alton”. In 1914, after an illness of several weeks, George died of uremia on June 27 (at age 82). George had been involved in the founding of the Eel River Lodge #210, I.O.O. F. at Rohnerville, and was connected with it for 55 years, until his death. He was a Mason for about 60 years, and belonged to the Eel River Lodge #142 in Fortuna. He was buried in Rohnerville Cemetery with Masonic honors by Eel River Lodge #142. After George’s death, Charlotte continued to live at the Alton homestead with three of their sons, though she frequently traveled to San Francisco to visit friends. In 1929, after a long illness, she died at age 91 on August 19 at son Henry’s home where she had been living. At the time of her death, she had lived in Alton for 65 years. She, too, was buried at the Masonic cemetery in Rohnerville.
Ownership of the McKinleyville property (which included MRB) became very confused for a number of years after George Hiller’s death. There were several changes in the executor of George’s estate in the County deed books, apparently arising from problems with probate of George’s estate—the confusion took a number of years to straighten out (Humboldt Standard, 18 March 1916). There were also a number of transactions among various Hillers involving the MRB property in the ensuing years. Most of George and Charlotte’s sons, if not all, had partial ownership of the MRB property at one time or another. After years of “horsetrading” back and forth with other family members (most notably, his brothers), the MRB property eventually passed into sole ownership of Henry George (listed in one record as George Henry) Hiller.
Henry Hiller was the last of the Hiller family to own the nearly half section of land north of Hiller Rd. that included MRB. He did not live on the property, or in McKinleyville. He lived most, if not all, of his life on the Hiller Ranch (258 acres) ½ mile south of Alton, in southern Humboldt County. He married Nellie Nulph, was widowed, and remarried twice, lastly to Edna Jane Hiller (later Edna Jane Rylander). The transfer of ownership of the property from Henry Hiller to Charles Edward Massae and his wife Bernita Massae in the 1950s occurred under dubious circumstances and was hotly contested by the Hiller family for many years. The following account of that period in the history of this property is a compilation of information from official public records at the Humboldt County courthouse, from neighbor Alan Compher’s descriptions of conversations with Dorothy Blade and Chub Morningstar, and from descriptions 37
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan of land use from neighbor Mike O’Hern.
In the 1950s, Charles Edward Massae, who was a landowner and developer in Butte County (Paradise, Calif.), convinced Henry Hiller to sell him the present MRB and the north side of Hiller Road. Mr. Hiller's heirs contested the sale, stating he was too blind and senile to be competent. They felt cheated out of their legacy and started court proceedings against Charles and Bernita Massae, Chub Morningstar, and Bonnie Barnes. Charles Massae hired Robert V. Blade, an attorney in Santa Rosa, to defend the sale in court. The case to rescind the deed of ownership of the property was still pending in the Superior Court of Calif. (Humboldt Co.) when the plaintiff (attorney Blaine McGowan, guardian of Henry George Hiller’s estate) died. Apparently, the case died with the plaintiff, and the Massaes got to keep the property (recorded in Humboldt County Official Records in Book 532, Page 289 on April 27, 1959). In July 1967, the Massaes were the recipients of quit claim deeds from two separate parties (Wendell and Clara Harris, and Edna Jane Rylander—Henry Hiller’s widow) for property whose legal description matches that of MRB (Recorded in Humboldt County Official Records in Book 927 pages 167 and 168). At some point after the court case ended, the Massaes could not or would not pay their legal fees; instead Robert Blade was apparently offered an interest in the acquired land in lieu of monetary payment, and on September 19, 1977, Charles and Bernita Massae officially granted an undivided half interest in the property to Robert and Dorothy Blade. Meanwhile, Massae developed the parcels on the north side of Hiller Road, and in a grant deed dated September 18, 1958, sold four acres above the Mad River (currently 1992, 1994, and 1998 Ocean Dr.) to his friend and fellow developer, Chub Morningstar and his wife Margaret Morningstar. Massae held onto the remaining 75 acres (MRB plus a 0.85 acre parcel with access from Hiller Rd.) for future development. At some points, the Massaes’ interest in the property was under the name “Benzco”, and later on under the family trust name of “Sierra National Trust”.
In 1963, just south of what is now MRB, Chubb Morningstar subdivided over the Ocean Dr. extension, building a two bedroom bungalow with carport at 1998 Ocean Drive, fencing off with the dwelling 1,300 square feet of land that still legally belonged to Massae (and Robert Blade); this oversight later provoked a dispute and lawsuit which may have negatively affected the Massaes’ ability to develop the property. Morningstar sold this developed 1.03 acre parcel with river/ocean views at the mouth of the Mad River to Betty McKay for what he later bragged was an exorbitant price ($13,500), and in 1980 this property was sold to Alan Compher and Laurette Goldberg, MRB’s nearest neighbors.
In 1975, Robert Blade died, leaving his widow Dorothy a horse ranch, several fine homes, a fleet of expensive cars, and a 50% fee simple interest in the MRB parcel and the 0.85 acre parcel (the smaller parcel is now owned by Mike O'Hern, who resides on Ocean Drive). According to Alan Compher, Mrs. Blade told him that Charles Massae called her "at least every other week" for the next 15 years asking her permission to develop the 75 acres or to at least sell out to him. She refused steadfastly for many years, and indicated a desire to keep the parcel as a nature sanctuary.
Meanwhile, land use on the MRB parcel seemed to be restricted to cattle grazing. When the O’Hern family moved into the neighborhood in 1977, cattle were grazed in the grassland adjacent to the forest. A fence at the interface between forest and grassland generally kept cows out of the forest, but motorcycle riders would periodically cut the fence to ride into the grassland 38
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan and the cattle would escape through the break in the fence. At that time, people were already using several trails through the forest into the grassland. The cattle were removed from the area in the 1980s, and many daffodils would grow in the grassland in the spring (possibly indicating prior use as bulb farm).
In 1990, Alan and Laurette Goldberg purchased the home and property just south of MRB (1998 Ocean Dr.) from the previous owner. At the same time, they negotiated with Charles Massae regarding purchase of the adjoining 75 acres (MRB plus the 0.85 parcel). A price of $250,000 was agreed upon, at which point Charles Massae contacted Dorothy Blade and offered to “buy out” her ½ interest in the two properties for $140,000. She agreed, though no money changed hands at the time; they executed a Deed of Trust securing a note for an original sum of $140,000 plus 5% interest; the principal sum plus interest was due to Dorothy Blade in June, 1995 (Deed of Trust dated May 18, 1990). Acting as sole owners of the property, instead of selling the property to Alan Compher and Laurette Goldberg as had been agreed, Sierra National Trust (namely Charles and Bernita Massaes’ son, Gordon) began plans for a major development there.
Around 1990, Sierra National Trust first hired the firm of Winzler and Kelly to prepare subdivision plans, then switched to Oscar Larson and Associates for the engineering. SHN was hired to do the geotechnical seismic testing. Oscar Larson & Associates prepared a 39-lot residential subdivision plan (encompassing the MRB parcel and the adjacent 0.85 acre parcel) identified as “Ocean Park Estates” which was submitted to the Humboldt County Planning Department in 1991-1992; lot size ranged from 0.26 acres to 0.99 acres. Many obstacles were identified by the State Coastal Commission, MCSD, and County staff in their responses to the proposed plan, and during that period Sierra National Trust was informed that additional information would be required before plans could proceed.
In the fall of 1990, over 550 community members signed petitions requesting MCSD to acquire the property they had begun calling “Hiller West” (MRB plus the 0.85 acre parcel). Seeing the importance of acquiring “Hiller West” (both for protection of the sewage treatment facility and for recreational use), MCSD paid for an appraisal of the property; at that time the assessed value of the property was $565,000 (Nilsen 1990). State Coastal Conservancy staff began negotiations with Massae to acquire the property at this time, but efforts were unsuccessful due to budget cuts to the Coastal Conservancy’s grant program. Gordon Massae stated that the property was worth much more, saying he expected that 39 lots would be worth around $7 million, and declined to sell. The option of eminent domain was discussed briefly, but the Massaes’ attorney Paul Minasian threatened to sue the community if it was even discussed by the MCSD board. Meanwhile, public use of the property continued unabated.
In September 1997, after being paid none of the money owed her (nor had the Massaes paid their property taxes or hazard insurance premiums), Dorothy Blade initiated foreclosure proceedings against the remaining Massaes (Charles Massae had died in the mid-1990’s). She executed a Declaration of Default and Demand for Sale, and a Notice of Default was then sent by Mid Valley Title and Escrow Company (trustee). A Trustee’s Sale was scheduled for March 5, 1998, at Dorothy Blade’s request. The amount owed by then was $195,812.37 (including interest). Probably prompted by this action, the Hiller West properties were listed for sale by Forbes and Associates in mid-September 1997; the asking price was $850,000. The scheduled foreclosure sale was postponed until April 30, 1998 (by which time the delinquent taxes had been paid). After years of accruing delinquent property taxes and threatened with impending forced public 39
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan sale of the properties, Gordon Massae worked out a deal with Dorothy Blade whereby in exchange for 10% interest (double payments) she would postpone the foreclosure for 18 months. With a $196,000 mortgage lien (delinquent property taxes dating from 1992) on the tax defaulted properties, a tax sale was scheduled to be held in June 1998; this sale was forestalled as well.
Gordon Massae then made some sort of deal with local developers Mark Burchett and (Robert) “Joe” Frazier, who then began stating that they owned the property (though, as it turned out, their escrow did not close for over a year). Burchett and Frazier stated their own plans for developing the property into residential lots, sometimes identified as five homes, sometimes more. In preparation for development, they hired MD’s Tree Service to cut a trail through the property (sometimes off the property and on MCSD property) that was more than six feet wide in places, and a new trail—approximately 800 ft. long—was cut along the bluffs. This was followed by renewed outpouring of community interest in support of acquisition of the property for protection of natural resources and public access. Acquisition of the property for public use was urged by the public and discussed at several MCSD meetings, and in private discussions between MLT and MCSD directors and staff. Direct meeting between MLT, MCSD, and the developers ensued. Burdened with tax problems associated with the property, Burchett and Frazier said they were in a hurry to either sell the property or proceed with development plans, and wanted to sell MLT a short-term option to purchase the property, the conditions of which were not acceptable to MLT. The State Coastal Conservancy began negotiating with the new landowners in May 1999; the “landowners” indicated that, should the Coastal Conservancy not immediately acquire the property, they would sell the property on the open market. In the midst of all these negotiations, the actual sale of the property by the Massaes to Burchett and Frazier occurred in September 1999. The assessed value at that time was $420,000, and Charles E. and Bernita Massae sold 1/3 interests in the property to: Mark W. and Cammy A. Burchett, Robert J. and Debra J. Frazier, and the Mullin Family Limited Partnership. An agreement between the new owners and the Coastal Conservancy on fair market value was reached in January, 2001, and the sale and transfer of ownership to MLT occurred shortly thereafter. Purchase of the property was funded with money from Proposition 12 (“Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Fund”), and funds for initial property management came from The State Coastal Conservancy’s Coastal Access account.
Land Use During Hiller Family Tenure In addition to the right of way George Hiller granted to Humboldt Northern Railway Co. in 1905, he and his wife Charlotte also deeded similar right of ways to Southern Pacific Co. in 1909 (Book 110 of Deeds, pp 7 & 9). Also, after Michael Hiller’s death, his widow Margaret and their children sold a 50 ft. wide right of way to HNRC on their parcel neighboring George Hiller’s property. Later in 1928, George’s son Henry and his wife Nellie, along with Theodore (Henry’s brother) and his wife Nora granted right of way to Little River Redwood Co. through a strip of land 60 ft. wide near the northeastern boundary of MRB at the E ½ of NE ¼ and E ½ of SE ¼ of Section 36 T7N,R1W (Book 188 of Deeds, p. 338). This last action must have been related to the railroad being built by Little River Redwood Co. from Crannel to Fishers Siding (Junction) situated just North of Hiller Rd. on what is now the Hammond Trail. That railroad was completed in 1929 (Carranco and Sorenson 1988).
From these transactions and the location of the old railways, it is clear that parts of the Section 36 and Section 31 Hiller family properties (where MCSD’s Hiller Park now exists) were once used by the local railroad companies to haul timber. (Most of these right of ways were sold back 40
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan to the Hiller family when the railroad companies, or their successors went out of business—see Book 275 p. 235 #4789, Book 22, p. 135 #10844). But exactly what the MRB property was used for by the Hillers is not clear (a more thorough search of the newspapers of the time could probably elucidate matters). No homesite was located on the MRB property, and the various Hillers who owned it never lived on it (though Frederick Hiller had two houses on the adjoining southwest quarter of Section 31, and Michael Hiller and his family seem to have lived nearby at one point). Based on the maturity of the forested area on the blufftops, most of what is there is original forest. Forested habitat may have been more extensive on the property, but the mix of forest and open grasslands has existed in approximately its current configuration since at least the time of the first air photos of the area. Air photos from 1942 (Figure 3) show the open area as more extensive, including the areas now covered with berry patches and the area where beach pine is regenerating at the southeastern end. Although it is unclear what sort of agriculture was being carried out there, the open areas were definitely tilled or at least mowed (hay crop?). This would have been a reasonable agricultural use of the land, since Hookton soils are generally considered best suited for permanent dryland pasture and hay crops (McLaughlin and Harradine 1965). Another clue to agricultural use of the open areas can be inferred from the scattering of daffodils flowers still found in spring in the grasslands at the southeast end of the property. The likely explanation for their presence is that at one time, daffodils were commercially grown there (many bulb farms existed in McKinleyville historically).
41
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
CURRENT USE PATTERNS
The following discussion of visitor use is based largely on anecdotal observations of recreational use during site visits during fall and winter 2002/2003. Although the observations were not conducted in a scientific manner, attempts were made to cover the spectrum of daytime hours, and on weekdays, weekends, morning, and afternoon hours. No attempt was made to identify nighttime use. Given the less-than-optimal weather during the fall and winter, use patterns during other seasons might be significantly different. On 15 occasions, activities of 75 individuals and groups were noted. In addition to the information gathered during site visits, three other sources of visitor use information are included. The first is a 2-day visitor use survey (Brown et al. 2002) included as part of a class project conducted by HSU students in the spring of 2002; in that survey, 101 visitors were surveyed about their use of MRB, their concerns about MRB, and their knowledge about MLT. The last source of information is a set of data sheets from a limited recreational use survey conducted by an HSU student who contacted 25 visitors on 3 days in April 2003; information from the data sheets is discussed separately in this section because it was not always directly comparable with information collected on site visits. One additional source of information was a creel report from CDFG, which provided information on angler use of the Mad River estuary in 2001-2002 (Sparkman 2002).
The common perception that the dominant use of this property is as a “dog park” is understandable given that almost exactly half (37 of 75 individuals/groups) of the people observed at Mad River Bluffs were accompanied by at least one dog. This trend was particularly marked with recreational walkers—of walkers, 14 individuals/groups did not have a dog(s) whereas 36 individuals/groups had one or more dogs with them. Of individuals or groups with a dog(s), most (by a slight margin) had 2 or more dogs with them. And the vast majority of dogs were unleashed (27 groups with unleashed dogs vs. 11 groups with leashed dogs). Brown et al. (2002) found that more respondents (36%) identified dog walking first in a list of activities bringing them to MRB; this was followed by hiking (23%), and then equally by biking, running, and birdwatching (all 12%). Fishing was listed as a primary activity by only 1% of respondents, but I believe this may underestimate fishing use (to an unknown degree) since no surveys and no site visits were conducted near dawn or dusk (prime fishing times), nor were surveys conducted during the prime fishing season. In 2001-2002, creel surveys conducted by CDFG, provided an estimate of 2373 angler hours spent fishing in “reach 1”, the lowest section of the Mad River (Sparkman 2002).
The majority of visitors to Mad River Bluffs were individuals (36), followed by pairs of people (30), with a small number (7) of groups of 3 or more. Almost all visitors who came without human companions brought at least one dog with them (27 of 33). Of the individuals who did not bring a dog(s) only one was a walker; the rest were fishing, cycling, or doing research— activities which might not lend themselves to having a pet along. In the subset of observations in which gender was noted, 9 lone women came with a dog(s) and only 2 (both pinniped researchers) came without a dog(s). Similarly, 7 lone men came with a dog, and only one (a unicyclist!) came without a dog(s).
With regard to location, most visitors were observed on the east side of the Mad River, and most of these were on the upland portion of the property. Most of these visitors were walkers, and the next most commonly encountered recreationists (10) were individuals or pairs of bicyclists. Bicyclists were most frequently encountered on the main east-west trail between Mad River 42
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Bluffs and Hiller Park and they also utilized the loop trail around the sewage treatment ponds on MCSD property; several mountain bikers were also encountered on the unsurfaced Main North- South forest trail. In addition to walkers and bicyclists, on one occasion two people were drumming at the top of the bluffs. Although equestrians were not encountered on upland areas during site visits, evidence of horseback riding there (including on forest trails) was identified on several occasions.
It is clear that the existing social trails down the bluff-face are regularly used and maintained by visitors. A number of people were encountered along the river’s edge at the base of the bluffs. Most were walkers, but sunbathers looking for seclusion, fishers, and university students conducting pinniped research were also present on several occasions. Also, a number of people were observed crossing the river just north of the mouth in order to gain access to the beach. Ten individuals or groups were observed on the beach. Most were beachcombing and walking (with or without dogs), but some were surf-fishing or running. And one group of three horseback riders was also observed on the beach. In addition, kayakers and canoers were observed paddling in the river estuary just upstream of the mouth. Surfers were not encountered (perhaps due to time of day and season), but residents of neighboring properties assured observers that surfers hike down the southernmost bluff-face trails to reach the river, and paddle across in order to reach the ocean.
The vast majority of visitors seen during site visits were adults. Rarely were children present with adults, and on only two occasions were pairs or groups of children (without attendant adults) or young teens seen—one pair walking a dog, and one group of four teenage boys with bikes who also crossed the river to get to the beach. Despite the lack of children observed on the site, there was much evidence that children do play there—tree-forts, forts constructed of driftwood and branches, etc. This corresponds with data from the Brown et al. survey (2002) in which half of all visitors identified were adults between 21-35 years of age; 24% were between 36-50 years old, and 17% were older than 50 years of age, and only 9% were between 15 and 20 years old (no information was given on young children).
Although campers were not encountered during site visits, there is evidence that at least occasionally the property is temporarily home to transient people. Several abandoned encampments and “dumps” were found (and cleaned up) in forested parts of the property. Some may be the work of kids, but neighbors have stated that there is, in fact, an occasional problem with transients camping there.
Survey results (Brown et al. 2002) indicate similar findings to what was suspected based on anecdotal conversations with visitors at MRB, namely that use of MRB is by local residents. The vast majority of visitors live nearby--one-third live within a mile of the property, and just over half live within 3 miles of MRB, and none of the survey respondents had traveled more than 20 miles. Thirty-nine percent of survey respondents (Brown et al. 2002) reported that they visit MRB almost daily and another 9% reported that they visit it once a week.
The other recreational use survey was conducted by an HSU student on three days in late April, during which 25 visitors were contacted. Again, the vast majority of people (17 of 25) visiting the property had at least one dog with them; no information was given as to whether the dogs were leashed or not, but a number of the visitors surveyed reported that what they liked about MRB was that they could bring their dogs off-leash. Most people were there alone, but there 43
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan were a few couples, and several families. Two of the people were jogging. All but two of the respondents said that they visit MRB at least once a week, and most of the people (16 of 25) said that they came to MRB more than 3 times/wk.; in fact, 9 respondents said they come every day. This shows, again, that there is a loyal core of people who use the area regularly. However, less than half (11 of 25) of those surveyed knew that the property is owned by MLT; others thought it belongs to MCSD or the County.
During the course of this project, it has become clear that there is also some agency and organizational use of the property, previously unbeknownst to MLT. The bluff tops provide ideal viewing and radio-telemetry locations, and for these reasons as well as the accessibility provided by MRB to the mouth of the Mad River, MRB has been the site of various research and monitoring activities involving pinnipeds and salmonids. Dr. Dawn Goley oversaw research conducted by HSU students (funded by National Marine Fisheries Service) on the Mad River. The goal of this work, which is now coming to an end, was to use behavioral observations of harbor seals to document their impact on winter steelhead. Work began four years ago, and focused on the Chinook run on three local rivers. In 2000, focus shifted to the Mad River and Smith River winter steelhead run in order to match their efforts with those of CDFG (see below). 2003 was the final year of study, and “focused solely on pinniped/salmonid interactions on the Mad River during the winter steelhead run” (Dr. Dawn Goley pers. comm.). The California Dept. of Fish & Game’s Steelhead Research and Monitoring Program has been tagging adult winter-run steelhead and conducting radio-telemetry studies to investigate their behavior and migration patterns in the Mad River. CDFG staff regularly come to MRB to monitor fish movements/carcass locations in the estuary.
In summary, aside from the institutional users, use at MRB is largely by local McKinleyville residents who visit MRB regularly. The people who come to MRB enjoy a diverse, natural setting and their primary recreational activity is walking, usually with one or more dogs.
44
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
MANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
As identified in the acquisition documentation (California Coastal Conservancy 2001), the purpose for acquiring the Mad River Bluffs property was to preserve public access to the coast, provide recreational opportunities, and protect the scenic and visual qualities of the open space in perpetuity. The overall goal in managing MRB, as identified by MLT and the Coastal Conservancy (California Coastal Conservancy 2001), is to, “…to maintain the natural integrity…while providing the public an opportunity for recreational access and educational opportunities”. Thus, specific objectives for MRB stemming from this two-pronged goal include the following:
· Preserve the open space in perpetuity · Protect coastal views · Protect and restore the natural heritage at the site, including rare habitats (e.g. beach pine/Sitka spruce forest, wetlands, dunes) · Provide coastal access—increase safety and accessibility to the coast · Connect MRB trails (and/or improve connections) with Hiller Park trails and the Hammond Trail · Emphasize a smooth transition for visitors between Hiller Park and MRB · Foster cooperative management with MCSD · Provide recreational opportunities for a variety of “passive recreation” experiences (hiking/walking, bird watching, picnicking, etc.). · Provide on-site research and environmental education opportunities · Encourage stewardship activities by local citizens · Increase public awareness of MLT and land trusts
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this plan is to provide MLT with options for managing their Mad River Bluffs property in McKinleyville, California. This plan provides recommendations on public access and use; public education and outreach; management/conservation of the natural heritage at MRB; opportunities for cooperative research, monitoring and management with local agencies, organizations, and individual citizens. Information used in developing the plan has been synthesized from a variety of sources, including a public meeting, on-site visitor surveys, written resources, and numerous meetings with local citizens, consultants, and agencies’ staff. In addition, information gained through research into the natural history of the property and, to some extent, the record of human history on and near the property was incorporated into management recommendations (e.g. educational displays or events) as appropriate. Mad River Bluffs has a variety of natural habitats including beach pine/Sitka spruce forest, grasslands, riparian forest, dune, and the Mad River estuary. A large portion of the plan is devoted to providing visitors with access to the scenic beauty of the site and the adjacent coastal waters. MRB seems most suited to the pursuit of “passive” recreational activities (hiking/walking, beachcombing, picnicking, wildlife watching, etc.), and the plan emphasizes such recreational and educational opportunities. At the same time, a main focus of the plan is maintaining the
45
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan natural habitats in healthy condition (or restoring them as appropriate), including protecting them from degredation associated with recreational use of the property. The plan also provides ideas for encouraging and expanding the sense of stewardship many people already feel for MRB.
A summary of the recommendations in the plan is provided below with references to the appropriate sections within the text of the management plan. The recommendations are organized here by urgency into three categories: “Immediate”, “Secondary”, “Not Pressing”, but within a given category, items are not prioritized in any particular order. Several additional ideas are included at the end of the list.
Immediate:
· MLT should have a discussion, including a site visit, with MCSD staff (i.e. the Manager and the Parks & Recreation Director) to clarify and confirm joint property boundaries. (see “Trails System History” in “Facilities” chapter). Likewise, recognition of western boundaries should be confirmed with the County, and with their representatives (Plan West) developing the Clam Beach/Moonstone Beach Management Plan.
· In conjunction with the above, MLT should mark upland boundary lines and corners with painted metal (e.g. rebar). It is particularly important to get this done before any groundwork on MCSD’s marsh begins, to prevent any mistakes, overstepping of boundaries with heavy equipment, grading, etc.
· Decide whether to request zoning change for the upland portion of the property (from “residential” to “natural resources”) while Humboldt County Coastal Plans are still being updated (see “Regulatory Environment” chapter).
· Consult an attorney to confirm the extent to which California recreational use statutes (e.g. Section 831) protect the land trust, and get legal counsel with regard to fee-use, unleashed dogs, warning signs, hazard trees, etc. as it relates to case law in California, and ask whether the attractive nuisance doctrine overrides California’s recreational use statutes with regard to children. Confirm that liability will not increase if access fees are charged for dogs (the statute covers this), and that warning signs (of the type proposed) will reduce liability risks, and what MLT’s liability would be if a pedestrian were to be injured by a horse sharing a multiple- use trail. (see “Liability” in both the “Equestrian Use” and “Dogs” sections of “Public Access” chapter; see “Educational/Community Events” section of “Public Education & Outreach” chapter; see “Facilities Monitoring & Maintenance” section in “Facilities” chapter; see “Sign Content” pertaining to warning signs in “Signage” section of “Public Education & Outreach” chapter; and see “Safety” chapter).
· Maintain or acquire adequate insurance (see “Liability” in “Equestrian Use” and “Dogs” sections of “Public Access” chapter; see “Educational/Community Events” section of “Public Education & Outreach” chapter; see “Facilities Monitoring & Maintenance” section in “Facilities” chapter; see “Sign Content” pertaining to warning
46
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
signs in “Signage” section of “Public Education & Outreach” chapter; and see “Safety” chapter).
· MLT should pursue perfecting legal access through Hiller Park (make public access to MRB official), perhaps through an access easement (see “Regulatory Environment” chapter and “Pedestrian Access” section of “Public Access” chapter).
· MLT should apply for an exception to the requirement for on-site parking spaces, as described in this document (see “Regulatory Environment” chapter and “Vehicular Access and Parking” section of “Public Access” chapter).
· MLT should also work on developing an MOU with MCSD for agreement for joint use of the parking lot at Hiller Park that is soon to be greatly expanded (see “Regulatory Environment” chapter and “Vehicular Access and Parking” section of “Public Access” chapter).
· Decide on and institute a policy(ies) regarding restrictions/leashing of dogs at MRB, and whether to institute a Green-dog type of program there (see “Recommendations” in “Dogs” section of “Public Access” chapter, and “Limitations to Access” section in “Resource Restoration and Protection” chapter).
· If dogs will continue to be allowed on the property, install Dogi-pot stations at appropriate locations and coordinate maintenance of the stations with MCSD (see “Dogipot Stations” section under “Facilities” chapter).
· Decide on open hours for the property (see “Open Hours” section of “Public Access” chapter) and incorporate this information on entrance signage.
· Design and install appropriate signage kiosks at least at the key entrances at Ocean/Hiller Rd. and at the southwestern end of Hiller Park; fulfill obligations with regard to identifying funding source and recognition of Coastal Conservancy. (see”Design/Format” and “Sign Content” subsections under “Signage” in “Public Education & Outreach” chapter).
· Install appropriate warning signs at vertical access points (see “Location” and “Sign Content” subsections under “Signage” in “Public Education & Outreach” chapter).
· Initiate conversation with Sheriff’s Dept. and SCOP staff regarding effective patrol and enforcement options (see “Safety” chapter, and see “Volunteer Activities to Support MRB” section in “Public Education & Outreach” chapter).
· Begin planning, fundraising, and waiver process for trail maintenance, beginning with upgrade to southern bluff access trail, then decommissioning other southern bluff trails (see “Recommendations—Phase One” in “Trail System” section of “Facilities” chapter).
47
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
· Fix the ditch in the main north/south trail. (see “Trail System” section of “Facilities” chapter).
· Coordinate with MCSD on trail upgrades (e.g. main east/west trail) that affect circulation between the Hiller Park and MRB. Of primary importance, given MCSD’s marsh development plans, coordinate with MCSD on marsh project’s impacts/changes to the trail system. And coordinate with MCSD regarding Festuca rubra patch along the main east/west trail between the properties. (see “Trail System” section of “Facilities” chapter).
· Decide what to do with the “grassy round” at the end of the long meadow (see “Prairie Restoration” section in “Resource Restoration and Protection” chapter, and “Picnic Area” section in “Facilities” chapter). Coordinate with MCSD to dovetail changes that will result from their marsh development.
· Initiate regular inspections of facilities and institute a maintenance schedule (including brushing trails) for facilities at MRB (see “Facilities Monitoring & Maintenance” section of “Facilities” chapter).
· Discuss tree safety issues with legal counsel and decide on a course of action with regard to a tree safety program (warning signage, tree inspections, etc.) (see “Safety” chapter).
· Regularly inspect the property for illegal campsites and garbage dumping, and begin monitoring sensitive sites for use-related impacts (see “Special Sites” in “Managing the Beach Pine/Spruce Forest” section of “Resource Restoration and Protection” chapter).
· Accelerate efforts to control invasive weeds, particularly with regard to English ivy, pampas grass, scotch broom, and Himalaya berry before they become even more established on the property (see recommendations and “Calendar of Weed Control Activities” in “Invasive Weeds” section of “Resource Restoration and Protection” chapter). Also, manage berry patches (see recommendations in “Berry Patches” subsection under “Invasive Weeds”).
· Develop a more formal stewardship program of “Friends” volunteers for MRB. This group can help keep a watchful eye on the property, help on clean-up days, invasive plant control, etc. (see “Volunteer Activities to Support MRB” section in “Public Education & Outreach” chapter).
Secondary
· Begin planning & fundraising for northern bluff trail project (see “Options” and “Recommendations—Phase Two” in “Trail System” section of “Facilities” chapter). This includes monitoring movement of the mouth of the river and bluff erosion at north end (wave action) of the property, as it could affect options for one of the northern bluff-face trails.
48
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
· Designate a stewardship coordinator to coordinate volunteer activities (mail/email about workdays, etc.) and coordinate events at MRB.
· Sponsor support-building activities and organize/provide educational events at MRB. Options include: workdays for trail maintenance, invasive weed control, and recreating a coastal prairie on-site; estuary monitoring/restoration activities; volunteer patrols; natural/cultural history walks & talks; estuary outings; dogs & walkers events; and art workshops (see “Educational/Community Events”, “Volunteer Activities to Support MRB”, and “Cooperative Research Opportunities” sections of “Public Education & Outreach” chapter).
· Develop a picnic area (see “Picnic Area” section of “Facilities” chapter).
· Install benches at select locations (see “Scenic Overlooks and Benches” section of “Facilities” chapter).
· Upgrade main east/west trail and southern overlook for handicap accessibility in 2 steps: 1) upgrade Ocean Ave/Hiller Rd. entrance and segment of main east/west trail to southernmost scenic overlook; make scenic overlook handicap-accessible and safe. 2) upgrade rest of main east/west trail, in coordination with MCSD. (see “Handicap Accessibility” section of “Public Access” chapter, and “Blufftop Trails” subsection of “Facilities” chapter).
· Restrict bicyclists and horseback riders to trails and areas recommended for their use (see “Bicycle Access” and “Equestrian Use” sections of “Public Access” chapter).
· Initiate over-all monitoring program for the property: e.g. monitor levels of various recreational uses, mushroom collection, condition of sensitive areas (Goodyera Glade, vertical access trails, bluff-slope and riverside area), pinniped-visitor-dog interactions at haul out; then institute public education if indicated. (see “Cooperative Research Opportunities” in “Public Education and Outreach” chapter; see “Concerns” in “Dogs” section of “Public Access chapter; see “Limitations to Access” section of “Resource Restoration and Protection” chapter).
· Work with MCSD to jointly develop hazard tree/snag retention policies and guidelines for MRB and Hiller Park (see “Cooperative Management with MCSD” section of “Resource Restoration and Protection” chapter; see “Sign Content” section pertaining to warning signs in “Public Education and Outreach” chapter; see “Safety” chapter). And then implement the policies.
· Identify details of county’s drainage easement at the north end of MRB. Work with the County and MCSD to protect slope stability and water quality there. (see “Erosion Control and Water Quality Protection” section of “Resource Restoration and Protection” chapter).
49
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Not Pressing: · Signage and public outreach at MRB about MLT and land trusts (see “Interpretive Displays” in “Signage” section for details).
· Provide other interpretive/educational information on wayside panels and/or at entrance kiosks (see “Interpretive Displays” section of “Public Education & Outreach” chapter).
· Decide whether to institute a research permit system (see “Organizational/Agency Use” section of Public Access” chapter).
· Put agencies and organizations that use the property on the MLT mailing list (see “Organizational/Agency Use” section of “Public Access” chapter; see “Cooperative Research Opportunities” in “Public Education & Outreach” chapter).
· Request that agencies or organizations that use the property provide MLT with copies of their annual (or other) reports and any publications that relate to their activities on the property. Create a library of information about MRB and the richness of its natural heritage (see “Organizational/Agency Use” section of “Public Access” chapter; see “Cooperative Research Opportunities” in “Public Education & Outreach” chapter).
· Encourage/solicit investigations and surveys of invertebrates (terrestrial and aquatic) on the property (see “Cooperative Research Opportunities” in “Public Education and Outreach” chapter).
· Initiate research into whether the level of dog use at MRB impacts wildlife usage/diversity at the site. (see “Concerns” in “Dogs” section in “Public Access” chapter).
· Solicit research on estuary (HSU Fisheries Dept. projects, HSU Physical Education advanced scuba classes to do underwater surveys, cooperative efforts with CDFG SRAMP program, etc.), including looking for grants for cooperative efforts. (see “Aquatic Life” section of “Fish and Wildlife” chapter, “Cooperative Research Opportunities” in “Public Education and Outreach” chapter).
· Initiate no-fee permit system for equestrian use (see “Equestrian Use” section of “Public Access” chapter).
· Decide how to manage southern expansion of beach pine/spruce forest (e.g. retain some grassland, thin young trees) (see description of current conditions in “Beach Pine/Spruce Forest” section of “Habitats and Vegetation” chapter; and see “Managing the Beach Pine/Spruce Forest” in “Vegetation Management” section of “Resource Restoration and Protection” chapter).
50
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Additional Ideas: · Hold a final public meeting about the management plan. If done before finalizing the plan, MLT could have a meeting to explain the proposals in the draft management plan and get public input on them. Alternatively, after the board approves a management plan (either this plan or a modified plan), a public meeting could be held to explain how MLT will manage the property--what will change/stay the same. Either way, once MLT has an approved plan, MLT should make efforts to provide the information to the public (donate copies of the plan to the local library or MCSD office for the public to look at, submit newspaper articles on what changes will be instituted and what will stay the same, etc.)
· It would be useful to give names to the longer trails, and perhaps to the overlooks and vertical access points. If it isn’t being done at Chah-GAH-Cho, I would recommend that the land trust name something permanent at MRB in memory of Lewis Klein. The main north/south forest trail could be named the Lewis Klein Trail. Or, one of the designated river/ocean scenic overlooks could be named for him.
51
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT
MRB is entirely within the California Coastal Zone, and thus under planning and zoning jurisdiction of the McKinleyville Coastal Area Plan and implementing standards of the County Coastal Zoning Regulations (Appendix to Title III, Humboldt County Code). In Humboldt County’s McKinleyville Area Plan, the lowland portion of the property is listed as Natural Resources, and the upland area as Residential Estates. Humboldt County zoning on the upland area is RS-20 (single family dwellings with a minimum lot size of 20,000 ft.2), with an overlay of A (Archaeological) and R (Riparian Protection). The lowland area is designated Natural Resources-A,B,F,R, meaning Natural Resources combining with Archaeological, Beach and Dunes, Floodplain, and Riparian Protection overlays. The McKinleyville Area Plan (Access Inventory and Development Recommendations to the McKinleyville Area Plan) indicates that MRB should be considered for improved scenic overlooks and vertical access to the beach.
To determine permitting requirements, the first step is to identify which uses are recognized as “principal uses” under the zoning for a given portion (upland or lower) of the property, which uses are “conditional uses”, which are not specifically recognized but not explicitly prohibited, and which are expressly prohibited under the zoning. Provisions and permitting requirements in the Coastal Zone are generally more restrictive than in inland portions of McKinleyville. “Development”, as defined in the Coastal Act, is wide-reaching:
On land, in or under water, the placement or erection of any solid material or structure; discharge or disposal of any dredged material or of any gaseous, liquid, solid, or thermal waste; grading, removing, dredging, mining, or extraction of any materials; change in the density or intensity of use of land, including but not limited to, subdivision pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (commencing with Section 66410 of the Government Code), and any other division of land, including lot splits, except where the land division is brought about in connection with the purchase of such land by a public agency for public recreational use; change in the intensity of use of water, or of access thereto; construction, reconstruction, demolition or alteration of size of any structure, including any facility of any private, public or municipal utility; and the removal or harvesting of major vegetation other than for agricultural purposes, kelp harvesting and timber operations which are in accordance with a timber harvesting plan submitted pursuant to Government Code Section 4511 et seq. (underlined emphasis mine).
Basically, a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is usually necessary for virtually any activity (regardless of the degree of public benefit it would provide), unless expressly exempted. In meetings and conversations with County staff, it appears that improvements to existing trails, not just construction of new trails, would require a Coastal Development Permit. In most cases, maintenance of existing trails does not require a permit (Section 30610 of the Coastal Act) unless the maintenance activities would enlarge or expand the object of repair or mainanence. However, exceptions (to the exemption from the need for a CDP) include: “any repair or maintenance to facilities or structures or work located in environmentally sensitve habitat areas, any sand area, within 50 feet of the edge of a coastal bluff or environmentally sensitive area, or within 20 feet of coastal waters or streams that include: A) the replacement or removal, whether temporary or permanent, of rip-rap, sand or other beach materials or any other forms of solid materials; B) the presence, whether temporary or permanent, of mechanized equipment or construction materials” (Section 13252, California Code of Regulations) (underline emphasis 52
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan mine). Thus, even trail maintenance activities that involved trail segments within 50 feet of the bluffs would probably require a CDP.
In the lowland area, because of its NR designation, interpretive displays, trail system, overlooks, etc. might be considered principal use activities, falling under sub-categories of the “Natural Resources” use type heading, specifically “fish and wildlife habitat management”, “watershed management”, “resource-related recreational” and “coastal access facilities”, recognized under HCC S A313-29.B(6) and defined under HCC SS A313-12(b), (c), (e), and (g). But the only two projects proposed for the lowland area involve trail work. All the rest of the activities described above (interpretive displays, trails, overlooks) are proposed for the upland portion of the property. Since the upland area is designated Residential (rather than NR), these are not recognized as principal uses. There, for instance, trails are a conditionally permitted use, subject to specified findings (costing a little more) (Hofweber, pers. comm.). And so, in addition to a CDP, trail work on the upper area—a conditional use activity there--would also require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the Planning Commission.
One possible way to streamline the permit process, would be to apply for a change in zoning in the upland area. Humboldt County is currently updating all the county coastal plans, and Planning Division staff have indicated that during this period they would be willing to entertain a proposal by MLT to change the designation of the upland area from residential to NR (during plan updates, there would be no charge for such a change). One reason MLT might wish to consider this is that within the Natural Resources designation, coastal access (including trails) is a principal permitted use—permit approval is an administerial process and requires no extra use- permit fee. (If MLT were to decide to request a change the property’s recognized land uses after the coastal plans are updated, it would have to apply for a Local Coastal Plan amendment…and pay a fee).
With an approved CDP (plus, possibly, a CUP), the on-site uses as proposed in this plan should not require additional discretionary permits from the Planning Division. Nor should building or grading permits be required through the Building Inspection Division.
In order to comply with zoning and land use regulations involving public street access and off- street parking requirements, a proposal for a MOU with MCSD (see “Vehicular Access and Parking” section) was described to Planning Division staff. The only guidance provided in response was that MLT would have to submit a completed management plan to the County for review, and then the County would determine whether the MOU would satisfy parking requirements. The northern terminus of Ocean Dr. is privately owned, but an access easement exists giving MLT and visitors to MRB a legal right to park there and access the property from that point. Likewise, since Hiller Park is a public facility, access through the park is a reasonable assumption. The difficulty is with parking requirements. In reviewing HCC SS 316-13 and A314-26 which describe off-street parking requirements, and other land use documents, it appears that off-street parking must be provided on the property itself. And, because the proposed (and existing) uses of the property are not “commercial” in nature, provisions for substitute locations under HCC SS 316-13.29(a) and A314-26.C.1 cannot be pursued. Accordingly, it appears that the number and size of off-street spaces stated in the ordinance must be provided within the bounds of the property. Despite multiple requests (in writing and verbally), I was unable to obtain any specific information from the County Planning Division with regard to the number of off-street parking sites that would be required for this property. For 53
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan a rough idea of what might be expected, review of MLT’s Chah-GAH-Cho Habitat Restoration Plan reveals that MLT was advised that “five spaces (4 standard, 1 handicapped) would be indicated for the site, based on a review of coastal access support facility standards developed by the California Coastal Commission and Coastal Conservancy” (Baskin 1998). An alternative to building a parking lot on-site, would be to obtain an exception to the required number of parking spaces pursuant to HCC SS 316-13.2(1) and A314-26.(c) (12). This would require a Special Permit to be concurrently secured through the Planning Division; this is an administrative action decided by the Planning Director, subject to appeal to the Planning Commission.
With regard to state law and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), installation of signs is categorically exempt under 14 CCR Section 15303, which applies to the construction of small structures, and 14 CCR Section 15311(a), which applies to on-premise signs. It is unclear what category of signage the proposed on-site signs (welcome signs, informational kiosks) fit into under County signage regulations. However, according to County staff, any sign bigger than 2 ft. requires a permit (Hofweber, pers. comm.).
It is unlikely that a Special Permit for “major vegetation removal” would be required for the cumulative amount of vegetation removal inherent in the proposed activities (i.e. trail work, thinning of shrub-size pines, invasive plant control, short spur trail through degraded grassland to picnic area) which should be under the 600 square foot threshold. The Planning Director might consider construction of new trail segments through the forest or construction of new trails down the bluff-slopes to have significant environmental impact. However, since the intent of the projects is to reduce erosion, improve visitor safety, and provide coastal access, and provided that work would be done without use of heavy equipment, and erosion control measures would be included, it is to be hoped that this would not be an issue.
An application for a Coastal Development Permit is included in Appendix G. Application fees must be deposited upon submission of an application. Submission of a comprehensive application can greatly reduce or eliminate additional process-related fees. An “Application Assistance Meeting” at the Humboldt County Community Development Dept.—Planning Division can be made by calling 445-7541.
In addition to county regulations, all discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (tidal waters, lakes, ponds, rivers, streams—including intermittent streams—and wetlands) must be authorized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Since almost all proposed projects on trails are on existing trails, and the one new trail spur likely to be constructed is short and through the degraded grassland on the south side of the main east/west trail, it is very unlikely that any Section 404 permits would be required. Most likely, the activities would be considered a de minimis project, exempt from permitting requirements. To be certain, MLT should contact the local offices of the Corps to determine the extent of their jurisdiction at the property and to arrange a site visit with their staff. (Jurisdictional delineations are valid for 5 years). If a wetland permit is required, applications can be obtained from the Eureka Field office of the Army Corps of Engineers. California Dept of Fish and Game should also be contacted for a site visit with regard to permitting issues.
The property is outside (west) of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and in any case “fault evaluation reports” (for projects within the zone) only apply projects involving buildings 54
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan inhabited for more than 2000 person-hours per year. Thus, none of the activities proposed for MRB would fall into the “project” category under the fault zone legislation, and no report would be required.
Fishing Current fishing regulations prohibit all take of wild salmonids on the Mad River. In addition, it is illegal to fish for, catch, or possess coho (if unintentionally hooked, they must be released immediately with the least handling possible). And this entire area is closed to Chinook fishing for the foreseeable future. However, there can be good fishing for hatchery fish in the waters passing through MRB (Sparkman pers. comm.). In all situations, only barbless hooks may be used. Between the mouth and 200 yards upstream, the open season for hatchery steelhead and hatchery trout is from January 1-March 31 (artificial lures only). Then, from 200 yards above the mouth and heading upstream, the open season for hatchery trout and hatchery steelhead is from the fourth Saturday in May through March 31; Between opening day in May through October 31, only artificial lures may be used, and from November 1 through March 31, bait or artificial lures may be used.
55
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
PUBLIC INPUT
At this point, there have been several opportunities for the public to provide input to be considered in developing the management plan. Over 300 residences (those closest to the property) were sent a letter informing them of the planning process, inviting them to participate at a public meeting (held in October 2002), and inviting them to send comments/questions/input to the consultant. The public meeting was also advertised in the local newspaper and fliers were put up in a number of local businesses beforehand. Only a handful of written comments have been received. But over 40 people attended the public meeting and their input was recorded. (I would like to note that the citizens involved in this process deserve accolades; the interactions-- with just one exception--at the public meeting were entirely genial, opinions were expressed in a respectful and civil manner, and people willing to listen to each other even when opinions differed greatly). Also, on a number of site visits, I talked with visitors at the property and acquired some additional information on what those citizens would like to see or not see at the property. In addition, two other site-specific sources of information are included. One was a class project conducted by HSU students in the spring of 2002 (Brown et al. 2002); during two days of visitor surveys, 101 visitors at MRB were contacted and as part of the survey, they were asked what they would like to see done at MRB. The other is a recreational survey conducted on three dates in April, 2003 by another HSU student, and this information (limited though it is) is included as well. Below is a summary of the input received in these several ways.
Seventy-seven percent of people in the Brown et al. survey (2002) reported that it was “important” to “very important” to improve plant habitat (remove invasive plants and replace with natives) at MRB and 66% said it was “important” to “very important” to improve wildlife habitat there. The sentiments expressed in the 2002 survey were echoed at the public meeting. Everyone who expressed an opinion on the matter, wanted to preserve and enhance the natural qualities found at MRB. Only one person voiced disagreement (quite adamantly) with the idea of controlling invasive non-native plants at MRB, stating that they do not cause harm to the native habitats. Many people repeatedly stated that they want to preserve the area for wildlife. Concerns were expressed about impacts to wildlife resulting from visitor use and the presence of so many dogs; specifically, harassment of seals and shorebirds/ducks was mentioned. Monitoring the effects of recreational use (at MRB) on wildlife was suggested. People also said they were concerned about erosion.
Most people expressed satisfaction with the lack of facilities and low level of development, getting their enjoyment from the sense of solitude and the access to forest, river, and beach via the trails. There seems to be a general consensus to keep the property largely the way it is— many people expressed a desire to avoid “over-developing” it. Their only interest in additional facilities was in the form of benches and perhaps garbage cans. They would prefer that signage be kept to a minimum (though they said that signs posting restrictions would be important). However, although interpretive signs were not ranked highly in the 2002 survey or by people at the public meeting, they were mentioned as of interest to some of the April 2003 survey respondents.
People like the natural feel of the property and the aesthetic of the meandering trails at the property. But opinion seems to be closely divided with regard to improvements to trails and beach access. In the 2002 survey, 50% of the respondents ranked improved beach access and trail improvements in general as “important” to “very important”. But an equal number would 56
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan prefer that trails be left as they are, with perhaps some of the social trails decommissioned. At the public meeting, there was disagreement about whether to “fix” problematic sections of trail (e.g. where excessively wet in winter, where the trail drops about 5 feet into and out of a dip, whether to remove trees/limbs that fall across the trail, etc.). Some people felt these sections should be left as is because they keep bicyclists and horses from getting past these natural “barriers”. Others felt that access should be improved. There seemed to be some consensus about trying to concentrate use to main trails and discourage “social” trails. There was considerable discussion at the public meeting about what should be done in terms of vertical access along the bluffs. A number of people want improved access to the coast. Someone noted that surfers (and possibly kayakers) access the estuary and ocean from MRB. Some people felt that improving any of the existing trails leading down the bluffs would encourage people to use them and that would be unwise given how dangerous the river can be at some times of year and potential liability for the land trust. Other people responded by saying that it is clear that people will go down the bluff faces one way or another (hence, existing trails, which are steep, and in some places, quite sodden), and that it would be better to improve the trails so they’re safer and less damaging to the landscape than they are currently. The idea of warning signs (regarding river flow and ocean tides) was mentioned.
There were differing opinions about whether bicycles and horses should be allowed on the property. Several people at the public meeting and in other conversations stated that they or family members have difficulty walking, but are able to ride a bike. They, therefore, wanted to make sure that at least parts of MRB remain open to bicycle use. Some people said that horses are hard on the trails, and that this is too small an area for them to be sharing with pedestrians and bicyclists. An idea expressed by several members of the public was that if bikes and horses are going to be allowed, then there should be a separation of the various user groups (bikes, horses, pedestrians) in different areas/on different trails.
At the public meeting, there was mild controversy over the idea of nighttime closure. Some people stated that they like to walk there (with or without dogs) after dinner in the evening and even at night. On the other hand, some citizens brought up the point that some problems occur at night. Property neighbors mentioned several problems they have noticed, including occasional drug use, firing of guns, and encampments on the property. They noted however, that such problems have been occurring less as general public use there has increased. MLT representatives mentioned that they were aware of the encampment problem, and had been walking the property, breaking up campsites and disposing of garbage concentrated in dump sites. Other than the isolated “dump site”, most people felt that litter does not seem to be much of a problem at the property. Several citizens expressed interest in participating in volunteer patrols of the property.
Many people’s main interest is to keep the property open to dogs, and they are particularly attached to retaining the opportunity to let their dogs run unleashed. They stated that this property is about the last remaining place they can let their dogs off-leash, and they don’t want to lose that. On the other hand, several people noted that while most people are responsible dog- owners, a few allow aggressive dogs to run wild at the property and cause problems for other visitors. Specifically, dogs there have attacked other dogs, knocked children down or otherwise scared them in the past. Other people responded by saying that, in their experience, dogs are more likely to be aggressive when on a leash than when loose. Several people stated that they feel dogs should be required to be on leashes in order to protect wildlife. The possibility of 57
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan increased liability for MLT if unleashed dogs are allowed was brought up. The problem of numerous piles of dog feces was also mentioned as a problem there, and the idea of “Dogipots” was supported. The idea of having a specific “dog area” where dogs could be unleashed, and other areas where they must be leashed was mentioned and thought to be a possibility. People also stated they would be open to paying a fee to allow dog access to the property (e.g. “Green Dog Program”)
58
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
PUBLIC ACCESS
Background Significant prescriptive rights are associated with this property. It has been used freely by the public for many years. Over time, “social trails” were created by repeated use through the property, including some trails providing vertical access to the riverfront. No attempt was made to limit types of use or level of use; it has functioned as a de facto “commons” area.
The following recommendations are made for managing public access to improve safety, comply with existing regulations, resource protection, and hopefully, enhance the quality of most people’s recreational experience at MRB. Where appropriate, effort is made to be compatible with rules and management practices at the adjoining Hiller Park.
Open Hours Hiller Park, which is contiguous with MRB and is used by the same visitors who recreate at MRB, is closed between sunset and sunrise (with a parking lot gate that is closed and locked at night). In addition, most people who drive to visit MRB park their cars at the Hiller Park parking lot, and therefore, they are already required to leave by sunset or risk having their vehicle locked in. Thus, there are logical reasons to consider having the same open hours at MRB as at Hiller Park. In addition, camping on the property is not currently allowed, nor is a change from that policy recommended in this plan. To facilitate enforcement of that prohibition, some period of nighttime closure is recommended. However, some people have stated their desire to have access to the property in the evening hours. Unless other problems begin occurring with regularity at night, a compromise on closure at night is recommended. For instance, the closure can be from midnight to 5:00 a.m. A rule like this should satisfy most legitimate users of the property, allowing sufficient time for watching the sun set over the ocean, for nighttime strolls, and stargazing. Having the property open after Hiller Park gate is locked does mean that the only parking available to visitors during hours after dark will be limited to the few spaces at the end of Ocean Dr. and Hiller Rd. This will not likely be problematic, since most of the people who have indicated that they use the property at night live in the adjacent neighborhood and walk to the property rather than drive anyway. Before MLT decides to follow this recommendation, however, it would be worth discussing with the neighbors at the three residences at the end of Ocean Dr. to get their input, and to find out if they are willing to monitor the situation (anecdotally) and let MLT know if they notice any problems developing with this policy. Enforcement options should also be determined.
Vehicular Access and Parking Many of the people who visit MRB walk to the property from their nearby homes (generally in the neighborhoods immediately to the south). Parking is not an issue for them, and this significantly reduces parking space needs associated with use of the property. The other people who come to Mad River Bluffs either park in the dirt along the eastern edge of the northern terminus of Ocean Dr. (where it extends beyond the intersection with Hiller Rd.) or they park in the parking lot at Hiller Park and walk across MCSD’s Hiller Park. Parking space at the end of Ocean Dr. is limited (approximately 3 vehicles at a time will fit on the east side of the road) and unpaved. However, when I have been there, there was usually no more than one other car parked there, and I have never seen a problem (too many people vying for space). Nor, to my knowledge, has there ever been too little parking space available at the Hiller Park parking lot. At current levels of use, parking does not seem to be a problem. Dedication of the northern 59
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan terminus of Ocean Dr. (the part extending past Hiller Rd.) was not accepted by the County Board of Supervisors. This portion of Ocean Dr. appears to be privately owned by the residents of the last three houses there on Ocean Dr., but according to one of the owners of the road, there is an easement on the road providing for legal public access (Compher, pers. comm.).
The issue of parking (among other things) was broached with County Community Development Dept., first in a letter (dated 3 February 2003, Appendix F) and later in discussions with planner, Tom Hofweber. However, no definitive answer was provided with regard to what the County might require of MLT in this regard; Mr. Hofweber stated that they would need to see the management plan first before being able to provide any guidance or information on requirements. If the County requires MLT to provide some limited number of official parking spaces for the public, viable options are extremely limited in this regard. While it is theoretically possible to construct a road and parking area within the Mad River Bluffs property (presumably at the southeast end of the property), it would require building a road from the northern terminus of Ocean Dr. through a section of the forest there, which runs counter to the goal of keeping the remaining beach pine/Sitka spruce forest here intact. It is also completely against the desires of the neighbors and other MRB users. The only reasonable solution to a parking requirement would involve formalizing joint use of the parking lot at Hiller Park. MCSD is currently in the process of adding approximately 170 parking spaces to the existing parking lot at Hiller Park. These parking spaces are being constructed in conjunction with the construction of Hiller Sports Complex. MCSD manager, Tom Marking, indicated that available parking capacity there will greatly exceed need in almost any foreseeable circumstance; the only time demand might approach capacity would be at sports tournaments with out-of-area teams. This being the case, Mr. Marking is amenable to the idea of an MOU agreement between MCSD and MLT regarding visitors to Mad River Bluffs having permission to park at MCSD’s adjoining property, and he brought the idea to MCSD’s board of directors who agreed with the idea in concept. Generally, people using the trails on MLT’s property also use the Hiller Park trails (and visa versa) during the same visit—creating a logical nexus for an arrangement of shared parking. Without input from County staff, but in reviewing the code requirements, an MOU arrangement between MCSD and MLT on its own might not satisfy the county regarding parking requirements for Mad River Bluffs (see “Regulatory Environment” section). But, MLT should work on developing an MOU with MCSD for agreement for joint use of the parking lot. And MLT should apply for an exception (requiring a Special Permit from the Planning Director) to the requirement for on-site parking spaces. Given the circumstances and uses of the property, plus a parking arrangement between MCSD and MLT, it is to be hoped that the County would be amenable to granting an exception to the requirement for on-site parking.
Pedestrian Access As stated above, many of the people who visit MRB walk to the site from the surrounding neighborhoods, and enter the property through the Ocean Dr. entrance. The northern terminus of Ocean Dr. (the part extending past Hiller Rd.) appears to be privately owned by the residents of the last three houses there on Ocean Dr., but there is an easement on the road providing for legal public access. Many people arrive at the property by walking through Hiller Park. Usually, visitors using MRB also visit at least some part of Hiller Park during the same visit, and visa versa. MLT might wish to perfect legal access through Hiller Park (make public access to MRB official), perhaps through an access easement.
60
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
I recommend that MLT policy with regard to public access is that pedestrians be accorded first priority among user groups. By this I mean that when a decision must be made regarding restricting one use for the benefit of others, conflicts with other user groups should be resolved with the above in mind. Pedestrian use of the property is treated in much greater detail in the “Trails System” section.
Bicycle Access Several citizens at a public meeting and other conversations stated that they or family members have difficulty walking, but are able to ride a bike. In addition, many other people bike recreationally at MRB. However there are also legitimate concerns about separating various user groups (bikes, horses, pedestrians), both for safety and ease of travel, which will become more of an issue if visitor use increases substantially. Many larger parks do have at least some trails designated soley for equestrians or bicyclists, or hikers. However the MRB property is not so extensive that all groups can be adequately sequestered and still provide a satisfactory trail experiences for all. Given that the Hammond Trail, which is paved and designated for bike use, is nearby, it seems reasonable to allow bikes on the main east/west trail (which would be open to all users), and that from there, they be directed to use the Hammond Trail or Ocean Ave./Hiller Rd. depending on their direction of travel. Bicyclists could also use the main east/west trail to access the Hiller Park Loop Trail (or its replacement after completion of MCSD’s marshes). This plan does not recommend widening or upgrading the trail surface of forest trails at MRB, so it does not seem appropriate for bike use there. The low level of bike use that currently occurs on the forest trails should be discouraged, if not prohibited (with the exception of bike patrols for law enforcement purposes—see “Safety” chapter).
Handicap Accessibility The nearby Hammond Trail now stretches nearly the entire length of McKinleyville, and most segments are handicap accessible. Likewise, there are several handicap accessible ocean-view vista points in the vicinity, including the scenic overlook west of the airport. To my knowledge, there are no facilities in McKinleyville providing handicap accessibility directly to any of the beaches or the Mad River, but this would not be feasible at MRB either. However, there is an opportunity to provide trail access to ocean and estuary viewpoint(s) at MRB.
The best (most feasible, least expensive) option to provide handicap access to the site is via the main east/west access trail (including the Ocean Ave./Hiller Rd. entrance) leading to the southernmost scenic overlook recommended for retention. This is the recommended handicap- accessible overlook and route, and would also allow handicap access through the property to the Hammond Trail. On the other hand, upgrading the forest trails to the point of handicap accessibility would require considerable financial investment and possible damage to the forest. Due to the numerous tree roots at the surface, uneven terrain, soft substrate, and winter moisture, forest trails would probably require a paved trail surface and constant maintenance. In addition to the financial cost, the potential damage to trees (via root damage) and the potential for increased bluff-slope erosion, such upgrades do not appear to be desired by the citizens using the area. The proximity to the Hammond Trail, which is handicap-accessible seems to lessen the need for more extensive handicap access at MRB, other than to provide ocean and river views.
To facilitate handicap accessibility on the main east/west trail, MLT could start with the Ocean Ave/Hiller Rd. entrance trail, along with the short section of main east/west trail leading from there to the southernmost scenic overlook (SO2 or SO3), and the scenic overlook itself. At a 61
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan minimum, the trail would need to be widened and the surface profile flattened (and probably raised slightly to deal with tree roots on the surface). At the overlook, a berm or barrier (such as a railing that would not block the view of a person in a wheelchair) should be created to stop wheelchair movement to/over the edge. The next step, requiring coordination with MCSD, should be to widen and flatten the surface profile of the rest of the main east/west trail to make it more handicap accessible (this is also recommended for other reasons, see “Bicycle Access” above). At some point, MLT might want to consider paving (see “Trails” section) its portion of the main east/west trail, but this would be best considered as a joint project in coordination with MCSD doing the same on their portion of the trail.
Dogs Background Both in the past and currently, many of the people coming to Mad River Bluffs property use the area as a “dog park”—a place to walk their dogs and enjoy the natural area. This appears to be an established recreational use, especially for people who live in the surrounding neighborhoods. People with dogs say that there are few areas like this where they can go with their dogs, and even fewer where they can let their dogs off-leash. They are quite concerned about the possibility of losing the ability to bring their dogs to MRB and let them run.
MCSD owns the adjacent Hiller Park property. MCSD policy with regard to dogs at Hiller Park has recently been articulated on new signage that states that dogs may be unleashed but must be under voice control of their owners. Parks & Recreation Dept. Director, Traci Ferdolage, indicated that MCSD would like to separate the developed playground area, bathrooms and picnic tables from the undeveloped rest of the park with the use of low buck-and-rail type fencing; in that event, dogs would be required to be leashed within the developed area, but leashing would not be required outside the developed area.
When the Coastal Conservancy authorized the disbursement of funds enabling MLT to acquire the MRB property, the explicit intent was “to provide improved public access and preserve open space”, and likewise, in accepting the property, MLT agreed to “…permanently dedicate the property for public access and open space preservation…”. The acquisition agreement also stated that, “The MLT’s management goals for this area are to maintain the natural integrity of the project area while providing the public an opportunity for recreational access and educational opportunities.” At MRB, a significant portion of the recreational use is dog-walking.
The dual management goal (above) might lead to conflicts between recreational uses of the property and protection of the natural resources there, and one possible conflict might be between domestic dogs and protection of wildlife inhabiting or using the property. One could argue that, based on past use (prescriptive rights, of a sort), an inherent part of the public access and recreation at this site is dog-walking (leashing at the discretion of the dog-owners). But at what point should this form of public enjoyment (bringing dogs, and having unrestricted use) defer to protection of the natural resources on the property?
Concerns Concerns are twofold: dogs causing harm to people, and dogs causing harm to wildlife or the environment. A legitimate question (though beyond the scope of this plan) is whether the level of dog use and the unrestricted nature of that use precludes certain wildlife use of the property. Specifically, are some wildlife species absent (or at much reduced abundances) from MRB now, 62
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan because of the level and type of dog use there? (This same question could be posed about human use as well, but part of the purpose of purchasing the property was to continue to allow public access and use). The answers are not known, but would be useful in determining the level of dog use that should be allowed on the property. In addition to these questions, several potentially significant current or possible dog-related impacts have been identified at MRB.
One issue pertaining to dogs’ possible impacts at the site relates to the haul-out site for pinnipeds (primarily harbor seals) near the mouth of the Mad River. Numerous seals, sometimes upwards of 70, (Goley, pers. comm.) regularly use the sandy riverbank as a haul-out site. It is important to protect such sites and, in fact, it is illegal to harass or harm pinnipeds at haul-outs like this (Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972). However, researchers studying pinnipeds at this haul-out site have observed “harassment of seals by dogs and joggers on a relatively regular basis” (Goley, pers. comm.). In addition to causing seals to flee into the water (sometimes repeatedly), there is also the potential for disease transmission between canids and pinnipeds, including diseases such as Leptospirosis and canine distemper. Both can be fatal to pinnipeds, and Leptospirosis is a serious disease that can also be transmitted to humans.
Dogs running loose on beaches also chase shorebirds, causing them to flee. If this sort of harassment is frequent, the energy expended in repeatedly fleeing can be considerable and can be detrimental to the birds’ survival, especially at critical times (e.g. prior to or during migration when they need to build up reserves). But the threat from dogs may be of greatest import with regard to the state and federally listed snowy plover during the breeding season. Disturbance of foraging adults is one issue, but possible disturbance to nests is an even bigger concern. Snowy plovers nest on sandy beaches, and chicks in particular can be trampled or killed by dogs running loose in nesting habitat. Not all of the beach west of the bluffs here is part of MRB (the county owns most of the beach), and at this time, little of that could be considered suitable nesting habitat for the plover (perhaps a small segment at the northwest corner). Though there are no reports of snowy plovers nesting on the beach at or adjacent to MRB in recent years, it is a possibility that should be considered. Given the dynamic nature of this estuarine environment, movement of the mouth of the river and/or changes in sand deposition, could result in the formation of more suitable habitat in the future. Thus, disturbance to snowy plovers, particularly nesting plovers, could become an issue and would be a reason to consider limiting beach access with regard to unleashed dogs at that point.
An issue with both resource protection and human safety/health (and aesthetics) aspects is the possibility of water pollution from dog feces, which would be most likely along the riverbank and beach. An overabundance of dog feces in the upland areas of the property can also become a problem, in terms of aesthetics and the visitor experience for other users of the property. The severity of this problem depends both on the level of dog use at the site and whether dog-owners are responsible about cleaning up after their pets.
Aside from resource protection issues, there is also concern that unleashed dogs, in particular, may pose a threat to people. Several parents have reported instances of loose dogs “bowling over” their children (and frightening them)—though generally from an overabundance of “friendliness” rather than aggressiveness. And other people have reported that they have been approached by dogs that have growled and bared teeth at them (or their dogs) on the property. On the other hand, a number of dog-owners have stated that in their experience dogs on leashes are more likely to be aggressive than unleashed dogs. I am aware of no instances in which a dog 63
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan has actually bitten a person or another dog at MRB, nor have there been any at Hiller Park (Traci Ferdolage, pers. comm.).
Options One issue is whether to allow dogs on the property at all. And, if they are allowed, should they be restricted from certain parts of the property? Basically, these questions relate to the resource protection concerns.
Another question is if dogs are allowed, should leashing be required? If so, should they be leashed at all times and in all places? At the opposite end of the spectrum, should they be allowed to run free at all times and in all parts of the property? The issues involved with these questions include visitor safety and the experience of other visitors, in addition to resource protection.
With regard to dogs, the options are: --prohibit dogs from the property (likely to be very unpopular with one of the main established user-groups) --allow dogs, but restrict from sensitive areas --allow dogs, but require that they be leashed at all times (again, likely to be unpopular) --allow dogs throughout the property, but require leashing in some areas, allow dogs unleashed in other areas --allow dogs unleashed throughout the property, but under voice control
Land trusts in other areas (and with a range of goals for the properties they own and manage) grapple with these choices as well. One land trust (with a 72-acre property) has a policy that leaves the unleashed/leashed decision to the individual dog owner—the “Welcome” sign informs dog owners that they are in the best position to make the decision about leashing, and the land trust reports that they have had no problems in 20 yrs. Other land trusts have instituted a “Green Dog Program”, or something similar (Slee 2002), whereby dogs are allowed on the property, but with certain conditions: --Dogs are prohibited from sensitive areas --Leashing is required in parking lots and on the main trail(s) --The land trust installs Dogipot stations, and owners must clean up after their pets --Each dog-owner purchases a $60 annual permit which allows entry (for up to 2 dogs) for the entire year; the permit includes the cost of a family membership to the land trust (to ensure they get newsletter, regulation information, etc.).
One drawback of implementing any program with restrictions (in this case, permitted access) is the issue of regulation and enforcement. Gaining general compliance (including payment of the fee) with the various elements of the program usually entails monitoring and enforcement, that is, having someone regularly patrol the area, check for people’s permits, hand out permit applications, etc. Decisions need to be made about how this would be accomplished (e.g. volunteer patrols, or hiring an off-duty police officer or security guard to occasionally patrol). Other questions include: What are the consequences if people come repeatedly without permit? How are one-time visitors handled?
64
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Liability Issues Numerous attempts were made to get specific information about liability, which could affect any decision with regard to dogs on the property. Specifically, I asked if MLT’s liability would be different if dogs are allowed or not allowed on property, and whether liability is different if the dogs are unleashed. I also asked if there would be a difference in MLT’s insurance costs if dogs are allowed on the property (and leashed vs. unleashed)? The insurance agent’s response (Meshenko pers. comm.) was that knowingly allowing unleashed dogs could be an issue in terms of retaining insurance coverage in the “current climate”, but in terms of liability, he recommended that MLT get specific information for California, looking at legal precedents and state case law. Coastal Commission staff and the Coastal Conservancy could not provide more specific information either. But the two agencies have published a report “Limits on Liability for Nonprofit Land Managers” (Grimm and Pierce 1997), which states that California has enlightened public access laws instituted to encourage, or at least not penalize, landowners for allowing public access to private property. In general, these regulations indemnify landowners who allow public access. And public entities and land trusts with “Section 831 agreements” with the Coastal Conservancy (which MLT has) are further indemnified. A series of Land Trust Alliance (LTA) articles, and the “Risk Management and Insurance” section under Standard 6: Financial and Asset Management chapter in LTA’s Standards & Practices Guidebook (Pring 1997) were also reviewed. My layman’s assessment is that if MLT allows unleashed dogs at MRB, it is not at greater risk in terms of liability exposure. However, before final decisions are made on this issue, I strongly recommend that MLT have a lawyer research the liability issue for them, and MLT should also review its insurance coverage.
There was also some question as to whether charging a dog-use fee would nullify MLT’s liability protection under state laws. In researching this issue, it seems that should MLT choose to pursue something like a “Green Dog Program” and charge a fee, there should not be any affect in terms of immunity from liability. Although protection offered under Section 846 would not apply if user fees are charged, under Government Code Section 831.5, a land trust (with a Section 831 agreement, which MLT has) “may charge users a fee to be on the land [but not to participate in ‘hazardous recreational activities’] and still be protected …” (Grimm and Pierce 1997). Since walking a dog is not listed as a hazardous recreational activity, it would seem that MLT would still be fully covered if they charge a fee for dog use on the property. Again, legal counsel should be consulted to determine whether this assessment is correct.
Recommendations: In the upland areas and bluff slope, it is recommended that MLT allow dogs to be unleashed, but require that they be voice-controlled (meaning they come the first time they’re called) and within view of owners at all times—for safety reasons and perhaps to protect wildlife. However, we should not fool ourselves into thinking that this will also necessarily always protect wildlife. One must recognize that even well-trained dogs (good dogs under voice control) can temporarily “forget” when they are loose with lots of new things happening, unusual stimuli, a variety of other dogs, or if they flush wildlife—in such circumstances, they may still chase and/or kill wildlife.
The river, dune and beach area is more problematic in terms of managing dogs. Without more information, however, it seems premature to impose restrictions. Monitoring of the situation is strongly recommended—including monitoring of pinniped/visitor interactions at haul-outs along the lower river. In addition, since the County now owns most of the beach/sandspit area west of 65
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan the river, it would be worth keeping up to date on the County’s draft beach plan; although it is still undecided what the County regulations regarding dogs on that beach property will be, that draft plan should be out around January, 2004 (Smith pers. comm.). If significant disturbance problems at the haul-out are occurring, increased efforts at educating the public on this issue would be a first step at solving it. However, in the absence of nesting plovers at MRB and without attempting to solve haul-out disturbance issues through education, it seems premature to consider restricting or prohibiting dog use on the lower part of the property at this time.
Although it is recommended that the policy for dog access to the river and beach area be the same as for the upland portion of the property at this time, the issue of dog use (and potential limitations on that use) should be identified as open-ended. MLT should let it be known that if problems develop as a result of unrestricted access to dogs (disturbance of/killing wildlife, aggressive behavior or biting, messes left by dogs, etc.), then the current policy will be revisited and perhaps changed (e.g. MLT might require that dogs be leashed, or prohibit dogs in certain areas entirely).
Regardless of what leashing policy or restrictions are chosen, if dogs are allowed on the property, the land trust should invest in several Dogipot stations and install them on the property (See Facilities section for descriptions, prices, sources of Dogipot stations, and for recommended locations for installing them at MRB).
To help defray the cost of purchasing and maintaining Dogipot stations and for the associated supplies, and other costs related to dog-use of the property (e.g. liability insurance), MLT should consider implementing a dog-use fee (similar to that in the “Green Dog” program) if doing so would not negatively affect the land trust’s liability exposure. The dog-use fee could include subscription to the land trust’s newsletter. The program would be most effective if coordinated with MCSD since people generally use both properties during any given recreational visit. At the public meeting in the fall, several nearby residents who walk their dogs at MRB indicated that they think the idea of a “Green Dog Program”-type permit for using the area should be acceptable to most dog owners. However, in deciding whether to implement such a program, MLT should first decide whether it is willing to make an effort to enforce the permit requirements--lack of enforcement may lead to bad will on the part of those who do comply (if those who have not paid still reap the same benefits). Alternatively, if a decision is made against a dog-use fee program, MLT could perhaps have a voluntary donation program—asking dog owners to voluntarily make financial contributions to help cover dog-related management costs.
Finally, it should be noted these recommendations were made using the information on liability coverage that I was able to obtain, as described above. Due to the possibility that some portion of this information may contain flaws, MLT is strongly urged to obtain confirmation from legal counsel on liability coverage.
Equestrian Use While equestrian use of the upland trails and the sand spit area does occur (based on hoofprints and manure on the trails), riders were never encountered on site visits and actual levels of this use are unknown. Horseback riding does not seem to be excessive at this time. However, if equestrian use increases substantially or if equestrian activity is focused on sensitive areas, 66
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan significant damage to resources could occur, as well as increasing the potential for conflicts with pedestrian use. I recommend that MLT continue to allow equestrian use at MRB, but with certain caveats and by permission only. MLT could issue individual permits that are free of charge, and valid for one year, renewable each year at the discretion of the land trust (somewhat like the public access permits issued by Simpson Timber Co.). Requiring a permit would allow MLT to gather information on current levels of use, and to gain some control over that use. The yearly renewal process need not be cumbersome and would enable MLT a regular period in which to disseminate new information (or reminders) and review user compliance (the possibility of having their permit revoked or not renewed would also provide added incentive for permitees to comply with regulations). The permit would include a brief section for the rider to fill out, with name, contact information, description of the horse(s), and a few questions regarding how often they ride at MRB, where they ride at MRB, plus space for suggestions or questions. It would also include a page of information to be kept by the permitee, with information on MLT, how to contact MLT, list of regulations for MRB including permissible trails and areas for horse use as well as areas where horses are prohibited, courtesy to pedestrians, etc. The permit process can also be an opportunity to spread information about MLT’s mission, enlist supporters and new volunteers willing to assist at MRB trail maintenance activities, clean-up days, etc.
In addition to initiating a permit system for equestrian use, I recommend that on the terrace, horses be limited to the main east/west trail leading to Hiller Park and the trail(s) leading from Hiller Park Loop Trail to the main east/west trail. At the current time, this would be the short section from the end of the grassy round (since the long grassy area leading from the east/west trail to the grassy round belongs to MCSD) leading to the Loop Trail, but depending on the site chosen by MCSD for the marsh(es), it could mean creating a trail along the eastern edge of the forest (avoiding one wet patch near the grassy round) leading from the main east/west trail to the Loop Trail (this is assuming MCSD does not provide access on marsh dikes or around the outer perimeter).
It is recommended that horses be prohibited in all other parts of the property, except the small segment of dunes and beach that is part of MRB. It does not seem appropriate to allow horses in the majority of the forest trails because of the narrowness of these trails (i.e. no room for horse to pass pedestrians without significant vegetation clearing to widen trails), and because recommendations are to retain forest trails without improvements to the trail surface (except in a couple of cases to fix isolated problems). To protect more fragile habitats along the base of the bluffs, horses should be prohibited between the bluff face (slope) and the eastern bank of the Mad River. Because of the sensitivity of the bluff-face habitat (steepness, erosion issues), no vertical access from the blufftops to the riverside and beach area should be allowed for equestrian use at MRB. Equestrians wishing to ride on the beach must access that area from other locations (e.g. Mad River County Park, Clam Beach).
If at any time, significant conflicts develop between pedestrian use and equestrian use, the issue of restricting or prohibiting equestrian use should be re-evaluated. Likewise, if at any time, equestrian use threatens resource protection or trail integrity in one or more areas, the issue of restricting or prohibiting equestrian use should be re-evaluated.
If a permit system is instituted, and MLT has a method of communicating with the horseback riders using MRB, it would be worthwhile to query them about what improvements they might like to have. 67
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Liability Although Government Code Section 831.4 provides public entities with immunity from liability for injuries caused by the condition of a trail used for a variety of recreational activities, horseback riding is a separate issue, because it is considered a “hazardous recreational activity”. But it is covered under Government Code Section 831.7—“Hazardous Recreational Activity”. Landowner liability is limited if the person claiming injury or damages is a participant in a hazardous recreational activity, an assistant to a participant, or a spectator. There are some exceptions to the immunity. The one issue in this regard that seems murky is whether there would be liability if a pedestrian is injured by a horse (ridden by someone else) on a trail at MRB; MLT should get legal counsel on that point.
Organizations/Agency Use It is clear that agencies and institutions already use MRB for their own research and/or monitoring purposes, often without any recognition of the property’s ownership. To my knowledge, none of their activities have been damaging in any way to resources or visitor experience at MRB. However, the potential for such incidents does exist. I would recommend that MLT commit some effort to outreach to local agencies, the university, etc. to inform them of MRB’s location, MLT’s ownership of the property, MLT’s mission and its goals for MRB, and to encourage them to contact MLT if they have an interest in using the property. As long as an organization’s proposed activity does not pose a threat to either visitor experience or resource protection at the site, it is recommended that MLT allow agency or institutional use as long as that use is coordinated with MLT. This would be particularly important for any activities that run counter to the rules and regulations posted for visitors. MLT could institute a more formalized research permit system; potential permittees would submit a brief explanation of their proposed research activity, responsibilities and expectations of permittees would be outlined in the permit, and MLT would generally approve the permint as long as it would not damage resources or impact visitor use/enjoyment of the area. Regardless of whether MLT implements a research permit system, MLT should require institutional users to provide periodic updates, and copies of any publications, reports, etc. that pertain to information collected at the property, as well as assurance of acknowledgement to MLT for use of the property in conducting their research and/or monitoring efforts. In addition, MLT should also welcome and encourage local nonprofit organizations to conduct community education activities at MRB that match MLT’s mission and goals. For example, California Native Plant Society might lead walks at MRB that focus on native plant identification, and the Audubon Society could lead birdwatching trips to the property.
68
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
FACILITIES
At this time, no facilities exist at MRB other than trails (see Figure 2).
TRAIL SYSTEM The main trails at MRB have been in the same location for several years. About a decade ago, soil testing for a proposed subdivision development (Sierra National Trust) was done using a backhoe, an activity that widened the main trail significantly. Then, just a few years ago, the next landowners (Burchett and Frazier) cut a trail for additional surveys along the east boundary and a trail about 50 feet back from the edge of the bluff. Some of the currently existing trails now follow that cutting line. According to nearby residents, the location of spur trails, which connect main trails to the bluff edge or to other secondary trails change from year to year. In 2001, the California Conservation Corps improved the drainage and surface of the main east/west trail on both MLT and MCSD properties.
MLT should have a discussion, including a site visit, with MCSD staff (i.e. the Manager and the Director of Parks & Recreation) to clarify and confirm joint property boundaries. Though there appears to be consensus about general location of the boundaries, from my own reconnaissance and site visit with the surveyor who surveyed the property for previous owners, it appears that on the backside (north) of the sewer treatment facility, the actual boundary is less than 10 ft. from MCSD’s chain-link fence (we also found what appeared to be original survey flagging). MCSD, however, seems to believe the boundary is approximately 100 ft. beyond that point (Marking, pers. comm.) and has been managing that area for its own purposes. The area in dispute includes a stretch of the Hiller Loop Trail, and the southern end of the spur trail leading to the Goodyera Glade and NBT2. In addition, MCSD had beach pine snags cut down in this area this spring (2003).
Overview of Planned Trail System As described in much greater detail in the “Public Access” chapter, it is the intent of this plan to facilitate recreational hiking, biking, and to a limited extent, horseback riding at MRB, as well as provide better public access to the river and beach. It is recommended that pedestrians have primary consideration, and access to all trails. In the south half of the forest, both the main north/south forest trail and the forest loop trail should be retained. In the northern half of the property, the northern spur connecting the grassy round to the Hiller Loop Trail should be retained, as should the spur trail from the Hiller Loop Trail to the Goodyera Glade. In addition, several short trail segments to designated scenic overlooks should be retained. All of the trails through the forest are narrow and surfaced only with forest soil and duff. The recommendation is to largely keep them as they currently exist (e.g. make no change to the earthen trail surface) and for them to be used exclusively by pedestrians. Bicyclists and equestrians would have access to the main east/west trail to connect with Hiller Loop Trail and the Hammond Trail to the east, and possibly a northern spur trail connecting with the Hiller Loop Trail (depending on MCSD’s trail design around the planned marsh). The main east/west trail would also be handicap-accessible from the Ocean Dr. entrance to the eastern boundary (and hopefully MCSD will have it continue all the way to the Hiller Park parking lot), as would the southern scenic overlook (SO2). Although vertical access route(s) should be maintained or improved to facilitate visitor safety and reduce erosion, no trails would be developed westward beyond the bottom of the bluffs.
69
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan Recommended changes to trail system and facilities at Mad River Bluffs
NBT3/NO3 B
NBT2/NO2 B Goodyera Glade
NBT1
NO1 Hiller Loop Spur
B (or P),D grassy round
long meadow
South Trail -
S06 B Main North
SBT2 S05 S04 SBT1/S03 -West Trail Main East S02 P S01 D,K
= multi-use/handicap accessible trail = retained existing trails = trails/overlooks to decommission = MRB boundaries = existing MCSD trails P = picnic area B = bench K = entrance kiosk Figure 6. 70 D = Dogipot station Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
As envisioned in this plan, the trail network would largely consist of existing trails, with some changes (described in greater detail, beginning on next page) and would include: 1. Main East/West Trail connecting MRB to Hiller Park and Hammond Trail; this existing trail would be upgraded for multipurpose, handicap-accessibility 2. Main North/South Trail (existing) through the southern half of the forest 3. Forest Loop Trail to detour around the winter/spring pond at the base of a large spruce and connect back up with the main forest trail (existing) 4. East Boundary Trail: only if MCSD marsh design does not include footpaths running north/south on the perimeter dike (through what is now the “long meadow”), then develop a trail along the eastern boundary at forest edge to connect main east/west trail with the “grassy round” and the Hiller Loop Spur trail leading to Hiller Loop Trail 5. Hiller Loop Spur: trail from north end of grassy round to connect with Hiller Loop Trail (existing, but upgrade surface); (alternatively, MLT could construct a continuation of the main north/south forest trail from the grassy round straight up to the Goodyera Glade, but this would be a relatively intensive undertaking) 6. Handicap-accessible spur trail to southern scenic overlook (existing, but not handicap- accessible) 7. Spur trails to bench/scenic overlooks at bluff edge (existing) 8. Spur trail to Goodyera Glade (and northern vertical access route #2) (existing) 9. Handicap-accessible spur trail from main east/west trail to picnic area 10. Southern Bluff Trail (SBT1): vertical access route at south end of property for river access (existing, but needs maintenance) 11. Northern Bluff Trail: vertical access route at north end of property for river/beach access (either Northern Bluff-face Trail #2 or #3)(existing, but needs work)
Other existing trails and spur trails (see Figure 6) should be decommissioned, working from south to north. Attempts to decommission vertical access routes before appropriate trail maintenance or improvements are completed (on Southern Bluff Trail and Northern Bluff Trail) are unlikely to be successful. Users will continue to use those routes until a preferable alternative that meets their needs (drier, less slippery, safer, leads to places they want to go) is provided. Thus, after work on the southern vertical access route is completed, the other southern bluff-face trails should be decommissioned and revegetated. Likewise, after one of the northern vertical access routes is chosen and stabilized, the other northern bluff-face trails can be decommissioned.
There is not much of a difference in Humboldt County requirements between developing new trails and improving existing trails (Tom Hofweber, pers. comm., and review of Humboldt County’s Planning Division website); in the coastal zone, the permit process and associated “fiery hoops” are intense for both. As a first step, I would recommend seeking a waiver from the county or from the Coastal Commission, emphasizing that the intent is mostly to improve public safety and reduce bluff-edge erosion problems on existing trails, and actual trail development will be limited to very short segments on degraded grassland and possibly through a berry patch on the edge of a degraded grassland. If a waiver is not obtained, trail work triggers the need for a Coastal Development Permit (permit application, attachment G). There is a significant fee for Coastal Zone permits and the process takes a minimum of six to nine months (Hofweber pers. comm.). MLT should plan with this timeline in mind when contemplating target dates for initiating trail projects.
71
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Blufftop Trails Main East/West Trail To continue accommodating the diversity of types of use for the main east/west trail, this trail should be widened (minimum of 5 feet) and the surface profile flattened out to facilitate 2 people walking together or people passing in different directions. The trail should also be made handicap-accessible, which will involve hardening the trail surface. These upgrades could all be done as one project at one time, rather than widening the trail at one point, and later hardening the surface. Since this can be a costly proposition, MLT should try to get grant funds for this.
Providing a hardened trail surface generally requires incorporating stone aggregate in some sort of a base. When choosing material(s) for the hardened surface in a natural area like MRB, for aesthetics, it is best to minimize the contrast between the trail surface and the natural surroundings; choosing aggregate of a color similar to the color of the soil at the site would be ideal, but availability of local rock and haul rates must also be considered. Asphalt or concrete pavement seems out of context in a natural setting, and is not the preferred option. In the last decade, a new possibility called “resin pavement” has become available; resin pavement is made using a “unique high strength, tree-resin based binder with durability and all-weather support characteristics similar to asphalt” but without petroleum ingredients (Soil Stabilization Products 1999). Resin pavement is marketed as an environmentally-friendly solution to surfacing trails in sensitive natural areas and for making them compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as providing a more natural looking trail surface. According to the manufacturer, resin pavement has been used successfully in a variety of parks and natural areas, including Glacier National Park and Pinnacles National Monument. Guidelines for using resin pavement recommend use of high quality, dense graded aggregate materials with the ROAD OYL binder for optimal pavement strength and durability (research by Partners for Access to the Woods on resin pavement made by mixing the binder with local soils instead of stone aggregate indicates that may also perform well). Aggregate rock base is put in place and compacted, then resin pavement mixtures are cold applied. Paving machines are typically used for placement and steel drum rollers for compaction, but, if necessary, the work can be done with hand-tools. (e.g. in Pinnacles N.M., trail crews hauled enough aggregate base rock for a two-inch base and the resin pavement mix into the trail site in wheelbarrows, the aggregate was placed and compacted. The resin pavement mix was placed with hand tools and compacted for a two-inch thick trail). More information on this product can be obtained from Soil Stabilization Products Company, Inc. at P.O. Box 2779, Merced, CA 95344-0779; (800) 523-9992 or by visiting their website: www.sspco.org.
If MLT decides to harden the main east/west trail (in cooperation with MCSD), there will be another level of responsibility with regard to liability (under Section 831.4)—for paved trails, the public entity must “reasonably attempt to provide adequate warnings” of a condition that creates a “hazard to health or safety”, a requirement that also implies making reasonable, periodic inspections to identify any new hazards.
East Boundary Trail The site chosen for MCSD’s new marsh(es), will almost certainly include the long meadow along the boundary with MRB. What is still uncertain is whether MCSD will provide a new trail to replace the existing social trail through the long meadow that will be inundated by the marsh. MCSD is considering developing a trail on the eastern edge of the marsh (perhaps on the dike). 72
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
However, if this does not occur, MLT should consider creating a trail available for horse use as well as pedestrians and bicyclists along the MRB eastern boundary (avoiding one wet patch in the forest near the grassy round) that would lead from the main east/west trail to the Hiller Loop Spur, providing access to Hiller Loop Trail. This is the less ideal option, since the trail would have to be constructed inside the forest edge (given the location of the boundary line) and it would not provide views of the marsh.
Main North/South Forest Trail Only one project has been identified for the main north/south forest trail; it would affect only a short segment of the trail in the southern half of the property. At that site, a spring or seep appears to originate immediately east of the trail, and over time this has resulted in the development of a significant (approximately 5 ft. deep) wet depression in the trail; compaction by foot/bike traffic and associated lack of vegetation here has exacerbated erosion at the site. Although this site could be left as it is, a small trail project here could improve both visitor safety (it is slippery) and accessibility (less agile visitors are unable to navigate in and out of the depression) and halt the damage to the spring. Several options are available. A short puncheon bridge could be built; the downside would be that construction costs are more than for other options and it would increase long-term maintenance costs since a bridge would require replacement at least every decade (Caulkins pers. comm.). Alternatively this section of the trail could be closed, though this does not seem to be a viable option--users would likely continue to use it or clear a new path through the area. A third alternative would be to reroute the trail around that one small site; given the apparent location of the spring head, the trail would only need to be diverted a few feet to the east to circumnavigate it. This option would only require minor brush cutting (salal, huckleberry) and then completion with a hardened surface of gravel (Caulkins, pers. comm.). In this case, a short reroute appears to be the best option.
Hiller Loop Spur A second trail project would be to upgrade the surface of the northern spur trail leading from the grassy round to the Hiller Loop Trail. The trail surface currently is wet and mucky for a large part of the year; as visitors attempt to avoid the mud, they go around the trail, creating an increasingly wide muddy swath denuded of vegetation. The trail surface could be raised slightly and surfaced with gravel. If horses are not allowed to be on the trail MCSD builds to replace the footpath through the long meadow (which will be obliterated by the marsh), then the Hiller Loop Spur should be surfaced with horse use in mind. This project would best be implemented after MCSD completes construction of its new marsh, since construction will possibly impact this area. This project should also be done in conjunction with MCSD since part of the trail (the more problematic part) is actually on MCSD property.
Vertical Access Routes (Bluff-face Trails) to River/Beach Many people use existing “social” trails down the bluff-face to gain access to the river, including surfers who then paddle across the river to the beach. For this reason, social trails developed in most of the draws where runoff and/or springs emptied down the bluff-face to the river below. Use of these bluff-face trails compacts the soil, and further concentrates the run-off in these channels, exacerbating erosion. Since springs or seeps exist in many of these areas, the trails are wet much of the year, making them messy, slippery and potentially hazardous to traverse. In 73
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan addition, the upper portions of most of the routes are quite steep. For all of these reasons, the existing trails are not ideal routes for river access. However, after many site visits, discussions with visitors, and a public meeting, it is clear that people will continue to use these trails or find/make other ways to get down the bluffs to the river if acceptable alternative routes are not provided. Upgrading one or more vertical access routes with erosion control measures seems the best option.
Unless absolutely necessary, the goal in this plan with regard to vertical access routes is to avoid impacting and cutting trails through new bluff-slope areas. Therefore, with the input of the local CCC leader (Johnny Caulkins) and trails staff from the California Dept. of Parks and Recreation (Steve Fisher), the recommendation is to upgrade two bluff-face trails, one at the south end and one at the north end of the property, and designate them as the official vertical access routes. Once the southern point is upgraded, all other existing bluff-face trails in the southern half of the property should be blocked off and decommissioned. The vertical access routes are designed and intended for pedestrian use only (no bikes or horses). As always, MLT should get legal counsel on legal issues, but in reviewing Coastal Conservancy and Coastal Commission literature, it appears that since MLT is covered under Government Code Section 831, MLT would not be increasing its liability exposure by upgrading any of the existing bluff-face trails, and thus, by implication, inviting the public to use them. However, MLT would then be required to regularly inspect and maintain these upgrades; if MLT does not and someone were to be injured as a result, there would be liability.
In the winter and spring of 2003, some of the trails down the bluffs were very wet for extended distances at the lower reaches of the trails. Based on their years of trail-building experience, Johnny Caulkins and Steve Fischer helped evaluate existing trails down the bluff-face. The following are summary descriptions of the existing bluff trails:
Southern Bluff Trail #1 (SBT1);(Southernmost Bluff Trail) This access point is currently used by walkers to get to the riverbank, but also often used by surfers and occasionally by kayakers to get into the river itself. It is usually dry at the base, but after a series of torrential winter storms, water continued to trickle down the trail corridor (making it a bit mucky and slick) for a considerable period of time. This trail is not excessively steep, but would require a staircase at the top. Materials for the trail work would only need to be hauled a short distance from the Ocean Dr. entrance. The only negative with this trail is that, depending on tides, river height/season, (and the amount of future bank erosion), this trail may only provide access along the river bank to the south, but only for several 100 ft. north. Since, at times, this trail does not provide access to the generally-used river-crossing point at the northern part of the property, this bluff trail alone would probably not be sufficient to meet public demand. The top of this trail is also a good scenic overlook (SO#3).
Southern Bluff Trail #2 (SBT2);(Gully Trail) This access point is only a short distance from the southernmost bluff trail. At the top, this trail is less steep than SBT1, and is thus a preferable route in that regard. But a spring is associated with this trail and the lower half of the trail is almost perennially wet (e.g. standing water at the end of June); at some times of the year, standing water can be four or more inches deep in places, so boardwalked stairs would be required for much of the route. Even if a drain lens were put in, the fine sediments would clog it (Caulkins and Fisher pers. comm.). As with the previous trail, at times, this trail does not provide access to the generally-used river-crossing point at the 74
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan northern part of the property. Two trails in such close proximity, leading basically to the same destination point are not needed, and since this trail has more inherent problems than the southernmost trail, this one should be decommissioned. Near the top of the trail, the bluff has retreated and the sides are eroding, mostly from people climbing up and down the sides. When this trail is decommissioned, a short buck-and-rail fence should be installed on the blufftop on the north side of the trail wall to discourage use of that “route” until shrubby vegetation (to be planted) obscures the gully from view. The short spur trail running east from this location should also be decommissioned at the same time.
Northern Bluff Trail #1 (NBT1) This trail is very wet at the lower end and has obvious tidal inflow, making any efforts to fix the trail problematic. Because of the boggy nature of the lower section, a long boardwalk would be needed to improve access here; if wooden, the boardwalk would rot quickly in the moist environment and would need to be replaced frequently. In addition, because of tidal influence, water would likely float the trail structures (boardwalk) away on a regular basis. For these reasons, this trail is not a viable option for retention as a vertical access point.
Northern Bluff Trail #2 (NBT2) (Goodyera Glade Bluff Trail): The trail spur leading from the Hiller Loop Trail to the existing bluff-face trail passes through a large colony of Goodyera oblongiflora (rattlesnake plantain, a native orchid) in the forested “glade” on the blufftop; this group of Goodyera is more dense and with larger numbers of plants than is usual for this plant—it can be considered a local “hot spot” for this species, and impacts to it are a concern with regard to trail improvements and/or maintenance here (see Recommendatios” subsection). The Goodyera Glade Bluff Trail is heavily used by people to reach a long stretch of riverbank and to get to the shallowest part of the river (currently, the mouth of the Mad River is due west of this site) to cross to the beach. Use of this trail is a testament to level of public demand for river and coastal access since the upper section is very steep--almost completely vertical. The loose duff and soil on the steep upper section continues to be eroded by foot traffic. On the flat section at the base of bluff, one short stretch of the trail is wet, but the rest is relatively dry most of the year. To improve access, this trail would require a retaining wall of some type (either wooden or cellular confinement) at the top, with full crib steps (which eventually rot out and need replacement) and hand rails. Labor would be expensive, largely due to the distance materials would have to be hauled in wheelbarrows. Alternatively, a cable ladder and wood steps could be installed. This would also have to be filled with rock, and would look similar to the cable steps at Houda Point (Figure 7), but at Houda Pt. they’re in a deep gully where Figure 7. Cable steps at Houda they work well. In addition, since the trail has a small Point in nearby Trinidad. boggy area at the bottom, a short punchion over it could be considered. Sloughing from the base of the bluffs occurred during a series of torrential winter storms in December 2002 and January 2003. During and after these storms, ocean waves came in through the (then greatly expanded) mouth of the river, and battered the eastern riverbank and 75
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan base of the bluffs. A great swath of sand and debris was deposited at the western terminus of the trail and all along this stretch of riverbank; also, a large amount of small woody debris then covered the trail floor (in the ivy-laden area) from the western terminus to halfway to the toe of the bluff, this was underlaid by a thin layer of water and it was soggy and wet underneath for awhile. This series of storms was severe in intensity, so this is likely a reasonable “worst case” scenario test, and suggests the best option with regard to this trail might be to upgrade the upper, steeper section of the trail, but leave the western 1/3 of the flat part leading to the riverbank “as is”. If the mouth of the river migrates south, the crossing point at the river will likely still be useable, but if the river migrates north again, this access point may no longer be a feasible place to cross to the beach.
Northern Bluff Trail #3 (NBT3) (Northernmost Bluff Trail) and NO3 This site is several hundred feet north of the Goodyera Glade Bluff Trail and can be accessed either on a trail along the bluff top that connects this site with the Goodyera Glade Trail, or directly from the MCSD’s Hiller Loop Trail. At the top of the bluff where the trail starts, there is a nice wide spot with a perfect view of the mouth of the river and the ocean beyond. It would make a good overlook point, complete with a bench.
Johnny Caulkins thinks this is the best site for a northern trail accessing the riverside area. He thinks the soils at this site appear to be very stable, more so than at the Goodyera Glade Bluff Trail. Also, the bluff isn’t as high here (256 inches rise) as at the Goodyera Glade Bluff Trail, and the gradient isn’t nearly as steep, especially at the top end. Despite the facultative wetland flora at the toe of the bluff here, the base of this site is much drier even in the worst winter storms of 2002/2003. I agree that this is the best site from a “construction” and maintenance perspective, but I do have some concerns about directing more foot traffic (there is already a small social trail here) to this area because of the little “glade” (skunk cabbage, Carex, Polypodiums, etc.) at the base of this site, which could be easily destroyed by trampling. If the mouth of the river migrates north a short distance, this vertical access route could have the same problems after winter storms that have been detected this year at the Goodyera Glade Bluff Trail.
Ravine Trail This trail does not lead to the banks of the Mad River, but down to the deeply-incised, unnamed creek at the north end of the property. Unlike the other vertical access routes, this trail is not wet and does not appear to be associated with any springs. Though steep and narrow, it does not cut straight down and does not seem to be eroding. The spur trail leading to it connects with the Hiller Loop Trail, but is narrow and overgrown. It does not appear to be heavily used.
Recommendations The following recommendations are the result of site visits and discussions with Johnny Caulkins (CCC) and Steve Fischer (California Dept. of Parks and Recreation), and approach improving coastal access in two phases. Since it has been determined that vertical access trails do exist that could reasonably be modified to improve access and protect resources, no new vertical access routes were investigated or proposed for development (it does not make sense to disturb an entirely new stretch of bluff-top and slope).
Phase One Upgrade the southernmost trail (SBT1) down the bluff face and as soon as that is done, decommission the next (SBT2) trail down the bluff face. SBT1 is the best option of all the 76
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan existing trails going down the bluff face in terms of cost effectiveness and resource protection. This trail will be the least problematic and the least expensive, and could be done using half crib steps (interlocking steps) in the top section and cable steps at the toe —which would look similar to the trail at Houda Pt. To do the best job on it, it might require removing one or a few small (shrub sized) shore pines at the top (which would by no means approach the vegetation removal threshold in county regulations).
Figure 8. Diagram of crib steps (above) and cable steps (below). Drawings courtesy of California Conservation Corps.
77
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
The estimated cost for materials for this trail project is $2,500. The CCC should have money from the Park Bond Act, if the state allocates it. Johnny Caulkins estimates that labor for this project would be about 3 weeks, or $16,000 (about ½ of what they are supposed to receive from the bond). That being the case, he said that the CCC is willing to provide ALL the labor for this trail work at NO COST to MLT. However, this money is for this fiscal year (2003) only, and if MLT wants to do this project, they should identify whether organization finances will support the cost of materials and then coordinate with Johnny Caulkins to get this project scheduled on the CCC calendar. After discussion with Tom Hofweber (planner with Humboldt County) and review of county regulations, it does not appear that this project could be done without triggering permit requirements, acquisition of which would take at least six to nine months. In order to get this project done in the time frame in which CCC funds are available (and thus, the only way it can be done in the foreseeable future), MLT should immediately request a waiver from the County or from the Coastal Commission.
Along with the actual trail work, warning signs (see “Warning Signs” in “Sign Content” section of “Public Education and Outreach” chapter) should be made and installed at the top of the bluff. The signs would need to be ready to put in place as soon as trail work begins. Also included in Phase One is rehabilitating the next bluff-face trail (SBT2) once work on the southernmost trail is completed. The idea is that once the southernmost trail is made easier to use, there won’t be a need for visitors to use the other nearby bluff-face trails. They should be barricaded with natural materials (downed tree limbs or, temporarily—until revegetation is complete—short buck-and- rail fencing) and replanted with native vegetation so that they can recover.
Phase Two This is a longer-term project for several reasons, mainly due to cost considerations. But MLT should consider retaining one of the northernmost trails down the bluff face. People use the existing northern bluff-face trails to get to the narrow and shallow part of the river (crossable at times) and cross to the beach. See Appendix E for cost estimates for northern bluff trail projects; comparisons between wooden wall and cellular confinement wall versions of the Goodyera Glade Bluff Trail vertical access route are provided.
Option A --Northern Bluff Trail #2 (“Goodyera Glade Bluff Trail.”) This project would require either a free-standing wall or a cellular confinement wall at the upper end; either one would have full crib steps.
Wooden Wall and Full Crib Steps A free-standing wall (requiring no excavation—and not impacting the bank at all) would need to be 5 ft. thick with gravel fill. This 1700 ft. wall would require approximately 325 cubic yards of gravel fill. It would also require approximately 68 steps (each 8 inches high), for a total of 45 ft., plus a 14-inch landing on each step for a total of 80 feet. In a worst-case scenario, all materials, including gravel fill, would have to be hauled a substantial distance in wheelbarrows—either 2,650 ft. or 2,750 ft., depending on whether one hauls from the Hiller Park parking lot or the Ocean Dr. entrance (with labor for hauling alone costing approximately $46,650).
Cellular Confinement Wall and Full Crib Steps. This seems like a viable alternative. Instead of a wooden wall, it uses a honeycomb plastic material (polypropylene) that is filled with rock or gravel, and then jute fabric is laid over it and covered with fill (generally topsoil). Plants can be grown on top of it, and the structure is not 78
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan seen at all. The honeycomb material is supposed to have a lifespan of 100 years, as long as it is not exposed to sunlight (UV), which is why it is buried and protected by the fabric and soil. Thus protected, it should far outlast a wooden structure. Using cellular confinement structure would still require the same amount of gravel fill, plus an additional 65 yards of cover fill (topsoil). With the additional topsoil material, an additional 2.5 days of hauling is also required. However, this additional cost ($3,380) is outweighed by the diminished labor costs of building the structure which can be done at ¼ the cost of the wooden structure, instead of $22,800 in labor for construction, it would cost $5,700. Cellular confinement structures are in place at Vista Point in McKinleyville, Ossagon Trail (Redwood National & State Parks), Clintonia Trail about 2 miles in from Irvine Trail (Redwood National and State Parks), and a huge one at Richardson’s Grove. Steve Fischer has slides of the construction of the cellular confinement structure at Richardson Grove and he would be willing to show it to the MLT board of directors if they are interested.
For either choice, labor for hauling materials to the construction site is the major cost of this project, and could be greatly reduced if the haul distance could be reduced. For this reason, I approached Tom Marking, the MCSD manager, about the possibility of MCSD allowing vehicles to drive on MCSD property to shorten the haul distance. Mr. Marking has indicated that this is a viable option and that MCSD would be willing to allow such use. If MLT chooses to work on Northern Bluff Trail #2 and is ready before summer 2004, then it will be possible to drive on the long meadow to its northern terminus, shortening the haul distance to approximately 1,000 ft. (with labor cost for hauling reduced to approximately $17,450). After MCSD constructs its marsh facility on the long meadow (estimated to occur in summer 2004), another alternative will still be available, according to Mr. Marking—namely driving on the dikes of the marsh or if necessary, through the sewer treatment facility on the maintenance dikes around the ponds’ perimeters. Distances for hauling in this case would actually be slightly shorter than for driving to the end of the long meadow, so labor costs would be slightly less.
If this bluff trail is maintained or improved, care should be taken to avoid damage to the rattlesnake plantain colony on the blufftop terrace at this location. Specifically, fill and other materials should not be dumped or stored there for construction, and workers should minimize trampling damage by staying on the existing spur trail to the site as much as possible.
Option B—Northernmost Bluff Trail (NBT3) There are several ways that this project could be done. It could be done all in full crib steps (see Figure 8), of which there would need to be 32 (steps). Or, the trail could have a very mild descent to the large spruce tree at the natural landing, make a turn and switchback once, leading to 16 steps at the lower, steeper end. Or, the trail could be done all in switchbacks. The drawback of having the trail be constructed only of steps is that it will be more costly, both initially and in terms of future maintenance. The drawback of a set of switchbacks is that people are likely to “cut” between switchbacks and go straight down since it isn’t excessively steep. The best option is probably to do the half-switchback at the top and 16 steps at the lower end.
This project would require a short stretch of retaining wall (14 ft. horizontal distance by 32 inches tall) at the natural landing near the top, which would mean about 100 ft. of 4 x 8 boards. In addition, 12 ft. of 4 x 8 lumber is needed per stair. Johnny Caulkins estimated that to do this project would take about 2 crew weeks (this is assuming vehicular access through MCSD 79
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan property so that haul distances are quite short). He provided a rough estimate of $1,600 in materials for the project, plus about $10,000 in labor.
If this site is developed, a narrow trail (less than two ft. in width) is recommended for the upper portion; the stairs could be wider if desired. Also, the large spruce tree at the upper landing should be protected from damage during construction (i.e. avoid cutting major roots, or piling fill above current soil level.
Regardless of whether Option A or Option B is chosen, warning signs (see “Warning Signs” in “Sign Content” section of “Public Education and Outreach” chapter) should be made and installed at the top of the bluff. Also included in Phase Two is rehabilitating the two other bluff- face trails in the north, once the designated bluff trail is completed. The idea is that once that trail is made easier to use, there won’t be a need for visitors to use the other nearby bluff-face trails. They should be barricaded with natural materials (downed tree limbs or or, temporarily— until revegetation is complete—short buck-and-rail fencing) and replanted with native vegetation so that they can recover. Northern bluff trail #1 is also associated with a very nice scenic overlook; it is recommended that the trail leading to the overlook and the overlook itself be retained, and just the very steep, mucky trail down the bluff-slope be rehabilitated.
SCENIC OVERLOOKS/BENCHES Basically, there are no bad views from the bluff-tops at MRB (Figure 9). Users have created a series of unofficial spur trails leading to the bluff edge and have cleared brush on the edge to provide scenic overlooks. Overlooks in the southern half of the property are identified with the prefix “SO” and numbered starting from south to north; likewise, overlooks in the northern half of the property are identified “NO” and numbered from south to north (see Figure 6). The recommendation is to retain most of these sites as official scenic overlooks, but the bluff-face trails associated with some of them would be decommissioned and vegetation allowed to grow back on the slope in those places. Several visitors have mentioned an interest in having places to sit and rest Figure 9. View from scenic overlook with the mouth of the Mad River at MRB. Three sites have and Trinidad Head in the background. been selected as possible locations for benches (identified “B” on Figure 6) in association with scenic overlooks, plus another possible site at the grassy round.
80
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Southern Overlook #1 (SO1): The southernmost existing scenic overlook is very close to the last house on Ocean Dr., and for this reason (to be good neighbors), it is not a desirable site for an official scenic overlook; it should be decommissioned and revegetated.
Southern Overlook #2 (SO2): This overlook is close to SO1. Many people visit this overlook, though the scope of river and beach visible from this site is not as broad as from Southern Overlook #3. It is one of the two best possibilities for a site for a handicap-accessible overlook. This site is closer to the main east/west trail and would be more cost effective (less trail distance to upgrade the trail surface on) than the other possible site. If this site is chosen for the handicap- accessible scenic overlook, a railing would be required at the edge.
Southern Overlook #3 (SO3): This overlook is also the site of the bluff-face trail (SBT1) recommended for retention. The overlook at the south side of the trail is spacious enough for it to be converted to being handicap-accessible if the section of forest trail leading to it were widened and hardened. If it is selected for the handicap-accessible scenic overlook (instead of SO2), a railing would be required at the edge.
Southern Overlooks #4 (SO4) and #5 (SO5): These two are in close proximity to each other. They are nice sites covered by a canopy of trees, providing some protection from wind and rain.
Southern Overlook #6 (SO6): This overlook is under a canopy of trees and is a shady, somewhat sheltered site. It provides a nice view of the river mouth. This would be a good location for a bench positioned to face the best view which (from here) is toward Trinidad Head. The bench could be set well back from the edge (there is no understory vegetation). It appears that someone has been climbing down the edge of the bluff (very steep) here and creating erosion problems. A low barrier near the edge might be appropriate, and low-growing vegetation re-established along the edge.
Northern Overlook #1 (NO1): This overlook provides a wonderful view of the river and ocean, and should be retained. However, the bluff-face trail (NBT1) that starts at this site should be decommissioned.
Northern Overlook #2 (NO2): This overlook is almost directly in line with the current position of the mouth of the river, though the view is partly obscured by the large spruce tree at the edge. It is also the starting point for Northern Bluff Trail #2 (NBT2), which is one of the northern vertical access routes that could be upgraded. Even if MLT decides to develop the far northern vertical access route (NBT3) instead, this scenic overlook should be retained (though the trail down the bluff should be decommissioned), with a bench placed back from the edge.
Northern Overlook #3 (NO3): NO3 has an excellent view of the lower river and the mouth. It is also the starting point for NBT3, which is one of the northern vertical access routes that could be upgraded. Even if MLT decides to develop NBT2 instead, this scenic overlook could be retained (though the trail down the bluff would be decommissioned), with a bench (facing southwest) placed back from the edge.
Grassy Round If a picnic area is not located at the grassy round, then a pair of benches could be installed at one edge of the mown grass (or restored prairie, if that option is pursued). The benches could be 81
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan situated to face the MRB forest (west) or situated to face MCSD’s constructed marsh, if the marsh will be visible from the elevation of the grassy round (it might not be if there are elevated dikes around the perimeter).
Types of Benches Pilot Rock (www.pilotrock.com) has several bench designs that would be suitable for MRB. The most comfortable one is their “Contour Bench”(PWRB/G-6CO) with an angled back and seat for comfortable back support (Figure 10, below). It is available in 4 ft., 6 ft. or 8 ft. lengths, with choice of several types of wood for the seat and back (6 ft. contour bench is approximately $520 including shipping). The bench also available in 100% recycled plastic “timbers” in a variety of colors (6 ft. recycled plastic bench is approximately $500 including shipping). Another attractive recycled plastic alternative from Pilot Rock is the RBB/N-6C26 (Figure 10 below).
Figure 10. Contour bench (left) and recycled plastic bench (right).
Both the frame and the planks are molded from 100% recycled plastic (post-consumer and post- industrial plastics) and are available in 9 colors. A UV stabilizer is added to protect the plastic from fading. “Recycled plastic is highly resistant to corrosion, chemicals, insects, fungus, sunlight, and …salt…Recycled plastic components are so dense they deter vandalism. Even paint and marker graffiti can be removed.” (Pilot Rock website). Whichever style of bench is chosen, they should be anchored to the ground (anchor systems are available from Pilot Rock).
82
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
PICNIC AREA(S) MLT should consider developing a small picnic area, with two picnic tables and a garbage can. Such a site could be used not only by picnicking families/individuals, but also by small groups as a focal point for educational events or a lunch site during volunteer work-days. MLT and other organizations can lead nature walks, plant identification workshops, nature-based art classes, etc., and use the tables for work stations, displaying materials, or re-grouping for a meal.
The recommended location for the picnic area is in the grassland near the southeastern end of the property (see Figure 6). In the interest of being a good neighbor, the picnic area should not be sited too near the back fence of the neighboring residence on Hiller Rd.; it would be best situated just a short distance from the main east/west trail. To connect the picnic area to the main east/west trail, in the short term, a path through the grass could be kept mown. In the longer term, a short spur trail with a hardened surface could be constructed to make it handicap accessible. The area immediately around the picnic tables also should be kept mown during the growing season. Since sunny days are frequently blustery along the coast, a windscreen (or pair of them) could be built to block prevailing winds (north to northwest from March-October; southwest the other months) and create a more benign picnicking environment. The windscreens could be of wood or plexiglass; plexiglass would become dirty, but would still allow approaching people to see through it (e.g. it could not be used to hide behind); if wood is used, it should be raised up above ground level by one to two feet.
An alternative location to consider for a picnic area is the grassy round at the end of the long meadow. It is also sunny and somewhat protected from the wind by the adjacent forest. Amenities would be the same as for the picnic area above (two tables, one garbage can), but this site would not be handicap-accessible. However, suitability of this location for this purpose will depend on the design of MCSD’s marshes.
Picnic tables are not recommended for any of the bluff overlook sites or in the forest. For one thing, it will be a more pleasant picnicking experience to have some windbreak between the winds blowing in from the ocean rather than try to picnic on the very exposed and windy bluff- top edge (despite the gorgeous view). Secondarily, picnic tables tucked away in the forest might encourage persons to use them as a base for an illicit campsite. Picnic tables out in the open, in full view of main trails are less likely to inspire such attempts. For the same reason, covered (roofed) picnic areas are not recommended.
A garbage can should be installed at the same time as the picnic tables. The garbage can should be anchored in place (e.g. on cement pad), supported off the ground to keep it dry and prevent the bottom from rusting, and should have a lid that can be secured in place. Pilot Rock has a variety of trash receptacle choices that fit these needs, including some trash receptacle holders made from 100% recycled plastic (see: www.pilotrockcom/tar_1.html).
83
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
DOGI-POT STATIONS The current level of dog use at the property is sufficient that without owners cleaning up after their dogs, dog feces could very easily become a major issue at the property—both in terms of aesthetics (visitor experience) and pollution. Dog owners should be strongly encouraged (basically required) to clean up after their pets, and MLT should make it easy for them to do so by installing Dogi-pot stations (and garbage cans, if not purchasing the stations with trash receptacles attached) at reasonable intervals and locations. Dogi-pot stations dispense baggies with which owners can clean up their dogs’ feces; some Dogi-pot stations include trash receptacles for disposal of the used baggies (and their contents)(Figure 11). Based on visitor use patterns and recommendations for trails, two or perhaps three Dogi-pot stations would be appropriate. One should be installed near the welcome kiosk (to be built) at the Ocean Dr. entrance, and another either near the eastern boundary alongside the main east/west trail, and/or at the grassy round (see Figure 6).
Dogi-pot Product Options: Dogi-pot Jr. Baggie Dispenser ($89) is a baggie dispenser only (no waste receptacle), so its use would mean people would either have to carry the pet waste with them until they get home or MLT would have garbage cans placed strategically for this use. The dispenser holds 400 bags and comes with the first 400 “biodegradable” brown litter baggies. It is made of .08 gauge forest green aluminum, with a locking front access panel and instructions posted on front (but without a mounting post).
Pet Station ($315 with lid, $279 without lid) has a Dogi-pot Junior Bag Dispenser with “Please Clean up After Your Dog” sign on top of the metal post above a 10 gallon steel trash receptacle (with or without a lid). The metal post is 8 ft. tall. It comes with an aluminum sign, 400 “biodegradable” opaque brown litter bags installed (2 rolls of 200 bags each), and 50 heavy duty receptacle liner bags.
Dogi-pot Dispenser/Disposal Waste Container ($429) houses both baggie dispenser and trash receptacle in a single container. This larger capacity rectangular container (40.4” x 17” x 10.6”), is made of .09 gauge aluminum, forest green in color. It holds 400 bags (comes with first 400), has a front locking access lid, comes with an aluminum mounting pillar, clear instructions posted on lid. It also comes with 50 heavy duty trash liner bags
Supplies: 50 trash liner bags = $14.25 case of 2000 bags (200 bags per roll) =$74 (3.9 cents/bag) case of 4000 bags ( 200 bags per roll)= $138 (3.4 cents/bag) Figure 11. Dogi-pot case of 6000 bags (200 bags per roll) =$186 (3.1 cents/bag) "Pet Station".
84
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Photos and information on Dogi-pot products can be viewed at http://www.dogipot.com or at http://www.propet.org . Products can be ordered from ProPet Distributors, (800) 364-7681. The Pet Station is probably the best option—its capacity (trash receptacle) should be sufficient for the current level of use, and it is significantly less expensive than the bigger size. I would recommend getting the one with a lidded trash receptacle (without a lid, it could fill with water in the rainy season, or animals could get into it and strew waste all over). The signs for Dogi-pot stations are available in two possible styles. The signs at Dogi-pot stations at Hiller Park have the wording, “Pet Waste Transmits Disease. Leash and Clean Up After Your Pet.” According to the manufacturer’s information, the other sign option is designed for enclosed “dog parks” and wording states, “PET EXERCISE AREA. Pets must be controlled at all times. Please clean up after your pet.” While MLT may want to continue to allow the use of the property as a “pet exercise area”, the organization may not want to emphasize that aspect, so the first type of sign is probably preferable. If dogs are to be allowed off-leash, MLT can paint over the words “leash and” on the “leash and clean up after your pet” sign.
If MLT chooses to install Dogi-pot stations, in addition to the initial expense and the routine cost of supplies, the organization will have to be committed to restocking baggies and removing the used bags on a regular schedule; which could be a problem for an all-volunteer organization. Directors would have to fit this duty into their already full volunteer schedule on a weekly basis, or find a volunteer(s) in the neighborhood willing to take on this task. Alternatively, MCSD manager Tom Marking has indicated a willingness to work out a deal with MLT with regard to maintaining these stations (emptying the garbage, changing garbage bags, restocking the baggies). For example, since MCSD’s maintenance staff already goes to Hiller Park to service their facilities (empty garbage cans, maintain their Dogi-pot stations, etc.) on a regular schedule (once a week), it would not be unduly burdensome to also maintain Dogi-pot stations next door at MRB. In exchange, MLT could pay for the supplies (baggies) for all the Dogi-pot stations at both MRB and Hiller Park--a case of 6000 baggies should be an adequate supply for a year (Ferdolage pers. comm.)
OTHER FACILITIES The public has not indicated an interest in other types of facilities for this site; in fact, the opposite desire has been expressed. As mentioned previously, kayakers do carry their boats down the existing bluff-face trails to access the estuary. When the southern vertical access route is upgraded, it should make this process a little easier. However, no additional access points for boats are recommended. Boaters can both put in and take out at the boat launch at Mad River County Park on the other side of the river. With public restrooms and a drinking fountain at the adjoining Hiller Park, there is no need for such facilities at Mad River Bluffs. In addition, MCSD has also recently installed several new trash receptacles near the boundary with MRB, so additional garbage cans might be overkill at this point.
FACILITY MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE MLT will need to institute routine inspections of the property for potential safety hazards. Trails and vertical access points (stairs, etc.), railings at the handicap-accessible scenic overlook, and warning signs will all need to be inspected. In addition to monitoring for physical damage to trails and facilities, other potential problems should be monitored. For example, in the past, wasps have made nests in the ground at the top of frequently used bluff-face trails, causing 85
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan people to abandon their use in favor of alternative trails down to the river. Such a situation could also result in injury (either from disturbing the wasps, fleeing from them, or using a less-safe trail to avoid them), so MLT should be aware of this potential, and include watching for wasp nests on trail inspections in the summer and fall. Government Code Section 831.5 immunity does not apply where an improvement made by the public entity (or, in this case, the land trust with an 831.5 agreement with Coastal Conservancy) was the cause of the injury. If stairs, railings, puncheon bridge, boardwalk, etc. deteriorate or are damaged, and then someone gets hurt, MLT has liability. In situations where it is not possible or feasible to remedy a hazard, clear warning signs should be posted.
In addition to regular inspections, a maintenance schedule for facilities will be necessary. This may be as simple as regularly restocking Dogi-pot dispensers and emptying trash receptacles. But keeping trails from becoming overgrown (by encroaching shrubby vegetation and vines) or blocked by fallen limbs/trees will be an ongoing effort. Trails should be kept wide enough to allow safe passage by trail-users, but narrow enough to avoid breaking the forest canopy (letting in more sunlight). Up to this point, this chore has been taken care of by an unknown subset of trail users. MLT could endeavor to make this volunteer effort official (see “Volunteer Activities to Support MRB” section in “Public Education and Outreach” chapter). Also, occasional pruning of vegetation at scenic overlooks will be required to retain access to the coastal views, or the views will become obscured by the growth of shrubby vegetation. Another thing to keep in mind is that the recommended trail work on the vertical access routes probably will, at best, last 10-15 years (Caulkins and Fischer pers. comm.), so replacing them will be a recurring cost.
.
86
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
SIGNAGE Although not identified as a priority issue by the visiting public, some signage will be necessary at MRB. MLT must fulfill obligations to identify the funding source for the purchase of the property (Proposition 12) and to recognize the Coastal Conservancy’s contribution in acquiring the property for resource protection and public access. In addition to these requirements, other signage goals include: --Encouraging safe and appropriate public use of the Mad River Bluffs property --Contributing to a sense of connection to, and stewardship for Mad River Bluffs --To the extent possible and appropriate, being compatible with signage format and content of the adjoining Hiller Park.
Information on signage has been gleaned from a variety of sources including the RCAA’s Humboldt Bay Interpretive Signage Program, other land trusts, and the LTA Standards and Practices Guidebook. Attempts were made to determine county requirements and restrictions regarding on-site signs, but no clear answers were forthcoming. Recommended wording for regulatory signs is mostly taken directly, or slightly modified, from signs used by The Land Trust of Napa County. Signs’ design and size should be compatible with that existing at the adjoining Hiller Park, and care has been taken to make the wording on signs, where appropriate (in terms of content), compatible as well. The overall intent is to provide coherent and useful signage within MRB that is as compatible as possible with signage already in place at the adjoining Hiller Park. It is clear (based on visitor use surveys) that most use at MRB is by McKinleyville residents who visit the property on a regular basis. Signage should be geared to this constituency, as well as providing information to first-time visitors.
With regard to the issue of warning signs, I requested guidance from the Planning Division of Humboldt County Community Development Dept. Specifically, I asked whether the County recommends putting up warning signs where natural hazards exist, and if so, for guidance on recommended wording for such signs. The only assistance provided was a recommendation that MLT contact legal counsel. Some pertinent, if general, information was obtained in George Pring’s chapter on “Risk Management and Insurance” in The LTA Standards & Practices Guidebook. First, posting warning signs does not completely indemnify the landowner against liability, but warning signs do help to protect visitors by giving them an awareness of knowable hazards. “Recreational Use Statutes typically require a landowner to warn against a known dangerous condition, activity, etc.; this usually means not only dangers that the landowner actually knows but those that the landowner should know or foresee, especially if they will not be obvious to the visitor” (Pring 1997). The technical bulletin, “Limitations on Liability for Nonprofit Land Managers” provided brief summary information on California laws and warning signs (and court cases involving them). Public entities (and by virtue of Government Code Section 831.5 agreements, land trust property also) can successfully claim Section 831.2 immunity as long as their warning signs “do not ‘amount to negligence in creating or exacerbating the degree of danger’ associated with a natural condition (McCauley v. City of San Diego)”, that is, basically as long as the warning signs are not misleading and do not increase the degree of danger. MLT should seek legal counsel specific to California law as to associated liability issues prior to making a decision (whether or not to post warning signs, what dangers are reasonable to give warnings for, and what verbage to use on such signs). MLT directors should
87
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan also familiarize themselves with the contents on the Coastal Commission and Coastal Conservancy technical bulletin, “Limitations on Liability for Nonprofit Land Managers”.
Types of signs Five types of signs are recommended, with an additional optional type. 1. Kiosk-type entrance signs—welcome, identifying ownership, and listing rules 2. One-sided signs—welcome and identifying ownership and listing rules 3. Dogi-pot signage (associated with Dogi-pot stations) 4. Interpretive Displays/Wayside Panels 5. Warning signs 6. (Optional) Directional signs pointing to scenic overlooks
Locations for signs: Two main kiosks are recommended: one in the forest at the triangular trails’ intersection near the Ocean Dr. entrance, and one at the eastern boundary (with Hiller Park) on the main east/west trail.
Smaller, one-sided signs (identifying the name of the property and the rules) are recommended at trail spurs leading from MCSD’s Hiller Loop Trail to MRB property (e.g. trail to Goodyera Glade and Northern Bluff Trail).
Some stand-alone interpretive signs (wayside panels) with site-based content are recommended for specific locations (identified below). Alternatively, almost all of the recommended interpretive signs would be equally appropriate for placement within the 2-sided kiosk, and if kiosk space becomes limited, they could be displayed there on a rotating basis.
Two “Dogi-pot” signs to be attached on the posts above Dogi-pot stations (see “Dogs” section in “Public Access” chapter, or “Dogi-pot Stations”section in “Facilities” chapter for more details). These would be located near both main kiosks, with perhaps an additional station located at the edge of the grassy round (a central northern location so people don’t have to carry full bags for too far).
Warning signs—Location(s) for water dangers would be at the top of designated bluff-face access trail(s) to riverside. Warning signs pertaining to windfall trees would be located at entrances to the forest trails.
“Scenic overlook” signs, like MCSD has put up, would be optional, and in the interest of not going overboard on signage, not necessarily recommended. If desired, locations would be: 1) on the main east/west trail, pointing toward the coast and the designated handicap-accessible southern scenic overlook. 2) on the main north/south forest trail, pointing toward SO6 where a bench is recommended (a “Scenic overlook” sign has already been installed by MCSD on the Hiller Loop Trail at the intersection with the spur trail to the Goodyera Glade and Northern Bluff Trail #2).
88
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Design/Format Redwood Community Action Agency (RCAA) has been working on a signage project – Humboldt Bay Interpretive Signing Program. Their website is www.rcaa.org/baysigns, and they are finishing up a manual that will give options for sign layout and sign base structures, fabrication, installation, maintenance information, potential funding sources, and a listing of local artisans and graphic designers. Although their work is designed specifically for Humboldt Bay, much of what they’ve done (including soliciting public input) is also pertinent to the mouth of the Mad River.
Their website includes photos of a number of thematic artistic border possibilities designed by Gary Bloomfield for wayside panels. In particular, the “Pacific Flyway” and the “Dunes” borders could be appropriate for MRB sites as well. Since one of the goals of the RCAA program is to “model inter-agency collaboration through a series of unified interpretive sign templates”, it would be worth checking with RCAA about cross-over use of the designs for nearby coastal areas like MRB. Regardless of whether RCAA’s thematic borders would be available for use at MRB, the idea of using local artists’ work on the panels is appealing.
Wayside Panels--Structure Important concerns for wayside panels are to make them weather and vandal resistant. RCAA found that agencies preferred the more traditional National Park Service-style signs with aluminum/steel frame and 2 parallel legs made of stout metal, but these are very expensive. RCAA is looking into locally fabricated options (e.g. using molded concrete pedestal, multiple legged metal posts, or wood options) that would “complement the natural environment”. I think the molded concrete pedestal might be worth investigating further (check RCAA website for details).
Main kiosk--Structure The main kiosks should be pitched roof structures (to shed water quickly) holding plexiglass covers which can be opened to change the information displayed inside. The RCAA website depicts an attractive 3-sided kiosk, but I suspect that a 2-sided kiosk will be sufficient One reason to consider a 3-sided kiosk is that it’s obviously 3-dimensional shape probably encourages people to move around it to look at all sides, however, given the placement of the kiosks at MRB, if visitors “miss” the back-side of a 2-sided kiosk on their way onto the property, it will be visible to them on their way out. Whatever style is chosen, it should have a rustic appearance to fit in with site. As an additional alternative, RCAA has posted a drawing of a new 2-sided design resembling a traditional Wiyot plank house, which can be viewed at: www.rcaa.org/baysigns/pp/images/Slide20.jpg.
One-Sided Sign—Structure If the content of the one-sided sign could be confined to one side of a post, as has been done along the Hiller Loop Trail, the sign would be minimally intrusive. Alternatively, I would recommend that design of this sign mimic the rustic square sign that MCSD has installed at the southwestern entrance to the Hiller Loop Trail. This is a simple and appropriate design for the site. That sign has a wooden frame with 31-inch square dimensions, with 36 inch legs. The sign within the wooden frame is metal. A similar rustic “welcome sign” option is shown (Slide 26) on RCAA’s website: www.rcaa.org/baysigns/pp/images/Slide26.jpg.
89
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Sign Content Kiosks and one-sided “Welcome” sign At least one panel on the front side of main kiosk signs and the entire one-sided sign should be considered “Welcome” signs that include information for safe and proper behavior. The following information and graphics should be included:
Coastal Conservancy logo and Proposition 12 funding identification (kiosks only)
“Welcome to Mad River Bluffs” with MLT logo
“This land is owned by The McKinleyville Land Trust, a local non-profit organization dedicated to protecting our natural and historical heritage” (MLT can, of course, include the entire mission statement if desired, but this shorter version seems to sum it up for signage purposes).
“Please help us protect this land and keep it clean—use the garbage cans or carry out what you carry in”
“Dogs must be under voice control and within owner’s view at all times” (if an alternative decision is made regarding leashing/restricting dogs, language appropriate to that decision should be used on signage instead)
“Do not approach (or allow dogs to approach) seals or sea lions”
“Do not remove or destroy plants, wildlife, or historic artifacts”
“Horseback riding by permission only”
“NO motorized vehicles, smoking, fires, camping, dumping, firearms, hunting or trapping”.
“Closed from midnight to 5:00 a.m.” (or if MLT decides to match Hiller Park open hours: “Open during daylight hours only”).
“For more information please call 839-LAND (answer phone). For emergencies, call 911”
In addition, the front side of the kiosks should include a panel with the MRB site map depicted and the trails identified. If there is space available on the front side, notices of upcoming MLT and MRB events can be posted there (otherwise this information can go on the back side of the kiosks). As with the interpretive displays, artistic borders could be incorporated on “Welcome” sign kiosk panels too. In conjunction with kiosks and main entrance signage, MLT could provide an attached structure to hold MLT brochures or business cards (with contact information for MLT) that people could take away with them. MLT could also provide comment/suggestion boxes, and/or make wildlife observation cards available for visitors (wildlife observation card systems are used by several local land-managing agencies, including Redwood National and State Parks).
90
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Dogi-pot Signs See “Dogi-pot Stations” section of “Facilities” chapter for complete description of Dogi-pot stations and signs.
Warning Signs In the endnotes of the “Risk Management” section of The LTA Standards and Practices Guidebook, Pring (1997) states that general warning signs (e.g. “Enter at your own risk”, “Be Careful”) don’t pass muster, nor do signs that are far from the potential danger (e.g. at the entry point). He also makes the point that overly wordy (too long) warnings do not get read, and warnings of “obvious dangers (such as drowning in a normal body of water or falling from an obvious cliff)” are not useful. Given this information (keeping in mind that legal counsel specific to California laws and precedents should be obtained), I suggest that there are two types of dangers that warning signs would be appropriate for at MRB.
If MLT is going to promote access to the riverside by maintaining or improving one or more of the vertical access points, posting warning signs seems like the appropriate ethical thing to do. Wording could be as simple as, “River is swift and dangerous. Surf and ocean currents can be dangerous”.
Since coastal beach pine forests seem particularly prone to blowdown (and this is evident from the downed limbs and trees after winter storms), warning signs at entrances to the forest trails may also be appropriate. Particularly if MLT does not want to heavily impact the forest by initiating an aggressive hazard tree program on the property, this seems like an important warning to provide. Emphasis of such warning signs would be on alerting visitors to the danger of trees and tree limbs falling during and after wind events. (“Snags are part of the natural beach pine forest. There is a danger of trees and tree limbs falling during and after wind events.” )
Whatever wording is chosen, warnings should be large enough to get visitors attention, and done in colors that are associated with danger: red or white, using standard warning symbols. MLT should have at least a ½-dozen of these signs made up all at one time—signs will be lost occasionally due to natural forces, and at an unknown rate due to damage or destruction by vandals.
Wayside Panels Content for the Interpretive Displays/Wayside Panels is discussed separately, below.
EDUCATIONAL & INTERPRETIVE DISPLAYS Participants at the public meeting, as well as visitors contacted at MRB during one of the surveys did not rank interpretive signage as a high priority. This may be because most users at MRB are locals and have been to MRB many times. However, I believe there is a role for educational signage as part of the whole public outreach effort. In this vein, I have provided a series of recommendations for educational displays as well as suggested locations for each of them. Ideally, these would be permanent, stand alone displays, similar to wayside panels.
91
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Alternatively, these displays could be created for minimal cost and displayed under the plexiglass of the main kiosk(s) on a rotating basis.
MLT and the Land Trust Movement Many regular visitors to MRB still do not know that the property is owned and managed by MLT. There is a common perception that it is owned by MCSD (easy to understand, given that the only existing signs nearby are MCSD’s signs for Hiller Park) or the county. It would be worthwhile to not only provide notice of ownership on the main kiosk signs, but to provide interpretive information (perhaps on the back side of the kiosk, for people to see on their way out after their enjoyable visit) on MLT and land trusts. Information could be provided on the growth of the land trust movement, on local land trusts, on MLT specifically, and encouraging people to become involved in the organization. As mentioned previously in this chapter, perhaps a structure could be attached to hold MLT brochures or business cards (with contact information for MLT) that people could take away with them.
Plant Thugs This display could be a list of the “most UNwanted” plants (complete with photos), similar to the post-office postings of the “10 most wanted” criminals. It would provide information on why invasive weeds are problems and what people can do about them (e.g. with English ivy, they can pull it out and throw in the trash, but they should not just leave it on ground or it can re-root). The information for this display can be taken directly from the “Invasive Weeds” section of this plan, and CNPS has hand-out sheets on the topic as well. The display should also describe what MLT is doing about invasive weeds at MRB and can be updated with dates of the upcoming “weed bash” days. This could be a permanent display in the kiosk.
Beach Pine/Spruce Forest This display would focus on the rareness of beach pine/spruce forests on the coast, and the ecology of this forest. Information for this display can be gleaned from the extensive section on the forest in this plan. Photographs and descriptions of several common forest mushrooms and understory shrubs and herbaceous plants (e.g. evergreen huckleberry, false lily of the valley) could be included, as well as information on Wiyot use (if any) of the plants/fungi. This display could either be a stand-alone wayside panel on the main north/south forest trail or perhaps in the Goodyera Glade. Alternatively, it could be displayed in the kiosk.
Josiah Gregg Expedition Josiah Gregg and his party traveled through this property in 1849 either along the bluffs, or more likely, across the sand spit when they made their infamous crossing of the Mad River very near its mouth. It was from this event that the Mad River received the name which has stuck with it to this day. The display could provide information on the individuals in the Gregg party, the difficulty of their journey (and how long it took them to get to the coast from the Trinity mines), the naming of the Mad River, what the area looked like then, etc. Information for this display could be obtained from the journal of L.K. Wood, one of the members of the expedition. This could be a stand-alone wayside panel at one of the southern vista points overlooking the sand spit and the mouth of the river. This exhibit could also graphically show where the mouth of the river was in 1849, and could then be paired with the display on the migrations of the mouth of the river since then.
92
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
A Dynamic Environment The migration of the mouth of the Mad River has been especially pronounced in the last few decades and it has many probable causes. For several years now, the river mouth has been located at MRB, but it could suddenly shift north again, or retreat back south. This could be a stand-alone wayside panel at a northern bluff overlook or riverside access point, or paired with the Josiah Gregg display.
Estuary Life Not much is known specifically about life in the Mad River estuary (which, in itself, is amazing considering the proximity to HSU and a number of agencies concerned with managing aquatic resources), but estuaries in general are extremely important to aquatic life. They are the gateways between ocean and river for all anadromous fish. Information in the display should definitely include illustrations of the various salmonid species here, a brief description of their life histories, historic estimates of population (and/or quotes from old-timers about the abundance) compared with recent population estimates, and the threats to the populations. Information on other species that are regularly found here can also be included: harbor seals, shorebirds, etc. The backwater lagoon should also be included. This would best be located at one of the southern vista points as a stand-alone Wayside panel (or pair of panels).
If the CDFG Steelhead Research and Monitoring Program’s (SRAMP) proposed estuary monitoring and research projects in the estuary come to fruition, information acquired through these projects can be disseminated to visitors at MRB via updates/bulletins on the kiosk boards, and the information may also indicate (point to) new management directions for outreach to improve estuary health.
Historic McKinleyville Landscape. Old McKinleyville was a patchwork of prairies interspersed with forested land. This display could describe what the “prairies” of Dows Prairie and old McKinleyville looked like, and what plants and wildlife were found there. There are historical accounts of various prairies in the greater McKinleyville area, full of bracken fern, native grasses, and in some cases wild strawberries and rich in jackrabbits, elk, and other wildlife. The Wiyots used fire on a regular basis to manage the prairies, and they gathered plant foods and hunted the prairies extensively, but because of the prevalence of bracken fern, the early white settlers thought the prairies of little value. Nielson (1994) includes an interesting account of settlers making a spectator sport of watching the local Wiyots hunting rabbits in the prairies one or more times per year. This display would be most appropriate if MLT decides to recreate such a prairie on a small scale at the “grassy round” at the northern end of the current “long meadow”. The display could also include information on the process of recreating the native prairie. This would be best as a stand-alone wayside panel at the site of the prairie restoration.
EDUCATIONAL/COMMUNITY EVENTS Prior to initiating any group events, MLT should check its insurance coverage, but these types of events should be covered, and immunity from liability should be covered by the Section 831 agreement.
93
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Invasive Plants and Alternatives With regard to control of invasive weeds, efforts might also be coupled with educational outreach, particularly to the neighborhoods adjacent to MRB. MLT could approach CNPS about working together to educate MRB neighbors through outdoor workshops at MRB, fliers (door- to-door?) and/or newspaper articles on horticultural plant thugs. The purpose of these outreach efforts would be to help people identify invasive plants on their property and neighborhood, and to encourage people to remove or control invasive plants on their own property and show/describe how to do so (e.g. the importance of and ways to keep scotch broom, pampas grass, English ivy from producing seeds). At the same time, it would also be useful to provide ideas and examples of alternative plants with which to replace their invasive weeds. This outreach would be appropriate to couple with CNPS’s new “Native Plants Consultation Services”; at landowners’ request, CNPS volunteers make site visits to identify existing invasive plants and native plants for the landowner, offer suggestions on how to incorporate native plants in their landscape, including which native plants are appropriate for a given site, and provide information on where the plants and more information can be obtained.
Dogs & Walkers Given the current intensity of use by visitors bringing their dogs, if the decision is made to continue to allow dogs at MRB, then some sort of annual dog & owner event at MRB might be worthwhile. One land trust has a “Dogs n’ Donuts” day where they provide dog biscuits and donuts and give each person a brochure about what the land trust does; they receive many positive responses from this event. Such events would give MLT boardmembers and local dog owners who use the area an opportunity to get together in a shared recreational atmosphere at least once a year. Although the purpose of the event would be to have fun, it would also allow MLT to get input, provide information (e.g. about the need to protect the seal haul-out), and ask for support (volunteers, financial donations that go towards upkeep at MRB, etc.) from this large constituent group. MLT also might approach MCSD about co-sponsoring dog & owner events, since the two properties are used as one by the public.
Nature and Art Given the scenic beauty of this property, it seems like an ideal outdoor classroom for nature- based art workshops. Classes could focus on drawing, painting, leaf-printing, nature photography, etc. and be geared toward children, adults,or whole families. Several such classes for adults have already been taught at the site.
Natural History A large and diverse assemblage of birds is associated with MRB, particularly in the forest and the estuarine habitats. Likewise, there is a great diversity of plant life here, and the beach pine/spruce forest community is an increasingly rare habitat. Life (human and animal) in and near the Mad River has a long and rich history. Bird identification, plant identification, ecology of this forest habitat, mycology (in spring and fall), estuary ecology, local fisheries and history of the Mad River, and Wiyot cultural history along the lower Mad River/McKinleyville area are all topics that would all be of interest to local community members. Docent-led walks could be led by knowledgeable MLT volunteers, or organizations like CNPS, Audubon Society, Humboldt County Historical Society, and the Wiyot Tribe could be approached about organizing walks or events at MRB on topics relating to their interests.
94
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Estuary Outings MLT could sponsor kayak/canoeing outings in the lower Mad River and estuary, with different trips emphasizing different natural history themes (e.g. birdwatching, pinnipeds, tsunamis); MLT might coordinate these outings with other appropriate organizations, such as Audubon or CNPS. Employees of Redwood National and State Parks have led kayak trips on the Smith River and at the Klamath River estuary as part of the parks’ summer program for a number of years, and these trips have been very popular with the public. MLT could contact Redwood National and State Parks (Division of Interpretation) for pointers and information on setting up such a program.
VOLUNTEER ACTIVITIES TO SUPPORT MRB According to Brown et al. (2002), only 4% of visitors surveyed at MRB had ever volunteered with MLT and only 3% had ever made a financial donation. But, upon learning about MLT and its ownership of the property, 34% then said they would be willing to volunteer for MLT at the MRB property. I believe that there is a large, mostly untapped pool of citizens who feel a sense of stewardship for MRB and who would be willing to help manage and maintain this property, via clean up days, volunteer patrols, reporting problems, invasive plant control, trail maintenance, etc. Volunteers can be a vital part of protecting and enhancing MRB.
Invasive Weed Control For the first few years, it may take up to five events per year to gain control over the weed situation: 1-2 events each spring to control weeds (e.g. scotch broom, cotoneaster) invading the open areas; 1 summer event (for a year or two, thereafter only as needed) to kill and remove English ivy growing up trees; 1-2 events each fall/winter to control forest weeds (e.g. ivy, periwinkle) on the ground. Some types of control efforts will require groups of volunteers, while others can be accomplished by just a few people. A calendar of the recommended timing of invasive weed control activities is included in the “Invasive Weeds” section of the plan.
Recreating a McKinleyville Prairie As stated in the “Educational & Interpretive Displays” section, historical accounts describe McKinleyville as a patchwork of forest stands and prairies (large and small). In cooperation with an organization like CNPS, if MLT decides to recreate such a prairie on a small scale at the “grassy round” (northern end of the current “long meadow”), volunteer work crews could have a large role to play in the initial groundwork (clearing weeds, first stage of planting). And groups or individuals could be involved in the later addition of subsequent plantings, weed control, and maintenance of the recreated prairie.
Volunteer Patrols Several people at the public meeting indicated that they would be willing to participate in volunteer patrols of the MRB property. MLT has a list of those people and their contact information. Given the periodic influx of illegal camping at the property and some other illicit activities, it would be worth having regular monitoring of the property (reporting any problems to the Sheriff’s Dept. and to MLT). In addition to monitoring activity and potential (human) problems at MRB, if versed in invasive plant identification, patrollers could also identify new invasive weed outbreaks, and even serve as “first responders” at new infestations. If possible, volunteer patrols would be best done cooperatively with MCSD so that both properties could be patrolled as one. Alternatively, MLT could investigate whether the SCOP program itself could provide assistance with patrols of the property. (Also, see “Safety” chapter). 95
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Trail Maintenance Up to this point, virtually all existing trails (with the exception of the main east/west trail) have been constructed and maintained by people who use the trails. This willingness to volunteer on trail work should be allowed to continue, but should be organized by the land trust. Once a list of citizens interested in being involved in trail projects and maintenance is compiled (MLT already has the names/contact information for several such people), these people can be contacted to assist when trail work is planned (e.g. with CCC crews), or can be “deputized” to do maintenance work (trailside brushing, removing fallen limbs from the trails after storms, etc.) on their own once MLT has provided guidance (limits on trail widths, which trails to maintain, etc.).
Estuary Monitoring/Restoration SRAMP has proposed several studies that would include the Mad River estuary. One involves monitoring the movement (and/or removal) of woody debris in the lower river, another focuses on water quality issues, particularly water temperatures. Some research efforts (e.g. temperature monitoring, water quality measurements) could be done with the assistance of volunteers from the community, and might be good opportunities for MLT and supporters to get involved. Also, volunteers might be able to help with any restoration efforts that result from research in these areas.
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES As discussed previously (“Current Use Patterns” section), several research and monitoring projects are underway at the estuary. Flora lists, as well as preliminary lists for bird species, other wildlife, and mushrooms have been compiled. Some biological inferences can be made from knowledge about the function of similar natural systems at Lanphere Dunes (which have been studied extensively). But basic inventories of several important communities are lacking. For example, other than the mention of a millipede that has been found at MRB, there appears to be very little information available on terrestrial invertebrates at MRB. Fisheries biologists and HSU Fisheries Dept. faculty (Preston, Sparkman, and Roelofs pers. comm.) confirm that the Mad River estuary has been little studied; water quality in the estuary is largely unstudied, and no one really knows what aquatic species exist there, let alone in what abundances. Thus, it seems appropriate for MLT to solicit research on the estuary, including, first, a basic inventory of the aquatic life of the estuary (including mollusks and other invertebrates as well as fish species). Such inventories might be appropriate projects for HSU Fisheries Dept. classes/graduate students, perhaps in conjunction with the advanced scuba classes. Water quality studies (in addition to temperature monitoring proposed, but not yet funded, by CDFG) would also be appropriate HSU student projects. MLT should support SRAMP’s proposal to study woody debris in the lower Mad River, and perhaps become involved in restoration efforts. MLT could also coordinate with CDFG’s SRAMP program in their efforts to secure grants for appropriate research and monitoring by serving as a local (community organization) cooperator in grantwriting efforts. Another avenue of research that should be pursued is an inventory of terrestrial invertebrates on the property. MLT might be able to interest an entomologist or other invertebrate biologist at HSU in conducting invertebrate surveys as class projects, or encourage research on invertebrates at MRB as graduate student thesis projects. MLT might also consider the possibility of a Cedar/EAST project with High School students working in conjuction with a local entomologist.
96
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
MLT should initiate a program monitoring human-use of the property and any associated impacts. This monitoring also has possibilities for cooperation with various HSU departments on an ongoing basis because it includes monitoring levels of various recreational use, monitoring the condition of sensitive areas (e.g. Goodyera Glade, vertical access trails, bluff-slope and riverside area) in relation to levels of human use, monitoring rates of bluff-face retreat, etc. MLT could promote these ideas to instructors at HSU, who are sometimes looking for new and useful local projects for students. MLT could also encourage research into whether the level of dog use impacts wildlife abundance/diversity at MRB.
Regardless of any new research possibilities, MLT should put agencies and organizations that currently use the property (e.g. HSU Biology Dept., local CDFG office and it’s SRAMP program) or might be expected to use the property in the future on the MLT mailing list. When agencies or organizations use the property, MLT should request that they provide MLT with copies of their annual (or other) reports and any publications that relate to their activities on the property. This will not only keep MLT apprised of their activities, but will contribute to creating a library of information about MRB and the richness of its natural heritage.
97
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
RESOURCE RESTORATION AND PROTECTION
Recommendations for restoration and protection of the natural resources at MRB focus largely on control and removal of invasive weeds, but also include reducing erosion from bluff-face trails, and protecting sensitive areas and species. In addition, the possibility of recreating a small native prairie is suggested.
INVASIVE WEEDS “Native ecosystems represent thousands of years of co-evolution, with biological limitations…” for each species. When an exotic plant species is introduced into an entirely new environment, the natural pests, diseases, and herbivores that controlled its growth in its original habitat may be missing. In these circumstances, without biological checks and balances, the species may spread and reproduce at a prodigious rate. When an exotic plant spreads rapidly and alters habitats, it is considered to be “invasive”. Invasive plants are a major factor in habitat loss in California, and more than half of the state’s 53 endangered plants are “…threatened by one or more invasive species.” (from CNPS “North Coast Dirty Dozen”). By using space, nutrients, and water that otherwise would be used by native plants, invasive plants physically displace native plants. But “…more subtle changes occur as native habitats are invaded. Some invasive plants elevate nitrogen levels in the soil, altering the chemical balance of the system. This is especially problematic in environments where the native plants are adapted to nutrient poor conditions, such as coastal sand dunes. Certain invasive plants may alter the frequency of fires, harming species adapted to such regimes. Others lower the water table. Some invasives contaminate gene pools by hybridizing with natives” (from CNPS “North Coast Dirty Dozen”).
A number of plant species found at MRB are not native to this area; they are marked with an asterisk in the flora list for MRB (Appendix A). Despite their prevalence, most of these non- natives are of minimal concern because they are considered to have very limited impacts on native habitats. A handful of others, however, are considered to be significant threats to native plants and habitats. These invasive weeds are the focus of this section, which provides descriptions of the plants and why they are considered invasive weeds, control options, and recommendations on timing of control efforts (summarized in a “Calendar of Control Activities”).
The history of invasive weeds at this site is not specifically documented. However, in a 1990 report, it was noted that pampas grass was invading in a limited way at south entrance, and there was only one small patch of ivy in the middle of the forest (Miller 1990). Pampas grass has spread since then, but not to an uncontrollable degree. Ivy however has made considerable inroads in the intervening 13 years.
Plants of Greatest Concern at MRB The most invasive weeds of Humboldt County are listed in California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) “A-List”. The following is a subset of that list and includes all the “A-List” weeds known to occur at MRB:
Bull thistle/Canada thistle, English ivy, European beachgrass, English holly, Himalaya berry, pampas grass, periwinkle, Scotch broom, teasel, yellow bush lupine
And from the B-List: Cotoneaster 98
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Also, near the end of this section a “Watch List” of additional weeds from the CNPS “A-List” (the most harmful) for Humboldt County is provided. These plants are not currently known to occur at MRB, but are considered prospective invaders there due to proximity to known seed source, appropriate habitat, etc. Photos of invasive weeds are available online at The Nature Conservancy’s Wildland Invasive Species Team website: http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/photos.html.
Control/Removal of Invasive Weeds at MRB There are several generally accepted options for removing/controlling various weed pests. In all cases, the goal is to both remove the existing invasive weeds and to deplete the seed bank. Some options are more appropriate than others for property of MRB’s size given the limited distribution (on site) of most of the invasive weeds, as well as the daily use by people and their dogs. Although manual removal is recommended instead of using fire or herbicides at MRB, the descriptions below also include the broader range of options.
Physical Control Manual Methods The first method of physical control is handpulling, which generally includes the removal of the root system along with above-ground parts of the plant (some perennial weeds may resprout if roots are left in the ground). Handpulling is effective for removing seedlings or plants up to about 3 feet tall. It is easiest when soil is loosened after rains. Handpulling has been refined in the Bradley method: …hand weeding selected small areas of infestation in a specific sequence, starting with the best stands of native vegetation (those with the least extent of weed infestation) and working towards those stands with the worst weed infestation. Initially, weeds that occur singly or in small groups should be eliminated from the extreme edges of the infestation. The next areas to work on are those with a mixture of at least two natives to every weed. As the native plant stabilizes in each cleared area, work deeper into the center of the most dense weed patches. More detailed information on the Bradley method can be found in Fuller & Barbe (1985).
Manual removal and control is labor intensive, but lends itself to involvement by untrained volunteers (no risk of exposure to dangerous chemicals, no fire hazards, no danger from machinery, etc). The MLT already has a list of supporters willing to participate in work-day events, and has also occasionally worked with scout troops and other community groups on weed-control and clean-up projects. These volunteer programs should be continued, if not expanded to include additional civic organizations and youth groups (see “Timing”, at end of section). Some organizations have found that with regard to volunteer work days, “more work is accomplished proportionately in a short period, such as from 10:00 a.m to 1:00 pm, than in a long period with a lunch break”; such a schedule also leaves time for volunteers to take a walk and enjoy the site after the work is done. This might be taken into consideration when planning such events at MRB.
Manual removal by grazing is also possible. Angora and Spanish goats are being used to control many invasive weeds, including Scotch broom--mostly broom as it resprouts after initial
99
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan treatment. Since goats will trample or eat almost any vegetation, other plants must be protected, and fencing is required.
Mechanical Methods and Heat Mowing can be used to keep open areas free of woody vegetation and berries, and in fact, it is already being used by MCSD to maintain the elongated grassy area (“long meadow”) west of the sewage ponds. Several mowings per growing season may be required. Mowing should be avoided where soils are prone to compaction or where/when soil moisture is excessive (leading to soil compaction from the weight of the machinery).
A flame thrower or weed burner can be used to heat-girdle the lower stems of shrubs— but some weeds (e.g. broom and pampas grass) resprout from the roots, so repeated burns or a follow-up treatment of herbicide (on the stumps) would be needed for such perennial weeds. This treatment method is best used during wet weather to minimize fire danger.
Prescribed burns. As above, fire will kill the above-ground parts of many invasive weeds. However, repeated broadcast burns or a follow-up treatment of herbicide (on the stumps) would be needed for some weed species like pampas grass and Scotch broom. Given the size and location of the area to be treated at MRB, the costs of this method seem to far outweigh the benefits. Any prescribed fire would require construction of firebreaks prior to the burn. Aside from aesthetic impacts of both the firebreak and the burn itself, the exposure of the bare, mineral soil of the firebreaks also provides ideal seed bed for weeds. In addition, substantial labor costs are associated with prescribed fires, both for construction of the firebreak and the professional personnel required for managing and monitoring the prescribed fire. Finally, and probably most importantly, broadcast burning and the associated smoke and smell would likely not be well- received in the nearby residential neighborhoods.
Chemical Control There are several methods of applying herbicides to the targeted weeds. The most selective methods are spot chemical methods in which herbicides are manually applied to individual plants or resprouts. These methods are most useful when the number of plants to be treated is small. Mixing a dye in with the chemicals to mark the treated plants from untreated plants is recommended. In order of increasing possibility of herbicide exposure to the environment or people in the vicinity of treated plants, the methods of chemical control are:
Stem injection. With this method, the herbicide is injected into nicks made in the stems of targeted plants so that it penetrates to the cambial tissue. The herbicide must be water-soluble to be effective so that it is transported to the roots and kills them as well as the above-ground parts.
Cut stump treatment: After a weed (such as Scotch broom or pampas grass) is cut down, herbicide is applied directly to the cambium around the edges of the cut stumps. Application must occur within 5-20 minutes of cutting to ensure effectiveness. With this method, application in late spring is best. (In early spring, sap may flow to the surface of the cut and rinse the chemical off. At other times of year translocation is too poor to adequately distribute the herbicide to all parts). Picloram should not be used for this technique as it is know to “flashback” through root grafts between treated and untreated plants.
100
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Basal/stem sprays: Sprayers are used to apply concentrated herbicides in oil (or other penetrating carriers) to the basal portion of stems to be killed. The oil carrier is needed to allow the herbicide to penetrate the bark. This method will generally kill the roots, especially in fall when vascular fluids are moving toward the roots. This method may be easier to use with small diameter stems than the above techniques.
Herbicide pellets: Pellets are scattered around the bases of unwanted plants; rainfall then dissolves the pellets and the herbicide leaches to the root zone. The best time is near the end of the rainy season “to prevent leaching beyond the root zone.” In an area like MRB with a great deal of daily visitor use (including families with young children), and without more information on whether these pellets are attractive to animals (what if dogs or wildlife ingest them?), this treatment method is not recommended.
And finally, with regard to chemical treatments, it should be noted that herbicides will also damage or kill non-target plants if spray drifts (a likely scenario on the coast). For example, “Pines are sensitive to triclopyr, spruces are damaged by glyphosate. Herbicides cause less damage to conifers if applied in July and August, after they have laid down a waxy cuticle on their needles” (McCavish 1980).
Control via Outreach Control efforts might also be coupled with educational outreach, particularly in the neighborhoods adjacent to MRB. MLT could approach CNPS about working together to educate MRB neighbors through outdoor workshops at MRB, fliers, and/or newspaper articles on horticultural plant thugs. For more information on this option, refer to the “Educational and Community Events” section in the “Public Education and Outreach” chapter.
Targeting Invasive Plant Hot Spots at MRB Open Area Near Southeast Boundary Large Scotch broom shrubs that have been producing seeds for an unknown number of years are of primary concern here. These plants have been shown to the MLT Americorps worker and they have been targeted for eradication this year during volunteer clean-up days. Seed from Scotch broom can remain viable for many decades, and seedlings (which are much easier to remove than mature shrubs) should be found and removed each year before they have a chance to mature and produce additional seed.
In addition to Scotch broom, isolated clumps of pampas grass are also present in the open area (and in some forested areas where enough light penetrates) and should be targeted for removal before it spreads further. Care should be taken to correctly identify pampas grass prior to removal—nonflowering clumps may look somewhat similar to large clumping native grasses that should be retained; pampas grass has fine serrations along the edges of the leaf blades— sharp enough to give painful “paper cuts”.
Several varieties of Cotoneaster and holly are also present in the open areas; the berries of these shrubs are eaten by birds and the seeds dispersed. Though they are not common on the property at this time, as potentially invasive exotic plants Cotoneaster and holly should be removed when found. Teasel is found in small numbers on the upland open areas and the toe of the bluffs (e.g.
101
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan at the base of the southernmost bluff trail); at this low level, it can be removed easily. These areas should be regularly monitored for increase in these species.
For Scotch broom, control efforts are appropriate any time prior to seed set. If plants cannot be completely uprooted, they should be cut down at ground level while they are flowering in spring when the plants have made maximum energetic expenditure producing the flowers. A few people at the right time can keep existing plants from spreading, and with repeated cutting down, the broom’s energy stores are eventually depleted.
In the short term, if all clumps of pampas grass can’t immediately be removed, it is worthwhile to at least weedwhack or chop it down in late spring and early winter to eliminate flowering (and thus, seed production). Some unknown MRB visitors are doing a decent job of removing flowering plumes (though it is unknown whether it is for use in flower arrangements or to prevent seed-dispersal) from most of the pampas grass clumps at the site; during site visits I almost never found plumes except on clumps on steep slopes that would be difficult to access.
MCSD has provided verbal permission for MLT/volunteers to control and remove invasive weed plants on their adjoining property as well. If efforts are made there, it will certainly help control the spread of those plants onto MRB. This is especially important at the southeastern end of the property, since many Scotch broom, and some Cotoneaster and pampas grass clumps grow there. As long as they exist, they remain a seed bank from which these weeds can easily continue to reseed back onto MRB.
Berry Patches Currently, a substantial portion of the non-forested area along the eastern boundary has been taken over by a near monoculture of blackberry vines. Left unmanaged, Himalaya berry (Rubus discolor) and native blackberry (Rubus ursinus) canes can quickly engulf large open areas and create an impenetrable thicket; if retention of any grassland is desired, then some form of berry- vine management for this area must be considered. On the other hand, this area currently provides benefits to wildlife and recreationists. The dense and prickly masses of berry vines provides refugia to small mammals and birds –both shelter from winter weather and shelter from the numerous domestic dogs and people that roam the property. In season, the berries provide food for many birds as well as animals such as foxes, skunks, raccoons, and they are also sought out by human visitors.
For these reasons, and because of the difficulty of complete eradication, the goal with regard to the berry vines “thickets” in open areas should be to contain them to specific areas, but not to eradicate them completely. Not knowing the final design for MCSD’s western marsh(es) makes it difficult to make site-specific recommendations in this regard, but based on current conditions, the recommendations are as follows:
--Retain the berry thickets at current distribution between the eastern edge of the forest and “grassy round”, but keep “grassy round” (at northern end of “long meadow”) clear of berry vines.
102
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
--Restrict berry thicket near southeastern end of property to the north side of the main east/west trail (connecting MRB to Hiller Park), with the understanding that eventually this thicket will be shaded out by the regenerating beach pine forest.
--Keep area to the south of the main east/west trail free of berry thickets (keep grassland habitat there).
--Ideally, the native blackberries could be retained (in the locations described above) while the Himalaya berry plants could be eradicated.
To keep berry patches from expanding beyond desired limits, mow or weed whack the native berry vines periodically in spring and summer. Perhaps an agreement can be made with MCSD that when their maintenance staff weed-whacks/mows berry vines on their property (trail through berry patch), they could provide the same service up to the specified boundaries of MRB berry patches.
Beach Pine/Spruce Forest and Forested Bluffslope Although there are a number of exotic plants in forested parts of property, the main plant of concern is English ivy. In fact, English ivy is the worst invasive weed problem currently at MRB. Getting the ivy under control and ultimately eliminated from the site will be a relatively labor intensive undertaking in the near term (first 3-5 years), but not unmanageable if regular attention to the problem is maintained during that initial timeframe.
Some of the ivy “strongholds” include forest near the Ocean Dr. entrance and near the halfway point along the main north-south forest trail. MLT has already begun eradication efforts in the upland part of the forest, and these efforts should continue. But there are also other significant problem areas, such as at the toe of the Northern Bluff Trail #2. At that site, ivy is blooming and has berries that can be spread easily by birds. Shaded areas at the base of the bluff here and elsewhere should not be overlooked; there are numerous patches of ivy growing as far west as the riverbank wrack line (piles of driftwood) left by winter storms. These patches may be particularly important to treat because ivy doesn’t have to climb far vertically to reach the top of the shrub-height canopy (vs. a tree-height canopy in the upland forest), and can thus start producing fruits which can be spread elsewhere. The Bradley method could be applied to combating English ivy at MRB. It would mean working in from the edges of the upland forest to the interior. It would also emphasize protecting areas with Goodyera oblongata which occurs in relatively uncommon abundance in discreet patches at MRB. It is critically important to quickly control the ivy so that it doesn’t become the dominant feature of the forest.
In addition, forest edges may be especially vulnerable to invasion by other weed plants. Particular attention should be paid to the Ocean Dr. entrance and to the eastern edge of the forest where a variety of invasive weeds (and seedbanks) exist on adjacent open areas and on shaded residential lots; this site is a likely invasion point for Crocosmia (Montbretia). The forested bluff-face and the base of the bluffs should also be monitored; with storm-induced sloughing and erosion, bare sand and mineral soil is often exposed--ideal seedbeds for some invasive weeds. For example, a relatively large cluster of pampas grass is growing in partial shade where light penetrates the canopy at the toe of the steep, northernmost bluff trail. This clump should be targeted for removal (along with the very healthy ivy colony nearby) and then the site should be regularly monitored for recurrence. 103
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
For forest weeds, like ivy, I would recommend focusing control and eradication efforts between late summer through mid- winter, especially for large group “volunteer clean-up” days. If possible, it would be best to avoid such large-group efforts in late winter and spring to minimize trampling and other damage to newly emerging herbaceous wildflowers.
Riverside and Dunes The main concern in these exposed, sandy areas are exotic grasses. Currently, clumps of pampas grass are generally isolated, scattered along the toe of the bluffs and out to the edge of the river. However, if left unmanaged, pampas grass could become one of the dominant plants in this habitat. Pampas grass should be sought out and killed as soon as possible. Care should be taken to ensure that it is pampas grass and not a large clumping native grass being removed. At least once a year, these areas should be monitored to find newly flowering clumps of pampas grass to be targeted for removal. Some teasel currently occurs at the base of the southernmost bluff trail (SBT1), and this small grouping should be removed and the area monitored as necessary.
European beachgrass is present in limited quantities along the river, but it is the dominant vegetation on the dunes west of the river, wherever they are not overwashed by storm-generated waves. MRB contains only a small amount of beach dune habitat (the County has acquired ownership of the 2 western parcels which embrace the ocean interface). The potential impact of invasive weeds on the dune area could become severe: “On the Humboldt bay dunes, invasive species now comprise 83% of the non-forested dune vegetation, native dune mat only 17%” (Pickart 1999). The main problem along the dunes is European beach grass, and there is significantly more on the dunes just west of MRB. Ecology and Restoration of Northern California Coastal Dunes (Pickart and Sawyer 1998) is a good source of in-depth information on invasive plants in this type of habitat. In addition, Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge is developing a prioritized list of invasive plants of wetlands, which could be helpful for prioritizing control efforts at base of the bluffs and riverside areas (Pickart, pers. comm.).
Invasive Weeds—Descriptions & Specific Control Measures
Bull Thistle (Cirsium vulgare) Found in the open grassy areas, bull thistle has large magenta flowers and spiny leaves. It crowds out native plants, and if thistle is abundant, they make walking in the area difficult (painful). In June or July, after plants bolt but before they go to seed, cut or pull up the thistles (they are biennial, flowering in their second year, and will die on their own after flowering—the point is to keep them from reproducing). Use gloves.
Alternatively, thistles can be sprayed with 5-25% concentration of vinegar (acetic acid). Grocery store vinegar (5% concentration) sprayed on thistle leaves and stems kills the thistle within a day, leaving just “a small amount of black goo…above ground.” (Powell 2003). Higher concentration acetic acid (25%) is available in products such as “BurnOut Weed and Grass Killer” (St. Gabriel Laboratories) and “Nature’s Glory Weed and Grass Killer” (Monterey Lawn and Garden Products), and higher concentration acetic acid provides longer control; for weeds that regrow from their roots, vinegar spray can be applied again. Only target weed plants should be sprayed, since the vinegar will kill other herbaceous plants too. Vinegar kills all topgrowth, is inexpensive, and safe for the environment (it biodegrades rapidly and is approved for use by 104
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan organic food producers). However, concentrations greater than 5% can be caustic and should be handled with care.
Cotoneaster (Cotoneaster franchettii) Cotoneaster is a medium to large shrub with white to pink flowers that are followed by orange or red berries. It is grown as an ornamental, but has become naturalized in some open areas and has also started to become a problem in local coastal forests. According to the local CNPS chapter, it is spreading rapidly and displacing native shrubs. In complete shade, it does not seem to flower quite as prolifically as in the open, and thus doesn’t produce as much fruit. It occurs in moderate abundance in the grasslands at the southeast end of the property, mostly mixed in with the shrub-sized beach pines. There are also scattered individuals (including at least one that is almost tree-sized) within the forest at MRB.
Cotoneaster should be removed before berries form, since it is the berries that are dispersed by birds. It can be treated like Scotch broom in terms of control. It should also be pulled (by hand, if small, or using a weed wrench if larger) or dug out, removing as much of the roots as possible. It can be cut down but will resprout from the roots, so repeated control may be required.
English Ivy (Hedera helix) English ivy has shiny, alternate leaves that look different in juvenile and adult form; juvenile leaves (the ones we are most used to seeing) are lobed, whereas adult leaves are rounded. Only the aerial plants produce the small greenish/white flowers and then the black berries. English ivy is well-known as a groundcover and is widely cultivated in gardens for this purpose. It is touted as being able to grow in almost any kind of soil, in sun or shade, and it is somewhat drought tolerant once established. With qualities like these, it is not surprising that it has become naturalized in the United States, and it is even a pest in disturbed areas in its home (Europe). In our mild, moist, coastal climate, English ivy is a pernicious weed, especially in riparian forests (Dudley 1998). Locally, a number of forested riparian areas now have understories completely dominated by English ivy, which also covers the trunks of the trees and drapes through the canopy—a veritable green desert.
The problem with English ivy is its extreme vigor; it so outcompetes other vegetation that herbaceous plants are deprived of light and smothered, trees are enveloped, and over time it will kill even such large, robust trees as spruce and redwoods (CNPS undated). Apparently, English ivy can grow all year where it doesn’t get too cold, and it probably has the most detrimental impact on herbaceous native vegetation that is dormant during the winter. Furthermore, while English ivy can replace other vegetation over large areas, it apparently provides little in the way of forage for wildlife species other than birds that spread the berries to new locations.
Control Some people have allergic reactions to compounds in ivy leaves, so wearing gloves and long sleeves is advisable when removing ivy. English ivy growing on the ground can be controlled by grubbing vines out by hand or by carefully digging them out with a shovel. Cutting off the above-ground parts without removing the roots does not provide complete control unless it is repeated regularly over a significant period of time. It is important to stop English ivy from growing up trees because it is more difficult to remove once it is in the canopy and because it is the aerial parts that produce seeds. For ivy that is already growing up trees, cut through the ivy stems carefully (to avoid cutting into the tree) at waist height, then loosen the ivy and remove the 105
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan roots from around the trunk and any limbs that are reachable. The Bradley method could be applied to combating English ivy at MRB. It would mean working in from the edges of the upland forest to the interior. It would also emphasize protecting areas with Goodyera oblongata which occurs in relatively uncommon abundance in discreet patches at MRB.
The Nature Conservancy recommends that in situations where the roots that cannot be removed manually, the ivy’s bark should be stripped and the exposed section notched. Although TNC then recommends painting on an undiluted herbicide such as Roundup (glyphosate), I am not convinced that even spot treatment with herbicide is necessary at Mad River Bluffs--because of the small size of the area, these sites can be checked regularly and manual control can be repeated as necessary. If use of herbicides is desired, TNC recommends cutting the stems first and then applying a 25% solution of Roundup (the 2% solution of Roundup alone will not kill ivy) or a 2% solution of 2, 4-D to the cut surface of the stem. It should also be noted that herbicides, especially glyphosate and other hydrophilic compounds, often do not penetrate into ivy leaves because of the leaves’ waxy surface. Due to the proximity of neighbors and the daily use of the area by people and pets, I would recommend against the use of herbicides. However, herbicides do provide better control if for some reason treatment must be restricted to a one-time effort. Ivy that has been pulled out must not be left on the ground, even in piles since it can re- root and resume growth. It should not be chipped either, for the same reason. It should either be bagged for disposal or burned.
As mentioned previously, for forest weeds like ivy, efforts should be focused between late summer through mid- winter control efforts, especially large group “volunteer clean-up” days. If possible, such efforts should be avoided in late winter and spring to minimize trampling and other damage to newly emerging herbaceous wildflowers.
English Holly (Ilex aquifolium) This tree is widely used in gardens and has escaped into local forests. Holly has spine-tipped, dark green leaves (which could be confused with native Oregon grape ivy—Mahonia). Individual trees are either male or female, with the females producing the attractive berries; birds that eat the berries disperse the seeds widely. It competes with native trees and shrubs for light and space. Seedlings and small plants should be pulled out by hand, and larger sized plants should be cut down and then the roots grubbed out. If roots are left, it may resprout. Remove plants before they produce berries.
European Beachgrass (Ammophila arenaria) This is a perennial grass that grows on sand dunes. It was widely planted for dune stabilization along the Pacific coastline, including locally by Hammond Lumber Co. in the early 1930s to keep sand from covering its railroad tracks between Little River and Mad River (Van Hook 1983). It ended up destroying most of the native dune communities which need sand movement to prosper. European beach grass also creates steepened foredunes, which are not beneficial to the native foredune flora (CNPS undated “A List”). European beachgrass can be distinguished from the native dune grass, Leymus mollis, by its narrow, rolled, green leaves (which turn brown in the fall); the native dune grass has broad, flat, blue-green leaves. Pickart and Sawyer (1998) provide detailed information on various methods that have been used (burning, mowing, herbicides, saltwater treatments, handpulling, etc.), alone or in combination, in attempts to control of European beachgrass. For this site, probably the best method for removal would be digging out the grass to the depth a shovel blade (best done in spring before seeds form), and 106
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan then returning every few weeks to dig up new sprouts. This effort generally requires a consistent commitment for 1-2 seasons. Piles of European beachgrass should be allowed to dry, after which they can be burned.
Himalaya berry (Rubus discolor) This Eurasian berry bush can be identified by its clusters of 5 leaflets (native blackberry have 3 leaflets) and its tall, relatively stout, arching canes. It can quickly create monoculture thickets which take over grasslands and shrublands. Existing patches of native blackberry should be monitored for presence of Himalaya berry. When discovered, Himalaya berry should be cut down and, if possible, the roots grubbed out. It will resprout from roots left underground, so repeated efforts are required.
It does provide a berry crop that is attractive to humans and wildlife—berries at MRB are picked by visitors, birds, small mammals, etc. However, there are also substantial native blackberry patches in some non-forested upland areas, and it is therefore recommended that the native berry patches be encouraged over the Himalaya berries (which probably means regularly cutting Himalaya canes that poke out over the blackberries—it would be difficult to grub out Himalaya berry bushes in such situations).
Pampas Grass/Jubata Grass (Cortaderia selloana, C. jubata) These large tussock grasses are native to South America and have been cultivated as forage for livestock. They have also been very popular as ornamental plants due to their large attractive pale plumes (flowers). When not flowering, C. selloana with its bluish-green leaves could potentially be confused with large native grasses (e.g. Leymus mollis) but it can be distinguished by the razor-sharp edges on its long drooping, leaves. Pampas grass and jubata grass are difficult to distinguish from each other, but for purposes of control there is no reason to try to separate them. Though jubata grass is considered the more aggressive of the two, both are threats to local coastal habitats. For that reason and because control measures for both are the same, they are hereafter treated as one, and lumped together under the collective name “pampas grass”.
Pampas grass grows quickly and its accumulation of above-ground and below-ground biomass allow it to sequester light, moisture, and nutrients that would otherwise be used by other plants. Even at low densities it crowds out native plants because of the amount of space an individual clump can occupy. It is highly invasive due to it ability to produce millions of seeds per plant (in the case of C. jubata, requiring no fertilization—asexually) that are wind-dispersed. It becomes established most easily in wet, sandy, bare soil, and it grows best in full sun. It has deep roots that make removal difficult. Pampas grass is considered a significant threat to the ecological quality of coastal dunes and grasslands and is a serious weed in Humboldt County. At MRB it is mostly found on the face and base of the bluffs and along the river edge—where there is exposed sandy soil and sunlight. However, isolated clumps are found in the grassland at the south end, and even in the forest itself in places where gaps in the canopy permit light to reach the forest floor (including along the main north/south forest trail).
Control Strong efforts should be made to control pampas grass before it becomes well established. TNC says well-established plants should be eliminated first because they can produce the most seeds and because they are increasingly difficult to remove the older and bigger they get. Seed dispersal should be prevented within MRB as well as from areas adjacent to it, such as on MCSD 107
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan property (MCSD has already given verbal approval, and will do so in writing if desired). Plants should be removed before they flower, which generally occurs from late July through September (but C. selloana occasionally flowers in winter, and C. jubata can sometimes flower twice in a season). Small plants can be pulled or dug out. Large plants should be cut down (a chainsaw or weedeater can expose the base of the plant, allow better access) and then the top section of the root ball should be dug out with a mattock, pulaski, or pick and shovel. It is important to remove the entire root crown to avoid resprouting (but it is not necessary to remove all of the lateral roots). If the rootball cannot be removed, it can be covered with black plastic for 6 months. If it isn’t feasible to immediately remove all clumps, then a short-term solution is to chop down (or weedwhack) the pampas grass in late spring and again in early winter to eliminate flowering. However, if plants are already flowering, carefully (to avoid spreading seeds) cut the flowering plumes and put them in plastic bags for disposal before cutting the plants down. As long as no flowering plumes are left, plants that have been cut and dug up can be left in situ to decompose.
Alternatively, the herbicide Roundup (Glyphosate) will kill Cortaderia. If Roundup is used, it should be applied directly on the plants in early morning at the manufacturer’s recommended concentrations (e.g. Roundup Pro at about 2% solution or 8 qts per 100 gallons; homeowner formulations of Roundup at 4% solution). Care should be taken to avoid spray from drifting since Roundup is a broad-spectrum herbicide, and any non-target plants that are sprayed also will be killed or damaged. “Nonionic or silicon-based surfactants may need to be added to improve penetration of the herbicide into the leaves” (CalEPPC 1999). Application of herbicide in the fall has better results than application in summer because “photosynthetic assimilates are translocating downward at a faster rate late in the season” (CalEPPC 1999).
Periwinkle (Vinca major) This evergreen groundcover has shiny, oval, opposite leaves and attractive bluish-purple 5- petaled flowers arranged in the form of a pinwheel. This plant is grown in gardens from which it has escaped to naturalize in wooded areas. It can form dense mats that smother and outcompete native plants. It is probably easiest to find when it is flowering (which can be at any time during the year) since the leaves are not very noticeable on their own. Periwinkle can be pulled out, but because it can resprout, areas where it has been discovered and removed should be checked repeatedly.
Scotch Broom (Cytisus scoparius) Scotch broom is a 3-6 ft. shrub from Europe, Britain, and northern Africa. It has small, deciduous leaves and yellow flowers. It has been widely planted along road cuts and elsewhere to improve and bind soil, and it has been cultivated as an ornamental plant. It became naturalized on Vancouver Island by 1900, and in California it was recognized as a potential problem by about 1925. Although the California State Dept. of Food and Agriculture lists Scotch broom as a Class C pest weed (of lesser threat), it is a serious problem on the northcoast. Scotch broom grows best in full sun and dry, sandy soils, so obviously, it thrives on disturbed sites. Scotch broom invades pastures and agricultural areas, scrub habitats, grasslands and along roadsides, dry riverbeds, and other “open” areas. It does not grow well in forests but will invade quickly after forest clearing where it delays or interrupts natural succession to forested conditions. It suppresses herbaceous vegetation and the regeneration of pioneer shrubs and trees. Broom spreads quickly and aggressively forms impenetrable thickets. Broom thickets can become so dense that they no longer provide good cover for wildlife like quail, and forage for deer and other wildlife is lost. It is slightly toxic and unpalatable to most livestock, (and thus 108
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan presumably to grazing wildlife). In addition, as a legume, it fixes nitrogen, and enriches the soil, which assists many other weedy species to prosper and displace native plants. Individual plants generally live only 10-15 years, but Scotch broom produces copious quantities of seeds, which create a seed bank viable for many decades. A two-year old bush can produce 60 seed pods of 5- 8 seeds each. The seed pods often open explosively, dispersing the seeds widely. Seeds may also be transported by birds and other animals. And it can resprout after cutting. At MRB, the main area of Scotch broom infestation is in the southeastern corner.
Control During efforts to control Scotch broom, soil disturbance should be kept to a minimum because bare soil is ideal for germination and establishment of broom seedlings. For the same reason, it is important to remove broom plants before seed is set. Given the situation at MRB, physical control is the recommended treatment. Handpulling is effective for seedlings or plants up to about 3 feet tall; handpulling plants of this size usually removes the root system, (Scotch broom may resprout if roots are left in the ground). It is easiest when soil is loosened after rains. For larger plants, a “weed wrench” or claw mattock can be used: first use the claw to loosen the dirt around the root, and then pull the plant out in the same way a claw hammer is used to pull out nails. If larger plants cannot be completely uprooted, one of best times to cut it down at ground level is while they are flowering (but BEFORE seed pods form) during the spring when the plants have made maximum energetic expenditure producing the flowers and the reserve food supply in the roots is low. This will weaken the plant and prevent production of seeds in that year. If roots are not pulled out, broom may resprout from root crowns, in which case cuttings may need to be repeated several times. A few people at the right time can keep existing plants from spreading, and with repeated cutting down, the energy stores in the roots are eventually depleted. If broom is cut before seeds are produced, the debris can be burned, chipped for mulch, or left on site as brush piles for cover for small mammals and birds. Because seeds already in the soil are viable for many years, yearly monitoring to identify and remove broom seedlings will be required to prevent re-establishment of broom colonies.
Although manual control is the treatment recommended in this plan, other reasonable options for control of broom in an area of this size include: --A weed burner that can be used to heat-girdle the lower stems of shrubs—this treatment method is for use during wet weather, and it should be anticipated that repeated treatments will be needed since broom does resprout from the roots. --Chemical control. The herbicide 2,4-D is the chemical most commonly used to control broom, and it is often used with additives of diquat, picloram, dicamba, and sodium chlorate. (Roundup does not do a good job of controlling broom). Herbicides can be applied in any of the ways described under “Chemical Control”.
Teasel (Dipsacus fullonum) This plant resembles a thistle but can grow to over 6 ft. It has tiny purple flowers in a spiny flower head, and its stem is prickly. It is native to Europe, but has naturalized here in disturbed areas. Currently, this species is rarely encountered at MRB, but potential exists for it to become a problem in open areas. It is found in the southeastern grassland, and in sunny areas at the toe of the bluffs. It should be pulled out before the flowers go to fruit. Like thistles, it is a bienniel, and will die after ripening seeds.
109
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Yellow Bush Lupine (Lupinus arboreus) This shrub-sized woody lupine, native to southern and central California to Sonoma County, is found in sandy dune environments along the coast. Like European beach grass, it was purposely planted on the northcoast to increase dune stabilization in certain areas, and like European beach grass it has indeed stabilized dunes and stopped the natural sand flow which native plants were adapted to. Yellow bush lupine has replaced native dune flora. In addition to increasing dune stabilization, the lupines provide shade and a moist microclimate that facilitates invasion by other non-native species. And, being a legume, the lupine is a nitrogen-fixer, adding this nutrient to normally nitrogen-poor dune soils, thus aiding colonization by other weeds, and even some native species that normally would not be found on the dunes (Pickart and Sawyer 1998).
There are several native lupines, but yellow bush lupine is the only shrub-sized (and woody) lupine with yellow flowers in this area. The yellow, pea-like flowers bloom around June, which is a good time to locate them, especially if there is concern about volunteers confusing them with large native lupines (which have purplish flowers). Seeds can be viable for decades, so it is important that plants be cut down before they fruit. Small seedlings can be pulled up. Normally yellow bush lupine will not resprout from stumps. Yellow bush lupine can also hybridize with native lupines, so hybridized plants with mixed flower colors should also be removed (Pickart, pers. comm.). Since the seedbank will exist for many years even after all fruiting shrubs are removed, seedlings will continue to pop up periodically; continued monitoring will be needed and any plants that are discovered should be pulled out. Lupines that have been cut down or pulled out can be left to compost on site (if the plants did not have seeds) or they can be piled up and burned.
Cordgrass (Spartina densiflora) Cordgrass exists in a few isolated patches along the riverbank, and has the potential to spread. It should be removed if possible.
Creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera) This is invasive in wetland areas and should be removed if possible (Pickart, pers. comm.).
Additional Concerns—The “Watch” List The likelihood of additional invasive and weedy horticultural species is particularly high due to the proximity to residential neighborhoods and the dynamic nature of the bluffs/riverfront area where bare soil (ideal germination sites for some of the worst weeds) is exposed through erosion and the movements of the river.
An additional high priority is to identify “new arrivals that have minor presence” currently but are known to be highly invasive in similar habitats. Ideally, control should be focused on these weeds before they become severe problems. “An analogy can be made to the medical paradigm of prevention versus crisis management” (Kan 1998).
Cape Ivy (Delairia odorata, previously Senecio mikanoides)—on the CNPS “A-List” One invasive weed to watch for, though it has not been detected at MRB at this time, is cape ivy (also called German ivy). In South Africa where cape ivy is native, it is not common, and originally, it seems to have been generally restricted to forest areas where trees had fallen, providing gaps in the canopy where light could penetrate. But it has become a huge problem in 110
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan parts of California, Hawaii, Spain, New Zealand, Australia and other places. It is so aggressive that in some areas it is outcompeting Himalaya berry. It will soon be listed by the California Dept. of Food and Agriculture as a noxious plant. It has been identified on School Rd., ½ mile west of Central Ave., in McKinleyville (California Exotic Pest Plant Council 2001), in Trinidad, and even on the bluff north of MRB (Pickart, pers. comm.) so it is definitely a concern. Its leaves resemble those of English ivy, with 5-7 lobes though they have sharper points than English ivy. Its small, yellow button flowers (like daisies without the outer ray flowers) appear in winter. Like English ivy, it smothers native plants. Also like English ivy, it climbs trees and if established can become equally problematic. It should be treated like English ivy, and also requires repeated control. Since no native plants here look like ivy, it is thus of no concern if volunteer workers cannot distinguish cape ivy from English ivy—they can reasonably remove everything ivy-like that is found. As a preventive measure, MLT might consider contacting the landowners to the north about permission to remove the cape ivy there before it has a chance to spread to MRB.
It appears to favor protected microclimates, which at MRB are probably best represented at the forested base of the bluffs. It can flower without trellising up into the canopy. If cape ivy is detected, it is important to conduct control efforts before seeds ripen. “The timing of this varies in different parts of the plant’s range but in the San Francisco Bay Area may be as early as November”(California Exotic Pest Plant Council 2001). With isolated patches, it can be hand- pulled; all parts should be bagged and removed to avoid resprouting. Apparently, it often leafs out before other plants, so if herbicide is chosen as a control method, it may be sprayed in December and January to minimize harming herbaceous native plants (whose foliage has not yet emerged).
Algerian ivy (Hedera canariensis) Algerian ivy is a woody vine that strongly resembles its close relative, English ivy. It has larger leaves with fewer lobes than English ivy, although some naturalized forms of Algerian ivy are morphologically indistinguishable from English ivy. Algerian ivy is commonly sold as an ornamental ground cover. Leaves can be all green or variegated. “It is able to invade relatively undisturbed forest understory”, and is now common throughout the San Francisco area. Since no native plants here look like ivy, it is thus of no concern if volunteer workers cannot distinguish Algerian ivy from English ivy—they can reasonably remove everything ivy-like that is found.
Poison hemlock (Conium maculatum)--on the CNPS “A-List” This plant is a member of the carrot family with umbel-shaped inflorescence like that of Queen Anne’s lace (Daucus carrota). The white flowers can appear from March through September. It can be distinguished from other members of the family by its height (up to 10 ft.) and its diagnostic reddish-purple spotted stems. It invades streamside areas and crowds out native plants. It is extremely poisonous to people and many animals. It is an annual plant and only lives one year, so resprouting is not a problem. Eliminating seed dispersal is the goal. Extreme care should be taken when removing this plants because of its extreme toxicity when even tiny amounts of any part is ingested. Use gloves when pulling plants up, and do so before the plants fruit in summer and fall.
Other plants to watch for (and remove) include: Montbretia (Crocosmia), a monocot with orange tubular flowers. Can be very invasive and is a particular problem in moist, riparian areas locally. It spreads quickly and readily by corms. 111
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) (moist areas) Common reed (Arundo donax) Gorse (Ulex europaea)—on the Humboldt County “A-List” Star thistle (Centaurea sp.) (grasslands) Ice plant (Carpobrotus edulis and Mesenbryanthemum crystallinum) Fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima) Castor bean (Ricinus communis) Perennial pepperwood (Lepidum latifolium) -- it is already at MRB Black locust (Robinia pseudoacasia?)
Calendar of Invasive Weed Control Activities For the first few years, it may take up to 5 events per year to gain control over the weed situation: 1-2 events each spring to control weeds (e.g. Scotch broom, Cotoneaster) invading the open areas; 1 summer event (for a year or two, thereafter only as needed) to kill and remove English ivy growing up trees (to prevent berry production); 1-2 events each fall/winter to control forest weeds (e.g. ivy, periwinkle) on the ground.
Spring: --start European beach grass removal (this will require rechecking every few weeks through summer). --pampas grass removal (manual) --Scotch broom removal --look for poison hemlock, and remove if found --berry vine control
June: --girdle (and remove, if possible) ivy growing up trees --search for the yellow flowers of yellow bush lupine and chop the plants down --cut (or pull up) bull thistle (and Canada thistle?) that have reached flowering stage --finish season of pampas grass removal (manual) --look for poison hemlock (and remove if found)
July and August: --site visits to find (via the tall flower plumes) previously unidentified pampas grass clumps; removal of their flower plumes --berry vine control
September through November: --if chemical treatment is the desired method for controlling pampas grass, it should be done during fall --berry vine control
December and January --control ivy and other forest weeds --check for cape ivy, especially along the forested base of the bluffs.
112
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
--site visits to find (via the tall flower plumes) previously unidentified pampas grass clumps; removal of their flower plumes
MANAGING THE BEACH PINE/SPRUCE FOREST Given the paucity of beach pine/spruce habitat type remaining in coastal California, protecting this forest type should be one of the primary goals of management at MRB. It is the recommendation of this plan that MLT try to maintain at least the current coverage of the pine/spruceforest and retain the pine component. In the long run, disturbance events may help retain the pine component in the forest, and it will mean accepting that some areas will be non- forested at certain points (after wind or fire disturbance) for a time. A major component of protecting this habitat and improving forest health will involve controlling and removing invasive forest weeds, as described in the previous section.
Furthermore, it is suggested that MLT allow pine regeneration to continue in the southeastern edge of the forest (see Figure 4), but perhaps limit it to the north side of the main East/West trail so that an open area at the far southeastern end of the property (location of the proposed picnic area) is maintained. There are several age classes of pine in the regenerating area—some trees are large shrub-size, over 20 ft. tall, and some are seedlings of 1-2 ft. in height. With regard to pine regeneration, one concern is to avoid a situation such as what exists along a stretch of the western edge of the MCSD sewer treatment ponds. The stand there has been very unhealthy for many years, a tall “doghair” stand, with virtually no understory or groundcover (the stand appears to have “volunteered” in after the soil was scraped bare during construction of the sewage treatment facility; the bare soil provided an ideal seed bed for beach pine, with a resulting even-age cohort of closely-spaced and stunted trees).
At MRB, a rough estimate of the density of young beach pines at the eastern edge of the forest (just north of the main east/west trail) is approximately 20 trees per 1/10 acre (Green pers. comm.), which is within the normal density range for this forest type (the average density at Lanphere Dunes is quite similar, at 21 trees per 1/10 acre). Although density here is at the high end of the normal range and is therefore likely to be less structurally diverse than lower density stands, if MLT lets regeneration proceed without intervention in this area it should not result in conditions similar to the doghair thicket near MCSD treatment ponds even (Green pers. comm.). However, if MLT wants to enhance wildlife value and interest for recreational visitors (e.g. via a more diverse understory) in this future forest area, it might be worthwhile to thin the trees, aiming for 13-15 trees per 1/10 acre. If MLT decides to thin this area, it is recommended that it be done soon, before the pines reach tree height. It is worth noting that Humboldt County regulations require a permit for vegetation clearing of more than 600 square feet, though the thinning activities described here would be more along the lines of dozens of square feet rather than hundreds of square feet.
Special Sites In addition to protecting and promoting the regeneration of the pines, there are several special areas within the forest; though the plants of interest in them are not considered rare, the sites are worthy of monitoring and protection. One of these areas is the large patch of Goodyera oblongifolia (rattlesnake plantain) in the forest understory, near the top of NBT2; throughout this document, this site has been dubbed the “Goodyera Glade”. Though rattlesnake plantain is scattered throughout the forest, the patch is unusually dense in this location (based on my own 113
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan experience and in the opinion of several botanists). The other area is a dense patch of Disporum and Smilacina racemosa; the bulk of this Disporum patch, however, is largely over the boundary on MCSD property.
Visitor use could pose a threat to both the Goodyera Glade and the Disporum site. Visitor use is directed to the Goodyera Glade from Hiller Loop Trail via a “Scenic Overlook” directional sign put up by MCSD. The spur trail to one of the existing bluff-face trails (which is also one of the proposed northern vertical access routes) passes through the Goodyera Glade, so people could trample and damage the plants if they stray from the trail. Unfortunately, there is also the possibility that people could try to collect this native orchid (even though the flowers are small and inconspicuous, the foliage is attractive in its own right), as has occurred elsewhere to the detriment of other native orchids. To minimize trampling damage, MLT might consider posting a small “Please stay on the trail” sign in this one location. If, at some point, use is causing significant damage to the plants, a short buck-and-rail fence channeling foot traffic within the trail corridor may be an appropriate measure. With regard to illegal collection of plant material, MLT should monitor this area on a regular basis.
At the Disporum site, the threat is largely from illegal campsites. This site is in close proximity to a cluster of large trees has been used repeatedly as a campsite. The plants could be (and have been) trampled and buried under the garbage dumps that are frequently associated with these illegal forest campsites. This location should be regularly inspected for illegal campsites.
PRAIRIE RESTORATION Once MCSD constructs its marsh near the boundary between Hiller Park and MRB, the “grassy round” at the northern end of the “long meadow” will be an isolated patch of grass sandwiched between marshes and forest. But without the regular mowing it has been receiving when MCSD mows the long meadow, it will probably not remain a grassland for long--it will be taken over by berry vines and dog rose (already existing in the berry vine thickets). Depending on MCSD’s final design of the marsh and trails around the perimeter, it may be possible to continue mowing (or weedwhacking) this small patch, but at that point, it would have to be done by MLT rather than MCSD. However, this potential problem situation could actually be an opportunity for restoration. This patch’s isolation from adjacent grasslands might be an ideal situation in which to recreate the type of native prairie that covered much of McKinleyville prior to settlement by European-Americans.
One benefit of the site’s isolation (after marsh construction) is that invasion by weed species via stolons and runners would be precluded, and dispersal to the site by weed seeds would be reduced (though of course, an existing seedbank of weed grasses and forbs is present in the soil at the site). Sources for plant material are available locally (CNPS plant sales, Freshwater Farms, etc.) or could be grown (from wild seed sources) by knowledgeable volunteers. But restoration of native grasslands is notoriously tricky, and a number of issues would need to be satisfactorily resolved, including how to suppress weeds, and whether a restored prairie could be maintained. (Reintroducing fire at this small site in such close proximity to the forest seems unrealistic, so in the absence of fire, would it require mowing/weedwhacking, and if so, at what frequency?). Before undertaking such a project, it would be important to get expert help in designing and planning it. One logical option would be for MLT to partner with an organization like CNPS in this effort. The members of the local chapter of CNPS have a wealth of botanical knowledge 114
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan and, hopefully, they would be willing to participate in this kind of project. It would also be wise to involve MCSD in the planning process to make sure their plans for the adjoining area would not preclude this project’s success. Both MLT and CNPS could mobilize their support networks, and volunteer work crews could have a large role to play in the initial groundwork (clearing weeds, first stage of planting). Groups or individuals could be involved in the later addition of subsequent plantings, weed control, and maintenance of the recreated prairie.
Even during the restoration process, on-site educational displays could provide information on the process of recreating the native prairie. More permanent interpretive displays could provide information about McKinleyville’s historic prairies, and the plants and wildlife that were found there (see “Interpretive Displays”, and “Volunteer Activities” sections). Once established, the recreated prairie could have significant interpretive/educational value as a native grass/wildflower demonstration area, a focal point for outdoor workshops on identification of native plants, and native plant gardening.
EROSION CONTROL & WATER QUALITY PROTECTION Use of the existing bluff-face trails contributes to erosion of the bluffslopes by denuding vegetation from the trail and by compacting the soil and concentrating the run-off. However, people will continue to use these trails or find/make other ways to get down the bluffs to the river unless acceptable alternative routes are provided. Thus, providing one or more vertical access routes with erosion control measures seems the best option. Trail projects are proposed at several existing bluff-face trails to channel visitor use to the best two vertical access routes instead of having numerous social trails leading down. The recommended projects are for those trails that provide access to the riverside areas of most interest to the public, that will have the least environmental impacts and be most cost effective. These projects will direct visitor use out of areas with springs and seeps and off of the associated wetland flora which is currently trampled. After these trail projects are completed, the remaining social trails will be decommissioned and the native vegetation restored on them. In so doing, erosion problems should be reduced and water quality improved. MLT should also investigate the existence/extent of any County drainage easement through the north end of MRB at the site of the unnamed creek and ravine. MLT should then work with the County and MCSD to minimize erosion of the creek bed, protect slope stability along the ravine, and look into water quality issues in the creek (see “Erosion and Geological Stability” section). The installation of Dogipot stations and their use by visitors should also help reduce water pollution, since it will divert dog waste that might otherwise be washed into the river and ocean.
LIMITATIONS TO ACCESS If, at some point, conflicts between human and/or dog use of the property and protection of natural resources prove significant, MLT might impose limitations on access to certain sensitive areas. One example might be harassment of pinnipeds at the haul-out near the river mouth. And at some point, suitable habitat may develop again near the beach and snowy plovers might begin to nest in the immediate vicinity of MRB; that would certainly be a reason to consider limitations on visitor use near those sites (e.g. require dogs to be leashed on the west side of the river, and prohibit vehicles there also), though from a practical standpoint, given the small amount of potential plover habitat on MRB, such restrictions would only make sense if the County regulations on the adjacent beach area were consistent. 115
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Furthermore, if sensitive habitats are damaged from visitor use (e.g. substantial increase in use, or changes in the way people are using the property), certain trails or areas might be closed temporarily (or permanently) to give sensitive habitats a chance to recover. One possible example relates to mushroom flora. This forest is expected to have a diverse and rich mycological flora, including some species that are sought after for food. Some local mushroom “hot spots” have been overpicked by commercial and/or recreational mushroom gatherers. If a problem in this regard becomes known at MRB, MLT could consider closing certain areas to visitor use. First of course, MLT would need to identify and monitor the extent of mushroom collecting that occurs at MRB.
COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT WITH MCSD Several resource management issues would be best accomplished in cooperation with MCSD. Invasive plant control will be most effective if undertaken jointly on both properties. This issue is described at length in the “Invasive Plants” section, and the MCSD manager has stated that MCSD is willing to allow MLT to remove invasive plants from Hiller Park. MLT should also work with MCSD on the issue of snag retention in the forest. Weak trees in the forest may be targeted for removal (“hazard trees”), but such trees also provide habitat for wildlife (e.g. foraging and nesting habitat for woodpeckers and other cavity nesting species). Since trails on both properties are in close proximity to the boundary line between the properties, a joint policy with a balanced approach to snag/hazard trees should be attempted. Other points of cooperative effort could include protection of the patch of red fescue (Festuca rubra) that is alongside the main east/west trail, on MCSD’s property just over the eastern boundary. This native bunchgrass is somewhat unusual along the coast, and protecting this patch may require some consideration during construction of MCSD’s marsh, and both landowners should take care when improvements or other trailwork is done on the main east/west trail (to avoid changing the drainage pattern and topography there). It may also require attention from MLT in controlling the spread of the native blackberry vines from the MRB side of the boundary in that location. As mentioned above, there is a rich patch of Disporum that straddles both properties at MRB’s eastern border. Both organizations could work together to institute monitoring patrols to discourage camping and other illicit activity in this and other locations on the properties. And MLT and MCSD both have an interest in minimizing erosion around the unnamed creek and ravine at the north end of MRB and the sewage treatment facility; the two organizations could cooperatively work on this issue.
116
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
SAFETY Given the location of bluffs, river, and ocean on or in close proximity to this property, there are inherent dangers associated with existing natural conditions. There is also potential for injury from permissible recreational activities (e.g. horseback riding, bicycling) and from other visitors’ dogs. Many of the same issues that affect quality of visitor experience and habitat protection have safety implications as well. For example, illicit campsites are frequently associated with equally illicit dumpsites; some of the dumpsites that have been found and cleaned up on the property have included such hazardous materials as syringes/needles, batteries (various types) which could leak and create toxic waste, and many items with sharp edges. Some of these topics have been addressed elsewhere in this document, but two others merit more thorough discussion here—specifically regarding both monitoring and enforcing compliance with rules and regulations, and regarding one of the natural threats.
PATROLS & ENFORCEMENT Most of the people who come to MRB are responsible citizens and visitors. But illegal camping, dumping, vandalism, and other illicit activities occasionally occur at MRB. Dealing effectively with these sorts of undesirable activities requires regular monitoring of the property, notification to proper entity(ies), followed by appropriate actions to enforce rules and regulations. One problem MLT will face when implementing a management plan for MRB will be enforcement. MLT has no paid staff, and no law enforcement capabilities of its own. The logical law enforcement agency, the County Sheriff’s Department, has been grappling with severe staffing shortfalls for years, which are unlikely to change for the better any time soon. Still, MLT should initiate conversation and a relationship with the staff at the Sheriff’s Department’s McKinleyville substation and with the coordinator of its SCOP (Citizens On Patrol) program.
A first step would be informing Sheriff’s Department staff about MRB and the issues there; they may be completely unaware of MLT’s ownership of the property, its public access status, or how to contact MLT should the need arise. Then MLT should solicit their advice regarding patrolling and enforcement for the property. One option discussed previously in this plan (“Volunteer Activities to Support MRB” section in “Public Education & Outreach” chapter) involves initiating volunteer patrols at MRB. The Sheriff’s Department staff should be able to help MLT resolve questions about this option, since the Department organized its own citizen patrol program which has now been in operation for several years. Questions include: How effective are volunteer patrol programs in deterring problems? What safety concerns would the volunteers likely face? Should/can any training be provided to the volunteers (e.g. first aid, SCOP-type training)? What, if any, equipment (cell phone, first aid kit, etc.) should patrol volunteers be provided with for use during patrols? If MLT endorses volunteer patrols, is there increased liability to MLT if volunteers are injured while patrolling? It would also be helpful to find out whether SCOP training sessions, or parts of SCOP training, are pertinent to efforts to monitor MRB, and if so, whether MLT volunteers could attend that training. Alternatively, MLT could investigate whether the SCOP program itself could provide assistance with patrols of the property. Another patrol possibility to discuss is whether MRB could be included in the route of the Sheriff’s Department’s newly-initiated bicycle patrols in McKinleyville. While volunteer patrollers would be restricted to monitoring and reporting of problems, deputies on bicycle patrol would be able to enforce regulations.
117
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Whichever option or combination of options is decided upon, MLT should coordinate efforts with MCSD. MRB and Hiller Park are adjoining properties and both face many of the same patrol/enforcement issues, including: enforcement of open/closed hours, sale and use of illegal drugs on site, illicit camping, illicit dumping, vandalism of facilities and damage to natural resources, and uncontrolled dogs, or dogs in restricted areas (if restricted areas are established).
TREE SAFETY PROGRAM Due to inherent characteristics of the species involved (see “Beach Pine/Spruce Forest” section in “Habitats & Vegetation” chapter) and the conditions along windswept coastlines where they occur, falling trees and limbs are part of the natural ecology of beach pine/spruce forests. It is a regular occurrence, though most frequent and most likely during severe wind events. Snags, trees with dead limbs, and downed woody debris are used by a variety of wildlife; thus, retention of these elements is highly desirable. However at MRB, the beach pine/spruce forest also is used by the public for a variety of recreational pursuits, and as a result, there exist potential risks to visitors from falling trees or limbs. Eliminating risk of injury from falling trees or limbs at MRB would require drastic measures--either severely curtailing public use (i.e. close the forest trails and vertical access routes) or significantly change the structure (if not entirely eliminate) the upland forest. Both scenarios are unrealistic solutions for an area that was acquired to provide for public access and to protect the natural environment there. Instead, a tree safety program should be developed to reasonably protect visitors and neighboring property from injury/damage resulting from tree-related hazards on MRB property while minimizing the impact to forest ecology.
A hazardous tree can be defined as one that “because of a recognizable mechanical flaw, poses a threat to people or property” (National Park Service 2001). But in addition, there is risk from falling trees/limbs even from trees that do not have identifiable defects (i.e. that are not “hazard trees”). “The potential for human injury or property damage from tree failures increases significantly during storms….[CDPR] records indicate that tree failures increase substantially when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. Above this windspeed, whole trees are in motion and large branches and tops (conifers) may break. Individual trees with structural defects, weak or brittle wood, or shallow roots are particularly susceptible. Structurally sound trees can also fail unpredictably if the soil is saturated with water or the tree is newly exposed to direct winds due to the loss of neighboring trees.” (CDPR). Thus, reducing risk at MRB will require consideration of individual “hazard trees” and of the local conditions that can create a “tree safety” situation, unrelated to whether individual trees have any identifiable defects.
California Government Code Section 831.2 should provide MLT with immunity for injuries caused by natural conditions on unimproved parts of the property. Public agencies generally restrict their hazard tree programs to areas designated as “developed zones” where visitors are invited to stop and congregate. Likewise, MLT’s primary focus should be on reducing risk in developed areas at MRB, and at boundary areas adjoining private residences and the parking area at the terminus of Ocean Dr. At MRB, the only areas that would clearly fall under the “developed zone” definition would be the proposed picnic area and proposed bench sites; designated scenic overlooks might possibly be included. Trails, especially unpaved trails, can probably be excluded, however MLT should discuss this issue with legal counsel. One exception could be the main east/west trail if it is hardened/paved to make it more handicap-accessible; at that point, immunity will be more limited and MLT might consider implementing tree-safety 118
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan inspections along the forested part of that particular trail corridor. The CDPR does not consider trails to be part of the developed zone, and therefore does not include trails and roads in their tree safety program (CDPR). The NPS (2001) includes paved “walkways” that are in developed areas within the scope of its hazard tree program, but differentiates between these paved walkways and hiking trails; the NPS plan states that although long horse trails or hiking trails might involve some form of inspection, “Inspection of such trail systems often will not be a high park priority because of the extremely low risk to visitors and because of the extensive manpower requirement” (NPS 2001). Furthermore, from a practical standpoint, given the type of forest at MRB, trying to remove all potentially hazardous trees within falling distance of trail corridors would probably be an exercise in clearcutting, one that would be unlikely to be permitted by the County or the State Coastal Commission.
Assuming concurrence from legal counsel, it is recommended that MLT develop a limited tree safety program that relies heavily on appropriate warning signage regarding tree safety issues. The program should also include inspections and appropriate treatment in areas where visitors are encouraged to stop and congregate and in the boundary zone from the Ocean Dr. entrance westward. Trails would be considered walk-through areas, excluded from tree safety inspections (though see caveat about paving the main east/west trail).
The MRB tree safety program could incorporate the following components: Warning Signs Regardless of whether MLT decides to implement a tree inspection program on the property, it is of utmost importance that signage notify visitors of tree safety risks. Warnings should be posted on entrance signs (kiosks), and at other entrances to the forest trails. Emphasis of such warning signs would be on alerting visitors to the danger of trees and tree limbs falling during and after wind events (perhaps something like, “Snags and dead branches are part of the natural beach pine forest. There is a danger of trees and tree limbs falling, especially during and after wind events.”). If MLT decides on a policy of closing the property to visitation during severe wind and/or rainstorms (see below), this policy should be prominently posted.
Temporary Closure Policy Even trees without recognizable defects are susceptible to blowdown in adverse weather, and beach pine forests in coastal environments may be even more prone to it. Therefore, MLT may want to consider implementing a policy of closing the property to visitation during severe wind and/or rainstorms, or at least recommending that visitors avoid the forested area during such weather. In it’s most simple form, implementation of a closure policy might be accomplished by posting the terms of closure on permanent signs where trails lead into the forested area; compliance would be the visitors’ responsibility (as always, legal counsel should be obtained before implementation).
Picnic Area Entirely avoid tree safety issues by installing the picnic area in either of the recommended locations (southeast end of the property or “grassy round”), where they would not be within range of falling trees.
Inspections Implement regular, formal inspections of all trees within falling distance of developed areas at MRB to identify trees with defects that are a significant risk. Likewise on a regular basis, 119
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan formally inspect trees in the area along the southern boundary that could cause property damage to neighboring residences and to vehicles parked at the Ocean Dr. entrance. Useful information for developing the program, identifying hazardous tree conditions, evaluation of hazardous trees, etc. can be obtained from CDPR’s Department Operating Manual (Chapter 1104—“Tree Safety Program”), as well as in the NPS’ Natural Resource Management Guidelines (“Hazardous Trees” section of Chapter 2).
MLT should also include occasional informal inspections of developed areas and boundaries by board members, staff, etc. when visiting the property and, if possible, after large storm events.
Treatment of Hazard Tree Situations Boundary Zone: Once identified and evaluated, trees (or limbs) in the boundary zone that pose a significant hazard to neighboring residences or the Ocean Dr. parking area should be either made safe or removed as soon as possible. From the time that a tree is designated as hazardous, MLT will be faced with increased liability for any injury or damage resulting from that tree until the situation is resolved. But MLT should also familiarize itself with ordinances and Coastal Zone regulations with regard to tree removal prior to any tree removal activities.
Developed Areas within MRB: Once trees that pose a significant hazard to developed areas within MRB are identified and evaluated, MLT should promptly determine whether the situation can be modified to remove the hazardous condition (e.g. move the bench, temporarily close the area), or whether all or some part of a tree(s) need to be removed. Then action should be taken as soon as possible to reduce the risk.
120
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
REFERENCES
Agee, J. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Island Press. Covalo, Calif.
Allen, E.A., D.J. Morrison, and G.W Wallis. 1996. Common tree diseases of British Columbia. Nat. Resources Canada. Canadian For. Serv., Victoria, B.C.
Arcata Union. 26 March, 1914. “Death of Mrs. M. Hiller”
Baskin, Jim. December 21, 1998. Letter of response to inquiry regarding MLT’s Chah GAH Cho habitat restoration plan. Planning Division, Planning and Building Dept., County of Humboldt. 6 pp.
Borgeld, J.C., M.J. Scalici, M. Lorang, P.D. Komar, and F.G. Burrows. 1993. Final project evaluation report: Mad River mouth migration. Prepared for Calif. Dept. of Transportation, District 1, Eureka, Calif. 81 pp.
Brown, Michelle, Chris Calonje, Melissa Wilson, Dan Wooden. Spring 2002. Mad River Bluffs Background Assessment and User Survey. NRPI 275 Planning Practicum. HSU, Arcata, Calif. 37 pp.
Busby, P.J., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, L.J. Lierheimer, R.S. Waples, F.W. Waknitz, and I.V. Lagomarsino. August 1996. Status review of west coast steelhead from Washingoton, Idaho, Oregon, and California. National Marine Fisheries Service.
Buttolph, Phillip. 1987. Distribution of holoplanktonic copepods in the Mad River estuary. M.S. thesis. Humboldt State Univ. Arcata, Calif. 76 pp.
California Coastal Conservancy. February 22, 2001. Hiller West acquisition: project summary. File # 99-122. The Coastal Conservancy, State of California. 12 pp.
California Department of Fish and Game. California state fishing regulations. March 2003. Published online at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/fg_comm/fishregs.html.
California Department of Parks and Recreation. Department Operating Manual. Chapter 1104. Tree Safety Program. CDPR, State of California.
California Exotic Pest Plant Council. Oct. 2001. Working Groups 2001 Cape Ivy Report. Published online: http://groups.ucanr.org/ceppc/Working_Groups/2001_Cape_Ivy_report.htm
-----. 1999. The CalEPPC List: exotic pest plants of greatest ecological concern in California. Published online: http://caleppc.org.
California Native Plant Society, Northcoast Chapter. Invasive Weeds of Humboldt County— “A”-List. Published online: http://www.northcoast.com/~cnps/iwhc/iwhcal.htm
121
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
California Natural Diversity Data Base. 1997. List of California terrestrial natural communities recognized by the Calif. Natural Diversity Data Base. Unpublished list. Natural Heritage Div., Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game. Sacramento, Calif.
Carranco, Lynwood and Henry Sorenson. 1988. Steam in the redwoods. Caxton Printers, Caldwell, Idaho. 224 pp.
Coy, Owen. 1982. The Humboldt Bay Region 1850-1875. Humboldt County Historical Society, Eureka, Calif. (reprinted from original in 1929 by Calif. State Historical Assoc., Los Angeles, Calif.).
Curtis, Edward. 1970. The North American Indian: the Indians of the U.S., the Dominion of Canada and Alaska. Vol. 13. Johnson Reprint Corp., New York. (reprinted from 1924).
Daniel, T.W. and J. Schmidt. 1972. Lethal and nonlethal effects of the organic horizons of forested soils on the germination of seeds from several associated conifer species of the Rocky Mountains. Can. J. For. Res. 2(3):179-184.
Dighton, J. 1987. Ecology and management of ectomycorrhizal fungi in the U.K. In Mycorrhizae in the next decade: practical applications and research priorities. D.M. Sylvia, L.L. Hung, and J.H. Graham (eds). Univ. Florida, Inst. Food Agric. Sciences, Gainesville, Florida. Pp. 75-77.
-----, J.M. Poskitt, and D.M. Howard. 1986. Changes in the occurrence of basidiomycete fruit- bodies during forest stand development with specific reference to mycorrhizal species. Trans. Brit. Mycol. Soc. 87(1): 163-171.
Dyer, K.R. 1973. Estuaries: a physical introduction. John Wiley, London, England. 245 pp.
Dudley, Tom. 1998. Exotic plant invasions in California riparian areas and wetlands. Fremontia 26(4): 24-29.
Egler, F.E. 1934. Communities and successional trends in the vegetation of the Coos Bay sand dunes, Oregon. Masters Thesis, Univ. Minnesota, MN.
Ferndale Enterprise. 30 June 1914. “George Hiller Passes Away”.
Fuller, T.C. and G.D. Barbe. 1985. The Bradley method of eliminating exotic plants from natural reserves. Fremontia 13 (2):24-25.
Gibbs, George. 1853. Journal of the Redick McKee Expedition. Appendix B, pp 209-298, in Lure of the Humboldt Bay Region. Chad L. Hoopes. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. (revised edition, 1971).
Gibson, D.D. and B. Kessel. 1989. Geographic variation in the marbled godwit and description of an Alaskan subspecies. Condor 91: 436-443.
122
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Green, Shayne. 1999. Structure and dynamics of a coastal dune forest at Humboldt Bay, California. M.S. Thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, Calif. 78 pp.
Grimm, Marcia and James Pierce. Limitations on liability for nonprofit land managers. 2nd ed. 1997. Technical Bulletin. California Coastal Conservancy and California Coastal Commission. 20 pp.
Gwin, Loberta. 2000. Dow’s North of Mad River. Ocean Edge Press, McKinleyville, Calif. 182 pp.
Halligan, Dennis. 1997. Draft biological assessment for fisheries resources potentially affected by gravel extraction in Humboldt County, Calif. Natural Resources Management Corp., Eureka, Calif.
-----. 1999. Final report—1998 fisheries monitoring program for gravel extraction operations on the Mad, Eel, Van Duzen, and Trinity Rivers. Natural Resources Management Corp., Eureka, Calif.
Harris, A.S. 1990. Picea sitchensis—Sitka spruce. Pages 260-267 in Silvics of North America, Vol 1, Conifers. R.M. Burns and B.H. Honkala, technical coordinators. Agriculture Handbook 654. USDA Forest Service, Washington D.C.
Haynes, Christopher. 1986. The Arcata Bottoms: flooding on a changing landscape. M.A. Thesis, HSU, Arcata, Calif. 123 pp.
Heilman, P.E. 1990. Forest management challenged in the Pacific Northwest: increasingly cynical public questions sustainability of current practices. J. For 88(11):16-23.
Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. Unpub. Report. Calif. Dept. Fish & Game, Sacramento, Calif.
Hoshovsky, Marc. Element Stewardship Abstract for Cytisus scoparious and Genista monspessulanus. The Nature Conservancy. Published online: http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/documents/cytisco.html
Humboldt Standard. 20 August 1929. “Mrs. Charlotte Catherine Hiller, pioneer Humboldt resident dies”.
----. 16 March 1916. “Find will of pioneer B.F. Hiller”.
Irvine, Leigh. 1915. History of Humboldt County, Calif. with biographical sketches. Historical Record Company, Los Angeles, Calif. 1290 pp.
Jager, Douglas. 1994. Program Environmental Impact Report on gravel removal from the lower Mad River. Prepared for the County of Humboldt, California. Eureka, Calif. 225 pp. Sch# 92083049.
123
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Jepson manual: higher plants of California. 1993. James C. Hickman, ed. Univ. of Calif. Press, Berkeley, Calif.
Johnson, J.W. 1963. Ecological study of the dune flora of the North Spit of Humboldt Bay. M.A. Thesis. Humboldt State Univ., Arcata, Calif. 447 pp.
Kan, Tamara. 1998. The Nature Conservancy’s approach to weed control. Fremontia 26(4): 44- 48.
Khlebovich, V. 1969. Aspects of animal evolution related to critical salinity and internal state. Mar. Biol. 2:338-345.
Krajina, V.J. 1969. Ecology of forest trees in British Columbia. Ecol. West. North Am. 2(1):1- 147.
Kroeber, Alfred. 1972. Handbook of the Indians of California. Scholarly Press, St. Clair Shores, Mich. Reprinted from Bulletin 78 of U.S. Bureau of American Ethnology issued by the Government Printing Office, Wash. D.C. in 1925. 995 pp.
Lehto, T. 1992. Effect of drought on Picea sitchensis seedlings inoculated with mycorrhizal fungi. Scand. J. For. Res. 7:177-182.
Lindsay, J.B. 1973. A lichen flora of the Samoa Peninsula. Master’s Thesis. HSU, Arcata, Calif.
Lotan, J.E. and W.B. Critchfield. 1990. Pinus contorta—lodgepole pine. Pages 302-315 in Silvics of North America, Vol 1, Conifers. R.M. Burns and B.H. Honkala, technical coordinators. Agriculture Handbook 654. USDA Forest Service, Washington D.C.
Lotan, J.E., M.E. Alexander, S.F. Arno, R.E. French, O.G. Langdon, R.M. Loomis, R.A. Norum, R.C. Rothermel, W. C. Schmidt, and J.W. Van Wagtendonk. 1981. Effects of fire on flora. U.S. Dept. Agric. For. Serv., Gen Tech. Rep. WO-16. pp 2-11.
Loud, L.L. 1918. Ethnogeography and archaelogy of the Wiyot territory. Univ. of Calif. Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology. Vol 14(3): 221-436. Univ. of Calif. Press, Berkeley, Calif.; reprinted by Coyote Press, Salinas, Calif.
McCavish, W. J. 1980. Forest weed control. UK Forestry Commission, Report on Forest Research 1980:11-12.
McLaughlin, James C. and Frank Harradine. 1965. Soils of Western Humboldt County, California. Univ. Calif. at Davis, Davis, Calif.
Miller, Linda. 1990. Preliminary site evaluation: C.E. Massae Property, McKinleyville, Humboldt County, California. Unpubl. Report. 4 pp.
Minore, D. 1979. Comparative autecological characteristics of northwestern tree species: a literature review. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-87. 124
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Mobley, L. 1954. Scotch broom, a menace to forest, range and agricultural land. Proc. 6th Ann. Calif. Weed Conf. P 39-42.
Molina, R. and J.M. Trappe. 1982. Patterns of ectomycorrhizal host specificity and potential among Pacific Northwest conifers and fungi. For. Sci. 28(3):423-458.
Morisawa, TunyaLee. June 1999. Wildland Weeds Management and Research. Weed Notes: Hedera helix L. The Nature Conservancy. Published online: http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/hedeheli/html.
Mountjoy, J.H. 1979. Broom—a threat to native plants. Fremontia 6(4): 11-15.
Muir, John. 1938. “In the Redwoods” in John of the Mountains: the unpublished journals of John Muir. Ed. by Linnie Marsh Wolfe. Univ. of Wisconsin Press. Madison, Wisconsin. 459 pp.
National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region. July 9, 1997. Biological opinion: permission procedure to permit gravel mining in Humboldt County, Calif. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Dept. of Commerce.
National Park Service. April, 2001 (updated). Natural resources management guidelines. Chapter 2: Public Health and Safety—Hazardous Trees. http://www2.nature.nps.gov/nps77/index.html.
National Weather Service. March 2003. Northwest California Climate. Unpublished report at www.wrh.noaa.gov/Eureka/climate/. Eureka, Calif.
Nielsen, Edith. 1994. Recalling McKinleyville’s past. Humboldt County Office of Education, Eureka, Calif. 78 pp.
Nilsen, Edward L. August 15, 1990. Appraisal of Massae property and Rylander property. Prepared for McKinleyville Community Services District. 44 pp.
Northcoast Geotechnical Services, and Huffman and Associates, Inc. June 5, 1981. Engineering Geological Investigation Focusing on Coastal Bluff Stability. Prepared for Matthews Machinery Co. in Draft EIR, The Sand Pointe Development Project. Vol. II: Alquist Priolo Report and R-1 Geological and Geoltechnological Report and Appendices C through H. Sch #9503305. Prepared for The Humboldt County Planning Dept., Steve Moser, and Brian and Cindi Hunt. January 1996.
Oscar Larson and Associates. Draft EIR, The Sand Pointe Development Project. Vol. I: EIR text and Appendices A & B. Sch #9503305. Prepared for The Humboldt County Planning Dept., Steve Moser, and Brian and Cindi Hunt. January 1996.
Peterson, E.B, N.M. Peterson, G.F. Weetman, P.J. Martin. 1997. Ecology and management of Sitka spruce, emphasizing its natural range in British Columbia. UBC Press, Vancouver, Canada. 336 pp. 125
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Peterson, David L. and Mary J. Russo (revision). Element stewardship abstract for Cortaderia jubata. Published online: http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/documents/cytisco.html . The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia
Pickart, A. January 1999. Everyone’s (finally) talking about weeds. Published online: http://www.northcoast.com/~cnps/exotics.htm .
----- and J. Sawyer. 1998. Ecology and restoration of Northern California coastal dunes. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, Calif. 152 pp.
Powell, Thomas, ed. May, 2003. “Pickled Weeds”. The Avant Gardener: the unique horticultural news service. Vol 35(7): 1.
Powers, Stephen. 1976. Tribes of California. University of Calif. Press, Berkeley, Calif. Reprinted from 1877 ed. of vol. 3 of Contributions to North American ethnology by Govt. Printing Office, Wash. D.C. 480 pp.
Pring, George. Risk management and insurance. Pp 6-37 to 6-52 in The Standards and Practices Guidebook: an operating manual for land trusts. Land Trust Alliance, Washington D.C. 1997.
Redwood Community Action Agency. 2003. Humboldt Bay Interpretive Signing Program. Published online: http://www.rcaa.org/baysigns.
Redwood Geneology Society. 1972. Assessment of property and poll tax list for 1856 in Klamath County. Redwood Researcher 4(3): 11. P.O. Box 645, Fortuna, Calif.
-----. Nov 1982. Great Register of Humboldt County, Calif. 1865. Redwood Researcher 15(2):10. Box 645, Fortuna, Calif
-----. Nov. 1988. Klamath County, Klamath Township Greater Register 1869. Redwood Researcher 21(1). P.O. Box 645, Fortuna, Calif.
-----. 1985. There really was a Klamath County: 1851-1874. P.O. Box 645, Fortuna, Calif. 111 pp.
Ridenhour, Richard L., A.K. Johnson, and D.G. Skeesick. 1961. Survey of the Mad River with special reference to king salmon. Humboldt State College, Arcata, Calif.
Ripple, W.J. 1994. Historic spatial patterns of old forests in western Oregon. J. For. 92:45-49.
Roberts, R. Chad, Annie L. Eicher, and Mignonne Bivin. July 1991. Preliminary Biological Report, Massae Subdivision Proposal. Prepared for Sierra National Trust. Oscar Larson and Associates, Eureka, Calif. 13 pp.
Roberts, R. Chad. 1995. Aquatic resources, wetlands, and water quality. P 4-10 to 4-27 in Biological report for the Sand Pointe Development. Prepared for Brian and Cindi Hunt and Steve Moser. Oscar Larson and Associates, Eureka, Calif. 126
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Roscoe, James M. October 8, 1990. A cultural resources study of the Massae property, McKinleyville, Humboldt County, California. (in Humboldt County Community Development Dept., Planning Division file on Sierra National Trust)
Sawyer, J.O. and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A manual of California vegetation. California Native Plant Society Press. Sacramento, Calif. 471 pp.
SHN Consulting Engineers and Geologists. November 1990. Geologic hazard evaluation & preliminary soil evaluation (Phase 1) for Assessor’s Parcel Number 510-271-31. Prepared for Gordon Massae. (in Humboldt County Community Development Dept., Planning Division file on Sierra National Trust).
SHN Consulting Engineers and Geologists. December, 1994. Preliminary R-1 geologic and geotechnical report for the proposed subdivision, AP #511-011-14, McKinleyville, Humboldt County, California. In Draft EIR, The Sand Pointe Development Project. Vol. II: Alquist Priolo Report and R-1 Geological and Geotechnological Report and Appendices C through H. Sch #9503305. Prepared for The Humboldt County Planning Dept., Steve Moser, and Brian and Cindi Hunt. January 1996. Oscar Larson and Associates, Eureka, Calif.
Silberstein, Bill and Ellis Rosenzweig. Spring 2002. Law Update: Minimizing liability for public access on private lands. Land Trust Alliance Exchange. Vol 21(2): 24-25.
Sinclair, W.A., H.H. Lyon, and W.T. Johnson. 1987. Diseases of trees and shrubs. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, N.Y.
Slee, Kendall. Summer 2002. Partnerships are key to stewarding preserves with public access. Land Trust Alliance Exchange. Vol 21(3): 5-10.
SSPCO. 1999. Soil Stabilization Products. Online at http://www.sspco.org.
Spalt, K.W. and W.E. Reifsnyder. 1962. Bark characteristics and fire resistance: a literature review. U.S. Dept. Agric. For. Serv. Occas. Pap. S-193.
Sparkman, M.D. 2002. Habitat utilization and migration movement patterns of wild and hatchery radio tagged adult winter-run steelhead in the Mad River, Humboldt County, California. S-Ramp Project, Calif. Dept. Fish & Game. 30 pp.
-----. 2002. 2001-2002 Annual report: recreational angler use and catch in the Mad River, Humboldt County, Calif. November 2001-March 2002. Steelhead Research and Monitoring Program, Calif. Dept. Fish & Game. Eureka, Calif. Unpub. Report. 26 pp.
Sugihara, Neil. 1980. Ectomycorrhizal associations of beach pine in the coastal dunes of the Samoa Peninsula, Humboldt County, Calif. M.S. Thesis, HSU, Arcata, Calif. 68 pp.
Taniguchi, K.A. 1970. Interval of estuarine residence and outmigration of the juvenile chinook salmon in the Mad River. M.S. Thesis. HSU, Arcata, Calif. 87 pp.
127
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Taylor, A.H. 1990. Disturbance and persistence of Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) in coastal forests of the Pacific Northwest, North America. J. Biogeogr. 17:47-58.
Thompson, Robert W. 1971. Recent sediments of Humboldt Bay, Eureka, California. Final Report PRF #789-G2. School of Natural Resources, Humboldt State College. Arcata, Calif. 62 pp.
Trappe, J.M. 1962. Fungus associates of ectotropic mycorrhizae. Bot. Rev. 28:538-606.
Turner, Dennis. 1993. Place names of Humboldt County, California: a compendium 1542-1992. Eureka Printing Co. Eureka, Calif. 280 pp.
Tuttle, Donald. July 1998. Negative declaration and initial study for replacement of the Hammond Trail bridge over Mad River in Humboldt County, Calif. Natural Resources Division, Humboldt County Dept. of Public Works, Eureka, Calif.
-----. 2002. Historical Architectural Survey Report for Railroad Drive in McKinleyville, Humboldt County, Calif. Humboldt County Dept. of Public Works. Eureka, Calif.
U.S. Geological Service. 2002. Surface water data for California monthly stream flow statistics. Published online at: http://water.usgs.gov/ca/nwis/dv.
Van Hook, S.S. 1985. The ecology of the macrofungi at the Lanphere-Christensen dunes Preserve, Arcata, California. M.A. Thesis, HSU, Arcata, Calif. 151 pp.
------. 1983. A study of European beachgrass, Ammophila arenaria: control methods and a management plan for the Lanphere-Christensen Dunes Preserve. Unpub. report of The Nature Conservancy. San Francisco, Calif.
Watson, E.B., S.W. Cosby, and A. Smith. 1921. Soil survey of the Eureka area, Calif. U.S. Dept. of Agric., Bureau of Soils in coop. with U.C. Agric. Exp. Stn. P. 851-881.
Weed Research & Information Center. Pampasgrass and jubatagrass threaten California coastal habitats. Univ. of Calif. at Davis. Published online: http://wric.ucdavis.edu/information/pampasgrass/pampasgrass1.html.
Weitkamp, L.A., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, G.B. Milner, D.C. Teel, R.G. Kope, and R.S. Waples. Sept. 1995. Status review of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. National Marine Fisheries Service.
Wheeler, N.C. and W.B. Critchfield. 1985. The distribution and botanical characteristics of lodgepole pine: biogeographical and management implications. Pages 1-13 in Lodgepole pine: the species and its management. Baumgartner, D.M., R.G. Krebill, J.T. Arnott, and G.F. Weetman, eds. Symposium proceedings May 8-10, 1984. Spokane, Wash. Washington State Univ., Pullman, Washington.
128
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Wiedemann, A.M. 1966. Contributions to the plant ecology of the Oregon coastal sand dunes. PhD Dissertation. Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, Oregon.
Wiedemann, A.M. 1984. The ecology of Pacific Northwest coastal sand dunes: a community profile. Prep. for the National Ecosystems Team. Div. of Biol. Sciences, Research and Dev., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI.
Wistar, Isaac. 1937. The autobiography of Isaac Jones Wistar: 1827-1905: half a century in war and peace. P. 197. Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, Philadelphia, Penn.
Wood, L.K. Revised edition 1971. Discovery of Humboldt Bay. Appendix A. P. 181-208 in Lure of Humboldt Bay Region. Chad L. Hoopes. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Wood, William F., Frederick J. Hanke, Isao Kubo, Jennifer A, Carroll, and Phillip Crews. 2000. “Buzonamine, a new alkaloid from the defensive secretion of the millipede, Buzonium crassipes. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 28: 305-312.
Historical Records (at Humboldt County Recorders Office): Humboldt County Grantee/Grantor Books from 1850-1965 Humboldt County Deed Books (and microfiche copies) from 1870-1965 Klamath County Grantor/Grantee Indices 1851-1874 Klamath County Deed Books Klamath County Book of Preemption Claims Klamath County Index to Mortgages (books B and C, 1866-1874) Klamath County Homesteads Book
Historical Records/Maps: (at the office of the Humboldt County Historical Society): 1860 Humboldt County Tax Assessment Ledger 1876-1877 Humboldt County Tax Assessment Ledger 1870 township plat maps of Humboldt County, Calif. 1880 U.S. Census of Humboldt County. Calif.
Historical Maps and Air Photos (at Natural Resources office, Public Works Dept., Humboldt County, Eureka, Calif.): 1865 Doolittle Map of Humboldt County, Calif. 1888 Lentell Map of Humboldt County, Calif. 1898 Lentell Map of Humboldt County, Calif. 1909 Punnett Brothers Map of Humboldt County, Calif. 1914 Lentell Map of Humboldt County, Calif. 1922 Belcher Map of Humboldt County, Calif. 1942 Air photos (especially CV-9B-146) 1970 Air photos
Personal Communications Marnie Atkins (cultural chair, Wiyot Tribe) Dr. Richard Botzler (professor—Wildlife Dept., Humboldt State University) 129
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Johnny Caulkins (crew foreman, California Conservation Corps) Alan Compher (neighboring landowner) Tracey Ferdolage (director of Parks & Recreation Dept., McKinleyville Community Services District) Steve Fisher (park maintenance supervisor, California Dept. of Parks and Recreation) Greg Goldsmith (biologist, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service) Tom Hofweber (senior planner, Humboldt County Community Development Dept.) Dr. Dawn Goley (professor--Biology Dept., Humboldt State University) Shayne Green (botanist) Ron LeValley (biologist/owner, Mad River Biologists) Tom Marking (manager, McKinleyville Community Services District) Jim Meshanko (insurance agent) Bradford Norman (fisheries technician, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service) Larry Preston (fisheries biologist, California Dept. of Fish & Game) Dr. Terry Roelofs (professor--Fisheries Dept, Humboldt State University) Oona Smith (consultant, PlanWest Partners) Michael Sparkman (fisheries biologist, California Dept. of Parks and Recreation) Donald Tuttle (consultant, Public Works Dept, Humboldt County) Ted Weller (bat biologist, U.S. Forest Service)
130
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
APPENDICES
Appendix A: FLORA OF MAD RIVER BLUFFS
Woody vegetation is divided into tree and shrub categories based on height rather than by species; in some cases, certain species are listed in both categories because of size differences. Non-native plants are identified with an asterisk (*) after the scientific name. Scientific names follow Jepson (1998).
BEACH PINE/SITKA SPRUCE FOREST HABITAT Trees: Alnus rubra red alder Picea sitchensis Sitka spruce Pinus contorta contorta beach pine Tsuga heterophylla Western hemlock
Shrubs: Cotoneaster sp.* cotoneaster Gaultheria shallon salal Ilex aquifolium* English holly Lonicera involucrata twinberry Malus fusca Oregon crabapple Myrica californica Pacific wax myrtle Rhamnus purshiana cascara Ribes sanguineum red-flowering currant Rosa nutkana wood rose Rubus discolor* Himalaya berry Rubus parviflorus thimbleberry Rubus spectabilis salmonberry Rubus ursinus California blackberry Sambucus racemosa red elderberry Spirea douglasii Western spirea Vaccinium ovatum evergreen huckleberry Vaccinium parvifolium red huckleberry
Herbs and Vines: Agrostis sp.* bent grass Anthozanthum odoratum* sweet vernal grass Aster chilensis Chilean aster Athyrium filix-femina lady fern Botrychium multifidum leather grape-fern Bromus carinatus California brome Calamagrostis nutkaensis reed grass Carex obnupta Carex sp. Cirsium sp.* thistle Claytonia siberica Siberian candyflower Cortaderia selloana* (and/or C. jubata) pampas grass/jubata grass 131
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Dactylus glomerata* orchard grass Dicentra formosa western bleeding heart Disporum smithii Smith’s fairybell Epilobium angustifolium fireweed Erechtites minima* Australian fireweed Euphorbia sp.? spurge Galium sp. bedstraw Goodyera oblongifolia rattlesnake plantain Hedera helix* English ivy Holcus lanatus* velvet grass Hordeum jubatum foxtail barley Hordeum marinum (ssp leporinum)* Mediterranean barley Hypochaeris radicata* rough cat’s ear Iris douglasiana Douglas iris Leucanthemum vulgare* ox-eye daisy Lilium columbianum Columbia lily Lotus corniculata* birdfoot trefoil Luzula comosa hairy wood rush Maianthemum dilatatum false lily-of-the-valley Marah oreganus coast man-root Parentucellia viscosa* sticky parentucellia Plantago lanceolata* English plantain Polypodium scouleri leather-leaf fern Polypogon sp. beard grass Polystichum munitum sword fern Pteridium aquilinum bracken fern Ranunculus repens* creeping buttercup Scrophularia californica bee plant Smilacina stellata false Solomon’s seal Solidago spathulata coast goldenrod Sonchus sp.* sow thistle Stachys sp. hedge nettle Stellaria media* common chickweed Trientalis latifolia starflower Trifolium repens* white clover Trisetum cernuum Unidentified Trefoil clover Urtica dioica ?? stinging nettle Vicia sp. vetch Viola sempervirens redwood violet
132
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
COASTAL (UPLAND) GRASS/SHRUB HABITAT Shrubs: Baccharis pilularis coyote bush Berberis darwinii* Darwin’s barberry Ceanothus thyrsiflorus wild lilac Cotoneaster sp.(2 species or varieties)* cotoneaster Cytisus scoparius* Scotch broom Lonicera involucrata twinberry Pinus contorta contorta beach pine Rhamnus purshiana cascara Rubus discolor* Himalaya berry Rubus ursinus California blackberry Salix lasiolepis arroyo willow Salix sitchensis Sitka willow
Herbs and Vines: Achillea millefolium yarrow Agrostis sp. (probably stolonifera) creeping bent grass Anthozanthum odoratum* sweet vernal grass Aster chilensis Chilean aster Bromus carinatus California brome Bromus hordeaceus soft chess Cirsium sp. (vulgare?)* thistle Cortaderia jubata (+selloana?)* jubata (pampas) grass Daucus carrota* Queen Anne’s lace Epilobium angustifolium fireweed Erectites minima* Australian fireweed Festuca rubra red fescue Fragaria chiloensis wild strawberry Geranium sp. or Erodium sp. cranesbill or filaree Holcus lanatus* velvet grass Hypochaeris radicata* rough cat’s ear Leucanthemum vulgare* ox-eye daisy Linum bienne* flax Lolium perenne* perennial ryegrass Lotus corniculatus* birdfoot trefoil Lupinus rivularis lupine Madia sp. (probably M. sativa) tarweed (yellow) Marah oreganus coast man-root Narcissus sp* daffodil Plantago lanceolata* English plantain Prunella vulgaris* self-heal Pteridium aquilinum bracken fern Viola adunca Western dog violet (plus Canabis sativa—1 solitary plant found)
133
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
COASTAL BLUFF HABITAT (forested slopeface and base) Trees: Alnus rubra red alder Picea sitchensis Sitka spruce Pinus contorta contorta beach pine
Shrubs: Baccharis pilularis coyote bush Cistus sp (x purpureus?)* rock rose Garrya eliptica silk tassel Gaultheria shallon salal Ilex aquifolium* English holly Lonicera involucrata twinberry Myrica californica Pacific wax myrtle Picea sitchensis Sitka spruce Pinus contorta shore pine Rhamnus purshiana cascara Ribes sanguineum red-flowering currant Rubus discolor* Himalaya berry Rubus parviflorus thimbleberry Rubus spectabilis salmonberry Rubus ursinus California blackberry Salix hookeriana coastal willow Salix lasiolepis arroyo willow Sambucus racemosa red elderberry Vaccinium ovatum evergreen huckleberry
Herbs and Vines: Agrostis sp. (stolonifera?) bent grass Anaphalis margaritacea pearly everlasting Angelica lucida angelica Achillea millefolium yarrow Artemesia douglasiana mugwort Aster chilensis Chilean aster Athyrium filix-femina lady fern Cirsium vulgare* bull thistle Claytonia siberica Siberian candyflower Cortaderias (jubata & selloana*) pampas grass Cyntorium muhlenbergia*? Dipsacus fullonum* wild teasel Disporum smithii Smith’s fairybell Eleocharis macrostachya Epilobium angustifolium fireweed Equisetum telmateia giant horsetail Gnaphalium sp. cudweed Hedera helix* English ivy Herschfeldia incana* Holcus lanatus* velvet grass 134
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Hypochaeris radicata* rough cat’s ear Juncus effusus rush Juncus sp. rush Lathyrus sp. wild pea Lotus corniculata* birdfoot trefoil Lupinus arboreus* yellow bush lupine Lupinus rivularis lupine Lysichiton americanum yellow skunk cabbage Marah oreganus coast man-root Mentha sp. (Unidentified) mint Mimulus guttatus sticky monkeyflower Oenanthe sarmentosa water parsley Polypodium scouleri leather-leaf fern Polypogon sp. Polysticum munitum sword fern Potentilla anserine ssp pacifica cinquefoil Pteridium aquilinum bracken fern Raphanus sativa* wild radish Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum* water cress Rumex sp. (unidentified) dock Scirpus microcarpus Scirpus pungens common threesquare Scrophularia californica bee plant Sonchus sp.* sow thistle Stachys chamissonis hedge nettle Stellaria media* common chickweed Urtica dioica stinging nettle Vicia gigantea giant vetch Woodwardia fimbricata chain fern Unidentified grass
135
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
BEACH/RIVERBANK (Sand verbena/ beach burr sage series)
Herbs and Vines: Abronia latifolia sand verbena Achillea millefolium yarrow Aira caryophyllea* silver European hairgrass Ambrosia chamissonis beach burr Atriplex triangularis spearscale Bromus diandrus* ripgut grass Bromus hordeaceus soft chess Cakile maritima* sea rocket Cortaderia (jubata & selloana*) pampas grass Cynosurus echinatus* hedgehog dogtail grass Distichlis spicata saltgrass Eleocharis macrostachya Eriogonum latifolium coast buckwheat Fragaria chiloensis wild (beach) strawberry Herschfeldia incana* Lathryus littoralis beach pea Leymus mollis dune grass Melilotus alba* white sweetclover Poa macrantha beach blue grass Polygonum paronychia beach knotweed Ranunculus repens* creeping buttercup Rumex acetosella* sheep sorrel Salicornia virginica pickleweed Scirpus pungens common threesquare Spartina densiflora* cordgrass Typha latifolia cattail Trifolium wormskioldii springbank or cow clover Veronica americana American brooklime Vicia sp. vetch
BEACH & DUNES HABITAT Herb Stratum and Vines: Ammophila arenaria* European beachgrass
136
Mad River Bluffs Management Plan
Appendix B. MUSHROOM LIST FOR MAD RIVER BLUFFS A preliminary list by Dr. William Wood of fleshy fungi found in the Mad River Bluffs area, plus a few additions.
Agaricus augustus (the prince) Amanita gemmata Amanita muscaria (fly agaric) Amanita pantherina Armillaria mellea (honey mushroom) Boletus edulis (king bolete) Clavulina cristata (coral fungi) Clitocybe flaccida Clitocybe nebularis Coprinus comatus Coprinus micaceus Dacrymyces palmatus Hygrophoropsis aurantiacus (false chantrelle) Hyphaloma (or Naematoloma) capnoides Hyphaloma (or Naematoloma) fasciculare Lactarius deliciosus. Lepiota sp. Lepista nuda Mycena alkalina Phaeolus schweinitzii Pleurotus ostreatus (oyster mushroom) Polyporus versicolor Russula brevipes Russula rosacea Russula xerampelina Suillus brevipes Sparassis crispa Tricholomopsis rutilans Tremella mesenterica (witches butter)
137
Appendix C. WILDLIFE AND FISH OF MAD RIVER BLUFFS
The species below have been found at the Mad River estuary and/or the bluffs above it. This list was compiled from observations and sign detected during site visits, from information provided by several nearby residents, (especially Linda Doerflinger), from information provided by Mike Sparkman (CDFG), Greg Goldsmith and Bradford Norman (USFWS), and from various published reports. Bird species are not included below; they are on a separate list, in Appendix D. This is almost certainly not a complete list of wildlife at the property, and is extremely preliminary with regard to invertebrate life.
Invertebrates: Buzonium crassipes millipede Ariolimax columbianus banana slug Monadenia fidelis snail (native) Family Vespidae, subfamily Vespinae yellowjacket (wasps) Corophium sp. amphipod Gammarus sp. amphipod Crangon sp. shrimp, unidentified Mysididae ? opossum shrimp Class Gastropoda nudibranch Family Gerridae (Hemiptera) water strider Family Corixidae (Hemiptera) water boatman
Fish: Ammodytes hexapterus Pacific sandlance (larvae) Family Atherinidae smelt-like fish (juveniles), unidentified Cottus aleauticus coastrange sculpin Cottus aspera prickly sculpin Cottus gulosus riffle sculpin Cymatogaster aggregata shiner surfperch Gasterosteus aculeatus threespine stickleback Lampetra tridentata Pacific lamprey Leptocottus armatus Pacific staghorn sculpin Onchorhynchus clarkii coastal cutthroat O. kisutch coho salmon O. mykiss steelhead trout (winter and summer runs) O. tshawytcha chinook salmon Pleurnectidae sp. righteyed flatfish sp. (juvenile) Platichthys stellatus starry flounder Syngnathus leptorhynchus bay pipefish Strongylura exilis** California needlefish (larvae) Thaleichthys pacificus** eulachon Catostomus occidentalis Sacramento sucker
**=identity not confirmed
138
Amphibians and Reptiles: Pseudacris regila Pacific tree frog Bufo boreas Western toad Ambystoma gracile Northwestern salamander Ensatina eschscholtzii ensatina Aneides ferreus clouded salamander Batrachoseps attenuatus California slender salamander Thamnophis sirtalis common garter snake Gerrhonotus coeruleus Northern alligator lizard
Mammals: Urocyon cinerereoargenteus gray fox Ursus americanus black bear Lutra canadensis river otter Mustela frenata long-tailed weasel M. vison mink Spilgale putorius spotted skunk Mephitis mephitis striped skunk Procyon lotor raccoon Sylvilagus bachmani brush rabbit Lepus californicus black-tailed jackrabbit Erethizon dorsatum porcupine Castor canadensis beaver Thomomys bottae valley pocket gopher Eutamias townsendi Townsend’s chipmunk Microtus californicus California meadow vole Mus musculus house mouse Rattus rattus black rat Scapanus townsendi Townsend mole Sorex trowbridgei Trowbridge shrew Didelphis marsupialis opossum Myotis sp. or Lasiurus sp.? bat sp. (unidentified) Phoca vitulina harbor seal Zalophus californianus California sea lion
In addition, the following mammals in the nearshore waters have been sighted from the bluffs: Phocoena phocoena harbor porpoise Eschrichtius robustus gray whale Megaptera novaeangliae humpback whale Balaenophtera musculus blue whale
139
Appendix D. BIRD LIST FOR MAD RIVER BLUFFS This list was compiled by Ron LeValley and Linda Doerflinger at their residence near Mad River Bluffs. The species below are found at the Mad River estuary and the bluffs above it. Some of the birds on this list are year-round residents, but others are here just for the breeding season or the winter, or stop over or pass through during migration. Although a number of very rare vagrant species (e.g. the highly publicized visit by a vagrant Common Greenshanks several years ago) have been identified here periodically, these species are not included on this list.
Red-throated loon Black scoter Pacific loon Surf scoter Common loon White-winged scoter Pied-bill grebe Common goldeneye Horned grebe Bufflehead Red-necked grebe Hooded merganser Eared grebe Common merganser Western grebe Red-breasted merganser Clark’s grebe Ruddy duck Brown pelican Turkey vulture Double crested cormorant Osprey Brandt’s cormorant White-tailed kite Pelagic cormorant Bald eagle Great blue heron Northern harrier Great egret Sharp-shinned hawk Snowy egret Cooper’s hawk Green heron Red-shouldered haw Black-crowned night heron Red-tailed hawk Tundra swan Ferruginous hawk Greater white-fronted goose Rough-legged hawk Snow goose American kestrel Brant Merlin Canada goose Peregrine falcon Wood duck Prairie falcon Green-winged teal California quail Mallard American coot Northern pintail Black-bellied plover Blue-winged teal American golden plover Cinnamon teal Pacific golden plover Northern shoveler Snowy plover Gadwall Semipalmated plover American wigeon Killdeer Common merganser Black oystercatcher Canvasback Black-necked stilt Redhead American avocet Ring-necked duck Greater yellowlegs Greater scaup Lesser yellowlegs Lesser scaup Willet
140
Spotted sandpiper Western wood-pewee Whimbrel Pacific slope flycatcher Long-billed curlew Purple martin Marbled godwit Tree swallow Ruddy turnstone Violet-green swallow Black turnstone Northern rough-winged swallow Red knot Cliff swallow Sanderling Barn swallow Semipalmated sandpiper Gray jay Western sandpiper Steller’s jay Least sandpiper American crow Baird’s sandpiper Common Raven Pectoral sandpiper Black-capped chickadee Dunlin Chestnut-backed chickadee Short-billed dowitcher Bushtit Long-billed dowitcher Red-breasted nuthatch Common snipe Brown creeper Red-necked phalarope Bewick’s wren Red phalarope Winter wren Bonaparte’s gull Marsh wren Heermann’s gull Golden-crowed kinglet Mew gull Ruby crowned kinglet Ring-billed gull Swainson’s thrush California gull Hermit thrush Herring gull American robin Thayer’s gull Varied Thrush Western gull Wrentit Glaucous-winged gull Northern mockingbird Glaucous gull American pipit Caspian tern Cedar waxwing Elegant tern Northern shrike Common tern European starling Forster’s tern Hutton’s vireo Rock dove Warbling vireo Band-tailed pigeon Orange-crowned warbler Mourning dove Nashville warbler Common barn-owl Yellow warbler Great horned owl Yellow-rumped warbler Vaux’s swift Black-throated gray warbler Anna’s hummingbird Townsend’s warbler Rufous hummingbird Palm warbler Allen’s hummingbird Black-and-white warbler Belted kingfisher MacGillivray’s warbler Downy woodpecker Common yellowthroat Hairy woodpecker Wilson’s warbler Northern flicker Yellow-breasted chat
141
Black-headed grosbeak Purple finch Spotted towhee House finch Chipping sparrow Red crossbill Savannah sparrow Pine siskin Fox sparrow Lesser goldfinch Song sparrow American goldfinch Lincoln’s sparrow Evening grosbeak White-throated sparrow House sparrow Golden-crowned sparrow Dark-eyed junco Additionally, these ocean birds can be found Red-winged blackbird just offshore: Western meadowlark Common murre Brewer’s blackbird Pigeon guillemot Brown-headed cowbird Marbled murrelet Bullock’s oriole
142
Appendix E. COST ESTIMATES FOR NORTHERN BLUFF TRAIL WORK
Northern Bluff Trail#2 (NBT2) Option 1: Wooden Wall and Full Crib-Steps:
--step materials. It would require approximately 900 board feet of redwood. Redwood is approximately $1500/unit (1000 board feet)= $1500 for step materials
--wood for wall construction = $4500
--325 yards of gravel for fill behind the wall, and @$12/yard = $3900 for gravel fill
--labor for hauling materials to site from end of long meadow (1000 ft) =$17,450 (cost will be slightly less if materials are driven to north end of MCSD sewage treatment ponds and then hauled in wheelbarrows from there).
--labor for wall construction: at $13/hr. per person, approximately $22,800.
TOTAL COST (assuming haul distance of 1000 ft) = $50,150*
Wooden wall and steps should last 10-15 years.
*Note: overhead costs not included
Option 2: Cellular Confinement Wall and Full Crib-Steps. A cellular confinement structure would require the same amount of gravel fill as a wooden wall, plus an additional 65 yards of cover fill (topsoil). With the additional topsoil material, and assuming the same haul distance as above (1000 ft.), an additional 2.5 days of labor for hauling is also required. However, this additional cost ($3380) is outweighed by the diminished labor costs of building the structure which can be done at ¼ the cost of the wooden structure, so instead of $22,800 in labor costs for construction, it would cost $5700.
--step materials. It would require approximately 900 board feet of redwood. Redwood is approximately $1500/unit (1000 board feet)= $1500 for step materials
--325 yards of gravel for fill behind the wall, and @$12/yard = $3900 for gravel fill
--65 yards of topsoil to cover the structure @ $20/yard=$400
--labor for hauling materials to site (at $13/hr. per person): = $20,830 in hauling costs ($17,450, as for the wooden wall, plus $3380 for 2.5 extra days hauling the topsoil)
143
--labor for wall construction: ( at $13/hr. per person) = $5700
Total cost for Cellular Confinement Wall and Steps= $32,330*
Cellular confinement wall could last 100 years, thus would definitely cost less than a wooden wall in terms of replacement costs.
*Note: overhead costs not included
144
Appendix F. CORRESPONDENCE
P.O. Box 4831 Arcata, CA 95518 3 February 2003
Community Development Services 3015 H. Street Eureka, CA 95501
Dear Mr. Hofweber,
The McKinleyville Land Trust (MLT) is currently developing a management plan for the approximately 74-acre Mad River Bluffs property (previously known as “Hiller West”) in McKinleyville (APN 510-271-18 and APN 510-311-01) As part of the process of identifying options and selecting alternatives, we are seeking information from the Community Development Services on zoning, permits, fees, and other requirements. Given MLT’s mission of conservation and the input from the community at a MLT-sponsored public meeting on this issue last fall, MLT intends to manage this property in as natural a state as possible, and in fact, to restore portions of the property to a more natural condition, while allowing citizens certain recreational opportunities and access to/through the property. In general, MLT’s objectives with regards to Mad River Bluffs are to increase the positive experience of visitors using the site in ways that also promote (or at least maintain) the welfare of native flora, habitats, and wildlife there. Given these goals, a main focus will be to reduce existing damage to natural resources at the site, and minimize future impacts. Thus, although plans are not yet finalized, it is certain that the plan will not include proposals to construct any buildings or roadways. The plan will likely include: --The installation of several signs (interpretive, informative, and as required by Coastal Conservancy). --Vegetation management. This will be in the form of control/removal of invasive exotic plant species, control of berry vines, and perhaps some sort of management of the younger shore pine stands (for improved health). It may also include physical measures to retain some open grassland areas (via mowing, removal of berry vines, etc.) and retain ocean views from several vista points on the blufftop (via limited and selective pruning of shrubs/trees). --Improving several existing trails on the property (for purposes of reducing erosion of the bluff face and the on-going damage to springs at those sites and to improve trail quality and safety for trail-users. --Allowing continued access to the public for walking/hiking, and other “passive recreational” activities. --Possibly, the construction of one or several new trails. --One additional possibility would be installation of fencing on some portion(s) of the property— either an area to be enclosed specifically for a “dog park”, or if it becomes important at some point, the fencing off of sensitive natural areas from recreational use or access to dogs.
145
Given the above proposed or possible projects and activities, we have the following questions on county planning issues. 1. What are the general planning and zoning standards that apply to the site? It is our understanding that the property is located entirely within the Coastal Zone, and thus under the planning and zoning jurisdiction of the McKinleyville (Coastal) Area Plan and implementing standards of the County Coastal Zoning Regulations rather than the newly approved McKinleyville Community Plan.
2. What land use restrictions and limitations apply to the site, and what do they mean in terms of the activities that MLT’s is likely to pursue and allow?
3. With specific focus on the proposed projects (listed above), what are the principal uses under the site’s zoning standards, what are “conditional uses”, and what would be forbidden under the current zoning?
4. What permits may be necessary for the described projects?
5. Is there a difference between trail “improvements” and trail “construction” in terms of restrictions, permitting requirements, etc?
6. Also, with regard to trail improvements or construction, CCC and State Parks staff (during a site visit) suggested that for one section of trail that goes steeply downhill, the best way to control erosion and increase user safety would be to remove at least one, possibly several small shore pines to make room to redesign the trail to switchback near the top of the bluff face instead of retaining in its current straight vertical descent. If MLT were to desire to re-design that section, what regulations or restrictions would apply, and what permits, if any, would be required for very limited tree removal such as described?
7. Likewise, what permits/restrictions would apply regarding thinning of young shore pine stands elsewhere on the property should that be determined to be beneficial for forest health and/or wildlife?
8. Who would be the contact persons and agencies for any necessary permits?
9. What county requirements should we be aware of with regard to parking facilities? From our initial surveys, it appears that this property is visited most frequently by citizens who walk to the property from the surrounding neighborhoods. Most other visitors park at Hiller Park, use the Hiller Park trails and then continue on to visit Mad River Bluffs—that is, they use of both properties during the same recreational visit. This being the case, would the County be satisfied (with regard to any off-street parking requirements for Mad River Bluffs) if MCSD is willing to enter into an agreement with MLT regarding shared use of the parking facilities currently existing and planned for construction at Hiller Park?
10. Are there any restrictions or concerns (for projects such as those described above) with regard to earthquake fault lines and this property?
146
11. Does the County have any suggestions (or comments on legal issues) on signage language in terms of potential hazards to the public (e.g. river access issues)? For instance, does the County use warning signs in areas where the public is allowed access to potentially dangerous natural areas (e.g. jetty, river access, etc)? If so, what specific wording is used on the signs?
Thank you for your assistance in these matters. I would be happy to meet with you if that would be useful in addressing our questions. You can contact me at 839-1128 or by email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Sabra Steinberg, on behalf of the McKinleyville Land Trust
147
P.O. Box 4831 Arcata, CA 95518 21 May 2003
Marnie Atkins Wiyot Tribal Office 1000 Wiyot Dr. Loleta, CA 95551
Dear Ms. Atkins, As we discussed on the phone this morning, I am working for the McKinleyville Land Trust (MLT), and am currently developing a management plan for their approximately 74-acre Mad River Bluffs property (previously known as “Hiller West”) in McKinleyville. Given MLT’s mission of conservation and the input from the community at a MLT-sponsored public meeting on this issue last fall, MLT intends to manage this property in as natural a state as possible, while allowing citizens certain recreational opportunities and access to/through the property. Although it is not yet finalized, the plan will likely include: --The installation of several signs --Vegetation management. This will be in the form of control/removal of invasive exotic plant species, control of berry vines, and perhaps some sort of management of the younger shore pine stands (for improved health). It may also include physical measures to retain some open grassland areas (via mowing, removal of berry vines, etc.) and retain ocean views from several vista points on the blufftop (via limited and selective pruning of shrubs/trees). --Improving several existing trails on the property and possibly constructing one or several new trails. --One additional possibility would be installation of fencing on some portion(s) of the property (for sensitive areas).
As part of the process of identifying options and selecting alternatives, I am seeking information from the Wiyot Tribe with regard to several areas of concern. As we agreed, I have enclosed a map and a copy of an air photo identifying the property’s location in southwestern McKinleyville in Section 36 of T7NR1W. The entrance to the property is located at the northern terminus of Ocean Ave. where it intersects with Hiller Rd. The property is bounded on the east by MCSD’s Hiller Park/sewage treatment facilities, and on the north by the Knox Cove estates.
From information in Loud (1918) and other sources, I am aware that there were a number of Wiyot sites along the lowest stretch of Mad River between the mouth of Mill Creek and the ocean. For planning purposes, we are interested in knowing whether there were any Wiyot village or sacred sites on or near the Mad River Bluffs property, and if so, the locations of these sites. While being sensitive to confidentiality issues (and therefore, of course, we would not include the site-specific information in the public document), we feel that this knowledge would allow us to take these issues into consideration when deciding where (or even whether) to plan trail routes or beach access in a given area, whether restricted areas are appropriate, etc. Please feel free to provide suggestions about these issues (and identify any aspects that you feel the MLT board should keep confidential). For instance, are there specific areas on this property
148
where the Wiyot Tribe feels that minimizing visitor use should be recommended? Are there parts of the property that Wiyot people still use or would like to use? (and suggestions on how this can best be accommodated).
Also, in my historical research, I have not been able to find specific information on the habitat(s) existing at this site prior to its use in farming/ranching. Since one of our ideas is to restore the site to as natural a state as possible, I would also be interested in any existing tribal knowledge that may have been passed down on what this site looked like (habitat-wise) in the past. Specifically, was the upland portion all forested or was it prairie-like in some areas? Were certain habitats here actively maintained?
One section of the plan is called “Historic and Current Conditions”. In it, I have written some brief and general information on the Wiyot Tribe as the first people living here. Various historical sources reference the Mad River Wiyots in different ways and with different spellings (e.g. the word Potowot or Pattewott). How does the Tribe want this group identified (and which spelling is most correct)? Any historical information you could provide about the Wiyot people’s use of this specific area, for example, the importance of the mouth of the river to Wiyot people (then and now), and any stories that relate to this site (mouth of the Mad River and the bluffs above it) would be greatly appreciated. Since we would like to let people know (in the plan) in a general sense if this was (and/or is) an important area for the native people, I would appreciate your input in identifying what information is appropriate for the public planning document and what is sensitive and should not be included in the public planning document.
In the plan, I am also making recommendations for educational displays or opportunities. Is there anything relating to the Wiyot people that you would suggest for inclusion in interpretive displays or signage at Mad River Bluffs? Also, are there any activities that you think a Wiyot person/people might want to lead or teach periodically (or on a one-time basis) at the site for the local community?
As I mentioned on the phone, I have just a month to finish the draft plan, and so I would need any input in a couple of weeks, at the latest. I apologize for the short timeframe, but do appreciate any information that you can provide on these issues. Please feel free to contact me via email at [email protected] or by phone at 839-1128. Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
Sabra Steinberg, for the McKinleyville Land Trust
149