[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
ORMOND BEACH COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER WETLANDS PUBLIC ACCESS STUDY Prepared for the CITY of OXNARD Takata/Associates, Inc. with WESTEC Services, Inc. GB 625 .C2 07 1982 c.2 April 1982 ORMOND BEACH WETLANDS PUBLIC ACCESS STUDY Prepared for: THE CITY OF OXNARD 'Prepared by: Takata /Associates, Inc. 11 West State Street Pasadena, California 91105 with WESTEC Services, Inc. 11.8 Brookhollow Drive Santa Ana, California 92705 This publication was prepared with financial assistance from the U.S. Office of Coastal Zone Management, Nation- al Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under the pro- vision of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended and from the California Coastal Commis- sion under the provisions of the Coastal Act of 1976. April 1982 US DePartment of Comm e NOAA Coastal Services Center Library 2234 South Hobson Avenue Charleston, SC 29405-2413 TABLE OF CONTENTS page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION 1 Section 1: EXISTING FACTORS: ENVIRONMENTAL & MAN-MADE 4 Section 2: USER PATTERNS 15 Section 3: 011PORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS 25 Section 4: RESOURCE PROTECTION ALTERNATIVES 30 Section 5: PRIORITY PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS & STRATEGIES 47 Appendix: DESIGN & STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES 54 LIST OF FIGURES Page Virlive I 1111I)iUlt Types 2 Figure 2 Generalized Land Use 9 Figure 3 'Coastal Land Use Plan 11 Figure 4 ORV Access Points 20 Figure 5 ORV Use Areas 23 Figure 6 Opportunities & Constraints Summary 26 Figure 7 Alternative Designated ORV Areas 33 Figure 8 Alternative 3: Limited ORV Access 36 Figure 9 Alternative 4: LNG Acquisition/ Phased 39 Closure Figure 10 Alternative 5: Complete Closure to ORV's 42 Figure 11 Priority Plan 48 PLATES Plate I ORV Specifications 17 TABLES Table 1 Resource Protection Alternatives Evaluation 45 Table 2 Priority Plan Elements 49 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Ormond Beach environment has been impacted by past develop- ment. Dumping and on-going trespass of off-road-vehicles (ORV's) continue to degrade the sensitive wetlands and dune areas. Recent closing of other areas in the County to ORV activities has increased ORV traffic in Ormond Beach thereby accelerating the damage to the wetlands and dunes. This study identifies a two phase priority plan to implement strate- gies of policy and structural design solutions which would p rohibit unauthorized access to the wetlands and dunes especially to off- road-vehicles. Controlled public access for passive recreation and educational and interpretive purposes would be encouraged. Phase 1, short term recommendations include: 0 Immediately secure the LNG wetland dunes areas with barriers and maintain the Arrjold Road access until Phasp 2 decisions are made; 0 Begin acquisition proceedings and funding for the LNG wetlands site; Increase police patrol in Ormond Beach and establish a "citizens' monitor" program (groups to report trespass violations). 0 Develop a public relations program regarding the future of Ormond Beach; involve the public in the construction of the protection barriers. City costs for Phase 1 is estimated to be about $3, 100 and the poten- tial grants, subventions and private funding range from $16,000 to $19,750. Phase 2, long-term, recommendation include: 0 St udy the long-term feasibility of a phased ORV closure at Ormond Beach by: - authori zing a joint City tind County study to identify an off-site area for ORV's and - developing the selected off-site ORV facility 0 Accept title to the LNG wetland site 0 Secure the Arnold Road access, close Ormond Beach to ORV uses; maintain public access for pedestrians and bicycles. 0 Determine feasible options for wetland restoration and interpretive /educational programs and facilities. Phase 2 funding costs are estimated to be about $62,000. The costs and responsibility for the development of an off-site ORV facility has not been determined. However, the State Parks and Recreation "Green Sticker" fund has monies set aside for the development of ORV facilities. Total Phase 1 and 2 City costs estimates are $3, 110 -, and potential grants /subventions and private fundings estimates range from $78,000 to $81,750. The priority plan strategies and structural design solutions are en- visioned to protect the sensitive environments and recreational opportunities of Ormond Beach, as well as, provide a long range re- solution for the ORV recreation problem and wetlands restoration. The teCIII)i(I'les, designs, process and policies found in this docu- ment are envisioned to serve as a model for applications in other coastal zone environments. INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW This project, funded by a Coastal Commission Grant, is one aspect of a larger wetlands restoration concept. It is an attempt to implement the policies of the City of Oxnard's Local Coastal Plan with reference to the protection of the sensitive wetland and dune habitats of Ormond Beach. The Ormond Beach environment has been impacted by past development; on-going bmspass of off-road vehicles (ORV) and dump- ing that continues to degrade the sensitive wetland and dune areas. STUDY AREA LOCATION The Ormand Beach study area (see map, next page) is approximately five hundred thirty acres located in the southeastern section of the City of Oxnard. .PURPOSE The purpose of this study is to develop a process and strategies which would provide for the implementation of policies and development of structural solutions which would protect the wetlands and dunes by prohibiting unauthorized access to ORV's, while at the same time per- mitting controlled public access and encouraging an educational passive recreational enjoyment of this sensitive resource area. Key to the development of study recommendations were a field trip and two public. workshops involving ORV users, environmentalists, educa- L Qoku@Es "D 4 .......... .. ............... F68 AVE Do 41 ....... j &K fly L' -j ...................... I............... IIIII)OLE-T Pb IIV: 1 1. A It A tl S A I............ A I T IA j 18 AND% lit Vi L J 7t -,'I L ............. .. 7 ---------- L STUDY AREA it., LOCATION 1000 ACRES NORTH Soo 0' 0' 2000' 6000' 10, _j l00%:7m"000' Prepared for: THE CITY OF OXNARD WETLANDS PUBLIC ACCESS STUDY AREA 2 tors, students, landowners and -interested citizens - The field trip and @Workshops provided a mcans to: 0 Inform the public of the sensitive resources of Ormond Beach; 0 Identify issue s and concerns; 0 Resolve differences and problems of the various interest groups and develop alternative plans and strategies; and 0 Evaluate the alternatives and recommend a preferred plan and strategy for the future of Ormond Beach. The purpose of this report is to summari ze the:6ndings of the site in- ventory and analysis; describe the design alternatives and evaluation; and recommend preferred plan strategies and design solutions. The report is organized in five sections and Appendix. Section 1: Existing Factors: environmental and man-made Section 2: User Patterns Section 3: Opportunities and Constraints Section 4: Resource Protection Alternatives Section 5: Priority Plan Recommendations and Strategies Appendix: Design and Structural Alternatives 3 SECTION I 1% XISTING FACTORS: ENVIRONMENTAI, MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS Introduction This section provides a brief overview of the environmental charac- teristics of the Ormond,Beach study area witheiipliasis upon biologi- cal resources. The purpose of this section is to provide a descrip- tion of pertinent environmental factors based on brief field inspection and literature review. Physical Environment The Ormond Beach study area consists of freshwater and/or saltwater marshes, mudflats, stabilized sand dunes, sandy beaches and areas filled for existing or proposed industrial applications. Dames and Moore (1981) have stated that soils within the coastal marshlands generally consist of a dark brown or grayish brown clay loam or silty clay loam. The substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil. which is saturated or covered with water for at least a portion of the year. The remainder of natural soils in the study area con- sists of dune sand and sandy:beach. Stabilized sand dunes have historically formed the upper portions of the sandy beach area. The stabilized dunes generally ru n no more than five feet high and are naturally well vegetated. Off-road vehicle activity combined with wind erosion has substantially degraded the quality and existence of dunes along much of the beach Several u land portions of the p 4 study area have been filled with various types of fill material. The study area is bounded on the north by the J Street Flood Con- trol Channel. The Oxnard Channel crosses the beach area at the. northern end of the former LNG site. In addition, several drainage ditches cross the study area as shown in Figures 1& 2. Marshes on- site are not open to direct tidal movement, apparently obtaining most water from storm runoff and perhaps irrigation tail water. Subsur- face tidal inflow is also a possibility. Biological Environment Habitat Types Vogl (1980) conducted a field survey of the Ormond Beach wetlands for the California Coastal Commission (South Central Region). Figure 1 provides a map of habitat types delineated by Vogl. Dune and sandy beach habitats were added by the use of aerial photographs. Habitat types within the study area consist of salt marsh and brack- ish water marsh, open water, mudflats, upland habitat (primarily fill areas), stabilized dunes and sandy beach. Salt marsh vegetation is classified by Vogl (1980) as salt pan (water ponded over salt flats), mature pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) marsh, upper salt grass (Distichlis sp) salt marsh and upland habi- tat containing primarily weedy species. Ecotonal areas, exist between these communities. In iddition to those habitats identified by Vogl (1980), a 200-400 foot band of stabilized sand dunes (coastal strand vegetation) exists seaward from the wetlands where off-road vehicles traffic has not been intense (Figure 5 A sandy beach habitat HABITAT TYPE 1-1 0 SALT MARSH/COASTAL SALT WATER MARSH c@ '0 > OPEN WATER FLATS UPLAND FILL NOW-PERMITTED FILL -n SEACH SETTLING POND STABL)ZED DUNES XNARD I Y L E COASTAL ZONE ---------- OUNDARY LOOD LINE 100 YEAR F8 0 :TJ m FIGURE 1 ORKOHIED WETLANDS PUBLIC ACCESS STUDY 40 Preoared for: 13 THE CITY OF OXNARD 10 Prepared by. TAKATA/ASSOCIATESo INC With 200' 0' 400' 1000' ACRES WESTEC SERVICES, INC exists seaward from the dunes (Figure 1). Wildlife Resources The Ormond Beach study area provides exc ellent wildlife habitats for a variety of species utilizing salt marsh, mudflats open water and dune areas. Avian use of the study area is by far the most striking aspect of the study area. Habitat for shorebirds, waterfowl, upland species and raptors exists on the area. The extensive mudflat areas provide valuable habitat for many shorebirds whereas the open water areas provide significant habitat for over-wintering and migratory waterfowl. Stabilized sand dune habitat supports a nesting popula- tion of the California Least Tern, a State and Federal endange red species. The Salicornia yir@ marsh supports nesting populations of the State listed endangered Beldings Savannah Sparrow (California Department of Fish and Game, 1980). The area also supports the more urbanly adapted species of reptiles, amphibians and mammals. Sensitive Biological Resources Generally, the undeveloped portion of the entire study area should be considered of high biological sensitivity due to several factors: (1) The area supports many sensitive wildlife species including State and Federally listed endangered species. (2) The area contains a diverse complement of habitat types which provide for a rather unique degree 7 of species diversity in a relatively small area. (3) Coastal wetlands are diminishing within Southern California. (4) Although wetlands and dunes have been disturbed by ORV activities, there is still an opportunity to provide nearly full restoration. Current Impacts to Study Area The area is heavily used by two-, three- and four-wheeled vehicles (see Section 2). The southern end of the study area (south of the Edison plant) has been especially heavily impacted, with many of the stabilized dunes all but obliterated. The wetlands areas have also been heavily disturbed by ORV activity. MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT Introduction This section discusses the man-made environment of the Ormond Beach Study area; they include the following key elements: 0 Existin@@ and proposed landuse; 0 Circulation and parking; and 0 Security /Safety. Existing and Proposed Landuse As figure 2 depicts, the existing landuses within and surrounding the 8 GENERALIZED LAND USE CITY OF' @ORT HUENE E fft"#DUSTRIA TREATMENT FACILITY 0- WASTEWATER > PER I BEACH P III I ND RIA 'An IN UNDEVELOPED 0 E@ A- 4@4 A. HALAC4C( PLA"N MCWANE 8L 0 ENID "CWANE 8L XT ION Ti FACILITY ... PROPOSEDSICYCLE I A-1 PATH A- c) LYERW LNG/ WES BEACH OXNARD CITY LIMITS "ECRIiAT' So. IAL.;GAS -OFF .A. E .LES 'UNAUjgOj jj@D) -WETLAND RESTORATION COASTAL ZONE WATE ITI@N ---------- BOUNDARY -STO GE CANIP ARE -9EN., RE O.c -100 YEAR FLOOD LINE AGRICULTURE X 0 m > SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON z FIGURE 2 BICYCLE PATH PR POSED a 87 TE PARK ON 12 FF 61!@c m AND RECREA A AS PROI 011, N -WE I A "'EASEME IT ON, I A T,EP PROM Ty WEnANDS 6ITE % i POTENTIAL: AGRICULTURE : PUBLIC ACCESS I:CE MARICULTURE ITE STATE PAPK'S IRECREATION AREA I I <\ STUDY Prepared for: VENTURA Co. THE CITY OF OXNARD GAME FIESERV LL ___ Prepared by. P @ER TAKATA/ ASSOCIATES, INC POINT MUGU With S MIS LE TEST GROUND' 200' 0' 400' 1000' A@RiES WESTEC SERVICES, INC 9 Ormond Beach study area include industry, agriculture, Southern California Edison energy generation facility, sewer treatment plant, recreation arid the P(,)illt Mugu Navy Missile Test Grounds. These existing landuses basically approximate the patterns outlined by the City of Oxnard's 1990 landuse element of the General Plan and the City's recently completed Coastal landuse plan (Figure 3). The City's Constal 1,111(juse Plan further desiVriated specific areas for resource protection and priority for industrial uses which are coastal dependent. The key landowners in the study area include the City of Oxnard, wastewnter treatment plant, inariaged by the Ventura Regional County Sanitation District, HALACO metal processing plant, Western LNG Terminal Associates, the Southern California Edison Generating plant and an undeveloped subdivision composed of various owner- ships including state, city and private holdings. Wastewater Treatment Plant Future plans for the wastewater treatment plant include expansion of the facility south tothe adjacent five acre parcel to accommodate four secondary clarifying tanks. Security fencing would surround this area and intersect westerly with the J Street Flood control chan- nel fence, thus precluding any potential ORV access from the north. Western LNG Site Proposals for the former LNG site include the restoration of wetlands on the site. The owner has been coordinating with California Fish 10 COASTAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FIGURE 3 LEGEND RECREATION AREA WDUSTRY : PRIORITY TO COASTAL DEPENDENT I RESOURCE PROTECTION AREA ENERGY FACILITIrS COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY 100 YEAR FLOOD LINE I NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE J ........ URBAN RURAL BOUNDARY OXNARD CITY LIMrr5 . ..............w ........ ORMOND and Game and negotiating with the State Coastal Commission in regards to the protection of these wetlands. The northeastern portion of this site has been proposed for an equipment storage yard. Southern California Edison Site (SCE) The SCE site is primarily devoted to the generation of electricity and those activities are secured by fencing and security personnel. Un- developed portions of the SCE property include the wetland area near Arnold Road and properties west and south of the generating plant. Various short and long-range uses have been indicated by SCE and the State Parks & Recreation Department; pertinent propos- als include: 1. Mariculture facility: this proposes to utilize waste heat from the generating plant for a com- mercial lobster facility. The facility would be located on the existing 55 acre wetland area near Arnold Road. 2. Other short and long range SCE proposals in- clude: combined cycle generating units; a waste water treatment facility; coal gasifica- tion plant and possibly coal-fired generating units. 3. The State Parks & Recreation Department's General Plan has identified as a long range proposal the purchase of about 164 acres of SCE property for the restorntion/preservii- tion of the wetlands, parking facilities arid 12 day use facilities. The proposal is identified for non-intensive uses. The State Parks Dept. indicated that the proposal is long range and has not been funded. 4. The State Parks & Recreation Department has a proposed bicycle path on the north side of the beach area from Perkins Road to Arnold Road. The bicycle path follows the southern perimeter of the SCE property and follows the south side of canal to Arnold Road (see Figure 2 ). SCE has agreed to a 30 foot easement for this proposal. However, State Parks and Recreation Dept. has not acted on this proposal. State Parks and Recreation Department did indicate that the priority bicycle projects for implementation would be in the north part of the county. Circulation and Parking As Figure 2 depicts, the Ormond Beach Study area is served by Hueneme Road, a major thoroughfare, and the minor thoroughfares: Perkins Road, Arcturus Avenue, Edison Drive, Arnold Road and MclVane Boulevard. The Ventura County Railroad provides rail access to the industrial uses and the SCE generating site. The City's Circulation Element indicates the following future proposals: 0 McWane Boulevard to be completed and upgraded 13 to a major thoroughfare as development dictates. Extension of Rose Avenue to McWane Boulevard as development dictates Public parking for the beach area is currently provided for at the ter- minus of Perkins Road. Preliminary site investigations indicate the. parking lot has been used as a staging area for ORV's. Security and Safety Fire/Emergency Vehicles: Access for fire and emergency vehicles would be required to service the south side of the SCE generating facility via Arnold Road; and the beach area primarily for emergency vehicles and for occasional boat groundings and fires. Police Vehicles: Interview with the Oxnard Police Department indicate patrol vehicles would require access to the beach area topofice. unauthor- ized camping and boisterous parties. Locked security gates with keys for the patrol vehicles would be acceptable to the Police Department. 14 SECTION 2 USER PATTERNS INTRODUCTION In order to develop a workable plan and designs to manage off-road ve- hicle use at Ormond Beach it is necessary to determine the type of ORV activity as well as ORV access points to the area. Direct analysis of this aspect of the study was somewhat constrained due to the short time span of the study. In addition, the study.was conducted during winter- time when ORV use is low. An indirect method of analysis was developed to answer the required user pattern questions. Major componentE: of this methodology included: 1. Detailed color aerial photographs (1 11 4001) that -were taken on July 8, 1981, were carefully examined to de- fine ORV tracks, trails and areas of vegetation loss. 2. Conducted interviews with police officials, property owners and other persons with special knowledge of the area. 3., Conducted walkover survey of entire Ormond Beach area on Sunday, February 21. 4. Conducted partial surveys on four other weekdays. Based on the above studies, actual and potential ORV access points were identified and the study area was divided into areas of intense, heavy 15 and moderate ORV use. CURRENT RECREATION USE Because the Ormond Beach area is currently open to ORV use the area appears to afford recreational opportunities not currently availa ble at most area beaches. Beach goers can drive four-wheel drive vehicles onto most portions of the beach and use these vehicles as a central base for two- or three-wheeled ORV use, surfing fishing or sunbathing. Overnight camping@ is also conducted, with the largest concentration of campers apparently in the @southern half of the study area near Arnold Road. It should be noted that no sanitary facilities exist within the study. area. In addition, little in the way of vehicle regulation and control exists, with the exception of occasional patrols by the Oxnard Police Department. Because of the frequency of ORV activity during peak use periods, other recreational uses would probably be curtailed because of hazards to pedestrian safety. ORV USE PATTERNS Vehicle Mix (see Plate 1) Based on study area observation and vehicle track analysis, the Ormond Beacharea is used by four-wheeled vehicles, three-wheeled vehicles and two-wheeled vehicles. Four-wheeled vehicles appear to be used primari- ly for beach access, with intensive recreational driving use not highly significant. Both four-wheeled drive vehicles and two-wheel drive vehi- 16 Plate I ORV Specifications up 41 Three-Wheeled All Terrain Vehicle (ATC) Length: 51 " to 7011 Width: 31" to 4211 Height:" 31" to 4011 Weight: 169 to 297 pounds Two Wheeled Dirt Bike Length: 80" to 83" Width: 3311 Height: 3911 Weight: 190 to 22 0 pounds 17 cles with wider tires can easily reach most portions of the study area. A majority of the four-wheel traffic consists of motorhomes, campers and pickups used as a home base of ORV or beach related activities. Many of these vehicles are also used for transport of Awo and three- wheeled vehicles to the area. Recreational driving of four-wheeled vehicles is probably not intense because the study area is relatively small, contains only low dunes and contains little in the way of topo- graphic interest for this type of ORV activity. The observation can be partially borne out by the lack of evidence of significant dune bug- gy use within the area. Three-wheeled all terrain vehicles (ATC's) appeared to be the most commonly used vehicle within the study area. Over thirty of these vehicles were counted in use on one Sunday morning. These vehicles are transported to the area via truck or trailer and are used both within the beach areas, stabilized dunes and wetlands. The low dunes and other topographic features provide good recreational acti- vity for these vehicles. These vehicles also appear to be doing a significant portion of the environmental damage in the area by: 1. General random recreational riding through dunes and wetlands. For the most part, ATV riders oriented away from established paths and rode more on the generally undisturbed dunes. 2 Establishing circular "mini enduroll courses within sand dune areas. Organized use of these tracks may be a possibility but was not observed during this study. Motorcycles (both dirt bikes and street machines) are also a factor 18 within the study area. Although not as numerous as the ATC's, motor- cycles were observed in significant numbers (more than ten at a time in the study area). Motorcycles tended to be used in more of a straight line fashion along the coastal strip but were also observed within the wetlands. ORV activity occurs throughout the year. However, based on conversations with various officials, ORV activity is much greater during summer months and has significantly increased in the past eight months due to closures of other ORV areas. The Santa Clara River bottom is the most recent of these. PRIMARY ORV ACCESS POINTS The following major access points for vehicles entering the Ormond Beach area were identified as follows in the following section. Arnold Road Arnold Road serves as the easiest access route for the study area. Located at the southern end of Ormond Beach adjacent to the Pacific Missile Testing Center, Point Mugu (Figure 4), Arnold Road is paved up to the edge of the sandy beach. The ease of access and the well- packed condition of the sand and adjacent saltflat (Figure 1) allows all types of vehicles to enter the area. Access is gained via a two- lane bridge that is unbarricaded. Once a vehicle crosses the bridge, it can either directly enter the beach area or travel in a north-westerly direction on a dirt roadway to the beach. Western LNG Site Access Vehicles can enter the beach area as well as an extensive wetlands at the LNG site through two dirt roadways; one in the center of the site and one at the railroad tracks at the southern end. The area has been partially fenced and/or bermed, but access is easy for all vehicles be- cause a gate has been torn down by vandals. 19 elD OFF ROAD VEHICLE ACCESS POINTS A .11 cp. > 0 "'o 44 EXISTi G PRIMARY ACCEMS ...... POTENTIAL ACCESS - > a FENCE WATER BARRIER 0 It. -Ji t OXNARD CITY LIMITS ft I a /ool COASTAL ZONE ---------- BOUNDARY -100 YEAR FLOOD LINE 00 m z FIGURE 4 WETLANDS PUBLIC ACCESS STUDY 4. Prooared for: THE CITY OF OXNARD 10 PreDared by. 5 TAKATA/ ASSOCIATES, INC 1 Wlth 200' 0' 400' 1000' ACRES WESTEC SERVICES, INC 20 Perkins Road Unobstructive access can be accomplished onto the study area via a well-packed roadway aligning along the east bank of a drainage channel adjacent to the J Street Drainage Channel. A pipe and cable barrier exists across a bridge directly west of the end of Perkins Road. A por- tion of this barricade had been pulled down to allow access by two- and three-wheeled vehicles. SECONDARY ORV ACCESS Several other potential access points which exist along the study area should also be considered in any vehicle management plan. These access points are not currently experiencing significant use, but they could be used if primary access points were sealed off. Northern Portion of Study Area (Port Hueneme) Secondary access to the study area can be gained via Pier Park across the-J Street Drainage Channel, across a small foot bridge spanning the channel and potentially along a service roadway along the southern por- tion of the J Street Drainage Channel. Western LNG Site Secondary access could be gained by two- and three-wheeled vehicles and four-wheeled vehicles could potentially gain access to the study area via any point along the eastern. border'of the LNG facility. This access also includes the railroad tracks. 21 Southern California Edison Site Two- and three-wheeled vehicles could potentially gain access along the perimeter of the Southern California Edison Plant. AREAS OF ORV USE Figure 5@ defines areas of intense, heavy and moderate ORV use within the study area. These areas of use were qualitatively determined as follows: Intense Areas: Areas that have been so heavily damaged so as to obliterate most vegetation and landforms such as sand dunes. Heavy Areas: Areas that have been disturbed by formation of numerous roads. One to two vehicle passover tracks are evident off formed roads. Moderate Area: Areas bisected by only few discrete roads. Vegetation relatively intact. As shown in Figure 5 , the southern portion of the study area shows that the area experiences intense ORV use. This intense use is pro- bably due to the ease of vehicular access from Arnold Road for four- wheeled vehicles and the use of these areas for camping and as a base for two- and three-wheeled ORV activity. Studies by WESTEC Services (1977) in the California Desert have shown that the greatest ORV damage occurs close to camping and vehicular parking areas. The other., area of intense vehicular use is near Perkins Road where, again, fotr wheeled vehicle access is- quite easy. Areas of heavy uses are generally located with in the central portion of 22 OFF ROAD VEHICLE USE AREAS 00@ 101* IP-b INTENSE USE HEAVY USE MODERATE USE 0 MINI ENDUROS OXNARD CITY LIMITS CCAITAL ZONE SOUNDARY -100 YEAR FLOOD LINE F11- 0 m FIGURE 5 (ORKOHD WETLANDS PUBLIC ACCESS STUDY <\ (0) Prepared for: THE CITY OF OXNARD 10 Prepared by. TAKATA/ ASSOCIATES, INC With 2W' 0' 400' 1000' ACRES WESTEC SERVICES, INC 23 the study area and wetland areas. It should be noted that this area may be experiencing greater recent activity due to the lessening ap- peal of riding ORV's in heavily disturbed areas. Portions of this area could be reclassified as heavy areas within a year or two. Mod- erate use areas include a small dune area near the HALACO facility and some rather isolated wetland areas. DUMPING AREAS Areas of concentrated illegal dumring exist in three major areas: 1. the upland areas at the LNG site; 2. areas near the end of Arnold Road; 3. LNG wetlands areas adjacent to HALACO. Materials dumped appear to consist primarily of dirt, rock, concrete and'vegetative matter. According to site observations, there could be possible leakage of industrial waste from HALACO's settling pond into the LNG wetland. 24 SECTION 3 OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS INTRODUCTION The following analysis identified four major ORV opportunity -constraint areas; they include: Area 1: LNG Property/McWane Boulevard Area 2: Southern California Edison (SCE) Site Area 3: Arnold Road/SCE Area 4: Perkins Road/Industrial Area Opportunity areas are defined as potential areas where ORV access and activity may be controlled. Constraint areas are existing and potential areas of conflict in controlling ORV activity. Figure 6and the fol- lowing paragraphs summarize the major findings of the opportunities and constraint analysis. Area 1: LNG PROPERTY/MCWANE BOULEVARD la. MeWane Boulevard Completion: The completion of McWane Boulevard between the LNG site and Perkins Road would provide additional ORV access opportuni- ties. Barriers on the south side of McWane Boulevard could limit access to the sensitive areas. 1b. Railroad R.O.W.: Limited ORV access on the rail- 25 OPPORTUNITIES % 0 & CONSTRAINTS 4b PR BAR RAT R AT TH ST ANNEI SUMMARY 11 PE KI 9P 1'%16, IN CPO I AR > AT T RMI OF Ili. S RESOURCE CH tN L PROTECTION AREA c 4a SE@ 1.001f ORV BARRIER: U ' - I 1ANG t@PROPEI. G EIA Fence, Wall, BRIIDG@E' MCWANE BLV DItch, Meet, Canal, so rIn ,n IaLIMI@. ACCESS etc. S00#@SIDE OF MCWANE BLY SECURED GATE x, F WITH EMERG _ NCY VEHICLE ACCESS RAILROA O.W. LIMIT ACCESS 1CD N t/ OXNARD CITY LIMITS U r PERIME;TR -ORV 8 ---------- COASTAL ZONE Betw4,.,.Dn I BOUNDARY & Wet an -100 YE AR FLOOD LINE "gly %% % 2aWEStSID ACCtS 0 0 2 bEASTSIDE ACCESS m > 2 SOUTHERN CAL101. EDISON SITE z FIGURE 6 % 31ARNOLD RD./SCE V &M A N PUBLIC ACCEW UMAR@OLTURE ALTERNATIVE STUDY 40 Preoared for: THE CITY OF OXNARD Prepared by. 3bRECREATION/ WETLA% TAKATA/ ASSOCIATES, INC q ESTORATION ALTER ATIVE With _S*CUr* Gate At Arnold Rd Bridge 200' 0' 400' 1000' ACRES WESTEC SERVICES, INC 26 road right-of-way (ROW) to the dunes and the wet- land area may be difficult to implement because the area must be kept clear for railroad operations. Ic. Dune/Wetland Perimeter: This area has a number of opportunity areas for ORV barriers, such as, ditches, canals, wall, fences, etc. However, some of these barriers could cause undesirable impacts to these habitats. Some possible problems include: � hydrologic floods; 0 tidal interference; and � disturbance to dune movement. AREA 2: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA* EDISON (SCE) SITE 2a. Westside access near the SCE facility may be a poten- tial entry point if other areas are blocked off. Routes through thisarea seem less desirable because much of the area is covered with water and wet soils. Control may be designed by ditches, fences and topographic changes. 2b. Eastside access would be on the berm adjacent to the SCE perimeter fience. Control: see 2a. AREA 3: ARNOLD ROAD/SCE The following alternatives are based upon various options indicated by 27 the SCE, State Parks & Recreation Department and the City of Oxnard: 3a. Mariculture alternative: The development of this pro- posal would require construction on the existing wet- land area. Because there would be less open land, the area would be less desirable for ORV activity. With development adjacent to the south perimeter of the canal and Arnold Road, the area could prevent ORV access by barriers such as walls and fencing. 3b. Recreation /Wetland Rest oration Alternative: This alternative would exclude all ORV activity by secur- ing the bridge at Arnold Road with access for emergency /security vehicles, pedestrians and bicy- clists. AREA 4: PERKINS ROAD/INDUSTRIAL AREA 4a. Improve security gate and lock system on bridge access 4b. Provide a barrier (fence, gate, channel extension,etc.) to block ORV access. Entry from the north near the J Street Channel would be stopped by the fencing from the Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion. 4c. North Perimeter/J Street Channel: Observations of ORV activities in this area indicate the 0RVs are reluctant to cross this line probably because the area is posted with signs prohibiting ORV activity and is 28 patrolled by Port Hueneme. According to some of the ORV user groups there is an unwritten policy that the ORV's would not encroach into Port Hueneme. Barriers in this area may not be necessary. 29 SECTION 4 RESOURCE PROTECTION ALTERNATIVES INTRODUCTION The purpose of this section is to summarize the analysis and evalua- FE tion of the alternatives regarding the protection of the sensitive re- sources of Ormond Beach. The key element in the alternatives de- velopment process were two public workshops in which various groups including environmentalists, students and ORV users provided ideas and suggestions for the protection of Ormond Beach. THE ALTERNATIVES The alternatives are based upon the first public workshop held on March 19, 1982, and were presented in a second public workshop April 16, 1982. The first public workshop identified a range of five alternatives which were developed for review and evaluation. The alternatives ranged from a status quo scheme to complete closure to ORV uses. They include: 0 Alternative 1 Status Quo 0 Alternative 2 Designated Off Road Vehicle Areas 0 Alternative 3 Limited Off Road Vehicle Access 0 Alternative 4 LNG Acquisition /Phased Closure 0 Alternative 5 Complete Off Road Vehicle Closure 30 ALTERNATIVE I STATUS QUO PROGRAM 1. No City or State actions 2. No private owner actions STATUS QUO ADVANTAGES 1. Provides an unauthorized ORV recreation area STATUS QUO DISADVANTAGES 1. Continued legal and liability problems 2. Unauthorized trespassing 3. Health/Safety problems 4. Wetlands and dune areas not protected, probably complete destruction of resources 5. Iligh maintenance costs because of dumping and vandalism 6. Low probability of success 7. Incompatible with existing land uses 8. Low diversity of use 9. Educational opportunities lost with the destruction of the wetlands and dune environments 10. Difficult security and enforcement problems 11. Unacceptable to City's goals and objectives 31 ALTERNATIVE 2 DESIGNATED OFF ROAD VEHICLE AREAS (Figure 7) PROGRAM 1. Secure north boundary of LNG site 2. Secure Perkins Road access a. 2 gates (one emergency vehicle access) b. allow pedestrian access 3. Continue to allow access at Arnold Road 4. Provide protection for LNG site and dune area (primary protection area) 5. Maintain constant water level in SCE's wetland to pro- tect resource area 6. Provide Public Relations program 7. Enforcement program a. police patrol b. violators cited c. post signs d. citizen's monitor group 1) ORV groups 2) environmental /educational groups Note: Assumes current SCE policies toward ORV's. DESIGNATED ORV AREAS ADVANTAGES 1. Provides limited ORV use on the strand and areas near Arnold Road. 2. Protects primary protection area (LNG site) and SCE wetland 32 ALTERNATIVE 2 9eeSECURE J ST. CHANNEL& DESIGNATED PERKINS RD. ORV AREAS O@ @l A. 0 BARRIER cis EMERGENCY ACCESS GATE 0 0 C, C, OXNARD CITY LIMITS COASTAL ZONE ---------- BOUNDARY -100 YEAR FLOOD LINE IL SECURE LNq WETLAND & DUNES 0 \j z MAINTAIN SCE FIGURE 7 t WETLAND WATER [LEVEL B IE Z%c m WEnMDS MAINtAIN ACCESS PUMIC ACCESS @ ARNOLD RD. STUDY Prepared for: THE CITY OF OXNARD 10 Prepared by. 5 TAKATA/ ASSOCIATES, INC 1 With 200' 0' 400' 1000' ACRES WESTEC SERVICES, INC 33 DESIGNATED ORV AREAS DISADVANTAGES 1. ORV activities are on private property, (SCE and others) 2. Legal and liability problems 3. A "sanctioned" ORV area may attract too many users - beyond the site's capacity, could be A safety problem 4. Security and enforcement would be difficult 5. Difficult to monitor and patrol 6. This alternative may not be implemented if: a. SCE develops the mariculture facility (lobster farm) ; or b State Parks Dept. acquires the property for wetland restoration and passive recreation 34 ALTERNATIVE 3 LIMITED OFF ROAD VEHICLE ACCESS (Fiore 8) PROGRAM 1. Secure north boundary of LNG site 2. Secure Perkins Road access a. 2 gates (one emergency vehicle access) b. allow pedestrian access 3. Continue to allow access at Arnold Road a. appropriate for 4 wheel drive vehicles 4. Fence off dune and strand area approximately 42001 west of Arnold Road 5. Maintain constant water level in the SCE wetland to protect resource area 6. Provide sanitary facilities Note: This alternative assumes SCE's current ORVenforcement policy. LIMITED ACCESS ADVANTAGES 1. Provides limited ORV use 2. Protects LNG wetland and dunes west of the proposed strand barrier 3. Maintains waterbird habitat 4. Possible acquisition of property for ORV use. 35 ALTERNATIVE 3 SECURE J ST. CHANNEL & LIMITED P, PERKINS RD. ORV ACCESS V 00 60 > 0 BARRIER EMERGENCY ACCESS -I- A GATE OXNARD CITY LIMITS COASTAL ZONE 8OU:DA if -100 YEAR FLOO LI:E SECURE:LNG PROPERTY & DUNES 0 rn LIMITED ORV USE AREA > ... z FIGURE 8 MEZ@cm MAI@TAIN WETLAND WATIER LEVEL V&TLANDS PUBLIC ACCESS ... MAINTAIN ACCESS AFkNOLD RD. STUDY <\ Prepared for, ..... ... THE CITY OF OXNARD Prepared by. TAKATA/ASSOCIATES, INC With 200' 0' 400' 1000' ACRES WESTEC SERVICES, INC 36 LIMITED ACCESS DISADVANTAGES 1. ORV activities are on private property (SCE and others) 2. Legal and liability problems 3. A "sanctioned" ORV area may attract too many users beyond the site's capacity, could be a safety problem 4. Security and maintenance costs would be high 5. This alternative may not be implemented if: a. SCE develops the mariculture facility (lobster farm) ; or b State Parks Dept. acquires the property for wetland restoration and passive recreation 37 ALTERNATIVE 4 LNG WETLANDS ACQUISITION /PHASED ORV CLOSURE (Figure 9) PROGRAM Phase I 1. Secure north boundary of LNG site 2. Begin acquisition proceedings with LNG 3. Secure Perkins Road access a. two gates b. allow pedestrian access 4. Prohibit ORV use on wetlands and dunes a. sign and secure perimeter of the dunes and LNG wetland Phase 2 5. Begin site search study a. identify alternative ORV use areas 6. Monitor environmental condition a. designate test areas b. Provide photographic documentation of each test site 7. Enforcement a. pobee patrol and citing for trespassing b. citizens' monitor group 1) ORV clubs 2) Sierra Club/Audobon Society, etc. c. educational d. surveillance: call police when violators are sighted 38 ALTERNATIVE 4 LNG WETLAND ACQUISITION/ PHASED 'pb ORV'CLOSURE c@ ;449 BARRIER EMERGENCY I A" ACCESS 0 GATE OXNARD CITY LIMITS @-j All COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY -100 YEAR FLOOD LINE A_@A_ PHASE 1 a SECURE LNG WETLAND & DUNES. a CLOSE J ST. CHANNEL & PERKINS RD. ACCESS. MAINTAIN WATER LEVEL @ SCE WETLAND. z fit FIGURE 9 PHASE 2: DEVELOP OFF SITE ORV FACILITY. WEnANDS -CLOSE AR OLD N 01 S. PUBLIC ACCESS TIt I, BRIDGE T .0 STUDY Precared for: THE CITY OF OXNARD 10 Prepared by. TAKATA/ASSOCIATES, INC With 200' 0' 400' 1000' ACRES WESTEC SERVICES, INC 39 8. After LNG Wetlands acquisition by the City a. begin interpretive programs 1 school and college 2) interested groups b. provide access and parking lot off of McWane Blvd. 9. Develop selected off-site ORV facility 10. Secure Arnold Road access a. security gate LNG WETLAND ACQUISITION /PHASED ORV CLOSURE ADVANTAGES 1. Provides wetlands protection. 2. Provides for a diversity of uses including limited ORV use, educational /interpretive, beach recreation, fishing, surfing, etc. 3. Provides educational /interpretive opportunities. 4. Health and safety problems are mitigated. 5. Ease of City enforcement LNG WETLAND A CQUISFkION /PHASED ORV CLOSURE DISADVANTAGES 1. Legal and liability problems 2. Maintenance costs m6y be high 4o ALTERNATIVE 5 COMPLETE CLOSURE TO OFF ROAD VEHICLES (Figure 10) PROGRAM 1. Secure North boundary of LNG site 2. Secure Perkins Road Access a. 2 gates (one should be available for emergency vehicles) b. allow pedestrian access 3. Secure Arnold Road access at bridge a. 1 gate - emergency vehicle access 4. Provide Public Relations Program 5. Enforcement a. police patrol b. violators cited c. post signs 6. Provide adequate maintenance program and funding 7. Begin interpretive program for wetlands and dune area a. schools and college b. interested groups COMPLETE CLOSURE ADVANTAGES 1. Legal and Liability problems minimized 2. Health and Safety problems minimized 3. ORV damage to wetland and dunes mitigated 4. Provides Wetlands and Dunes protection 41 ALTERNATIVE 5 09*@ SECURE J ST. CHANNEL & COMPLETE PERKINS RD. ORV CLOSURE 167@ .'0 1 1* E-.A. S-A IF BARRIER EMERGENCY ACCESS GATE OXNARD CITY LIMITS COASTAL ZONE DOUNDAR Y -100 YEAR FLOOD LINE SECURE LNG SITE: 0 C) m N, z FIGURE 10 SECURE ARNOLD RD. SITE S WETLAND PUBLIC ACCESS If STUDY Preoared for: THE CITY OF OXNARD 10 Prepared by. 5 TAKATA/ ASSOCIATES, INC 1 With 200' 0' 400' 1000' ACRES WESTEC SERVICES, INC 42 5. High probability of success 6. Compatible with adjacent land uses; mitigates current access and'dumping problems 7. Educational opportunities, i.e. , interpretive stations and trails 8. Provides good enforcement capabilities COMPLETE CLOSURE DISADVANTAGES 1. Capital costs for gates and barrier construction 2. Higher maintenance costs 3. No on-site or off-site provision for ORV users. EVALUATION As Table 1 depicts, five alternatives were evaluated and ranked using thirteen criterion: 1. Legal 2. Liability 3. Health and Safety 4* Wetland Protection 5. Dune Protection 6. Capital Costs 7. Maintenance Costs 8. Probability of Success 9. Land Use Compatibility 10. Diversity of Use 11. Educational Opportunity 12. Enforcement Capability; and 13. Responsibility 43 The evaluation was conducted by the consultants using their best professional judgements in assigning high to low compatibility ratings to the various alternatives. The purpose of the evaluation was to identify the relative differences of each alternative and identify the most compatible alternatives. The evaluation ranked the following alternatives from the most compatible to the least compatible. Alternative Rankina 5. Complete ORV closure I 4. LNG Acquisition /Phased Closure 2 2. Designated ORV areas 3 3. Limited ORV access 4 1. Status Quo 5. The five alternatives were presented at the second public workshop.. The following is a summary of the results of the second workhop. 0 Alternative 1, Status Quo, was not acceptable to the City of Oxnard because it would prevent the City from imple- menting its Local Coastal Plan and General Plan objectives. 0 Alternative 5, Complete ORV closure, was not acceptable to ORV interest groups because it did not recognize the need for an alternative ORV recreation site. Alternatives 2 and 3, Designated ORV areas and Limited ORV access, were identified as schemes which would be 44 r > 0 0 r- X m V) 1 0 (In a C) m r-z 0 m -j 0 M X I > 00 C) X (n Z 0 C@:g z 0;0 > > 0 c: z '.o m m r rm > 0 10 4 (n > Xx -i m m > m m -i m > > m m < z m m Ln > X 0 0 m Z < 03 r 0 z r 'u 0. > 0 > r X < > c J r) m X a; > .0 m X c: m m > W EVALUATION FACTORS 0 0 0 (@D G) LEGAL 0-00 1 Ln 0 0 0 LIABILITY 0 V n I M z > 0 0 0 (S C 0 C HEALTHISAFETY m > CD 4 0 m n ;= 0 0 0 c c INTENSITYIO.F USE 0 X 0 Z Z 0 0 lu 0 J.WETLAND PROTECTION 0 > 0 * J.DUNE PROTECTION v 0 0 0 0 c c z rn X 0.0 .00 4) (S CAPITAL COSTS 00 0 4) c MAINTENANCE COSTS 0 PROBABILITY OF 0 0 0 4) c c SUCCESS 0 0 0 (i) c 0 c- 0 LAND USE -LDMPATIBILITY 0 DIVERSITY OF USE 010 0 1 0 0 c c I IEDUCATIONAL 010 0 4) 0 c 0 . 6PPORTUNITIES 0100000001 > 010 00.0 010 0 1 (D (A ENFORCEMENT @. On. .1 @s 0 00 0 c cic CAPABILITY 0 M (D 1+ 0 0 0 T m RESPONSIBILITY 00 ND Ranking difficult to implement if SCE developed their property for a mariculture facility. The areas set aside for the ORV use seemed to be undersized for the current and future ORV traffic. Alternative 4, LNG Wetlands Acquisition /Phase Closure, with ax)difications, seemed the most feasible and was se- lected as the preferred alternative. The workshop par- ticipants suggested that this alternative should empha- size a short-term and long-term priority plan. The'short - term phase should provide immediate protection for the wetlands and dunes; the long-term phase- should identify an alternative off-site ORV facility, options for wetlands restoration, educational /interpretive programs and the pliased closure of Ormond Beach to unauthorized ORV users. Other workshop suggestions and ideas, such as i)ublic relations, monitoring and funding have been in- corporated in Section 5, the Priority PLand and Strate- gjes. SECTION 5 PRIORITY PLAN RECOMMENDATION AND STRATEGIES INTRODUCTION The purpose of this section is to describe the key elements of the pri- ority plan recommendations and provide implementation strategies for the realization of the plan. The priority plan and strategies are based upon the preferred phased closure alternative, outlined in Section 4, with significant changes and refinements suggested at the second public workshop. PRIORITY PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS The priority plan recommendations outline a two phase implementation process which would provide for: 0 protection of the Ormond Beach wetlands/dune environment; 0 development of educational /interpretive programs and facilities; and 0 an alternative off-site ORV facility search study and development of an ORV recreation area. The elements of the plan are depicted in Figure 11 and listed by phase in Table 2. Each element is described by quantities, unit cost, city costs, funding and phasing. 47 PHASE 1: CLOSE J ST. PRIORITY CHANNEL & PERKINS PLAN ROAD ACCESS TO ORVS. P V6LIC RELATIONS .AOG AM. cp .0 0 %0 BARRIER EMERGENCY ACCESS GATE L OXNARD CITY LIMIT& COASTAL ZO ---------- DOUNDA." -100 YEAR FLOOD LIKE ASE 1: SECURE LNG WETLAND FENCE DUNES. BEGIN LNG ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS. 0 INCREASE PATROL. MAINTAIN WATER LEVEL cl) @ SCE WETLAND. m PHASE 2: > a ACCEPT TITLE TO LNG SITE. z m CONDUCT ORV OFF-SITE FIGURE 11 SEARCH. &.DEVELOP OFF-SITE OR FACILITY. CLOSE ARNOLD ACCESS TO 0 EXPLORE W LANE) VVETLANDS RESTORA ON OPTIO PUBLIC ACCESS STUDY Preoared for: THE CITY OF OX @.l A Flo 4 Prepared by. TAKATA /ASSOCIATES, INC With 200 0' 400' 1000' ACRES WESTEC SERVICES, INC 48 TABLE 2 PRIORITY PLAN ELEMENTS Potential Plan Recommendations Quantity Unit Cost City Costs Grant 15 bventions Pha se PrIvatse Fuunding 1. Provide a ditch on the north 1000 cu/yd $3.7S/cu.yd. --- $3,750. side of the LNG site Coastal Conservancy I Grant $3 000. 2. Provide security gate at access 1 ea. Allow --- Coastai Conservancy road (terminus of Perkins Road) Grant 1 $1,750. 3. Provide wall barrier on the east SO ft. $35. /ft. --- Coastal Conservancy Side of the terminus of the "J" Grant I St. Channel $7, 500- $11, 250. 4. Prohibit ORV use in the wetlands 50DO ft. $2. 25/ft. - Coastal Conservancy and dunes; provide signs and Grant 1 "snow fences" on the perimeter - Volunteer labor could of the dune area. reduce cost by .75/ft. S. Begin acquisition proceedings for - Coastal Commission LNG wetland site. Prepare neces- --- --- --- I sary grant and funding paperwork - Coastal Conservancy : s required by Coastal Commission Grant nd Coastal Conservancy 6. Maintain year round water level --- --- --- --- in SCE wetiand I 7. Continued police patrol of 30 days Allow $2,600. Pos@sibleal_aw Enforce- Ormond Beach ment Gr nt I Ist yr. increase patrol 8. Public relations program and - News releases to media --- --- --- - Work5hop for citizen I citizen monitors monitors 9. Provide trash bins at Ormond 2 ea. $255. $510. - Place t Arnold Road Beach and P:rkins Road I PHASE I TOTALS --- --- $3,110. $16,000. - $19,750. 10. Assign City staff to conduct off- $4,000. site ORV facility search study --- --- --- State Parks ORV 2 Green Sticker Funds 11. Accept title to the LNG wetlands $40,000. (available) --- --- Joint City/COL]nty 2 property Effort 12. Develop selected off site ORV Unknown State Parks facilities --- --- OkV Green Sticker 2 Fund, 13. Provid(! %ecurity qate at Ariioicl $3,0W Road Bridge; close Ormond BeaLh I ca. --- --- Costs shared by SCE/ 2 to ORV uses Coastal Commission Grant 14. Determine feasible options (or wet- $15,000. 2 land restoration and inter-pretive/ --- --- Coastal Conservancy education progranis and facilities Grant PHASE It TOTALS --- --- $62,000. TOTAL --- --- $3,110. $78,000. - $131,750. 49 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES The following are the recommended strategies to be considered when implementing Phase I and Phase 2 of the Priority Plan. Phase I recommendations are primarily short-term actions that would provide immediate protection for the wetlands and dune environments. The Phase 2 recommendations are long-term actions and many of them require additional study and analysis. The long- and short-term stra- tegies are listed as follows: 1. Public Relations: provide a public relations program informing citizens of the Ormond Beach Priority Plan. News releases should explain the basis for the plan in regards to the protection of the wetlands and dune areas, phased closure for ORV uses and the legal consequences, i.e. fines, for encroaching on the protected areas. Information should be released to the major newspapers in Ventura County, as well as, the radio, television and various interest group newsletters. 2. Security and Surveillance: provide patrolling and monitoring program which utilizes police and volun- teer monitors: a. during Phase 1 consider increased police patrol, especially on weekends and other peak use periods (assume an additional thirty person days per year). 50 b patrol procedures should be coordinated be- tween the City, SCE, private landowners and citizens' monitor groups. c. encourage interested groups such as the Audubon Society, Sierra Club, off-road vehi- cle clubs and others to act as "monitors" during their Ormond Beach outings. The monitors would call police whenever unauthorized tres- passing occurs in the wetland and dune area. Under no circumstances are the monitors to confront or harass the violators. d. designate a citizens' band (CB) radio frequen- cy to alert police of violators in Ormond Beach. If the CB transmitting range is short of the police facility, coordinate with SCE via a CB unit to relay, violations. e. consider an "on-site" host monitor, who would live in temporary quarters such as a mobile home to monitor the activities on Ormond Beach. The host monitor would receive a place to reside in exchange for monitoring duties. A similar program has been instituted at Point Mugu State Park. 3. Construction Assistance: during the workshops a num- ber of strategies were suggested to help minimize con- struction co sts. They include: 51 a. the provision of labor by interested ORV and environmental groups to erect signs and snow fences around the dunes and wetland and other barrier devices that would secure the sensitive resources of Ormond Beach. The signs would explain the sensitive nature of the wetlands and the dunes and credit the groups which provided labor for the construction of the bar- rier. This strategy has major benefits: 1) labor costs mitigated; 2) user group education; 3) user group interaction and cooperation 4) less vandalism because of user group participation. b. private sector funding for improvements, for materials and/or labor. Shared responsibility for improvements between the city and private sector should also be considered. 4. Maintenance: key maintenance strategies include: a. in the first year set aside'a budget for extraordinary maintenance and replacement expenses. b. response times for the repairs to fencing and barriers should be short. 5. Off - site Search for ORV Facility: The ORV site search study should be conducted by the City of 52 Oxnard, County of Ventura with assistance from ORV users and environmental groups. The city-county re- lationship would combine its resources to identify a suitable ORV facility within the county. The ORV and environmental groups could provide technical criteria for the facility's size and environmental sensitivity. 6. Education /Interpretive Facilities: The wetlands and dune environments are educational resources which can provide the local schoools, community college and interested citizens with a "living laboratory." Inter- pretive trails, programs and facilities could be under- taken by the following groups and agencies: a. local schools; b. Oxnard Community College; c. City Parks and Recreation; d. State Parks and Recreation; and e. Interest groups (e.g., Audubon Society, Sierra Club, etc.) 53 APPENDIX DESIGN AND STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES INTRODUCTION The purpose of this section is to: 0 Identify design objectives. and criteria for the develop- ment and evaluation of specific design alternatives to discourage ORV activity and maintain access for pe- destrians and bicycles. 0 Identify design concept alternatives in sufficient detail to communicate their implications in regards to relative cost impacts, performance in discouraging ORV's, char- acter, durability and responsibility. 0 Evaluate the various design concepts and select and rank the most appropriate proposals for recommendation. DESIGN OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA Specific design objectives and criteria were formulated to aid in the de- velopment and evaluation of the design concept alternatives. The goals of these objectives and criteria were to: 0 discourage off -road -vehicle activity in the study area; 54 0 maintain access for pedestrians and bicyclists; 0 identify the potential adaptability of the design solu- tions to other coastal areas; and 0 protect the senstive wetland and dune environment of Ormond Beach. The objectives and criteria for the access barrier design alternatives included thirteen to fifteen factors. They are summarized in the fol- lowing paragraphs. Cost Criteria 1. Minimize capital investment by controlling construction costs. 2. Minimize maintenance costs by utilizing low maintenance materials and systems which don't require labor inten- sive up keep. 3. Minimize enforcement and security patrol costs. Maintenance Criteria 1. Utilize materials which require low maintenance. 2. Design a system which may be quickly and easily re- paired and maintained. 3. Avoid sophisticated systems which may require spe- cialized training for on-going maintenance. 55 Durability Criteria 1. Design an access and barrier system that can with- stand heavy abuse and vandalism. 2. Design a system with materials which can function over sevend setisons without replacement. Reliability Criteria 1. Design an access and barrier system which would pro- vide security from ORV use. Available Materials Criteria 1. Design a system which uses available materials from local sources. Avoid utilizing exotic material and hard to get products. Ease of Construction Criteria 1. Utilize simple construction techniques. 2. Design a system where the construction time frame is short. Security Criteria 1. Design a system that can prevent ORV entry into the study area. 56 2. Utilize materials and/or techniques that disc ourages the use of winches, ramps and other means of illegal access. Safety /Liability Criteria 1. Design a system that is not dangerous to public health safety. 2. Design a system that minimizes the public and private owners' liability. Aesthetic Criteria 1. Where possible utilize colors and materials which com- plement the site environment. 2. Soften hard edges, such as walls, fences and severe earth grading with landscaping. Environmental Compatility Criteria 1. Design a system that does not adversely impact the sensitive wetlands and dunes environment. Adaptability Criteria 1. Design a system that could be adapted to other coastal areas which are experiencing similar ORV intrusion. 57 Pedestrian Access Criteria 1. Provide pedestrian access to the beach and ocean. 2. Prevent ORV access through the pedestrian entrance areas. Bicycle Access Criteria 1. Provide bicycle access to the proposed bicycle path. 2. Prevent ORV access through the bicycle entrance areiis. Emergency Access Criteria 1. Limit emergency vehicle access to the Arnold Road Bridge, Perkins Road Bridge and the Southern Cali@ fornia Edison generating complex. 2. Provide a locking system for the access gates which can be opened by the police department, fire depart- ment and other departments. 3. Provide a fourteen foot wide (minimum) emergency vehicle access lane. Enforcement Capability Criteria 1. Design a system that could be easily patrolled by -security vehicles. 58 2. Post signs prohibiting ORV activity in strategic places. Responsibility Criteria 1. Identify responsibility for the construction, mainten- ance and patrolling of the proposed design alternative. Responsible parties include the City of Oxnard private landowners and the State of California. 59 DESIGN CONCEPTS ALTERNATIVES FORMULATION Based upon the findings of the previous phases, design criteria and ORV specifications (see Plate 1) five access/barrier categories were identified: 1. Fence/Wall Barriers; 2. Landform Barriers; 3. Water Barriers; 4. Controlled Access; and, 5. Pedestrian /Bicycle Access. Within these five categories a total of thirty-six design concepts were developed; they are describedas follows: Fence/Wall Barrier Alternatives There were eight design concepts developed for this category. The alternatives ranged from a common chain-link fence to elaborate con- crete barriers. The fence/wall design alternatives are described in the following pages. 1A Chain Link Fence 1B Poles /Pilings /Bollards 1C Steel/Metal Fence 1D Block Wall i Y, Concrete Wall 60 lF Fanwall Barrier IG Caltrans Barrier 1H "Dragons" Teeth 61 I FENCE WALL BARRIERJ 77 7 IA. CHAIN LINK FENCE Advantages: low cost, easily maintained, made with easily obtainable material adaptable to other areas. Disadvantages: low security and reliability, may be pulled out with ORV winch, low durability and may not be visually acceptable in some areas. 62 I B POLES PILINGS BOLLARDS Advantages: costs, uses available materials, safe. Disadvantages: some moderate maintenance, construction, AM security and environ mental, compatibility problems. K-7 POW Or AX-05 7V M#J1M4& L4 4-J Aw I Ll 63 Now IC. STEEL METAL F ENCE Advantages: durable, reliable secure Disadvantages: high costs, difficult to construct, high repair costs. 64 ,op- Lee 11 Tl@ ID. BLOCK WALL Advantages: low maintenance, durable, reliable, secure, adaptable to other areas. Disadvantages: costs, difficult to construct. L L 65 @@Ah!; 1E. CONCRETE WALL Advantages: maintenance, durable, reliable, secure and adaptable Disadvantages: construction and safety /I iabil ity problems 66 IF. FAN WALL BARRIER Advantages: durable, 11A Fk reliable, secure I ijq Disadvantages: high-moderate costs, difficult to construct, may not be compatible ^bv Vift"e., with environment. 7*41 rV"wr f CALTRANS BARRIER _4 Advantages: easy to maintain, durable, reliable, secure, aesthetically pleasing, easy to build, re- quires no footings. Disadvantages: moderate to high costs, may impact environment. 67 A 1. Used to stop tanks. 2. Concrete formed modules - maybe precast /interlocking. IH DRAGONS TEETH AT& Advantages: durable, reliable, secure. Disadvantages,: high-moderate costs difficult to construct, may not be compatible with environment. Some ATC and motor - IAM V [Ur cycles can negotiate this barrier. C@qv tow%) "5s V @I_ur Variation in Shallow Ditch 68 Landform Barrier Alternative There are eight design concepts in this category. These design concepts primarily focused upon the use of earth, large rocks and combination with man-made barriers. These concepts are described in the following pages. 2A Rocks/Boulders 2B Steep Berm 2C Multiple Berms 2D Berm/Fence/Wall 2E Berm & Ditch 2F Ha-Ha 2G Berm & Hedgerow 2H Vegetation 69 2 LANDFORM BARRIER 'S Advantages: low cost, easy to maintain, durable, reliable, available materials, easy to construct, secure, compatible with environment and adaptable'to other areas. Disadvantages: no major disadvantages. 2:1 Slope with Large BoWders Variation at Beach Area 2A. ROCKS / BOULDERS 70 Advantages: low cost, made with available materials, easily constructed, safe, aesthetically pleasing, compatible with environment and adaptable to other areas. Disadvantages: may require moderate maintenance. A %F@111 %IV r WT "4 28. STEEP BERN Advantages: low costs, reliable, made with available materials, easily constructed, secure, aesthetically pleasing, compatible with enviroment and adaptable to other areas. Disadvantages: moderate maintenance problems. ALA "04aPM& Af 2C. MULTIPLE BERMS 71 Advantages: reliable, ease of construction, can be made with available materials, adaptable to other areas. Disadvantages: moderate costs, maintenance and environmental compati-, bility problems. .21). BERM & FENCE OR WALL Advantages: low cost, reliable, made with availalbe materials, easily constructed, secure, aesthetically pleasing, adaptable to other areas. Disadvantages: some moderate maintenance, durability, safety and envi- ronmental problems. 2E. BERM & DITCH 72 2F. HA HA Advantages: low cost, aesthetically pleasing Disadvantages: safety /liability problems, moderate security, construction and adaptability problems. ZZ' 73 Heavily wooded trees Berm: steep one side 46 Advantages: can be constructed with available materials, safe, aesthe- tically pleasing, compatible with environment and adaptable. Disadvantages: moderate-high maintenance and costs, moderate security -- trees take a long time to mature. 2G. BERM & HEDGEROW Advantage: safe and aesthetically pleasing Disadvantage: maintenance, not durable or reliable, will not provide security 2H. VEGETATION 74 Water Barrier Alternatives There are five design concepts in this category. The alternatives ranged from costly moats to simple ditch designs. These concept alternatives are depicted and described in f1i e following pages, 3A Softside Channel/Dike 3B Moat 3C Shallow Channel/Dike 3D Narrow Channel/Dike 3E 'Ditch 75 3 WATER BARRIERS 3A. SOFT SIDE CHANNEL DIKE Advantages: can be constructed with available materials, secure, aesthetically pleasing. Disadvantages: may impact the environment and moderate problems due to costs, maintenance, construction, safety and adaptability. 76 30. MOAT MIN Advantages: durable, reliable, safe and adaptable to other areas. Disadvantages: high costs, maintenance, difficult construction. 7Yfli@'Y- ftZm COMQ46- --vice . wv4qzM 'p, FeWu a" 6cel@vvllvc_ All MOAT: FLOOD CONTROL VERSION 77 Advantages: ease of construction, can be made with available materials Disadvantages: impacts to environment: moderate probelms in regards to cost, maintenance, safety, security and adaptability. 10 5hall& WMr* @irw Ir - -Z loss& cAa ri ILL i .1 W -&V sl&o ;L 3C. SHALLOW CHANNEL DIKE 3D. NARROW CHANNEL DIKE 78 6 ALL"A AAA"Aai- 3E. DITCH Advantages: low cost, ease of construction, available materials , secure and adaptable to other areas. Disadvantages: moderate problems in regards to maintenance, durability, reliability, safety and environmental compatibility. 79 Controlled Access Alternatives There are eight design concepts in this category. Primary design determinants for this category included emerfency vehicle access and the ability to withstand heavy abuse from vandals. The alter- natives are summarized in the following pages. 4A Swivel Gate 4B Hinged Gate 4C Welded Steel Gate 4D Space Frame Gate 4E Metal/Wood Gate 4F Concrete/Steel Gate 4G Drawbridge 4H Tire Puncture Devices 80 4 CONTROLLED ACCESS 4A. SWIVEL GATE ,P4-AA1 Advantages: easy to maintain durable, reliable, available ma- terials, secure, safe, compatible, adaptable to other areas and has access for emergency vehicles. Disadvantages: moderate pro- blems in regards to cost, ease of '57L, er construction, aesthetics. 81 4B. HINGED GATE Advantages: See 4 A Disadvantages: See 4 A (0- CVIOC-@& owl; .100" Per. _Aw 7 4C. WELDED STEEL GATE Advantages: durable, reliable, secure, attractive, compatible, adaptable, provides for emergency access. Disadvantages: cost, materials not easily available, difficult construction, safety. 83 40. SPACE FRAME GATE Advant..Ages. costs, maintenance, reliable, ease of construction, adap-tabie and has access for emergency vechicles. Disadvantgages: aesthetics, safety. 84 Pc Ar CX 4E. METAL WOOD GATE Advantages: cost, reliability, available materials, safe, attractive, compatible, adaptable and allows emergency access. Disadvantages: maintenance, durability, security. Ar 85 4OV44W 7rM 4 F. CONCRETE STEEL GATE Advantages: See 4 A. Disadvantages: See 4 A. 8 6 C1 Vigo 41b et,6FVA7ZPA1 -77 -Raw 4G. DRAWBRIDGE Advantages: durable, secure, compatible Disadvantages: costs, maintenance, difficuitconstr4xtion not easily adaptable to other areas, 87 Pedestrian /Bicycle Access Alternatives There were six design concepts for pedestrian and bicycle access. These concepts concentrated upon the exclusion of ORVIs while pro- viding pedestrian and bicycle access. These concepts are found in the following pages: 5A Concrete Pipe Maze 5B Handle Bar Constraints 5C Angled Wall 5D Wall wl Bollard 5E Poles/Pilings 5F Elevation Change 88 5 PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE ACCESS lisp 5A. CONCRETE PIPE MAZE Advantages: durable, reliable, easily constructed with available materials secure, safe, good pedestrian and bicycle access. Disadvantages: moderate costs. 89 5B. HANDLE BAR CONSTRAINTS Advantages: durable, reliable, easy to build, from available materials, secure, good pedestrian and bicycle access and adaptable to other areas. Disadvanta2es: moderate costs. 90 Advantages: maintenance, durable reliable, materials avallalbe, safe, attractive, compatible, allows pe- destrian and bicycle access. Disadvantages: moderate problems with cost, construction, security and adaptibility. '.4 SC. ANGLED WALL A- WM Advantaoes: same a 5 C above, with good a daptibil ity OY feAOAh* Disadvanta _ges: moderate pro- blems with security, costs and construction. 5D. WALL / BOLLARD 91 Advantages: See I B. A W Disadvantages: See 1 B. WWAPEP 5E. POLES PILINGS b 5F. ELEVATION CHANGE Advantages: cost, durability, available materials, ease of construction, secure, safe, compatible, adaptable and has access for bicycles and pedestrians. Disadvantages moderate problems w1maintenance, reliability and aesthetics. i"w 92 DESIGN CONCEPT EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Each design concept was evaluated by arran,,nng them with a matrix of evaluation factors consisting of the design criteria developed in the first part of this section. Each alternative was rated on the basis of its relative compatibility with each factor or criterion.. In addition, two factors, enforcement capability and responsibility, were added to identify possible patrol and maintenance resonsibilities. A preferred concept was selected for each of the five categories on the basis of cumulative scores. The evluations and rankings are summarized by the following paragraphs and tables. 93 Fenced/Wall Barriers As indicated in Table 1, design concept 1G, Caltrans Barrier, a pre- cast modular wall, was ranked first. This alternative scored well in regards to cost, maintenance, ease of construction, security, safety and adaptability to other coastal areas. 94 1. FENCE/WALL (A z z (a 1 0 BARRIERS 0 cc < p 0 ii u Ir- w it :5 < LU < _j u w z z U. z z < u W UJ < 0 >- - cli ca 7 1- z m U z - LU:3 71 c LU ca < >. LU 0 < U z us ic < < J 0 ce w 0 c j w CL CL 0 < (L 0 w u U. (A 5z < LL CL (A ACCE.SS/BARRIER 0 < W th w < w zo a z< w u .7 < < < < wu w DESIGN ALTERNATIVES A. CHAIN LINK FENCE el(@)--00 0-0 0 0010 olp 5 B. POLES /PI LI NGS /BOLLARDS 160 0 1;0 010 0 0101-P, 3 C. STEELIMETAL FENCE (i)t 0 49, Q Q 0 do 0 0,p-l 3. D. BLOCK WALL 0 Q1 0 0.0 0. 0 Opp .4 E. CONCRETE WALL 0 Qj (i) 0 (i) 0 0 10 0 0 0,P .3 F. FAN WALL @-10 0 0 0 0 09p 2 olp G. CALTRANS WALL 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 H. '.'DRAGONS" TEETH 0 0 0 0 09101 HIGH COMPATIBILITY RESPONSIBILITY 1 0 I Fn MODERATE COMPATIBILITY 0 CITY OF OXNARD LOW COMPATIBILITY P PRIVATE LANDOWNER TABLE 1, S STATE Landform Barriers Table 2, depicts design concept 2A. Rocks/Boulders ranked first. This alternative scored high in all categories and moderately high in the safety /liability category. This design solution has been used in other coastal areas for jetties and seawalls. 96 L6 L) m c; > m 0 (A X m (X) r@ 0 C) < ca co -1 0 (a > m m > m m m z > C) x I X ;o m Z m :c it i: X 0 > 0 > cn cn 30 w -4 r. > w w r -n --i a n m m > M Z)- m M 0 -4 M .0 0 > a z c m 0 z C) m rl m m m X a CD x m z m K > V) --4 m EVALUATION FACTORS X c c *I c 0 0 0 1 COST c cic c c c 0 MAINTENANCE. z LA c c c c c c 9 DURABII,ITY rm> 4 0 m n c c 0 0 c RELIABILITY 0 x c AV z Z is c is AILABLE MATERIALS 0 > 0 X 39. c c c 0 010 EASE OF CONSTRUCTION z m X c c 0 c 0 c is SECURITY 0- -(i) c 4) C IC SAFETY MIABILITY AESTHETICS ENVIRONMENTAL c is c c c COMPATIBILITY- > c 0 c 0 *0 ADAPTABILITY m 0001000001 010000 0,0 00000000 ENFORCEMENT 010 0000 00 CAPABILITY 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 @-c la la RESPONSIBILITY MUL R.anking Witter Bar,riers As indicated in Table 3, the water barrier design concept 3E, Ditch, was ranked first. In comparison to the other alternatives, this solu- tion was the least cost while still providing security, ease of con- struction with available materials and adaptability to other coastal areas. 98 66 m 0 n co > z -K m a) 0 > X 0 z(A > > ;a > > (A r)M X r --I %.% 0 X r) 0 r W 30 M > M M 0 ::5 0 r T m 30 > -4 x m m ()> m 0 > > x m r. z z z m cl) r *9 > z z z )o, w > r m m z m m rn m EVALUATION I m FACTORS X 000 0- c I c c COST v 0 00 c c c c MAINTENANCE z 0 0 0 1 c c c 0 c DURABIWTY > 0 4-n rn0 0 0 oic c c 0 c RELIABILITY ; x z Z 0 0- 0 0 0 0 c AVAILABLE MATERIALS a - i 0 :F. 0 0 0 0 0 c EASE OF CONSTRUCTION z rn X 0 0 0 is c c 0 9 SECURITY 0 0 oic cic c1c SAFETY /LIABILITY 0.0 olc elo 0 AESTHETICS ENVIRONMENTAL 0 0 0 c c COMPATIBILITY 0 0 00 c c c c ADAPTABILITY r m 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 010-01 -00000000 ENFORCEMENT 0 0 0 0 010 0 0 CAPABILITY 0 0 0 0 -0 -0 -0 RESPONSIBILITY Ranking Controlled Access As Table 4 indicates, both design concepts 4A, swivel gate, and 4B, hinged gate, were ranked first. Both gates can probably with- stand the anticipated abuse from vandals. These solutions would be adaptable to other coastal areas. 100 4. CONTROLLED z z 0 0 ACCESS 0 cc < Lu -i 0 Fx u u LLJ 1-- ce. Lu < w < l'- @- > j u Z tA CIO (n z z z Lu z < u I -.@ Ul < -1 0 :i - @ ca u z -k Im U I.. ZZ 1-- z P< Z LU Lu im < LL uj o< Uj Lf) U z ul 1-- < -J X ce (-) (A 0 Lu I-- CL CL M Lu c Lu u u- IA 5: < o < CL 40 0 uj w zo Lu U u. (L L4 ACCESS/BARRIER u > w Lu < Z. u z< Lu cc < < w tA < wu w< wu w DESIGN ALTERNA.TIVES A. SWIVEL GATE *1* 0 o ol 0- Opp S B. HINGED GATE 0 0-0 0 0 Opp. i.. S 2 C. WELDED STEEL GATE Q 000 0 COPP, 5 S. D. SPACE FRAME GATE 0 0 010 0 01 Opp .3 S E. METAL/WOOD GATE 0 0 0 Ollp 4 F. CONCRETE /STEEL GATE Opp S 2 G. DRAWBRIDGE 0 0 0 0 0 Opp 6 S. H. TIRE PUNCTURE DEVICES Am 'ift HIGH COMPATIBILITY@ RESPONSIBILITY MODERATE COMPATIBILITY 0 CITY OF OXNARD 10 LOW COMPATIBILITY P PRIVATE LANDOWNER TABLE 4 S STATE Pedestrian /Bicycle Access Table 5 indi--ates two design concepts, 5A, concrete/pipe maze, and 5B, handlebar constraints, as ranking number one. Both design solutions scored high in almost all cate and moderately high in the cost category. Either design proposal would provide access for pedestrians and bicycyles and prohibit ORV entry. 102 5. PEDESTRIAN/ z (a -1 0 BICYCLE o cc 0 cc u LU ACCESS I.- I- ui -i U V) 1-- (z Z < > u V) < < ui > w m (n z u z .j z z < U L11:1 z U < t: w i.- -J 1 0 > X. ca i-a :Lc< > z m U Z LU uj LLI op < Lu u z < U. < -i J9 Z < < J 0 a: (L (L Ln u oc co 0 n R ui 5: @ < Lu >- 0 < (L I U. ul LL CL tA ACCESS/BARRIER 0 D w >. (n w < w Z 0 U z < w u X, ce < < in < < w u ac DESIGN ALTERNATIVES CL A. CONCRETE/PIPE MAZE *Ole 019906910 is Oo o 0,p lii@l ---- --- S B. HANDLE BAR CONSTRAINTS jj@ 1.0 * * 0 0 0100,00, p S C. ANGLED WALL 0,p 0 0 oili@ 0-0 0 @@ 99010 S 5 D. WALL w/ BOLLARD el i;@ QjO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 of S E. POLES/PILINGS 0 QO*OO *Q@ooolp 2 S G. ELEVATION CHANGE oQo*QOOO01&O0O*000lp 3 S 0010010,0200400101010101 OP01000000000000 HIGH COMPATIBILITY RESPONSIBILITY MODERATE COMPATIBILITY CITY OF OXNARD LOW COMPATIBILITY P PRIVATE LANDOWNER TABLE 5 S STATE COST ESTIMATES OF THE DESIGN ALTERNATIVES The cost estimates for each design alternative are identified in the following pages. The costs are separated into three catagories: la- bor cost, material costs and total costs. These cost estimates are relative and are variable due to regional differences in labor and ma- terial costs. The estimates do not include the contractor's overhead, profit and contingency. Therefore, an additional 25% should be includ- ed in the final estimate. Local delivery costs should also be added to the material cost when delivery to the job site.will be a significant part of the material costs. The following abbreviations have been used in the cost estimate sheets: CY Cubic yards EA Each GC Gallon can size K Thousand LB Pounds LF Linear Feet SF Square Feet 104 Takata/Associates, Inc. JOB NO: 029 Urban Design/LnvirorinlUrltd Plani iing/Lanascape Arcnitectwe JOB :OXNARD WETLANDS ACCESS STUDY DATE:- MAY 4, 1982 BY: CHECK: COST ESTIMATE SPEC DESCRIPTION LABOR UNIT UNIT SUB- TOTAL NO* COSM/HOUR COST TOTAL $ 1 lFence/Wall Barriers 1A ICHAIN LINK FENCE 5.00 LF 2.80 780 IR POLLS/PILINGS/BOLLARDS 4.45 LF 3.85 830 STEEL/METAL FENCE - SF - 1D BLOCK WALL 2.75 SF 2.15 IE CONCRETE WALL - LF' - qo nn IF FAN WAII SE 9 60 1 IG CALTRANS BARRIER LE v; nn IH DRAGONS TEETH Cy - 12 95 _C9L IJ SNOW FENCE .75 LF 1.50 2 Land Form Barriers 2A ROCKS/BOULDERS (RIP-RAP) 13.20 cy 13.80 27-I)IL 2B STEEP BERM 1.15 ___E_y__2_. _75 3 90 1 2C MULTIPLE BERM 1.15 cy 1 2.75 3 90 _2D BERM & WALL 1) _RFRM cy 3 q0 2.75 2E IBER 2) BLOCK WALL SF 2.15 4190 M & DITCH 1) BERM Cy 2.75 __a q n 1,95 2) DiTcfj, 3 _Z5_ 2 WO @@Nr- 3,90 SEP, __)GEROW BERM =L, 15 1 cy 2., D 3 90 1 2) H E D GR G'V 1 4 6, CAO 5 G 59 85 00 10 C-d _Z' 8'' 7 ID-J, 40 40 _j 4.q 7.00 j 8 3i 75 L I Takata/Associates, Inc. J OB NO: 029 Urban Design/--' nvironmenta i Planning/Landscape Arch0ecture JOB OXNARD WETLANDS ACCESS STUDY DATR--- MAY 4, 1982 BY: CHECK: COST ESTIMATE SPEC DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT SUB- TOTAL NO. COST TOTAL 4 Controlled Access SWIVEL GATE EA ALL04 31000100 4B HINGED GATE EA,, ALL04 31000 00 14C WR DFD 1;TFF1 GATE .50 LB .20 1 - 70 4D SPACE FRAME GATE 2.30 SF 95 16 25 1 4E METALZWOOD GATE - EA 1 - ALLO 2 500 00 .-4F coNcRETF/sTEEL GATE EA - ALLO 4 000100 46 DRAV@BRIDGE !VARIABLE ALLO 30 K TO 0 K 4H ITIRE PUNCTURE DEViCES EA - ALLO, 5 000 00 5 Pedestrian/Bicycle Access CONCRETEJPIPE MAZE LR JALLO 00 1 5A t EA ALIO 5B HANDLE BAR CONSTRAI-N`-Q 21700 00 5 IANGLED WALL 2.7 SF -5 4 90 .5D WALL & BOLLARD 2.75 SF 2. -L;5 4 go 5F PnEs/PiLmGs 4.45 LF 3.85 8 30 5F ELEVATION CHANGE 1) BERM 1.15 CY 2.75 3 90 1 2) BLOCK WALL 2.75 TF -771 4 90 3) STAIRS (CONCRETE) - CY ----590 00 EE I J 668 11 36 028292,