Oxnard City Council
May 5, 2026

494

CITY OF OXNARD LIVING WAGE REQUIREMENTS
EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2025
Consultant shall compensate any employee of Consultant who provides Services under this Agreement in accordance with the Living Wage Policy, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit D. While this Agreement is in effect, Consultant shall pay such employee no less than $20.06 per hour for each hour that such employee provides Services under this Agreement. This hourly rate shall be adjusted on July 1, 2026, and each July 1 thereafter, according to the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index, all items, prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the Los Angeles area relating to all urban consumers (CPI-U), index base 1982-84=100, comparing May of the previous year to May of the current year. In addition, while this Agreement is in effect, Consultant shall provide to such employee no less than 96 hours of paid leave per calendar year.
a. Consultant agrees to post, at a location readily accessible to those employees providing Services to the City, a copy of the Living Wage Policy adopted by the Oxnard City Council on July 9, 2002 and effective October 1, 2002. b. If Consultant fails to compensate such employee pursuant to the Living Wage Policy, the City Manager or designee shall terminate this Agreement on written notice to Consultant, effective immediately.
c. In addition, if Consultant fails to comply with the Living Wage Policy in any manner, Consultant shall pay to City a fine of $500 and shall pay to any employee providing Services under this Agreement a penalty of three times the amount or value of the compensation owed to such employee under the Living Wage Policy. Consultant shall pay such fine and penalty within fifteen (15) calendar days after the City Manager or designee provides written notice to Consultant of the amount owed.

495

EXHIBIT I

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
(CITY of Oxnard and Filippin Engineering, Inc.)

PREVAILING WAGE

1. Consultant acknowledges that the Project defined in the Agreement between CONSULTANT and City is a “public work” as defined in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 of the California Labor Code (“Chapter 1”), and that this Agreement is subject to Chapter 1 and the rules and regulations established by the Director of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) implementing such statutes. Consultant shall perform the Project as a public work.

Consultant shall comply with and be bound by all the terms, rules and regulations described in Chapter 1 and the DIR’s rules and regulations as though set forth in full herein.

2. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to perform the Agreement are on file at City Hall and will be made available to any interested party on request.

Consultant acknowledges receipt of a copy of the DIR determination of such prevailing rate of per diem wages, and Consultant shall post such rates at each job site covered by this Agreement.

3. Consultant is required to post job site notices, as prescribed by regulation. See Labor Code Section 1771.4(a)(2).

4. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1774 and 1775 concerning the payment of prevailing rates of wages to workers and the penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages. Consultant shall, as a penalty to City, forfeit not more than $200 for each calendar day or portion thereof for each worker paid less than the DIR’s determined prevailing rates for the work or craft in which the worker is employed pursuant to this Agreement by Consultant or any subcontractor.

The Labor Commissioner shall determine the amount of the penalty as described in Section 1775.

5. Consultant shall comply with Labor Code Section 1776, which requires Consultant and each subcontractor to (1) keep accurate payroll records and verify such records in writing under penalty of perjury, (2) certify and make such payroll records available for inspection, and (3) inform City of the location of the records.

6. Consultant shall comply with Labor Code Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 and California Administrative Code Title 8, Section 200 et seq. concerning the employment of apprentices on public works projects for all apprenticeable occupations. Before commencing work under this Agreement, Consultant shall provide City with a copy of the information submitted to any applicable apprenticeship program. Within 60 days after concluding the Project, Consultant and each of its subcontractors shall submit to

496
City a verified statement of the journeyman and apprentice hours performed under this Agreement.

7. Consultant may not be debarred or suspended throughout the Agreement Term pursuant to Labor Code Section 1777.1 or 1777.7. If he, she or it becomes debarred or suspended in the Agreement Term, Consultant must immediately notify City.

8. Consultant is not qualified to bid on, be listed in a Bid proposal, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in Labor Code Sections 1720 through 1861, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Labor Code Section 1725.5. Consultant shall continue without interruption to stay registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 for the duration of the term of this Agreement. This provision does not apply to construction, alteration, demolition, installation or repair work of $25,000 or less or to maintenance work of $15,000 or less.

9. Consultant acknowledges that 8 hours labor constitutes a legal day’s work.

Consultant shall comply with and be bound by Labor Code Section 1810.

10. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by Labor Code Section 1813 concerning penalties for workers who work excess hours. Consultant shall, as a penalty to City, forfeit $25 for each worker employed in the performance of this Agreement by Consultant or by any subcontractor for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work more than 8 hours in any calendar day and 40 hours in any one calendar week in violation of the provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1815, work performed by Consultant’s employees in excess of 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week shall be permitted upon public work upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day at not less than 1 ½ times the basic rate of pay.

11. The Project listed in the Agreement is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the DIR.

12. Consultant shall be responsible for each and every one of its subcontractors’ compliance with Chapter 1, the DIR’s rules and regulations, and Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700. Consultant shall include in the written contract between it and each subcontractor a copy of, and a requirement that each subcontractor shall comply with, those statutory provisions. Consultant shall be required to take all actions necessary to enforce such contractual provisions and ensure subcontractors’ compliance, including without limitation, conducting a periodic review of the certified payroll records of each subcontractor, and upon becoming aware of the failure of the subcontractor to pay its workers the specified prevailing rate of wages, Consultant shall diligently take corrective action to halt or rectify any failure.

13. To the maximum extent, Consultant shall hold harmless, defend (with counsel approved by the City Attorney) and indemnify City, its legislative bodies, and its officials,

497
officers, employees and agents from any demand or claim for damages, compensation, fines, penalties or other amounts arising out of or incidental to any acts or omissions listed above by any person or entity (including Consultant, its subcontractors, and each of their officials, officers, employees and agents) in connection with any work undertaken or in connection with the Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all attorneys’ fees and other related costs. All duties of Consultant under this Section shall survive Agreement termination.

498

EXHIBIT J

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
(CITY of Oxnard and Filippin Engineering, Inc.)

IRAN CONTRACTING CERTIFICATION

499

IRAN CONTRACTING ACT CERTIFICATION
(TO BE EXECUTED AND SUBMITTED WITH THE AGREEMENT)
Public Contract Code Sections 2202-2208
Pursuant to Public Contract Code 2204.(a) A public entity shall require a person that is submits a bid or proposal to, or otherwise proposes to enter into or renew a contract with, a public entity with respect to a contract for goods or services of one million dollars ($1,000,000) or more to certify, at the time an Agreement is signed or renewed, that the person is not identified on a list created pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 2203 as a person engaging in investment activities in Iran described in subdivision (a) of Section 2202.5 or as a person described in subdivision 9b) of Section 2202.5, as applicable.

To comply with this requirement, please insert your company/entity and Federal ID number (if available) and complete one of the options below. Please note, California law established penalties for providing false certifications, including civil penalties equal to the greater of $250,000 or twice the amount of the contract for which the false certification was made, contract termination and three-year ineligibility to bid on contract in accordance with Public Contract Code section 2205.

OPTION No.1 – CERTIFICATION
I, the official named below, certify I am duly authorized to execute this certification on behalf of the company/entity identified below, and the company/entity identified below is not on the current list of persons engaged in investment activities in Iran created by DGS and is not a financial institution extending twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) or more in credit to another person or entity, for 45 days or more, if that other person or company/entity will use the credit to provide goods or services in the energy sector in Iran and is identified on the current list of persons engaged in investment activities in Iran created by DGS in accordance with subdivision (b) of Public Contract Code 2203.

Company Name/Financial Institution (printed): Federal ID Number (or n/a):

By (Authorized Signature):
___________________________________________
Printed Name & Title of Person Signing: Date Executed
_____________________________________________ __________________________ Executed in the County of________________________________ in the State of __________________ OPTION No.2 – EXEMPTION
Pursuant to Public Contract Code sections 2203(c) and (d), a public entity may permit a vendor/financial institution engaged in investment activities in Iran, on a case-by-case basis, to be eligible for, or to bid on, submit a proposal for, or enters into or renews, a contract for goods and services. If you have obtained an exemption from the certification requirement under the Iran Contracting Act, please fill out the information below and attach documentation demonstrating the exemption approval.

Company Name/Financial Institution (printed): Federal ID Number (or n/a):

By (Authorized Signature):
_____________________________________________
Printed Name & Title of Person Signing: Date Executed
____________________________________________ ________________________ Executed in the County of_____________________________________ in the State of ____________

500
Agreement No. A-8248
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (V-01-17-19)

FOURTH AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Fourth Amendment (“Fourth Amendment”) to the professional services (“Agreement”) is made and entered into in the County of Ventura, State of California, this ______ day of __________, 20___, by and between the City of Oxnard, a municipal corporation (“City”), and Moore Iacofano Golstman, Inc. (“Consultant”). This Fourth Amendment amends the Agreement entered into on December 15, 2020, by City and Consultant. The Agreement previously has been amended on January 10, 2022, by a First Amendment, on June 28, 2024, by a Second Amendment, and on November 19, 2024, by a Third Amendment.

RECITALS
WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement to extend the term in order to maintain continuity of services and include additional services for civil and landscape plan revisions and coordination arising from a drain line design change for the ASR Well Project; and WHEREAS, the Parties mutually agree that it is necessary to increase the agreement not to exceed amount from $1,280,264.52 to $1,290,964.52, to accommodate the additional time and services required to complete the work.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set forth herein, the parties agree to amend the Original Agreement.

City and Consultant agree as follows:

1. Pursuant to Section 5, the City is exercising its fourth option term. The Agreement will be extended for an additional 6.03 months from June 30, 2027 to December 31, 2027.

2. The reference to the Scope of Services Exhibit A-1 everywhere it is listed both on the Cover Page and in the Agreement is hereby amended to add also the Scope of Services Exhibit A-2. The Scope of Services Exhibit A-2 is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The effective date of the Schedule of Compensation Exhibit A-2, is May 6, 2026.

3. The reference to the Rates and Cost Exhibit B-1 everywhere it is listed in both on the Cover Page and in the agreement is hereby amended to add also the Rates and Costs Exhibit B-2.

The Rates and Costs Exhibit B-2 is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

The effective date of the Rates and Cost Exhibit B-2 is, May 6, 2026.

4. The total agreement amount in Section 6 of the cover page of the agreement is hereby amended to $1,290,964.52.

5. As so amended, the Agreement remains in full force and effect. [Signatures on next page]

501
Agreement No. A-8248
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (V-01-17-19) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the Amendment on the date first written above.

CITY OF OXNARD MOORE, IACOFANO GOLSTMAN, INC.

☐Luis A. Mc Arthur, Mayor1 Date Daniel Iacofano, CEO Date ☐Libertad Macias, Purchasing Agent 2

Roxanne Evanoff, Date
Secretary and Chief Operating
And Talent Officer3
ATTEST:

Lourdes A. López, City Clerk Date
(Only if Mayor signs)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Stephen M. Fischer, Date
City Attorney (always required)
1 The City Council must authorize and the Mayor must execute any agreement over $220,000. 2 The Purchasing Agent may execute any authorized agreement up to $220,000. 3 The City requires the following for any contract:
● For a corporation, the signatures of the Board President, CEO or Vice President and of the Board Secretary, Assistant Secretary, CFO or Assistant Treasurer;
● For an LLC, the signatures of at least two managers of the LLC (company directors, not lower-level managers); or ● For a partnership, the signature of a partner. If the partnership is a limited partnership, the signer must be a general partner.

If the company has a different structure, or if the above-listed persons are not the appropriate signers, please submit to the City Attorney legally-binding documentation stating who can sign and bind your company.

502
MIG, Inc.

PHASE 006 FINAL PS&E
TASK 6.04 ASR Well Encroachment into Campus Park Limits The ASR well project will be constructing a discharge line that encroaches into the limits of the Campus Park Project. As a result, the Campus Park Bid Plan Set needs to be modified to include the location and limits of this discharge line, as well as its components.

The ASR Well discharge line is proposed to run in a southerly direction along the western boundary of the Campus Park Project and discharge into the existing box culvert in Fifth St. The discharge line will require an air gap structure, which is proposed to be constructed within the limits of the proposed Campus Park community garden. This will require the Campus Park Project Bid Set to be modified to show the location of the discharge line and the air gap structure on any affected sheet. It is understood that the air gap improvements will be completed before the Campus Park improvements begin.

Assumptions:

1. Modify Campus Park Bid Set (Delta Set) – Modify affected Landscape and Civil sheets within the Campus Park Bid Set. 0e changes will include the linework of the ASR well discharge line and air gap structure along with references to the ASR well discharge plans. Delta Set will not include any design information for the ASR well discharge line or air gap structure. 0e Delta Set will only reference the ASR Well improvements.

2. Delta Set on 42”x30” Title Block – Produce a full Delta Set on the 42”x30” title block.

3. Delta Set on 36”x24” Public Works Title Block and Mylar Set – Produce a full civil Delta Set on the Public Works 36”x24” title block. 0is will serve as the Campus Park Project mylar set. We assume all Mylar sheets can be digitally modified via PDF, and that over-the-counter processing will be required.

Deliverable:
• Delta Set on 42”x30” Title Block (PDF)
• Delta Set on 36”x24” Public Works Title Block (PDF and Mylar)

SCOPE OF SERVICES
EXHIBIT A-2
Effective May 6, 2026

503

1.01 Kickoff Meeting with City's Project Team -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 1.02 General Project Management $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 1.03 Regular Meetings with City of Oxnard $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 1.04 Monthly Billing Invoice & Status Reports $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 1.05 Coordination and Management of Subconsultants $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 1.06 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Measures $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2.01 Data Gathering $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2.02 Geotechnical Report $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2.03 Topographic Survey $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2.04 Arborist Report $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2.05 CEQA Compliance Review $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2.06 Mapping and Utility Investigation $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2.07 Additional Geotechnical Investigation $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2.08 Aircraft Hazard and Land Use Assessment $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2.09 Fire Flow Testing $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2.10 NEPA Categorical Exclusion $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2.11 NHPA Section 106 Coordination/Compliance $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2.12 General Biological Resources Assessment $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2.13 Burrowing Owl Survey and Report (Optional Task) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2.14 Avigation Easement $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2.15 Pre-Construction Clearance and Construction Monitoring Biological Surveys $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 3.01 Stakeholder Meetings $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 3.02 Develop Community Outreach and Facilitation Plan $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 3.03 Initiate Multimedia Campaign $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 3.04 Youth/Corps Training $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 3.05 Community Workshops - Round 1 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 3.06 Community Workshops - Round 2 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 3.07 Community Workshops - Round 3 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 4.01 Kickoff Design Workshop with City's Project Team $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 4.02 Prepare Conceptual Design Alternatives (2) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 4.03 70% Design Workshop with City's Project Team $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 4.04 Prepare 70% Schematic Design Package $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 4.05 Present 70% Schematic Design Package to Parks, Recreation, Community Services $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 4.06 Prepare 100% Schematic Design Package $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 4.07 Prepare and Submit Development Design Review/Project Entitlement $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 5.01 Coordinate CEQA Compliance Documentation $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 5.02 Prepare 50% Design Development Package $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 5.03 Attend Progress Submittal Review Meeting with City of Oxnard $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 5.04 Prepare 100% Design Development Package $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Campus Park Design/Activation Project (RFP #PW 20-95) Proposed Professional Service Fee Additional Service ECG Totals Professional Fee Totals Geolabs Totals Johnson Aviation Totals MIG Totals Jenson Design & Survey Totals MIG Team - Additional Service Request Cogstone Totals Task 1: Project Management Task 2: Preliminary Investigation Task 3: Community Engagement Task 4: Schematic Design Task 5: Design Development Rates and Cost Exhibit B-2 Effective May 6, 2026

5 504
Campus Park Design/Activation Project (RFP #PW 20-95)
Proposed Professional Service Fee Additional Service
ECG
Totals
Professional
Fee Totals
Geolabs
Totals
Johnson Aviation
Totals
MIG
Totals
Jenson Design &
Survey
Totals
MIG Team - Additional Service Request
Cogstone
Totals
Task 1: Project Management

6.01 Prepare 90% Construction Documents Package -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 6.02 Prepare 100% Construction Documents Package $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 6.03 ADA Path of Travel $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 6.04 ASR Well Encroachment into Campus Park Limites $ 3,150.00 $ 4,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 7,650.00 Subtotal $ 3,150.00 $ 4,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 7,650.00

7.01 Pre-Construction Meeting $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 7.02 Bi-Weekly Construction Meetings $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 7.03 In-House Field Coordination $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 7.04 Nursery Visits $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 7.05 Pre-Punch Job Walk $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 7.06 Punch List Job Walk $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 7.07 Record Drawings $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - TOTAL LABOR $ 3,150.00 $ 4,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 7,650.00 TOTAL DIRECT COSTS $ 2,600.00 $ 450.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,050.00 TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $ 10,700.00
Task 7: Construction Phase SupportTask 6: Final PS&E
Effective May 6, 2026

505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
Task 1: Project Management
Campus Park Design/Activation Project (RFP #PW 20-95)
Proposed Professional Service Fee Additional Service12-Aug-24 ECG
Totals
Professional
Fee Totals
Geolabs
Totals
Johnson Aviation
Totals
MIG
Totals
Jenson Design &
Survey
Totals
MIG Team - Additional Service Request
Cogstone
Totals

6.01 Prepare 90% Construction Documents Package -$ -$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 6.02 Prepare 100% Construction Documents Package $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 7.01 Pre-Construction Meeting $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 7.02 Bi-Weekly Construction Meetings $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 7.03 In-House Field Coordination $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 7.04 Nursery Visits $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 7.05 Pre-Punch Job Walk $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 7.06 Punch List Job Walk $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 7.07 Record Drawings $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - TOTAL LABOR $ 77,969.00 $ 41,518.75 $ 6,450.00 $ 24,000.00 $ 6,300.00 $ 11,090.00 $ 167,327.75 TOTAL DIRECT COSTS $ 11,359.42 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,638.60 $ 12,998.02TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $ 180,325.77 Task 7: Construction Phase Support
Task 6: Final PS&E
Agreement No. A-8248

592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
Public Project Agreement PW 20-95, Construction
Management Services Agreement PW 26-65, and
Professional Service Agreement Amendment for
Campus Park Activation Project, Specification No. PW
20-95
City Council
May 5, 2026
Jennie Ibanez
Sr. Project Manager
605
RECOMMENDATION 2
That the City Council approve and authorize:

1. A total of $16,047,872.63 in Project funds for the Campus Park Activation Project, Specification No. PW 25-43;

2. The Mayor to execute an Agreement with Urban Habitat, in the amount of $12,688,141.43 for the Project and a Project contingency amount of $1,268,814.00 (~10%) with Urban Habitat for a total not to exceed value of $13,956,955.63 for the Project;

3. A project allocation amount of $2,080,217 (~16%) for engineering, inspection, survey, construction management, and project management for the Project;
606

RECOMMENDATION

4. The Mayor to execute Agreement 32600464 with Fillippin Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $1,780,217.00 for professional construction management, inspection, materials testing, grant administration, and public outreach services for the Project;

5. The Mayor to execute a Fourth Amendment to Agreement A-8248 with Moore, Iacofano, Goltsman, Inc. in the amount of $10,700.00 for a new not-to-exceed amount of $1,290,964.52 and extend the term to December 31, 2027, to perform landscape architecture and design construction support services for the Project; and

6. A Project budget appropriation of $299,727.00 from the Local Development Impact Fees Fund (350, subfund 8020, Parks and Recreation Fee) available fund balance to the Campus Park Activation Project (C2104), as well as the corresponding Capital Outlay Fund (301) appropriation increase in the same amounts.
3 607

BACKGROUND
The Campus Park Project represents a multi-phased capital investment in the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and is organized into three distinct but interrelated CIP projects:

1. Phase I- Campus Park Activation

2. Phase II-Campus Park

3. Phase III-Campus Park
4 608
BACKGROUND 5
• Phase I constitutes the core park development and includes the primary infrastructure and amenities necessary to activate the site for public use.
• Phase II and Phase III build upon this foundation by adding complementary improvements, expanded amenities, and
enhancements that further realize the full buildout of Campus Park as envisioned in the CIP
• Collectively, these phases implement the City’s long-term vision to transform ~26 acres of public land into a vibrant, inclusive, and nature-based community destination reflective of Oxnard’s culture, identity, and recreational needs (shown in next slide master plan buildout)
609

BACKGROUND
6 610

BACKGROUND
• The work is tentatively scheduled to begin in June of 2026 and continue for 260 working days.
• Staff will work closely with the Fremont South, Fremont North, and Wilson Neighborhood Councils, Friends of Campus Park, and residents impacted by the work to keep them informed of the project schedule. General project information will be
disseminated to help keep the public informed as well.
7 611
DISCUSSION 8
• Although originally programmed as separate projects for funding and planning purposes, the design of Campus Park has advanced in a coordinated and integrated manner. As a result, the currently completed design documents incorporate
improvements spanning the Activation Phase, Phase II, and Phase III.
• To maximize construction efficiency, reduce mobilization costs, and streamline project delivery, City staff has bundled all currently designed and funded improvements into a single set of engineering plans that were bid together.
612
DISCUSSION 9
• To improve cost-effectiveness and minimize redundant construction activities, Phase I construction has been expanded to include select improvements that were originally planned under later phases, but are fully designed and funded at this time.
• These elements include: full buildout of the community garden (rather than a partial), enhanced playground amenities, shade structures, bicycle parking, expanded walking paths, additional seating areas, and increased multi-use lawn space.
613
• Phase II & III, to be designed and constructed at a later date consistent with their grant requirements, are intended to expand upon Phase I improvements and include:
• Airplane Viewing Mound
• Entry garden
• Dog park
• Community orchard
• Cultural Garden
• Rainwater Capture Elements
• Shade Trees
• Additional trails, restrooms, interpretive signage
• Expanded Landscaping and Hardscaping
• Supporting Facilities
DISCUSSION 10
614

DISCUSSION - CONSTRUCTION
• Notice Inviting Formal Bids (NIFB) was published on December 11, 2025, in a local newspaper (Vida),
• Also published in multiple online platforms and bid boards. • Directly distributed to 69 contractors who have registered with the City.

Bids were opened on February 04, 2026. The City received five bids:

Urban Habitat: $12,688,141.63
Los Angeles Engineering, Inc: $14,768,200.00
Toro Enterprises: $16,081,757.25
Environmental Construction, Inc.: $16,485,282.48
Ardalan Construction Company, Inc.: $19,697,574.00
11 615

DISCUSSION - CONSTRUCTION
• The lowest bidder was Urban Habitat (Urban) and its bid is responsive to the City’s NIFB.
• Following this determination, procurement staff reviewed all documentation received from Urban and its subcontractors. • Based upon the available information and research performed to date, staff believes that the contractor is capable of satisfactorily completing the project.
• Staff recommends that the City Council award the contract for this Project to Urban Habitat.
12 616
• The base bid of this project included the work items to construct a skatepark, pump track, walking paths, an alluvial wash, multipurpose laws, an inclusive playground, a pavilion, a pelota Mixteca court, meadows, a community garden, a
pre-fabricated restroom, landscaping and lighting throughout • Additionally, the bid packet requested pricing from bidders on possible additive items. These items were items that, at the time of putting out the bid packet, staff was not certain would be possible due to the identified project funding.

DISCUSSION - CONSTRUCTION 13
617

DISCUSSION - CONSTRUCTION
• There were a total of 8 additive items. Additive items 1-8 were for the Pavilion Shade Structure and Foundations, Shade sails, and Foundations at the Skate Park, additional playground equipment, and the synthetic resilient surfacing at the playground.
• Staff recommends that the City Council award a construction contract to Urban Habitat that includes the base bid and all additive items.
14 618

DISCUSSION - CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
• To ensure success, a project of this scale and complexity requires full-time field management, engineering, materials testing, grant administration, public outreach, inspection oversight and cultural resource monitoring.
• To accomplish this, the Public Works Department solicited for a professional consultant with well-documented construction management experience.
15 619

DISCUSSION - CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
• The current and planned City staff workload is such that contracted resources are recommended to properly manage the construction phase of this project.
• All City project managers currently have full workloads, and their available time resources would likely be insufficient to manage the construction of this project at the level of attention it requires.
16 620

DISCUSSION - CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
• The consultant is tasked with providing comprehensive construction management services, including full-time oversight, coordination, scheduling, and cost control, acting as the City’s representative throughout construction.
• Firm will deliver inspection and materials testing to ensure all work complies with plans, specifications, and applicable standards. • Services will also include Native American monitoring to ensure compliance with cultural resource requirements and regulatory protocols during ground-disturbing activities as required by the project’s CEQA documents.
17 621

DISCUSSION - CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
• The consultant will also support public outreach efforts, including construction notifications and stakeholder coordination. • The firm will provide grant administration services, ensuring compliance with state and federal funding requirements, tracking eligible costs, and supporting reporting and reimbursement processes.
18 622

DISCUSSION - CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
● The request for proposals (RFP) for the project was published on January 5, 2026, and was due on February 09, 2026.
● The City received four proposals, and three were deemed complete and responsive.
● These proposals were then reviewed by three staff members, consisting of a Grant Management and Budget Administrative Analyst, a Senior Project Manager, an Engineering Division Manager
19 623

DISCUSSION - CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Proposals were scored using the following criteria:
• Company Profile and Qualifications
• Assigned Staff Experience
• Relevant Project Experience
• Project Approach, Understanding, and Level of Effort
• References
20 624

DISCUSSION - CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
● After a thorough review, Filippin Engineering, Inc. (Filippin) was selected as the most qualified firm to provide construction management services for the project.
● This selection was based on the firm’s extensive construction management experience, including successful completion of other City projects, as well as an understanding and familiarity of the Engineering Division's needs, and dedicated local staff presence.
21 625

DISCUSSION - CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
• The budget appropriation of $299,727.00 from the Local Development Impact Fees Fund (350, subfund 8020, Parks and Recreation Fee) is required to fund professional services costs that are not eligible for grant reimbursement.
• Staff recommends that the Mayor execute Agreement 32600464 with Filippin Engineering in the amount of $1,780,217.00 for professional construction management, inspection, materials testing, grant administration, and Public Outreach services for the Project.
22 626
DISCUSSION –MOORE, IACOFANO, GOLTSMAN, Inc. (MIG)

CONTRACT AMENDMENT
23 • On June 4, 2019, the City Council authorized submission of an $8.5 million Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (SPP) grant application for the Campus Park Activation Project
• The City was subsequently awarded the grant on February 20, 2020, and entered into a professional services agreement with Moore, Iacofano, Goltsman, Inc. (MIG) to provide landscape architecture and engineering design services, cost analysis, and preparation of plans and specifications.
• Six community workshops shaped the conceptual design and overall project vision.
627
DISCUSSION –MOORE, IACOFANO, GOLTSMAN, Inc. (MIG) 24

CONTRACT AMENDMENT
628
DISCUSSION –MOORE, IACOFANO, GOLTSMAN, Inc. (MIG) 25

CONTRACT AMENDMENT
629
• As the project transitions into implementation, additional professional services are required to support continued design refinement, supplemental surveying, and field verification activities necessary to advance the project into construction.
• Further coordination is also required due to the Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Well capital project, which has introduced the need for minor revisions to the civil and landscape plans.
• An amendment to MIG’s contract is required to incorporate Additional Service Request No. 4 to address these design revisions and associated coordination efforts during construction.
• Public Works staff recommends the City Council execute a Fourth Amendment with Moore, Iacofano, Goltsman, Inc. in the amount of $10,700.00 to perform landscape architecture and design construction support services.

DISCUSSION –MOORE, IACOFANO, GOLTSMAN, Inc. (MIG) 26

CONTRACT AMENDMENT
630

FINANCIAL IMPACT
Total cost for the Project is $16,047,872.63 which includes:
• Agreement 32600390 with Urban Habitat in the amount of $12,688,141.63
• Contingency of $1,268,814.00(~10%)
• Amendment to MIG, Inc. contract A-8248 in the amount of $10,700.00
• Engineering, inspection, survey, construction management, and project management (EISPM) of $2,080,217.00 (~16%)
• Includes the cost of the Filippin contract
27 631

FINANCIAL IMPACT
• This project is funded by a combination of local and external funding sources distributed across the three CIP phases:
• Multiple State and local grant programs
• Federal grant programs
• Development Impact Fees (DIF)
• General Fund Contributions (future phases)
• Use of these funds is subject to grant requirements, including eligible cost categories, implementation timelines, and reporting obligations.
28 632

FINANCIAL IMPACT
Activation Project (Phase I) Funding
• Phase I is primarily funded through State and Federal grant programs, including the Statewide Park Development and
Community Revitalization Program (SPP) and the federal
Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Program (ORLP).
• The project currently has an available balance of $13.36 million for the Activation Project (Phase I).
29 633

FINANCIAL IMPACT
Phase II Elements Funding
• Phase II primarily funded through State grant programs, including the Urban Greening Grant Program and from the General Fund (101). • The project currently has an available balance of $3.97 million for Phase II, with $3,479,253 from the State Grants Fund (210) and $500,000 from the General Fund (101).

Phase III Elements Funding
• Phase III is primarily funded through the Clean California Local Grant Program (CCLGP) Cycle 2.
• The project currently has an available balance of $3,434,00 for Phase III.
30 634

FINANCIAL IMPACT
• The total available project budget balance for the Campus Park Project from all funding sources is $21,067,473.00
• The total cost for the Campus Park Activation Project is $16,047,872.63 which includes the construction, construction management agreements, design contract amendment, project contingency and project allocation.
• A budget appropriation of $299,727.00 from the Local
Development Impact Fees Fund (350, subfund 8020, Parks and Recreation Fee) is recommended to fund professional services costs that are not eligible for grant reimbursement
31 635

FINANCIAL IMPACT
• Once fully operational, Campus Park will result in ongoing maintenance and operational impacts to the Parks Division Operating Budget. Upon completion of the new park
improvements, the City is anticipated to incur additional annual operating and maintenance costs estimated at $564,664.00.

These costs reflect the resources necessary to maintain the new park facilities, landscaping, amenities, and associated infrastructure.
32 636
End of Presentation
637

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

REPORTS
AGENDA ITEM NO. N.2
DATE: May 5, 2026
TO: City Council
FROM: Michael Wolfe, Public Works Director, (805) 385-8055, [email protected] SUBJECT: Channel Islands Harbor Water Quality Implementation Plan Phase 1 Approval.

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council direct staff to proceed with Phase 1 activities of the selected non-structural, structural, and receiving water strategies as outlined in Table 2 in this staff report. (The Public Works and Transportation Committee approved 3-0 on April 14, 2026 to approve the staff recommendation, with the direction of adding a pumping project to Table 2 under the “Receiving Water” category, and to forward the item for Council approval.)
Please click the following link to view the required Measure M pre-recorded presentation video: https://youtu.be/KVYFXkoCT7Y

BACKGROUND
The Channel Islands Harbor is an artificial harbor with abutting commercial and residential developments that include special financing districts Seabridge CFD, Westport CFD, Mandalay Bay WAD-Zone 1, and Harbour Island WAD-Zone 2 (collective “Harbor Districts”). The portion of Channel Islands Harbor north of the Channel Islands Boulevard bridge was created as a part of the development of these neighborhoods in order to provide the properties constructed within the developments the direct benefit of waterfront access. Subsequently, formation of the respective special districts listed above was required to fund costs associated with maintaining and managing the Harbor and its water quality. As specified in each district’s Formation Documents, water quality remediation services are authorized services for each of the Harbor Districts; however, the City Council has previously authorized American Rescue Plan Act (“ARPA”) funding, and State grant funds, to fund a report examining feasible options for addressing Harbor water quality conditions.

Additionally, in 2022, the County of Ventura provided $1.3 million in funding for the implementation of Harbor water quality mitigation measures.

In June 2018, an algal bloom occurred in the Harbor. The bloom was followed by widespread low levels of dissolved oxygen in the water. This is presumably related to the bacterial decomposition of algae during warm weather conditions.

The bloom and subsequent low oxygen event may have been caused by the changes in the Harbor water circulation that occurred after the Mandalay Power Generating Station was decommissioned on March 29, 2018, as mandated by the California State Water Resources Control Board. Since the 2018 bloom and low oxygen event, the Harbor has not seen another event of that magnitude.

Since then, the City of Oxnard (“City”), the County of Ventura (“County”), and residents of the Channel Islands Neighborhood Council’s (“CINC”) Marine Advisory Committee (“MAC”) have organized efforts to address water quality issues in the Harbor.

As a part of these efforts, a substantial amount of water quality data was gathered by MAC volunteers to assist with identifying key contaminants and potential sources of contamination within the Harbor. This testing was performed in 638
accordance with a Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (“LARWQCB”) required Quality Assurance Project Plan (“QAPP”) which describes key stakeholders, sampling methods and locations, sample analysis, parameters for volunteer sample collection, quality assurance, and goals. This data gathering effort and identification of stakeholders has provided the foundation for the City-led effort to develop a report to examine options for improvements to Harbor water quality conditions and circulation.

On February 24th, 2024, the City Council approved the contract with Craftwater Engineering (Craftwater) for the development of a series of reports detailing a list of potential mitigation measures to address Harbor water quality and circulation challenges, evaluate their potential feasibility, and develop a plan for implementing those measures which were deemed the most effective. Most notably, this included a detailed Implementation Plan intended to guide future project implementation aimed at addressing Harbor water quality and related issues. Since June 2024, Craftwater and City staff have met with various stakeholder groups both individually and in group settings to gather information on local concerns, provide updates on the project, and collaborate on the creation of the mitigation measures and evaluation metrics (see attached list of meeting dates and participants). Further stakeholder input was solicited on the draft and final implementation plan which proposes a specifically phased approach toward the implementation of a variety of nonstructural, structural, and receiving water/circulatory plans.

DISCUSSION
Initial Analysis:

Craftwater Engineering has provided its recommendations for priorities and projects based on the results of its technical research, review of the water sample data, and the feasibility study. Staff’s recommendation is for a variation of Craftwater’s recommendation and this staff report has been written to outline how staff have arrived at our recommendations. In order to fully understand the recommendations of this staff report, it is important to provide the primary Study goals and objectives. These include:
• Addressing water circulation and quality issues to meet a reasonable standard that supports appropriate Harbor beneficial uses for residents and the public.
• Providing pollutant source control and/or treatment options for the Harbor drainage area to improve dry- and wetweather discharge input quality. • Preparing a prioritized and phased Implementation Plan structured to provide a roadmap for viable projects, including costs and potential funding sources.

These are fully defined within the attached Goals and Objectives Memo (Attachment 1). To develop these goals and objectives, Craftwater compiled and analyzed more than 25 years of in-Harbor and source point data, coordinated with various stakeholders and interested parties, and used industry-standard modeling and analyses. This data guided the creation of mitigation measures that were identified as the most effective methods of addressing the Harbor’s most acute problems. Special attention was given to the overall trends over time and the closure of the Mandalay Generating Station (MGS). It is important to note that during the review of the data, Craftwater found that no notable observations were made indicating changes in exceedances of constituents at discharge sites before and after the decommissioning of the MGS, which suggests any observed degraded water quality in the Harbor following the MGS decommissioning is primarily a result of decreased circulation. Furthermore, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Board and California Coastal Commission provided invaluable guidance on potential conditions for the approval of any in-Harbor project.

Image 1 below depicts the total area considered by this study and will include the location of any recommended mitigation measures.
639
Image 1: Channel Islands Harbor Watershed
After this analysis, Craftwater identified the following constituents of concern (Table 1) within the Edison Canal and the Harbor. Discharge points were identified as specific points of concern as contributors to these constituents, particularly for pesticides. Efforts to address these constituents and water quality conditions, particularly in areas with poor circulation in the Harbor, were identified as a focus of mitigation strategies. Total Nutrients and Bacteria (specifically Enterococcus) were also noted as concerns. However, these are considered subordinate to the overall impact of the other constituents.

Table 1
Constituent of Concern Category Reason for Identification Potential Sources Bifenthrin Pesticide Magnitude of Exceedances/
Toxicity to Aquatic Wildlife1
Agricultural/Landscape Runoff
Permethrin Pesticide Magnitude of Exceedances/
Toxicity to Aquatic Wildlife1
Agricultural/Landscape Runoff
Copper Metals Magnitude of Exceedances/
Toxicity to Aquatic Wildlife1
Urban runoff, anti-fouling boat
paint, and aerial deposition
Low Dissolved Oxygen Eutrophic Conditions Overall indicator of water quality and circulation
Poor Mixing/Circulation
1 Exceedances were measured against total Water Quality Objectives as defined by the Los Angeles Region (Region 4) Basin Plan, references used for 303(d) listing decisions (impaired water bodies), the EPA’s “California Toxics Rule,” and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Constituents of Concerns and Stakeholder Input:

With constituents of concern and their primary sources identified, next steps were to involve the broader stakeholder community in the development of potential mitigation strategies that would address the identified concerns effectively.

The following groups were identified in the outreach efforts:
640
• Channel Islands Neighborhood Council - Marine Advisory Committee (MAC) • Ventura County Farm Bureau
• Farmers/Agricultural Landowners within the watershed area • Mandalay Generating Station and Edison Canal Landowners • Non-Special Districts Division City Staff
• Ventura County Public Works Department Staff
These groups were invited to the regular update meetings, as well as individual outreach sessions held throughout 2024 and 2025. Additionally, all of these groups were provided multiple opportunities during each phase of the study process to view and provide feedback for each Craftwater work product. The MAC group provided the most consistent attendance and feedback amongst all of the stakeholder groups. Ventura County Farm Bureau provided valuable perspective on behalf of agricultural interests and provided a conduit to local farmers and landowners immediately adjacent to the Edison Canal and Harbor. Individual meetings with City of Oxnard departments and divisions (e.g. Public Works Engineering, Environmental Resources, and Wastewater), which would have exposure to or be responsible for the implementation of certain mitigation measures, were also held to allow City staff to inform the projected feasibility of specific structural and non-structural programs.

Stakeholder feedback was valuable in the assessment of the potential mitigation measures, that included projected implementation challenges. For example, the Farm Bureau recommended that the report limit recommendations for mitigation strategies considered to be duplicative of already existing agriculture industry efforts. Conversely, the MAC group provided feedback suggesting projects containing circulation improvement components be prioritized.

With the stakeholders identified and the problem well-defined, Craftwater developed a list of possible mitigation strategies which would address the constituents of concern through multiple methodologies. Methodologies are separated into three categories labeled Non-Structural, Structural, and Receiving Water. • Non-Structural strategies generally involve education programs and procedural methods that the City may implement internally through existing departments, contracts, or maintenance efforts. • Structural strategies involve the construction of structural “Best Management Practices” (BMPs) at specific points within the watershed to physically treat runoff prior to reaching the Harbor. Three distinct types of Structural BMPs were evaluated as part of the Study’s approach: Filtration BMPs, Infiltration BMPs, and Agricultural Runoff Treatment Systems.
• Receiving Water strategies primarily focus on improving water quality through reducing residence time and increasing overall circulation once water has been “received” into the Harbor body itself. Increased in-Harbor circulation improves water quality by increasing mixing, which subsequently dilutes in-Harbor pollutant concentrations.

At this point of the study, the MAC group provided additional input reiterating that the mitigation strategies that addressed circulation were not being prioritized highly enough. Craftwater and City staff made direct attempts to address these concerns through the implementation of a weighted category project evaluation approach in collaboration with the MAC group to address these concerns. This methodology can be seen within pages 10 through 15 of the Craftwater Implementation Plan report (Attachment 2).

Approach to Strategy Selection:

The primary purpose of this weighted approach was to show that depending upon the highest chosen priority, different mitigation strategies will score higher than others that are more closely aligned with other priorities. For example, if circulation is chosen as the overall highest priority (Option A), then the strategies which include resuming pump operations or extending the Edison Canal, rise to the top of the recommended strategies to be pursued. However, prioritizing circulation subsequently de-prioritizes the cost and the implementation challenges. For this reason, staff is recommending the Balanced Approach (Option C) as is generally described on page 16 of the Implementation Plan (Attachment 2). Score weights within the Balanced Approach (Option C) are shown within Image 2. 641
Non-Structural and Structural strategies consistently rose to the top under each weighting scenario, including staff’s recommended Balanced Approach (Option C). It is extremely important to note that large scale circulation strategies (Receiving Water) are not prioritized under the Balanced Approach. This is due to a combination of factors including: high regulatory risks, costs, and are primarily located in areas of shared regulatory jurisdiction and land ownership. All of these concerns lower the overall feasibility of these strategies and subsequently have led to their exclusion from the Balanced Approach. However, specifically due to MAC input and staff’s recognition of the potential long-term need for circulation improvements, staff is ultimately recommending and Craftwater has provided for the inclusion of a Receiving Water strategy as a part of the final Implementation Plan recommendation for Phase 1 of strategy implementation.

With the inclusion of a Receiving Water strategy, there are specific mitigation strategies identified from each of the three strategy categories, Non-Structural, Structural, and Receiving Water, providing a comprehensive approach to the recommended implementation efforts. The Detailed Implementation Plan (Attachment 3 to this staff report, Appendix B to the Craftwater Implementation Plan report) provides specific implementation details for proposed strategies recommended from the Balanced Approach.

In an effort to
more efficiently use the limited funds that are currently available to the City to take projects/programs to the next step(s), staff is not recommending the entire list of strategies that are identified within the Option C approach. Staff is specifically choosing to limit the proposed Non-Structural strategies to those which correspond to the recommended structural strategies and exhibit synergy with existing City programs. Strategies that duplicate efforts being provided by outside parties (such as agricultural outreach and training) are also not being recommended for inclusion to further limit the impact on available funding. However, Non-Structural
approaches to water quality management are very important to the overall approach as regulatory bodies such as the
California Coastal Commission and Regional Water Quality Control Board will require the demonstration of a
comprehensive approach to total pollutant load reduction prior to permitting the construction of any large Receiving Water strategy. Finally, in recognition of the breadth of the recommended strategies, Craftwater and Staff are
recommending a phased plan for their implementation. Even after narrowing the total number of recommended mitigation strategies, the scale and cost of this effort requires an approach which breaks implementation into smaller component pieces. The following section of this report summarizes the proposed Phase 1 implementation of the recommended mitigation strategies.

Phase 1 Implementation Recommendations:

Below are the Public Works and Transportation Committee's recommended strategies organized by category:

Image 2: Category Weighting by Priority
Image 3: Balanced Approach - Option C, the listed projects are those which scored highest using the balanced approach score weighting 642
Table 2
Non-Structural
Projected
Pollutant Load
Reduction1
Structural
Projected
Pollutant Load
Reduction1
Receiving Water
Projected
Residence Time
Reduction2
Targeted Nutrient/Pesticide Source
Control - Agricultural Coordination 62% Wilson Park Infiltration BMP 10% Passive Edison Canal Connection 73% Municipal Operations
Enhancement Source Control -
Street Sweeping and Catch Basin
Cleaning Optimization
49%
Oliveira Plaza
Parking Lot
Infiltration BMP
27% Edison Canal Pump
Resumption* **
Targeted Nutrient/Pesticide Source
Control - Illicit Discharge
Detection and Elimination
27%
Agricultural
Runoff Treatment
System
1%
Trash Reduction - Mechanical
Filtration 11%
1 Load reduction is defined as the expected reduction in pollutant load being treated by the strategy that would otherwise enter the Harbor.
2 Residence Time Reduction is defined as the expected reduction in average residence time of water within the Harbor. * This option has been added as it was included within the PWTC motion. ** Projected residence time reduction varies depending on the rate of pumping.

Overall, staff selected strategies from within the balanced approach in order to balance cost concerns with real-world water quality improvement. Furthermore, multi-benefit project potential, water quality benefit magnitude, and sitespecific feasibility considerations were all considered in the final recommendations. Each of the listed strategies directly impacts one or multiple constituents of concern. On a cost basis, the strategies are all projected to be among the most efficient options for addressing total pollutant loads based upon Craftwater’s findings.

In regard specifically to the recommended Structural BMPs, the Campus Park Infiltration BMP was removed as the current Campus Park Activation CIP project includes infiltration and filtration BMPs within its design. It was replaced by the Agricultural Runoff Treatment BMPs due to their low estimated capital and O&M costs (and high cost-efficiency) and their anticipated effectiveness in addressing nutrients in agricultural runoff, particularly nitrogen which contributes greatly to algal growth and subsequently, instances of depressed dissolved oxygen levels within the Harbor.

Additionally, in recognition of the continued stakeholder feedback regarding the need for improved residence times, staff is recommending the inclusion of the Passive Edison Canal Connection (Receiving Water strategy) within Phase 1 for further exploration. While the capital cost of the Passive Edison Canal Connection is projected to be the most expensive Receiving Water strategy, it is projected to incur less long-term cost and have fewer continued logistical concerns than other receiving water strategies in addition to also being considered the most cost-effective from a residence time reduction standpoint. During the April 14th Public Works and Transportation Committee Workshop, many members of the public spoke in favor of replacing the Passive Edison Canal Connection with the Edison Canal Pump Resumption strategy at a “low-flow” rate of 3,000 gallons-per-minute. Although modeling data suggests that this strategy would be less effective at reducing residence times than the passive option, the Committee motion directs staff to include a pumping strategy in the initial exploration of receiving water strategies.

The next steps for the Phase 1 implementation are anticipated to occur over the next few years and involve a variety of simultaneous steps. Non-Structural strategies are front-loaded within the timeline, as they are anticipated to have the least complex implementation concerns. For example, initial steps within Phase 1 for Targeted Nutrient/Pesticide Source Control - Agricultural Coordination will involve the creation of a program schedule and material production for outreach efforts directly to the landowners and operators within the watershed area. It should be noted that all of the identified Strategies may be altered during Phase 1 if they are found to be ineffective, face major implementation concerns, or if funding or regulatory opportunities for other strategies become available during the initial implementation phase. Further implementation actions for each of the specified strategies can be found within Appendix D of the attached Craftwater Implementation Plan Report. Below is an illustration of the proposed Year 1 Timeline. 643
Evaluation and/or Monitoring of Strategies:

In addition to implementation of the multi-faceted strategies (above), an adaptive management plan is recommended for the evaluation of each strategy throughout the implementation process. This has been primarily identified as a need for a continued monitoring plan. This monitoring plan may be limited to the identified constituents of concern (Bifenthren, Permethrin, Copper, Dissolved Oxygen, Enterococcus, and Nutrients), which will lower the overall cost of the program.

Outside testing and monitoring resources are recommended to be included in the City’s monitoring approach, which may further broaden the scope of information received, while limiting the overall cost of the monitoring program. Separate monitoring approaches will be applied to Non-Structural and Structural strategies, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative metrics such as pollutant load reduction, operational performance, debris removal, and program participation.

Collected data will be compiled, analyzed for trends and performance, and summarized in regular reporting to inform ongoing program refinement, with data gaps identified for supplemental monitoring as needed.

This is planned to be one of the earliest components of the Phase 1 implementation plan, in order to provide baseline information while allowing the City to incrementally measure the impact each strategy is having on the monitored constituents. If a strategy is evaluated as having little impact, it will be recommended for removal or replacement within the plan. Additionally, if insurmountable regulatory concerns are raised during initial discussions with permitting agencies, such as the Coastal Commission and LARWQCB, regarding the planned Receiving Water strategy implementation, then the strategy may also need to be removed or replaced.

Summary of Next Steps:

In summary, Phase 1 of the Implementation Plan as recommended by staff involves the following:

Non Structural Strategy Implementation
● Solicitation of environmental science professional services for:
○ Development of outreach materials for coordination based Non-Structural Strategies ○ Programmatic optimizations and technological upgrades for existing street sweeping and catch basin cleaning efforts
○ Development of work plan and protocols for illicit discharge detection and elimination ● Selection of sites for installation of trash capture devices ○ Solicitation for drainage study and designs per each location Structural Strategy Implementation
● Solicitation for professional planning, engineering and design services for selected Structural BMPs ● Coordination with agricultural landowners at key discharge locations for direct agricultural runoff treatment 644
Receiving Water Strategy Implementation
● Direct MGS landowner engagement
● Solicitation of environmental science professional services for:
○ Regulatory agency consultation and environmental review ○ Preliminary concept design(s) plan development
Continued Monitoring/Adaptive Management
● Solicitation for environmental science professional services for:
○ Development of a monitoring program to include comprehensive project data compilation ○ Planning and development of water quality monitoring protocols, data collection mechanism(s), laboratory analysis, long-term data and trend analyses, and reporting. ○ Program planning and adaptive management processes
Funding Identification
● Solicitation for funding acquisition services (grant writing and application) ● Identification of additional funding programs which match implementation strategies It should be noted that the implementation of staff’s recommendation will involve many different divisions and departments in the City. It may also require significant staff time and resources. As such, an approval of these recommendations will need to be weighed with other existing priorities for City departments/divisions that will participate in the implementation of these recommendations. Also, some of the proposed strategies have on-going General Fund budgeting impacts. For example, construction of a structural element (e.g. Wilson Park Infiltration BMP) will result in having to maintain and repair/replace the new infrastructure in perpetuity.

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
This agenda item supports the Quality of Life strategy. The purpose of the Quality of Life strategy is to restore and increase quality services and programs that enrich Oxnard's diverse community, promotes safe neighborhoods, encourages community engagement, and supports our residents in their efforts to improve their quality of life.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The Craftwater Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan project has so far been funded entirely by American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds, Ventura County, and California Department of Water Resources grant funds. Since fiscal year 2022-23, approximately $948,164 has been spent as of March 6, 2026 on water quality monitoring efforts and this study.

The total combined dollar amount secured for water quality-related efforts to date is $3.1 million. As there is approximately $2.1 million remaining that is dedicated to water quality-related work, staff is proposing the following estimated spending plan for the proposed Phase 1 strategies’ planning and implementation:
645
Strategy Type Strategy Proposed
Allocation
Cost Details
Targeted Nutrient/Pesticide Source
Control - Agricultural Coordination
$50,000 Develop and produce
materials; create outreach
schedule
Municipal Operations Enhancement
Source Control - Street Sweeping
and Catch Basin Cleaning
Optimization
$100,000 Analysis & optimization of
sweeping routes and CBC
work plan; technological
upgrades
Targeted Nutrient/Pesticide Source
Control - Illicit Discharge Detection
and Elimination
$50,000 Development of work plan
and protocols;
Non-Structural
Trash Reduction - Mechanical
Filtration
$100,000 Selection of sites; drainage
study, design plans (10 sites)
Wilson Park Infiltration BMP $100,000 Conduct project-level feasibility assessment;
prepare concept-level
designs; evaluate permitting
needs
Oliveira Plaza Parking Lot
Infiltration BMP
$150,000 Conduct project-level
feasibility assessment;
prepare concept-level
designs; evaluate permitting
needs
Structural
Agricultural Runoff Treatment
System Pilot Project
$75,000 Coordination with
agricultural landowners;
concept-level designs (3
sites)
Receiving Water Passive Edison Canal
Connection/Edison Canal Pump
Resumption
$250,000 Preliminary concept design;
regulatory agency
consultation
Monitoring Post-Implementation Monitoring $50,000+ (annually) Development of monitoring work plan and protocols
Funding
Identification
Funding Identification & Grant
Planning/Submission
$75,000 Research and pursue funding
opportunities to supplement
available funds
Total $1,000,000
Staff is proposing this spending plan, which differs in key areas from the proposed spending plan presented in Craftwater’s report. Staff have used Craftwater’s plan as a guide. However, adjustments were made to certain spending categories to reflect expected expenses. For example, Structural and Receiving Water strategies will require contracted services similar to those provided by City on-call engineering and design services vendors and the adjusted prices reflect what staff believe to be current costs. Additionally, Staff have previous experience with contracting out water quality monitoring services and expect the amount above to be the minimum amount required on an annual basis for limited monitoring of the constituents of concern. Please note that this is an estimate and additional funds may be required to move strategies/projects forward. Any funding amount over the total of $3.1M will be brought back to City Council for consideration prior to encumbering the funds.

There is no impact on the General Fund or any Special District funds. However, future funding sources may need to include debt financing, special assessments, or other funding sources outside of the above-specified resources due to 646
the expected high cost of continued programs, monitoring, structural strategy construction and receiving water strategy implementation.

COMMITTEE OUTCOME
The Public Works and Transportation Committee approved 3-0 on April 14, 2026 to approve the staff recommendation, with the direction of adding a pumping project to Table 2 under the “Receiving Water” category, and to forward the item for Council approval.

Please click here to view the Measure M pre-recorded presentation video.

Please click here to view the April 14, 2026 Public Works and Transportation Committee Meeting recording.

Prepared by: Steve Howlett, Assistant Public Works Director, Anthony Miller, Special Districts Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Craftwater Implementation Plan Report

2. Appendix A - Mitigation Strategies Analysis Report

3. Appendix B - Craftwater Detailed Phased Implementation Plan

4. Appendix C - Craftwater Mitigation Strategies Matrix

5. Craftwater Weighted Prioritization Project Matrix Guide

6. City/Craftwater Meeting Schedules

7. City of Oxnard Special Districts Map

8. City of Oxnard Special Districts List

9. Presentation
647
Implementation Plan
Channel Islands Harbor
Oxnard, CA
March 2026
648
2 The Channel Islands Harbor (Harbor) has experienced serious water quality-related challenges since the 2018 decommissioning of a local power plant's cooling system. Before decommissioning, once-through cooling (OTC) pumps at the plant enhanced inHarbor circulation which helped to maintain higher dissolved oxygen levels and limit pollutant accumulation. Following decommissioning, reduced circulation led to stagnant zones, exceedances of Water Quality Objectives for various pollutants (e.g. metals and pesticides), and low dissolved oxygen levels indicative of water quality degradation.

The Channel Islands Harbor Water Quality Feasibility Study (Study) program was developed to identify and evaluate strategies to restore circulation, reduce upstream pollutant inputs, and improve overall Harbor conditions. This Implementation Plan (Plan) strategy builds upon the results presented in Appendix A – Mitigation Strategy Analysis Report1 & Appendices(Report) to develop an integrated, phased approach for improving in-Harbor water quality and circulation. Through this approach, complementary strategies are selected and combined to maximize effectiveness and align with specific priorities, preferences, or funding opportunities.

INTRODUCTION
Initial Evaluation Efforts
Literature Review, Field Visit,
Data Review, Interested Party
Coordination
Mitigation Strategies
Analysis Report
Evaluates potential mitigation
strategies and sets the
framework for developing
Implementation Plan phases
and associated activities
Implementation Plan
Lays out the specific
components of an integrated,
phased approach to improving
overall Harbor conditions
Figure 1: Aerial view of Channel Islands Harbor
General process and outcomes that inform and support Implementation Plan development Figure 2: Watershed area of the Channel Islands Harbor
1 https://www.oxnard.gov/public-works/special-districts/channel-islands-harbor-water-quality Interested Party
Engagement
Interested Party
Engagement
649
3 KEY CHALLENGES
The watershed area draining to the Harbor includes diverse land use and ownership, variable dry- and wet-weather runoff contributions, and numerous potential sources of pollutants hindering water quality. Harbor configuration and tidal flushing dynamics contribute to circulation and water quality issues. Multiple municipal and regulatory agencies have management and oversight responsibility in the watershed and Harbor areas. Finally, limited funding opportunities exist to support comprehensive solutions development. Given these challenges, an integrated, phased implementation approach can be used to support a focused and cost-efficient approach to improve Harbor conditions.

Complex Land Use & Ownership
Mixed ownership and land uses,
including a high percentage of
agriculture, complicate planning
and implementation.

Multi-Jurisdictional Oversight
Multiple agencies share
management and oversight
responsibilities within the
Harbor drainage area.

Variable Runoff Conditions
Seasonal and episodic
fluctuations in dry- and wetweather flows due to the region’s Mediterranean climate.

Regulatory and Permitting
Hurdles
Extensive coordination
required with local, state, and
federal permitting agencies to
implement solutions.

Harbor Hydrodynamics
Current Harbor configuration
limits tidal circulation and
flushing dynamics.

Funding Constraints
Funding sources are limited
and competitive for water
quality and infrastructure
improvements.

Key Factors Affecting Harbor Conditions:

Decreased Circulation Urban and Agricultural Runoff
Discharges
Nutrients Bacteria Metals Pesticides
Potential Sources:
• Fertilizers
• Urban runoff
• Agricultural runoff
• Sediment nutrient
recycling
Potential Sources:
• Sewage spills
• Animal waste
• Contaminated runoff
from urban and rural
areas
Potential Sources:
• Brake dust
• Tire wear
• Aging Infrastructure
• Aerial deposition
Potential Sources:
• Agricultural runoff
• Urban runoff
• Commercial uses
650
4 PHASED APPROACH
This Implementation Plan presents a phased approach to water quality/circulation improvement strategy implementation and subsequent adaptive management. The phased approach allows for the initial implementation of higher-impact, lower-cost strategies along with associated monitoring and adaptive management efforts to optimize pollutant removal and other activities to address program goals.

Phase 1 initiates Planning and Implementation. Phase 2 is intended to Refine and Advance implementation. Phase 3 is anticipated to include Optimized Implementation and ongoing Maintenance for strategies and activities that demonstrably improve water quality and/or circulation. The Implementation Plan includes a robust Monitoring and Adaptive Management process to guide planning, implementation, and efficacy assessment activities. Adaptive management is used to refine specific strategies and the phased approach through data-driven feedback, optimized implementation, and targeted implementation of potential Watershed and Receiving Water mitigation strategies (detailed on the next page).

A summary of proposed implementation phases is as follows:
• Phase 1: Initiates planning and implementation of initial mitigation strategies. Anticipated activities include interested party engagement, hotspot assessment, operations enhancement and/or pilot projects, and planning for priority Watershed Structural and Receiving Water strategies. Additional anticipated activities include funding assessment and positioning, project feasibility and regulatory agency consultation for high permitting effort projects/strategies. • Phase 2: Refine, advance, and fund strategies for implementation. Leverage pilot and monitoring information to optimize ongoing operations and initiate priority planning and implementation of Watershed and Receiving Water activities.
• Phase 3: Leverage adaptive management process to continue optimized implementation of ongoing effective projects and implement innovative/additional projects to meet long-term goals.

Adaptive management allows for flexibility and responsiveness by aligning effective projects, funding, regulatory processes, and interested party collaboration.

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Planning and
Implementation
Initiation
Refine & Advance
Implementation
& Planning
Optimized
Implementation &
Maintenance
Monitoring & Adaptive Management
Data-Driven Feedback Optimized
Implementation
Targeted Strategy
Initiation & Enhancement
Coordinated effectiveness
monitoring to evaluate
water quality conditions
and performance of
individual and combined
strategies. Data used to
adjust operational
strategies, prioritize
locations, and verify
progress towards goals.

Optimized
implementation of costand operationaleffective programs to improve water quality.
concurrent planning,
design, and funding
development for
structural and
circulation
improvement mitigation
strategies.

Leveraged process to
implement and
maintain effective
programs and projects.

Enhance effective
strategies and inform
development of
additional and/or
innovative additional
strategies to meet
improvement goals.
651
5 MITIGATION STRATEGY TYPES
The Study leveraged available data and literature, detailed computer modeling and analysis, and interested party input to develop a suite of mitigation strategies to provide solutions to Harbor water quality challenges. This included extensive collaboration and feedback between the project team and key interested parties such as Harbor managers and users, resident representatives, City department leads, the Harbor Marine Advisory Committee (MAC).

Three mitigation strategy types were evaluated: watershed pollutant source control (Watershed Nonstructural) and treatment (Watershed Structural) options as well as in-Harbor (Receiving Water) strategies that focus on enhancing water circulation.

Quantitative scoring presented in Appendix A – Mitigation Strategies Analysis Report & Appendices was performed to evaluate potential mitigation strategy attributes and benefits. Water quality benefits including pollutant load reductions and circulation improvement, cost, permitting requirements, jurisdictional responsibility, community benefits and other factors were used to evaluate strategy attributes and benefits.

The Project Fact Sheets and Project Scoring Matrix present key project attributes and strategies. Supplemental resources such as the Goals and Objectives Memorandum, Literature Review, and Field Visit Notes provide context for mitigation strategy screening, evaluation, and selection.

Watershed Nonstructural Strategies (NS)
Potential strategies include education and outreach, street sweeping, catch basin cleaning, animal and other waste management, and other mitigation strategies. These strategies typically correspond with a lesssubstantial up-front capital cost and in some cases limited annual O&M obligation.

Watershed Structural Strategies (S)
Potential strategies involve filtration and/or infiltration basins and agricultural runoff treatment systems. Numerous individual project opportunities are identified in the watershed area and subsequently evaluated for their suitability for different structural project types and their prospective benefits.

Receiving Water Strategies (RW)
Potential strategies offer enhanced water clarity and quality. These strategies are primarily focused on improvements to water circulation patterns within the Harbor and Edison Canal. This approach may be both the most directly effective in achieving end goals of Harbor water quality improvements and the most challenging to implement from an environmental permitting and funding perspective.
652
6 SPECIFIC MITIGATION STRATEGIES
Each mitigation strategy type is associated with different planning, implementation, and maintenancerelated activities. Watershed Nonstructural strategies focus primarily on targeted source control, trash reduction, and enhancing current projects. The limited administrative planning and design requirements and operations-based nature of these strategies result in expedited timelines. Watershed Structural strategies require more detailed planning, design, permitting, and coordination processes in early phases, with fluctuations between high/low planning, maintenance, and implementation periods in subsequent phases. Similarly, the Receiving Water strategies have more complex physical, planning, and regulatory targets in early phases with implementation and maintenance efforts to be carried out in later phases.

Within each overall strategy type is a variety of disparate potential mitigation strategies, each of which being associated with different planning, implementation, and maintenance activities due to their varying characteristics. A detailed overview of characteristics specific to each individual mitigation strategy is provided in the Project Fact Sheets document contained in Appendix A – Mitigation Strategies Analysis Report & Appendices. Each potential mitigation strategy will have its own phased implementation plan laid out in Appendix B – Detailed Phased Implementation Plan of this document.

Table 1: Potential mitigation strategies organized by category Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3 PLANNING

IMPLEMENTATION

MAINTENANCE
653
7 PHASED APPROACH: GENERALIZED PHASES
Strategy Category Phase 1 Phase 2 /3
Watershed /Receiving Water
Strategies
Planning
• Engage interested parties (municipal, regulatory, community, AG) to gather baseline data on pollutant sources and hotspots
• Ordnance, permits, and code regulation discussions
• Begin cost estimation and pursue initial funding opportunities • Implement consistent protocols, expand performance tracking, and train staff for ongoing monitoring and improvement
• Secure targeted funding for implementation and construction • Conduct permitting and documentation, integrate lessons learned, hold regular coordination meetings, and incorporate educational and public-facing elements
Implementation
• Prioritize and select potential projects
• Pilot targeted measures
• Identify and scope a high-priority, high-load reduction site with public visibility • Deploy optimized programs at full scale with established O&M schedules • Refine design concepts based on stakeholder input and feasibility findings • Finalize design, secure permits, and proceed to construction if supported Maintenance • Evaluate existing monitoring and maintenance actions • Coordinate with regulatory agencies
• Evaluate existing monitoring and maintenance actions
• Use results to guide future adaptive improvements and post-construction plans
Presented below in Table 2 are high-level descriptions of the anticipated general activities to be included in each of the three future implementation phases, beginning with Phase 1.

In Phase 1, the focus is on planning foundational activities, building partnerships, gathering baseline data, initiating permitting and ordinance discussions, and pursuing early funding opportunities.

Implementation during this stage is exploratory, prioritizing and piloting high-impact projects to identify feasible, viable opportunities for pollutant reduction. Maintenance efforts are limited to leveraging current monitoring programs and establishing coordination with regulatory agencies. By contrast, Phases 2 and 3 emphasize expansion, optimization, and long-term integration.

Planning begins by establishing consistent protocols, formalizing funding and permitting processes, and integrating performance tracking and public engagement. It generally includes efforts like outreach, coordination, preliminary design, and initial feasibility assessment. Implementation scales up pilot projects into full programs, refining designs based on interested party feedback and feasibility results while securing final permits and construction funding. This typically includes activities such as pilot projects, modeling, cost estimations, and data review as well as furthering coordination and detailed design efforts. Maintenance transitions into ongoing, data-driven evaluation, using monitoring outcomes to adapt and improve operations and guide postconstruction planning. Maintenance activities include inspections and cleaning, data collection, post-implementation performance monitoring, technological upgrades and/or repair, and other adaptive management-related efforts.

Overall, the structure demonstrates a clear evolution—from planning and piloting in Phase 1 to fullscale execution and adaptive management in later phases—ensuring continuous improvement and long-term effectiveness. The table below represents a generalized plan for all strategies. Each mitigation strategy has its personalized phased implementation approach presented in Appendix B – Detailed Phased Implementation Plan.

Table 2: Generalized Phased Approached Implementation Plan 654
8 TIMELINE
Watershed Nonstructural:
• Planning requirements generally relatively low, involving coordination, outreach planning, and resource allocation.
• Implementation phase emphasizes program activation and operational integration, followed by routine maintenance to ensure continuity and performance tracking. • Periods of reduced maintenance expected to occur as part of seasonal fluctuation and as effectiveness evaluations and adaptive management are used to optimize programs.

Watershed Structural:
• Project planning, design, permitting, operations, and funding coordination require extended planning. • Recurring periodic project-specific implementation anticipated to initiate ~2-4 years following planning inception.
• Ongoing maintenance anticipated to vary seasonally and be additive as projects are planned and implemented. Periodic review and adaptive management needed to optimize performance outcomes and resource allocations.

Receiving Water:
• Detailed engineering design, multi-agency coordination and permitting, funding and other resource acquisition anticipated to require extended planning.
• Implementation timeframe accounts for potential extensive construction and coordination needs. • Detailed planning for long-term maintenance anticipated to account for potential specialized equipment, training, and resource needs.

Phase 1:
1-4 Years
Phase 2:
5-9 Years
Phase 3:
10+ Years
0 3 6 9 12 15 Years
Planning Implementation Maintenance
The relative estimated timeline for planning, implementation, and maintenance tasks within the key mitigation strategy types vary according to coordination, permitting, and resource needs (Figure 3). The phased approach aligns the key mitigation strategy types with anticipated planning, implementation, and maintenance task chronologies.

Figure 3: Potential 15-Year Strategy Timeline
Nonstructural Structural Receiving Water
655
9 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DEVELOPMENT APPROACH
A total of 103 Watershed Nonstructural, Watershed Structural, and Receiving Water mitigation strategies were evaluated as part of the Study. The Report documented and evaluated a catalog of potential mitigation strategies based on key characteristics. Individual project evaluation and scoring allows for projectspecific ranking of anticipated water quality and circulation benefits, cost, implementation considerations including cross-jurisdiction coordination and permitting needs, and other factors.

This Implementation Plan utilizes a weighted category approach to leverage the project-specific attributes and scores within a normalized framework. The mitigation strategy projects vary in scale, scope, and impact, making direct comparison challenging. To ensure objective evaluation, this Implementation Plan applies a normalized scoring methodology that converts diverse project indicators into a standardized scale. Key factors — including water quality improvement, cost-effectiveness, and implementation feasibility — are weighted and standardized so that each project’s score reflects its relative performance against shared benchmarks. This enables consistent, defensible comparison across the portfolio and supports data-driven prioritization.

The weighted category approach is aligned with program goals to improve water quality and circulation while balancing cost, schedule, logistics, and funding availability. Further, the approach allows for comparison of project prioritization under various scenarios where project proponents and Harbor interested parties may have differing priorities and implementation approach needs. Implementation Plan Phase 1
Watershed Nonstructural
Strategies Receiving Water
Strategies
Watershed Structural
Strategies
Development of strategy
catalog
Mitigation Strategies Analysis
Report, Project Scoring Matrix
Weighted project comparison
& prioritization using
normalized values
Project prioritization for
Phase 1
Phase 1 Development Process
656
10 PROJECT EVALUATION CATEGORIES & SCORING NORMALIZATION The weighted category approach includes five Project Evaluation Categories (Table 3). These categories reflect program goals to improve water quality and circulation while balancing cost, schedule, and implementation feasibility. Community benefits are listed, given the potential to use these factors as filtering criteria for additional implementation or funding opportunities but are not anticipated to be assigned a weighting factor in development of a prioritized project list.

Project Evaluation Categories compile project-specific scoring information. Scoring criteria results within the categories is normalized to enable a standardized comparison of disparate mitigation strategies with diverse cost, benefit, and efficacy attributes.

Mitigation strategy prioritization Project Evaluation Categories allow for development of custom prioritization techniques to select specific Phase 1 activities based on user-selected benefit priorities and standardized project evaluations. Detailed information of how scoring is carried out through Project Evaluation Categories can be found in Appendix D – CIH Project Prioritization Guide.

Project Evaluation Category & Relevance Project Scoring Criteria Weight Water Quality Benefits OR Water Circulation Improvements Address overall Study goals to improve water quality and circulation within the Harbor.

Percent Residence Time Reduction
100%
Cost
Ensure strategies are the economically feasible and cost-effective for shortand long-term efficiency. Capital Cost 10% Annual O&M Cost 10%
30-yr Lifecycle Cost 30%
Cost-Effectiveness 50%
Timeline
Allows for prioritization of projects based on implementation timeline. Planning/Permitting 50% Post-Planning Implementation 50%
Implementation Considerations
Allows for prioritization based on planning needs and effort. Parcel Ownership 25% Crosses Jurisdictional Boundaries? 25%
Permitting Difficulty 50%
Community Benefits
Supplementary considerations to filter for projects offering multi-benefits and/or diverse funding opportunities.

Trash Reduction 10%
Community Benefits Proportion 10%
DAC Benefits 15%
REC-1 Standards 20%
REC-2 Standards 20%
Aesthetic Improvements 25%
Table 3: Project Evaluation Categories and Scoring Criteria = Adjustable Weight Parameter = Filtering Parameter 657
11 Priority projects are then identified,
informing the onset of Phase 1 efforts.

Scoring results for each project shift in
response to weighting of categories.

Category weights are adjusted in
accordance with preferences/priorities.

CATEGORY & CRITERIA WEIGHTING
Adjust dials
Scoring
outcomes
shift Prioritized
projects
identified
The respective weights of each category and criterion
can be changed in accordance with changes in relative
importance, impacting prioritization outcomes and
informing next steps. Shifting these ‘dials’ is intended to be reflective of how placing emphasis on specific
project attributes may impact which strategies are
prioritized.
• Four categories of criteria are evaluated and used in subsequent prioritization (i.e., Water
Quality/Circulation, Cost, Timeline, Implementation
Considerations). The Community Benefits category is
used only for screening projects.
• Category weights are adjusted to reflect existing
preferences and/or priorities.
• Scoring results shift in response to weighting,
identifying priority projects within a specific context. • Phase 1 activities are selected by project
prioritization based on the weighted scoring results.

Three potential Category Weight Options (Options), in
alignment with potential pathways to fulfillment of
Study goals, are proposed. It is anticipated the adaptive management process will result in re-evaluation and
potential adjustment of category/criteria weights to
capture evolving priorities and conditions.

Water Quality/Circulation
Cost
Timeline
Implementation Considerations
Community Benefits
Weighting and Prioritization Process Overview Parameters 658
12 PHASE 1 CATEGORY WEIGHT OPTIONS
Balanced Approach - Option C
Maximize Water Circulation/Quality -
Option A
Cost Efficiency - Option B
• Water Circulation/Water Quality: 75%
• Cost: 15%
• Implementation Considerations: 5%
• Timeline: 5%
• Cost: 45%
• Water Circulation/Water Quality: 45%
• Implementation Considerations: 5%
• Timeline: 5%
• Cost: 65%
• Water Circulation/Water Quality: 20%
• Implementation Considerations: 10%
• Timeline: 5%
Three Category Weight Options are proposed and applied to represent potential Phase 1 project prioritization scenarios.

1. Option A emphasizes maximizing water circulation/quality as the primary category and project attribute for prioritization. This approach allows for projects with higher costs, potentially more challenging implementation, and/or timeline to be prioritized and implemented in Phase 1.

2. Option B emphasizes cost efficiency as the primary category and project attribute for prioritization. This approach allows for prioritization of lower cost projects in Phase 1 such that additional planning and/or time is available to source funding for more costly, and potentially effective projects that can be reserved for later implementation.

3. Option C emphasizes a balanced approach to category and project attribute prioritization. This approach is intended to represent an implementation pathway which recognizes that overall project goals for water circulation and improvement must be balanced with other considerations, primarily cost but also including implementation feasibility and schedule.

Application of one or more of these or additional attribute emphasis approaches provides a framework for Phase 1 project ranking and implementation priority. Monitoring, adaptive management, and project outcomes and lessons learned may provide information that modifies the implementation approach moving forward. For Phase 1, an additional option is to review project prioritization results from the application of the three options presented herein and combine the results to select a suite of Phase 1 projects that meet multiple objectives.

The following pages present the project prioritization results of the three Category Weight Options.

These results include ~10 projects which score the highest under each of the weight scenarios in accordance with the framework of the Category Weighting Approach. Each project can score a maximum total of 25 points. Scoring and prioritization results are available in Appendix C – Weighted Prioritization Project Matrix.
659
13 CIRCULATION/WATER QUALITY FOCUS (OPTION A)
The maximize water circulation/quality Option A is designed to include the projects with the highest anticipated effectiveness in improving water circulation and quality. The water circulation/quality maximization approach results in prioritization of Receiving Water Strategies in Phase 1. Using this approach, and recognizing a balance of Watershed Nonstructural and Watershed Structural strategies are needed to support further discussion of in-water mitigation strategies with the regulatory agencies, a group of six Watershed Nonstructural and two Watershed Structural projects are also prioritized for Phase 1. A staggered implementation approach may be applied to pilot Watershed Structural project implementation to optimize project development, plan for funding capital costs, and establish long-term maintenance capacity and funding.

Receiving Water strategies are anticipated to require long lead time, have high cost, and require complex planning and permitting. A comprehensive planning process that further evaluates Receiving Water strategy planning, design, and permitting processes within Phase 1 is recommended. It is anticipated that a 2-3-year planning and feasibility assessment effort is needed to effectively evaluate the relative feasibility and cost for the priority Receiving Water strategies. Accordingly, the Phase 1 recommendation is to initiate a single planning-level Receiving Water pilot project to further explore viability and other relevant considerations such as permit conditions and operations logistics/costs before a single Receiving Water mitigation strategy is selected for implementation.

Maximize Water Circulation/Quality – Option A
Open Passive Edison Canal Connection to Ocean (RW)
Storage Tank Water Release Between Canal/Harbor (RW)
Edison Canal Pump Resumption – 67 MGD (RW) 1
Edison Canal Pump Resumption – 4.3 MGD (RW)
Targeted Nutrient/Pesticide Source Control- Agricultural Coordination (NS) Targeted Nutrient/Pesticide Source Control- Outreach and Training (NS) Targeted Bacteria Source Control - Animal Waste Management (NS) Municipal Operations Enhancement Source Control - Street Sweeping and Catch Basin Cleaning (CBC) Optimization (NS)
Targeted Nutrient/Pesticide Source Control- Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (NS)
Trash Reduction - Mechanical Filtration (NS)
Oliveira Plaza Parking Lot Infiltration BMP (S)
Wilson Park Infiltration BMP (S)
Campus Park Infiltration BMP (S)
TOTAL SCORE: 246.7
1The Edison Canal Pump Resumption Strategy 4.3 MGD is added as an alternative to the 67 MGD scenario, there is potential for a pumping capacity within the range of these two options to be selected. Other Receiving Water strategies are included as alternative options; it is likely that only one Receiving Water strategy will ultimately be implemented. 2Note: Receiving Water strategy Lifecycle costs omitted from Group A cost estimate as Phase 1 does not include implementation of a particular Receiving Water strategy.

Management
Projects may be repeated across the different weighting options due to their relatively high effectiveness, lower costs, and/or more feasible requirements. ‘Consistently Prioritized Projects’ – which rise to the top under multiple weighting scenarios – are designated in each Category Weight Option. Consistently Prioritized Project = These two projects
provide alternative
potential scenarios
of the Edison Canal
Pump Resumption
strategy 1.
660
14 COST EFFICIENCY FOCUS (OPTION B)
The cost efficiency emphasis Option B is designed to prioritize mitigation strategies with the lowest cost with highest pollutant removal benefits. The approach results in prioritization of seven Watershed Nonstructural and three Watershed Structural strategies which require the lowest capital investment throughout project lifecycles.

Phase 1 of implementation for Option B will primarily consist of Watershed Nonstructural strategy implementation. The cost efficiency approach prioritizes three low-cost agricultural runoff treatment system Watershed Structural projects. It should be noted that implementation of the Watershed Structural agricultural runoff treatment systems is anticipated require partnership with appropriate landowners and development of agreements for liability, maintenance, and other implementation components. Given the emphasis on Watershed Nonstructural strategy implementation in this approach, robust postimplementation monitoring is needed to provide geospatial data and pollutant load reduction effectiveness information. This information can be used to inform the adaptive management approach are refine prioritization of Phase 2 projects.

Cost Efficiency Focus – Option B
Targeted Nutrient/Pesticide Source Control- Agricultural Coordination (NS)
Targeted Nutrient/Pesticide Source Control- Outreach and Training (NS) Targeted Bacteria Source Control - Animal Waste Management (NS) Targeted Nutrient/Pesticide Source Control- Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (NS)
Trash Reduction - Source Reduction Strategies (NS)
Trash Reduction - Mechanical Filtration (NS)
Municipal Operations Enhancement Source Control - Street Sweeping and Catch Basin Cleaning (CBC) Optimization (NS)
Doris Drain Outfall Agricultural Runoff Treatment System (S) W 5th St Drain Outfall Agricultural Runoff Treatment System (S) Marathon Drain Outfall Agricultural Runoff Treatment System (S) TOTAL SCORE: 192.9
Consistently Prioritized Project =
Agricultural runoff treatment Watershed Nonstructural strategies are prioritized Weighting Option due to their low costs, high pollutant load reductions, and estimated implementation feasibility.
661
15 BALANCED APPROACH (OPTION C)
The balanced approach Option C is designed to include representation of a holistic look at project attributes and prioritize projects with the maximum water quality/circulation benefits balanced with other cost, implementation, and schedule attributes. The balanced approach results in prioritization of seven Watershed Nonstructural and three Watershed Structural strategies that exhibit the maximum pollutant load reduction effectiveness at the lowest cost and fastest schedule.

Initial concurrent Watershed Structural project planning processes may be considered to vet feasibility and implementation approaches. A staggered implementation approach may be applied to pilot Watershed Structural project implementation to optimize project development, implementation, and long-term maintenance processes. Given the emphasis on the Watershed Nonstructural strategy implementation and inclusion of specific infiltration and filtration Watershed Structural strategies in this approach, robust postimplementation monitoring is needed to provide geographically- and project specific-oriented data and pollutant load reduction effectiveness information. This information can be used to inform the adaptive management approach and refine prioritization of Phase 2 projects.

Balanced Approach – Option C
Targeted Nutrient/Pesticide Source Control- Agricultural Coordination (NS)
Targeted Nutrient/Pesticide Source Control- Outreach and Training (NS)
Targeted Bacteria Source Control - Animal Waste Management (NS) Municipal Operations Enhancement Source Control - Street Sweeping and Catch Basin Cleaning (CBC) Optimization (NS)
Targeted Nutrient/Pesticide Source Control- Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (NS)
Trash Reduction - Source Reduction Strategies (NS)
Trash Reduction - Mechanical Filtration (NS)
Oliveira Plaza Parking Lot Infiltration BMP (S)
Wilson Park Infiltration BMP (S)
Campus Park Infiltration BMP (S)
TOTAL SCORE: 180.9
Consistently Prioritized Project =
As in Options A and B, Watershed Nonstructural strategies are prioritized in this Weighting Option due to their low costs, high pollutant load reductions, and feasibility for implementation. Watershed Structural strategies that score highly under this weighting scenario include the Wilson Park Infiltration BMP, which exhibits high potential for pollutant load reductions and associated costeffectiveness. 662
16 Based on the weighted category evaluation approach results, a strategic Phase 1 implementation approach is recommended. Key elements of this approach include:

1. The Category Weight Options that emphasize maximizing water circulation/quality, cost efficiency, and a balanced approach demonstrate that a suite of Watershed Nonstructural mitigation strategies are prioritized even with changes applied to the different Project Evaluation Category weight values. This is primarily attributable to the general water quality improvement, cost-efficiency, and relative ease of implementation attributes of these strategies.

2. For Watershed Structural projects, it is recommended that the projects prioritized by water quality benefit be included in Phase 1 implementation. Structural projects included as part of the recommended Phase 1 approach were selected from the highest-ranking options based on their magnitude of water quality benefits and multi-benefit project potential. Additionally, a ‘pilot’ project that initiates collaborative planning and coordination with the agricultural community for a group of or individual runoff treatment systems in Phase 1 may lead to other gains such as relationship-building for future efforts or responsiveness to potential enhanced outreach and training programs.

3. Initiate a comprehensive combined planning process for the highest-ranking Receiving Water strategies that further explores planning, design, and permitting processes. The recommended approach is to develop preliminary concept plans, technical specifications, and cost information such that project proponents can engage in preliminary consultations with regulatory agencies responsible for permitting. Consultation is expected to vet potential implementation feasibility and additional planning, special study, and/or mitigation costs to further refine potential selection of a single Receiving Water strategy for later-phase implementation.

Activities for Phase 1 specific to each individual mitigation strategy can be found in Appendix B – Detailed Phased Implementation Plan. Phase 1 monitoring and adaptive management will be used to assess.

Top Ranked Projects
Monitoring and Adaptive Management
Agricultural Coordination
Outreach and Training
Animal Waste Management
Street Sweeping and CBC
Optimization
Illicit Discharge Detection
and Elimination
Mechanical Filtration
Oliveira Plaza Parking Lot
Filtration/Infiltration BMP
Campus Park
Filtration/Infiltration BMP
Agricultural Runoff
Treatment System Pilot
Open Passive Edison Canal
Connection to Ocean
Storage Tank Water Release
Between Canal/Harbor
Edison Canal Pump
Resumption – 67 MGD
Combined Phase 1 Approach
Watershed
Nonstructural:

Planning and
Implementation
Watershed Structural:

Detailed Planning &
Implementation for
Pilot Projects
Receiving Water:

Implementation of
Planning & Feasibility
Assessment
Consistently prioritized
Watershed
Nonstructural across
category weighting
options. These
Strategies provide costeffective pollutant load
reductions.

Selected Watershed
Structural strategies
maximize pollutant load
reduction or allow for
collaborative
engagement with
agricultural community
and potential ancillary
benefits.

Highest ranking Receiving
Water strategies each
require detailed planning
for regulatory approval
processes. Phase 1 will
include a combined
planning effort to explore
feasibility and cost.

PROPOSED PHASE 1 APPROACH
Integrated Monitoring and Adaptive Management Processes 663
17 Phase 1 project groups and individual strategies present potential opportunities and constraints throughout Phase 1 (Table 4). Advancing a multi-pronged implementation approach in Phase 1 enables the concurrent implementation and advanced development of strategies to comprehensively and cost-efficiently address project goals in a timely and adaptive manner.

Nonstructural strategies generally allow for feasible, cost-effective options under local control to be implemented, making them optimal to initiate and begin advancement towards water quality improvement goals. Structural and Receiving Water strategies generally require longer planning timeframes but can oftentimes provide considerable pollutant load reductions. These projects also generally have more involved planning and permitting effort and require engineering design and long-term O&M planning to implement. Due to the potential environmental impacts associated with Receiving Water strategies, these potential projects require the highest level of coordination, design, and permitting effort as well as the longest planning timeframes. These projects however may yield significant improvements to overall water circulation if proven feasible and aligned with available funding.

PHASE 1 OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS
Strategy Type Opportunities Constraints
Nonstructural  Short planning period
 Allow for early implementation; generally implemented within City jurisdiction
 Generally part of or integrated with existing programs  Relatively Low capital costs and permitting requirements  Can positively impact other projects with paired education programs  Generally leverage existing municipal programs/resources that may require reprogramming
 Potentially require additional operational or fiscal resources  Potential need for interdepartmental and/or interagency coordination  Modifying existing programs (e.g. street sweeping) may require contract modifications with longer lead times
Structural  Implementation pilot projects may inform future analogous efforts  Allow for early collaborative engagement with agricultural/other communities  Potential for ancillary community benefits
 Potential to obtain grant funding to support design and implementation  Certain locations may provide education & outreach multi-benefits  Potentially require up-front investment to fund design and permitting to allow for future implementation/construction grant funding
 Likely 2–5-year planning timeline to allow for detailed feasibility study, design, permitting, and long-term O&M planning processes
 Establishing long-term O&M roles and responsibilities may require resource planning and funding programming
Receiving Water  Opportunity to explore feasibility and potential permitting conditions for consolidated suite of potential circulation improvement mitigation strategies  Phase 1 outcomes will inform subsequent implementation efforts  Multi-pronged Watershed Nonstructural and Structural project implementation approach allows for optimized strategy to consult with regulatory agency staff and decision-makers
 Early consultation in Phase 1 allows for extended planning and design timeframe to coincide with potential funding opportunity development  Anticipated extended environmental permitting effort needed  Potential consultation coordination need with private landowners, City departments responsible for long-term O&M, other interested parties  Potential need for in-depth/costly feasibility assessment(s) and/or studies  Potential for significant funding need across project lifecycle  Some options may require detailed O&M planning, coordination, and funding Table 4: Phase 1 Implementation Opportunities and Constraints 664
18 NEXT STEPS: NEAR TERM
Evaluate municipal
resources for
priority
Nonstructural
projects’ phased
implementation
steps
Establish a
collaborative
program and
project
implementation
and evaluation
process
Evaluate municipal
resources for priority
Structural projects
and perform planning
to support
implementation of
long-term
maintenance
Initiate strategic
funding
development
program to align
with priority
projects
Initiate
monitoring
program to align
with strategy
implementation
Plan for roles and
responsibilities in
program management
including data
collection and
compilation,
evaluation, and
adaptive management
Implement
prioritized
Nonstructural
strategies based on
available funding
and resources
Initiate
operations &
maintenance
for
Nonstructural
projects
YEAR 1 YEAR 2
Below is a flexible proposed preliminary timeline outlining near-term planning, implementation, maintenance, and monitoring efforts for Phase 1. Early actions will focus on advancing Watershed Nonstructural strategies, initiating feasibility assessment and coordination for Structural and Receiving Water projects, and establishing funding and monitoring frameworks to guide adaptive, resource-based implementation.

The planned initial Operations Plan step will provide a road map towards effective and efficient Phase 1 activities for selected mitigation strategies. This will include implementation efforts for Nonstructural projects, as well as identification of specific planning and design activities for selected Phase 1 Structural and Receiving Water projects.

Recommended Phase 1 Steps
Evaluate/refine
monitoring
program to align
with strategy
implementation
Initiate
implementation of
pilot Structural
strategies
Refine and
continue
collaborative
program and
project
evaluation
process
Develop and implement a
strategic, adaptive plan for
Receiving Water projects
that develops concept
plans, engages agencies,
and refines feasible, costeffective concepts
- - Planning
- - Implementation
- - Maintenance
- - Monitoring
- - Interested Parties
- - Periodic Adaptive
Management
Initiate
comprehensive
monitoring data
review and program
adaptive
management
process
Initiate
comprehensive
planning and adaptive
management
assessment to support
Phase transition
Develop
Operations Plan
with projectspecific details
coordinated with
stakeholders and
City staff
1 We are
here
665
19 CITY OF OXNARD NEXT STEPS
Watershed Nonstructural
Phase 1 implementation
reduces pollutant loading and
supports future phase effort to
plan, fund, permit, and
operate advanced strategies.

Watershed Structural
Refined feasibility assessment
and project development can
support both broadening of
potential funding
opportunities and
demonstration of the City’s
programmatic approach.

Receiving
Water
Participation in planning-level
project feasibility assessment,
preliminary design, and
environmental permit scoping
program to support future
planning, funding, and
permitting needs.

Next steps for the City of Oxnard in Phase 1 include collaboration and/or implementation of a suite of Watershed Nonstructural, Watershed Structural, and Receiving Water strategy-related activities. Implementation requires administrative, operational, and technical effort.

Applied next steps for Watershed Structural strategies include focused feasibility assessment and project development for one or more infiltration or filtration projects to treat dry or wet weather urban and/or stormwater runoff. Two potential project development options are proposed, allowing the City flexibility in the level of investment needed to advance these projects. This will include detailed planning, including promotion of the selected project(s) as part of a City-led demonstration project to reduce pollutants and improve Harbor water quality. The implementation approach will support future demonstration of a programmatic, interconnected approach to addressing the challenging Harbor water quality and circulation issues.

Applied next steps for Receiving Water strategies include participation in development of a planning-level project feasibility assessment, preliminary design, and environmental permit scoping program. This initial planning, in coordination with initiation of the Watershed Nonstructural and Structural projects in this first phase will support future Receiving Water strategy funding request(s), environmental permitting efforts, and capital and operations planning needs.

Applied Watershed Nonstructural strategy next steps include planning, coordination, and implementation activities for the priority strategies. These Watershed Nonstructural strategies will both reduce pollutant loading to the Harbor and serve to educate and inform watershed residents and visitors. Additionally, timely implementation and tracking will support future efforts to plan, fund, permit, and operate additional later phase strategies with more challenging implementation considerations.

Figure 4: Jurisdictional boundaries in and around the Harbor Unincorporated
County
Port
Hueneme
Oxnard
666
20 CITY NEXT STEPS: WATERSHED NONSTRUCTURAL STRATEGIES
Watershed Nonstructural Strategies
Table 5 details some of the most relevant Phase 1 considerations for Watershed Nonstructural strategies, including low- and high-end projections for each strategy’s first year planning and implementation costs. It is recommended that the City – as part of Phase 1 implementation activities – evaluates the administrative, operational, and technical needs for each Watershed Nonstructural strategy.

Strategy
Additive
Percent Load
Reduction (%)
Estimated City Staff
Effort
Estimated Costs
Planning Implementation Cost Details
Low High Low High
Agricultural Coordination 62% 1-2 hours/week $10K $20K $10K $25K Planning: Program administration1 Implementation: Materials production, conduct meetings, attend and participate in appropriate events- assume 4-6 per year Outreach & Training 77% 1-4 hours/week $10K $30K $20K $100K Planning: Administration; development of targeted material leveraging existing outreach/training programs Implementation: Paid media purchase, conduct meetings, attend and participate in appropriate events- assume 4-6 per year, assumes 2 hours of training annually
Animal Waste
Management 51% 1-4 hours/week $25K $50K $25K $50K
Planning: Administration; analysis of key locations for potential implementation, review of signage content, coordination with HOAs and parks staff
Implementation: Installation of sign postings, enforcement of sign posting regulations, contracted ongoing waste container maintenance; assumes 5 target locations
Street Sweeping & CBC
Optimization 49% 4-8 hours/week $50K $100K $250K $500K
Planning: Administration; sweeping route analysis & optimization, geo-located data capture & analysis, planning and coordination of ‘no parking’ signage locations
Implementation: Contracted vehicle operations, physical CBC, debris disposal, sign postings and parking regulation enforcement Illicit Discharge Detection
& Elimination 27% 2-6 hours/week $25K $100K $25K $100K Planning: Administration; report hotline development, workforce training, establishment of response & documentation protocols Implementation: Equipment costs, transportation, on-the-ground ID investigation & elimination costs Mechanical Filtration* 11% 1-4 hours/week $25K $200K $100K $1M Planning: Administration; includes drainage study, vendor-assisted design plans, and O&M coordination; assumes planning costs ~$2.5K-$20K per location (10)
Implementation: Assumes 10 mechanical filtration locations priced at ~$1K-$50K each; capital projects to install, quarterly maintenance efforts, staff and equipment resources
Post-Implementation
Monitoring2 6% 1-4 hours/week $25K $50K $200K $600K
Planning: Administration; includes coordination for comprehensive nonstructural project data compilation, water quality monitoring protocol development, data collection, laboratory analysis, trend analysis, reporting Implementation: Assumes quarterly sampling as a cost-efficient baseline; includes costs for contracted sampling, analysis, reporting; assumes 8-20 monitoring sites
Table 5: City of Oxnard next steps for implementation of Watershed Nonstructural strategies 1 Administration refers to: Planning, coordination, program development, and tracking. 2 Though presented as such, Post-Implementation Monitoring is not a unique mitigation strategy. It is treated as an independent program through which the City can evaluate the efficacy of other implemented strategies.

TOTAL Costs $170K $550K $630K $2.4M
667
21 CITY NEXT STEPS: WATERSHED STRUCTURAL STRATEGIES
Watershed Structural Strategies
Watershed Structural strategies require careful planning, coordination, and funding for both design and permitting. City Phase 1 recommended activities include advancing development of Watershed Structural strategies within City jurisdiction along two potential pathways. An initial diversification strategy is recommended to advance feasibility planning for the highest-ranking Watershed Structural strategies concurrently. As the projects are further developed, site constraints or other factors may limit feasibility or cost effectiveness. Table 6 depicts the highly ranked Watershed Structural strategies recommended for advancement in Phase 1. This includes project opportunities which were selected for their high ranks within the Category Weighting Approach. As some projects are anticipated to drop out as a result of Phase 1 feasibility assessment efforts, additional potential Watershed Structural are presented for potential Phase 1 advancement.

Project Name
Additive Percent
Load Reduction
(%)
Capital Cost1 Annual O&M
Cost
Key Implementation
Considerations
Oliveira Plaza Parking Lot Infiltration BMP 27% $25,020,000 $200,000 • Site-specific
permitting details
• Need for Geotechnical
analysis, land surveys
• Parcel ownership
• Long-term O&M
responsibilities
• Underground utilities
assessments
Oliveira Plaza Parking Lot Filtration BMP 21% $26,130,000 $300,000 Campus Park Infiltration BMP 19% $25,020,000 $200,000
Campus Park Filtration BMP 15% $22,790,000 $300,000
Oxnard Airport East Filtration BMP 25% $24,460,000 $300,000 Oxnard Airport East Infiltration BMP 24% $25,020,000 $200,000 Agricultural Runoff Treatment System Pilot2 1% $120,000 $24,000 Table 6: Recommended Watershed Structural projects based on Pollutant Load Reduction and Cost-Effectiveness 1Capital cost refers to the total estimated upfront investment required to plan, design, permit, and construct a project or implement a mitigation strategy. Watershed Structural strategy capital cost estimates utilize best-estimate construction cost estimates. 2The Proposed Agricultural Runoff Treatment System Pilot includes systems at priority discharge points to Edison Canal (Marathon & Doris Drain Outfalls, W. 5th St. Outfall; see Figure 5) Oliveira Plaza
Parking Lot
Oxnard
Airport East
Campus
Park
Marathon
Drain
Outfall
Doris Drain
Outfall
W. 5th St.

Outfall
Unincorporated
County
Port Hueneme
Oxnard
Figure 5: Phase 1 Watershed Structural project locations The selected Watershed
Structural project locations
(Figure 4) were chosen for
their water quality benefit
magnitude and multi-benefit
project potential. As a result of
proximity to important public
facilities (e.g., schools and
parks), there are potential
ancillary muti-benefit
opportunities for education,
outreach, climate resilience
and other benefits.

Capital cost estimates utilize bestavailable information on construction material and labor costs for similar
projects in Southern California. Future
detailed planning and analytics work
can be used to refine annual O&M and
project lifecycle cost estimates.

Current estimated project lifecycle
cost estimates utilize planning-level
methods where asset renewal and/or
replacement costs are assumed equal
to upfront capital costs, and do not
include depreciation.
668
22 CITY NEXT STEPS: WATERSHED STRUCTURAL STRATEGIES
Watershed Structural Strategies
The two-pathway approach including either development of concept-level designs or full development of construction-ready design development can be applied based on available City administrative capacity and/or funding (Table 7). The concept-level design approach limits initial City costs and allows for deferral of engineering design costs and/or potential solicitation of planning grants or loans to complete design. Preparation of construction-ready designs requires higher initial investment to advance project(s) to the 100% design and permit status but allows for projects to be “shovel-ready” and eligible for future construction/implementation-type grant or loan funding opportunities. The recommended Agricultural Runoff Treatment System pilot project is included as a third option for Phase 1 Watershed Structural strategy advancement that is external to the two-pathway approach.

Strategy Estimated Staff Effort Estimated Costs Cost Explanation Concept- Level
Structural Strategy
Development 2-6 hours/week for 26 weeks $25,000 - $50,000 • Conduct preliminary feasibility
assessment(s)
• Prepare concept level designs (3
projects)- assumes contracted design
services
• Evaluate potential permitting pathways
ConstructionReady Structural
Strategy
Development
2-16 hours/week for 24-36 months $200,000 - $500,000
• Assumes contracted design services
• Geotechnical analysis, land surveys,
assess underground utilities
• Design services level of effort dependent
on City participation and site-specific
planning and design requirements
Agricultural Runoff
Treatment System
Pilot Project
2-6 hours/week for 12-24 months $50,000 - $150,000
• Coordinate with agricultural landowners
• Seek and leverage design and
construction funding
• Assumes contracted design and
construction services
Table 7: Recommended Phase 1 Watershed Structural project advancement strategies Figure 6: Example infiltration strategy concept in mixed land use location (Salinas, CA) Figure 7: Bioretention cell Figure 8: Infiltration basin 669
23 CITY NEXT STEPS: RECEIVING WATER STRATEGIES
Receiving Water Strategies
Advancement of prioritized Receiving Water strategies requires comprehensive feasibility assessment efforts. Receiving Water strategies require coordination and technical services to address challenging regulatory, financial, and technical issues. Phase 1 activities include a comprehensive combined planning process for the highest-ranking Receiving Water strategies that further explores planning, design, and permitting processes. The recommended Phase 1 approach is to develop preliminary concept plans, technical specifications, and cost information such that the City and project proponents can engage in preliminary consultations with regulatory agencies responsible for permitting (Table 8). Consultation is expected to evaluate the concept designs to inform ongoing design refinements, assess implementation feasibility, and identify any additional planning, special study, or mitigation costs needed to support the potential selection of a single Receiving Water strategy for later-phase implementation. Depicted in Table 9 are the top three ranking Receiving Water strategies that are recommended for inclusion in the Phase 1 planning-level Receiving Water project.

Strategy Estimated Staff Effort Estimated Costs Cost Explanation Planning-Level
Receiving Water
Project
4-16 hours/week for 24 months $250,000 - $750,000
• Assumes contracted preliminary concept
design and regulatory permitting
services
• Design services level of effort dependent
on City participation and site-specific
planning and design requirements
• Planning efforts intended to explore
potentially viable pathways to
implementation
Table 8: Phase 1 Receiving Water project planning
Project Name Percent RT
Reduction (%) Capital Cost Annual O&M Cost
Key Implementation
Considerations
Open Passive Edison Canal Connection to Ocean 73% $82,030,000 $790,000 • High permitting effort
• Long-term timeline
• Intensive long-term O&M
Storage Tank Water Release between Canal/Harbor 45% $9,200,000 $410,000 • High permitting effort
• Long-term timeline
• Specialized staff for
operation
Edison Canal Pump Resumption – 67 MGD 46% $36,900,000 $1,150,000 • High permitting efforts
• Mid-term timeline
• Likely need for fish
entrainment mitigation
Table 9: Top-ranked Receiving Water projects
Recommended Phase 1 Receiving Water strategy activities primarily include a comprehensive planning-level project exploring regulatory permitting, financial, construction, and longterm maintenance considerations. The planning process is intended to evaluate pathways and costs for implementation of circulation improvement project(s). Preliminary regulatory feedback has indicated initiation of Watershed Nonstructural and Structural strategy-related activities is recommended as a prerequisite for Receiving Water strategy advancement.
670
24 SUMMARIZED PHASE 1 RECOMMENDATION
Recommended next steps for the City of Oxnard include initiating the phased implementation approach with specific planning/implementation efforts for prioritized Watershed Nonstructural, Watershed Structural, and Receiving Water strategies. As planning and implementation progress, it is recommended that the City track and periodically evaluate the administrative, operational, and technical needs of strategy types and individual strategies within Phase 1. Outcomes will inform adaptive management of Phase 1 implementation and support planning and budgeting for implementation in future phases.

As part of Phase 1, it is recommended a comprehensive post-implementation monitoring program be implemented. The monitoring program should be focused on evaluating strategy effectiveness and water quality relative to Study goals & objectives and overall expectations.

Monitoring parameters may include, but are not limited to: estimates of pollutant load reduction and multi-benefit parameters for Watershed Nonstructural strategies, administrative effort and other costs, scheduled water quality characterization monitoring in the Harbor, and as-needed discharge and/or special studies for to address project- or location-specific characterization needs. Monitoring program lessons learned will inform ongoing adaptive management processes that will refine strategies and the phased implementation approach.

Additionally, it is recommended that Phase 1 activities include identification and pursuit of specific outside funding opportunities to supplement City-funded work. Development of concept designs and/or construction-ready plans for Watershed Structural strategies positions the City to leverage federal, state, and local grants to implement projects and programs designed to achieve the goals & objectives of this Study. Outcomes of the Phase 1 planning-level Receiving Water project is also anticipated to inform later phase funding acquisition efforts.

Finally, it is recommended that Phase 1 includes collaboration with partner organizations to further evaluate the feasibility, technical specifications, and cost information of Receiving Water strategies such that the City and project proponents can engage in preliminary consultations with regulatory permitting responsible agencies. Further, the integrated and concurrent Watershed Nonstructural and Watershed Structural project-planning and implementation approach outlined in this plan will help advance discussions with regulatory and funding agencies and will support long-term efforts to improve water quality and circulation within the Harbor. Phases 2 and 3 will leverage outcomes and lessons learned from all Phase 1 activities to refine and optimize implementation, planning, and eventual maintenance of implemented strategies.

Adaptive
Management
Informs Later Watershed Phases Nonstructural
Strategy
Implementation
Watershed
Structural Strategy
Plan Development Planning-Level
Receiving Water
Project
Funding
Acquisition, PostImplementation
Monitoring
Phase 1
671
25 PROPOSED CITY BUDGET PLAN- PHASE 1 (YEAR 1)
Strategy Type Strategy Proposed Allocation2 Total Cost3 Cost Details Watershed Nonstructural
Agricultural Coordination $50,000 $75,000 Attend/conduct collaboration meetings; develop and produce appropriate materials Outreach & Training $50,000 $467,500 Training curriculum development; conduct meetings Animal Waste Management $75,000 $425,000 Signage postings; bag dispenser deployment; on-the-ground waste cleanup Street Sweeping & CBC Optimization $200,000 $3,937,500 Analysis & optimization of sweeping routes and CBC work plan; technological upgrades; contract enhancements
Illicit Discharge Detection & Elimination $75,000 $300,000 Development of work plan and protocols; rapid response pilot project Watershed Structural
Concept-Level Design Development for 2
Structural Strategies $150,000 Dependent on Selected Projects Conduct project-level feasibility assessment(s); prepare concept-level designs – assumes contracted design services; evaluate permitting needs
Agricultural Runoff Treatment System Pilot
Project Initiation $50,000 $240,000 Coordination with agricultural landowners; seek and leverage design and construction funding –assumes contracted services; address key discharges at Marathon, Doris or W. 5th Street discharge Receiving Water Planning-Level Receiving Water $175,000 Dependent on Selected Project(s) Preliminary concept design(s) plan development and regulatory agency consultation Other
Funding Identification & Grant
Planning/Submittals $75,000 $325,000 Initiate funding acquisition planning; research and pursue appropriate opportunities to supplement available City funds Post-Implementation Monitoring $100,000 $500,000 Development of monitoring work plan and protocols TOTAL $1,000,000 $6,270,000+ --
Table 10: Phase 1 Budget Plan
The proposed preliminary budget plan is intended to facilitate near-term environmental outcomes by establishing a structured framework for City-led program management during the first year of Phase 1 implementation (Table 10). The recommended approach includes initiating Phase 1 project development activities, developing a concurrent preliminary monitoring program to evaluate strategy feasibility and effectiveness, and pursuing coordinated funding acquisition efforts to support long-term program implementation advancement and stability.

The proposed budget plan is designed to align City-held ARPA1 funds ($1 million in Year 1) with anticipated expenditures and to sequence initial Phase 1 investments in support of Study goals & objectives. Results from early implementation and monitoring will inform ongoing project development, implementation, and funding allocation processes. Lessons learned through monitoring and adaptive management will guide future investment strategies - including the proposed allocation for the second year of Phase 1. 1 American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA): A $350 billion federal stimulus program from 2021 providing relief for COVID-19 impacts, funding public health, economic recovery, essential workers, and infrastructure such as water, sewer, and stormwater projects. 2Proposed allocations are indicative of the first year of implementation and may not reflect a given project’s entire cost of implementation. 3Total costs presented here are a sum of estimated capital costs and 5 years of estimated annual costs. 672
26 NEXT STEPS: FUNDING ACQUISITION
Funding Program Funding Amount Dates/Deadline
Coastal Conservancy Grants No min/max: Anticipated grant $200K – $5M.

Rolling
Nonpoint Source (NPS) 319 Program $50K - $1M Rolling
Stream Flow Enhancement $30M available Rolling
Agricultural Drainage Management Loan Program1 $100K - $5M Rolling Replacing, Removing, or Upgrading Underground Storage
Tanks (RUST) Program1
$3K - $70K Rolling
Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA)1,2 $6.5B available Rolling Port Infrastructure Development Program $1M - $125M Due February 28, 2026 F25AS00188 Coastal Program FY25 Up to 500K Rolling
Small Surface Water and Groundwater Storage Projects
(Small Storage Program)2
Up to $30M Due April 17, 2026
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) $3B available annually Applications currently closed as of November 2025
Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) Program $300K - $29.5M Applications due Fall 2026 Community Resilience Centers (CRC) Program $100K - $10M Deadlines announced mid-2026 Climate Smart Agriculture Technical Assistance Grants Up to $150K Anticipated to open in 2026 Healthy Soils Block Grant Program $2M - $5M Anticipated to open in mid-2026 Regional Source Reduction Assistance Grant 7-27 awards with $40K – $240K Anticipated to open February 2026 National Wetland Program Development Grants $25K – $500K Anticipated to open May 2026 Environmental Enhancement & Mitigation $750K – $1.5M; $7M available Anticipated to open May 2026 Encampment Resolution Funding (ERF) Program $1.5M - $45M Anticipated to be due June 30, 2026 FY 2026-27 Wildfire Prevention Grants $135M available Anticipated to open June 2026 Land and Water Conservation Fund2 Up to $6M Anticipated to open mid 2026 EJ4 Climate Grant Program Up to $175K Anticipated Fall 2026 California Proposition 4 Dependent on specific program; $10B available in total
Dependent on specific program
A key component of near-to-mid-term next steps during and following Phase 1 is the development of a comprehensive approach to acquisition of funding for selected mitigation strategies. A diverse suite of potential grant or loan funding programs are available and appropriate to support various mitigation strategy types in Phase 1 (Table 11).

Development of a structured framework to help the City and other interested parties to identify and prioritize projects best positioned will assist in obtaining competitive grant or loan funding and in diversification of funding sources for priority projects. Grant opportunities aligning with the program goals to improve circulation and water quality can be identified, tracked, and followed through on. Projects can then be matched with suitable funding sources in order to strategically enhance the City’s potential for successful implementation.

This approach reduces reliance on local funds while maximizing benefits to the community and environment. Potentially suitable funding opportunities for each mitigation strategy are further presented in the Project Fact Sheets in Appendix A – Mitigation Strategies Analysis Report & Appendices.
1Loan program 2Requires funding match from program applicant Table 11: Potential grant opportunities from Appendix A – Mitigation Strategies Analysis Report & Appendices. 673
27 NEXT STEPS: MONITORING
As planning and implementation efforts move forward, a comprehensive water quality monitoring program is proposed (see Appendix A – Mitigation Strategies Analysis Report & Appendices) to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation strategies and support ongoing adaptive management. A robust baseline monitoring program is recommended to generate consistent, defensible data to track mitigation strategy performance, long-term Harbor water quality trends, assess pollutant discharges, and guide future investments. Baseline water quality monitoring will measure key parameters such as conventional, metals, and pesticide pollutant concentrations, dissolved oxygen, salinity, temperature, turbidity, and to evaluate progress toward Water Quality Objectives and beneficial use standards.

The proposed monitoring framework builds on existing open-source monitoring data and existing datasets from the City, County, Farm Bureau, and regional programs. It is intended to expand existing monitoring coverage across Harbor, Canal, and watershed sites. Quarterly sampling is recommended as a cost-effective baseline, with the potential to increase to a monthly frequency as funding permits. Sampling during both dry- and wet-weather events will capture seasonal and event-driven variability, providing a complete picture of in-Harbor conditions.

Separate monitoring approaches are proposed for Watershed Nonstructural and Structural mitigation strategies. Watershed Nonstructural programs will include both qualitative and quantitative tracking centered around metrics such as debris removal, street sweeping coverage, and outreach participation to evaluate efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

Structural strategy monitoring will focus on pollutant load reduction and operational cost, level-of-effort, and resource needs following implementation.

Collected data will be compiled into a centralized database for trend and performance analysis, summarized and communicated in annual reports, and used to adaptively refine program actions. Data gaps identified within collected monitoring program data will be flagged for supplemental monitoring efforts. Ultimately, the monitoring program functions as a feedback mechanism for ongoing management, directly linking project results to decision-making. Adaptive management will allow these efforts to evolve and strengthen over the three phases of implementation. By measuring outcomes, comparing costs and benefits, facilitating interagency coordination, and communicating results, the program will ensure continuous improvement in water quality, circulation, and ecological resilience throughout the Harbor system.

Track Long-Term Trends
Assess Pollutant Discharges
Guide Adaptive Management
and Future Investments
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
- Baseline data monitoring
- Set sampling frequency
- Identify funding
opportunities
- Evaluate monitoring
datasets
- Refine tracking and
monitoring
- Implement updated
maintenance and
monitoring needs based
on outcomes of previous
phases
674
28 The Channel Islands Harbor Implementation Plan provides a structured, adaptive roadmap to restore and improve water quality and circulation within the Harbor. Built on the foundation of the overall Water Quality Feasibility Study’s previous efforts, this Plan integrates technical analysis, prioritization scoring, and interested party coordination to develop a prioritized guide for Phase 1 of a three-phased approach to the implementation of Watershed and Receiving Water strategies. Each phase includes concurrent planning, implementation, maintenance, monitoring, and adaptive management elements.

Moving forward, successful strategy implementation will depend on collaboration amongst the City, community partners, regulatory and funding agencies, and other interested parties. Initial efforts focus on prioritizing topranked strategies, securing funding, and commencing early implementation efforts. Continuous monitoring and adaptive management will ensure that results inform future actions, maintaining progress toward the long-term goals of improving water quality, enhancing circulation, and strengthening ecological resilience across the Harbor system.

CONCLUSION
Channel Islands
Harbor
Improvement
Program
Initiate appropriate
planning and
implementation
activities for
priority mitigation
strategies
Monitor harbor and
watershed input
water quality /
mitigation strategyspecific efficacy
Coordinate with
municipal and
community
partners,
regulatory and
funding agencies,
and other
interested parties
Assess
effectiveness,
perform adaptive
management, and
refine phased
implementation
approach
Figure 9: Recreators kayaking in the Harbor Figure 10: The Harbor connection to the ocean 675
29 FIGURES, TABLES, & APPENDICES
Figures
Figure 1: Aerial view of Channel Islands Harbor
Figure 2: Watershed area of the Channel Island Harbor
Figure 3: Potential 15-Year Strategy Timeline
Figure 4: Jurisdictional Boundaries in and around the Harbor Figure 5: Top-ranked Watershed Structural project locations Figure 6: Oxnard green infrastructure concept example
Figure 7: Bioretention cell
Figure 8: Infiltration basin
Figure 9: Recreators kayaking in the Harbor
Figure 10: The Harbor connection to the ocean
Tables
Table 1: Potential mitigation strategies organized by category Table 2: Generalized Phased Approached Implementation Plan Table 3: Project Evaluation Categories and Scoring Criteria Table 4: Phase 1 Implementation Opportunities and Constraints Table 5: City of Oxnard next steps for implementation of Watershed Nonstructural strategies Table 6: Recommended Watershed Structural projects based on Pollutant Load Reduction and Cost-Effectiveness Table 7: Recommended Phase 1 Watershed Structural project advancement strategies Table 8: Phase 1 Receiving Water project planning
Table 9: Top-ranked Receiving Water projects
Table 10: Recommended Phase 1 Spending Plan
Table 11: Potential grant opportunities from Appendix A – Mitigation Strategies Analysis Report & Appendices.

Appendices
Appendix A: Mitigation Strategies Analysis Report & Appendices Appendix B: Detailed Phased Implementation Plan
Appendix C: Weighted Prioritization Project Matrix
Appendix D: Weighted Prioritization Project Matrix Guide 676
Mitigation Strategies Analysis Report
Channel Islands Harbor
Oxnard, CA
December 2025
677
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction…………….............3
Methods & Approach………….16
Data Review……………………….20
Coordination & Goals………….30
Potential Projects……………….37
Scoring Evaluation………………48
Next Steps………………………….64
The Channel Islands Harbor (Harbor), located in Oxnard, California, is experiencing water quality challenges following the 2018 decommissioning of a local power plant cooling system. The plant’s once-through cooling system historically circulated 1.5 billion gallons of water per month by pumping water from the northern portion of the Harbor and discharging to the Pacific Ocean. Before decommissioning, the pumps enhanced in-Harbor circulation which helped to maintain higher dissolved oxygen levels and limit pollutant accumulation. Following decommissioning, reduced circulation led to stagnant Harbor zones, incidences where pollutant concentrations exceed Water Quality Objectives were observed (e.g. metals and pesticides), and low dissolved oxygen levels were measured indicating water quality degradation. Harbor residents and users observed degraded conditions, including foul odors, marine die-offs, and reduced water quality. Potential pollutant and other inputs from surrounding agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial land uses compound the circulation challenges. In 2024, the Harbor was formally listed as an impaired waterbody under Section 303(d) of the California Integrated Report due to pyrethroid pesticide contamination.

The Water Quality Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan program is designed to identify and evaluate strategies to restore circulation, reduce pollutant inputs from upstream, and improve overall Harbor conditions. The program leverages existing data, incorporates new modeling analyses, and includes field visits and data reviews to support project evaluation. Mitigation strategies are refined through a metric-based evaluation of feasibility, effectiveness, and cost.

The Mitigation Strategies Analysis Report1 sets the framework for a phased, adaptive plan that uses ranked and prioritized projects, identifies potential funding opportunity options, and communicates a plan for solutions to key interested parties. Expected next steps include initial phase planning and implementation activities for pollutant source control and treatment mitigation strategy options in watershed areas draining to the Harbor along with concurrent planning for potential circulation improvement mitigation strategies. The structured, adaptive approach ensures transparent, datadriven decision-making and provides a roadmap for long-term Harbor improvements.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendix A: Goals & Objectives
Memorandum
Appendix B: CIHWQFS Literature Review
Appendix C: Field Visit Notes
Appendix D: Project Fact Sheets
Appendix E: Project Scoring Matrix Guide
Appendix F: Project Scoring Matrix

APPENDICES
1This Mitigation Strategies Analysis Report is presented as a graphic-oriented, summary-level report document.

Additional technical detail is provided in Appendices A-F. Figure 1: Aerial view of Mandalay Generating Station and Edison Canal 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 678
3 INTRODUCTION
This section outlines the Channel Island Harbor’s
key characteristics and the Study’s approach to
evaluating the feasibility, costs, and benefits of
mitigation strategies to improve harbor circulation
and water quality.
679
4 PROJECT LOCATION
The Channel Islands Harbor (Harbor), located
in and adjacent to the city of Oxnard (City),
was constructed in the 1960s and 1970s as a
small craft and recreational harbor. The
Harbor is situated in the southwest portion of
Ventura County with a main channel
connection to the Pacific Ocean.

The Harbor features over 2,000 boat slips with
marina and fishing facilities as well as
residences, restaurants, and businesses.

Recreational activities associated with the
Harbor include diving, boat charters, kayaking,
sportfishing, and seasonal whale watching.

The Harbor contains approximately 166 acres
of water surrounded by approximately 126
acres of land with a variety of land uses.

INTRODUCTION
Historically, drainage from the area where the Harbor now sits was directed through a series of ditches to the Port Hueneme harbor. Since that time, development of the Harbor and Edison Canal (Canal) led to an unusual source of water circulation - For approximately 60 years prior to 2018, the Mandalay Generating Station (MGS) located upstream of the Harbor at the northern end of the Edison Canal (Canal), used a OnceThrough Cooling (OTC) pump system to cool power generation equipment. The OTC system drew approximately 1.5 billion gallons of water per month from the Edison Canal at the northern end of the Harbor and then discharged the water to the Pacific Ocean. Changes in the State of California regulatory framework resulted in OTC pump decommissioning, impacting both circulation and water quality within the Harbor. Since 2018, tidal currents have driven Harbor water circulation. Existing water quality conditions and configuration that limit circulation and have impacted beneficial uses (i.e. REC-1, REC-2) for certain Harbor areas.

KEY ISSUE- HARBOR CIRCULATION
Figure 2: Recreators kayaking in the Harbor Figure 3: 1949 USGS topographic map depicting the early canal configuration prior to Harbor construction.
680
5 PROJECT SETTING
Figure 4:

Channel Islands
Harbor Area
1) 1953
2) 1977
3) 2025
HARBOR
The Harbor is a semi-enclosed coastal water body that
serves as a vital recreational, residential, and ecological resource. It is divided into three areas (west, east and peninsula) served by separate public roads. The west
side consists of marinas, a linear park, restaurants,
residential development and retail businesses. The
peninsula is dominated by hotel development, marinas,
apartments and condominiums. The east side is
primarily commercial and serves boaters by offering
boat yards, a marine supply store, boat sales, law
enforcement, administration and search and rescue
facilities. The blend of maritime infrastructure, tourism, and community amenities supports nearly a thousand
jobs and an estimated $200M per year of economic
activity.

The City of Oxnard (City), home to over 200,000
residents, is a culturally rich and demographically
diverse community. Approximately 74% of the
population identifies as Latino or Hispanic, with a strong presence of working-class families and a relatively
young median age. Many homes house multiple
generations. This demographic profile influences both
the City’s development patterns and its environmental
priorities.

DEMOGRAPHICS
Figure 5:

The former Mandalay
Generating Station’s Once-
Through-Cooling system
previously pumped ~1.5
billion gallons/month out
of the Edison Canal.
681
6 PROJECT SETTING
Behind the harbor’s scenic waterfront
lies a complex and dynamic watershed
system that plays a critical role in
shaping the harbor’s environmental
health and urban infrastructure.

The watershed draining into the Channel
Islands Harbor is part of the Ventura
Coastal Watershed Management Area—
a collection of smaller coastal drainage
basins situated between the larger
Ventura River, Santa Clara River, and
Calleguas Creek watersheds (Figure 7).

These basins funnel stormwater and
runoff from a diverse landscape that
includes residential neighborhoods,
agricultural fields, and industrial zones.

The potential of these land use types to
contribute pollutants to the surrounding
environment and waterbodies can
contribute to water quality issues in the
Harbor.

WATERSHED
Figure 7: Watershed area of the Channel Islands Harbor
The region’s Mediterranean climate brings mild, wet winters and warm, dry summers.

Annual precipitation averages between 15 and 18 inches, with the majority falling between November and March (Figure 6). While the climate is generally dry, occasional intense storms can generate significant runoff, impacting water quality in the harbor and testing the capacity of the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) or storm drain system.

CLIMATE
Figure 6: Average monthly precipitation in Oxnard, CA
Edison
Canal
682
7 LAND USE
Land use in the watershed is a mosaic of urban and rural elements. The Harbor is surrounded by well-established residential communities such as Seabridge, Westport, and Mandalay Bay, where homes are interlaced with the Edison Canal and marinas. To the north and east, expanses of farmland dominate the Oxnard Plain, contributing both economic vitality and environmental challenges, particularly in the form of agricultural runoff. Land ownership is split among private homeowners, local municipalities, and state agencies, with public infrastructure and utilities interwoven throughout (Figure 8). The drainage area contributing to the Harbor is 7,661 acres.

LAND USE
Figure 8: Applicable land uses in the Channel Islands Harbor watershed Land Use Category Area (acres) Proportion of Total Area Commercial 663 9%
Cultivated 2019 26%
Industrial 288 4%
Open Space/Other 716 9%
Road – Low Traffic 1,372 18%
Road – Medium Traffic 16 0.2%
Residential – Multi Family 668 9%
Residential – Single Family 1,609 21%
Water 308 4%
Table 1: Land uses in the Channel Islands Harbor watershed The diverse land uses present around the Harbor, necessitates extensive coordination among interested parties in the
development of feasible solutions to protect and enhance Harbor water resources.
683
8 Driving Factors:

WATER QUALITY

WATER QUALITY CONCERNS
Channel Islands Harbor’s overall water quality reflects both watershed loading and in-harbor circulation: after the MGS pumps were shut off, interested parties noted that reduced circulation could lengthen residence times, decrease mixing (leading to higher pollutant concentrations), and depress Dissolved Oxygen (DO) in poorly flushed coves—a pattern confirmed by mapping the lowest DO where modeled residence times are highest. Loading of nutrients, bacteria, metals, pesticides, and other pollutants of concern can wash off from the upstream agricultural residential, and industrial areas and providing external inputs to the Harbor.

For regulatory context, the Harbor lies in the Ventura County Coastal watershed.

Municipal agencies are regulated under the municipal separate storm sewer system MS4 NPDES permit program which focuses on MS4-controllable sources.

The MS4 system is regulated by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board and is supported by public education, pollution prevention, monitoring, and other programs aimed at reducing urban runoff pollution. Agricultural and Industrial General Permit facilities are covered under separate NPDES permit programs. Together, this means Harbor improvements hinge on coordinating permittees and interested other parties conducting pollutant reduction efforts with steps that address long-residence-time circulation challenges.

The Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program comprised of MS4 Permittees developed the Watershed Management Program (WMP) which identified indicator bacteria as a priority pollutant to address in this watershed, with Kiddie and Hobie Beaches under a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for bacteria. The WMP actions centered on bacteria reductions for the coastal watershed.

Decreased Circulation Urban and Agriculture
Runoff Discharges
Nutrients Bacteria Metals Pesticides
Potential Sources:
• Fertilizers
• Urban runoff
• Agricultural runoff
• Sediment nutrient
recycling
Potential Sources:
• Sewage spills
• Animal waste
• Contaminated
runoff from urban
and rural areas
• Agricultural
runoff
Potential Sources:
• Brake dust
• Tire wear
• Aging
Infrastructure
• Aerial deposition
Potential Sources:
• Agricultural
runoff
• Urban runoff
• Commercial uses
684
9 STORM DRAIN SYSTEM

OXNARD INFRASTUCTURE
Managing stormwater in such a varied landscape requires a robust infrastructure. Oxnard operates a large, interconnected MS4 system which includes an extensive network of storm drains, catch basins, and outfalls that collect and convey surface runoff from streets, parking lots, and other impervious surfaces and discharge into the Harbor and nearby water bodies (Figure 9). The system is designed to prevent flooding by rapidly moving stormwater runoff away from developed areas and into local waterways. Unlike the sanitary sewer system, storm drains carry untreated water directly to waterbodies. This creates the necessity for pollution prevention measures to prevent adverse impacts to water quality, such as street sweeping and catch basin cleaning. Table 2 below inventories the main components of the MS4 system in the City of Oxnard. Additional County of Ventura storm drain infrastructure drains to the Harbor.

Storm Drain Component Count in System Count in Drainage to CIH Catch Basin 4,515 1,344
Filter screen 302 37
Outfall 93 73
Culvert 3.6 miles 0.1 miles
Open channel 55 miles 11 miles
Pipe 211 miles 42 miles
Detention basin (footprint) 81 acres 1.7 acres
Figure 9: Key features of the Oxnard storm drain system; additional County of Ventura storm drain infrastructure not pictured.

Table 2: Inventoried key features of the Oxnard storm drain system 685
10 CITY ROLE
The City organizational structure aligns a number of departments to assist in efforts to improve the Harbor circulation and water quality challenges. At the highest level, the at-large elected Mayor and six district-elected council members serve as the primary legislative body and make policy and funding decisions related to City infrastructure, assets, and priorities. The City manager oversees City departments and staff to implement Council decisions and directives.

To ensure organized City involvement, one on one meetings were held with various City department chairs including the following City divisions: Code Enforcement, Community Development, Environmental Resources, Police Department, PIO, Stormwater In these meetings goals were discussed and over arching issues that need to be addressed affecting the Channel Island Harbor and surrounding areas. Early and continuous engagement throughout the implementation process in a critical step as staff provide key information into technical, regulatory, and community insights which can influence the success of these projects. City staff can highlight opportunities and issues across public works, planning, and environmental services. Building these partnerships fosters transparency, streamlines approvals, and reduces delays, while also ensuring that water projects are designed to meet both community needs and environmental standards. Ultimately, working closely with city departments strengthens project credibility, enhances stakeholder support, and leads to more sustainable, resilient outcomes.

Code Compliance
“Responsible for ensuring that
businesses and residents maintain safety
and quality of life in Oxnard by adhering
to codes relating to building, zoning,
advertising and property maintenance,
among others.”
Community Development
Environmental Resources
“Protects public health and the
environment by safely and efficiently
disposing of trash and recyclables, and
ensures compliance with state and local
laws”
Police Department
Field Services Bureau:

Supports Oxnard's community
through information dissemination,
operations, and crime and safety
protection.

Stormwater
“Responsible for the maintenance and
management of the City’s storm drain
system and manages compliance with the
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
(MS4) permit.”
Public Works
City Manager:
“Provides strategic leadership to the City organization and oversight of the daily operations of the City in accordance with the policies of the City Council, Community Development Commission Successor Agency, and Housing Authority.”
686
11 Years immediately following the MGS OTC system decommissioning were characterized by a degradation in both water quality and circulation within the Harbor. Harbor residents and users noted foul odors, marine species die-offs, and general indicators of degraded water quality and circulation issues. In 2021, the Harbor Marine Advisory Committee (MAC) commenced robust water quality sampling within the Harbor and surrounding drainage area due to concerns about degraded water quality. The Harbor was found to exceed water quality standards for select pesticides and both the Harbor and Edison Canal were added to the 303(d) Impaired Water Bodies list in 2024.

Water residence times near Seabridge and Westport were estimated to be approximately 6 days when the OTC pumps were active. Residence times in this area increased to an estimated 20-30 days following the decommissioning of the pumps. Residence times in the upper portion of Edison Canal could reach upwards of 70 days now with the pumps inactive (Figure 10). Water quality and circulation issues hinder the Harbor and the Edison Canal’s recreational and other beneficial uses, further exacerbating the concerns of residents and the public.

The overall complexity of the water quality and circulation issues faced within the Harbor make the establishment of comprehensive and contextually appropriate goals and objectives a key aspect of any effective solution or set of solutions.

PROJECT SETTING
Figure 10: Modeled water residence times in CIH

PROBLEM STATEMENT
Harbor maintenance
responsibility is shared
between the City of
Oxnard and Ventura
County, with additional
coordination from the
USACE and Coast Guard.

Diversity of land use and
shared responsibility for
maintenance highlight
the need for coordinated
efforts in addressing
Harbor water quality and
circulation challenges.
687
12 GOALS & OBJECTIVES

MITIGATION STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
To address circulation and water quality issues, Harbor managers, resident representative, and City department leads, users collaborated on this Channel Islands Harbor Water Quality Feasibility Study (Study). The Study outlines a phased, project- based approach for mitigation strategies to address water quality and circulation challenges.

The goals of the Study are to develop a suite of mitigation strategies and implementation to provide solutions to the water quality challenges facing the Harbor. Comprehensive strategies span a range from pollutant source control (Watershed Nonstructural) and treatment (Watershed Structural) options for the watershed areas draining to the Harbor to in-water (Receiving Water) methods of enhancing water circulation and oxygenation.

Implementation anticipates to require a phased approach where strategies can be applied in over near-, medium-, and long-term timelines commensurate with expected benefit, available funding, ease of implementation from operational, community benefit, and environmental permitting perspectives. The future project Implementation Plan will outline the phased mitigation strategy approach and provides a pathway forward via communication of the vision, strategy details, and cost-benefit to a wide array of interested parties, ensuring that the project is transparent and accessible.

Watershed Nonstructural Strategies
Potential strategies include education and outreach, street sweeping, catch basin cleaning, encampment and animal waste management, and other mitigation strategies. These strategies typically correspond with a less-substantial up-front capital cost and in some cases limited annual O&M obligation.

Watershed Structural Strategies
Potential strategies involve filtration and/or infiltration basins and agricultural runoff treatment systems. Numerous individual project opportunities are identified in the watershed area and subsequently evaluated for their suitability for different structural project types and their prospective benefits.

Receiving Water Strategies
Potential strategies offer enhanced water clarity and quality. These strategies are primarily focused on improvements to water circulation patterns within the Harbor and Edison Canal. This approach may be both the most directly effective in achieving end goals of Harbor water quality improvements and the most challenging to implement from an environmental permitting and funding perspective.
688
13 Key goals to be addressed by this Study include:
• Address water circulation and quality issues to
meet a reasonable standard that supports
appropriate Harbor beneficial uses for residents
and the public.
• Provide pollutant source control and/or
treatment options for the Harbor drainage area
to improve dry- and wet-weather discharge
input quality.
• Prepare a prioritized and phased
Implementation Plan structured to provide a
roadmap for viable projects including costs and
potential funding sources.

Study objectives aim to leverage existing watershed,
water quality, and Harbor-specific data, City and
interested party team expertise, and local- and
regional- information to develop feasible solutions.

Existing data, combined with additional modeling and
analyses informs planning efforts, development and
assessment of mitigation strategies to address
circulation and water quality challenges, and
preparation of a viable Implementation Plan. The
planned project Implementation Plan is expected to
provide a guide for future project development,
funding, and execution.

OVERARCHING APPROACH
Leverage Existing Data & Information: Gather and evaluate available watershed inputs and Harbor data and information.

This effort includes:
• Coordination with key interested parties such as the City, the MAC, the Farm Bureau, and other regional entities with land management, ownership or use responsibilities. • Development of focused datasets to inform planned modeling analyses and identify potential data gaps. • Compilation of existing water management strategies in the watershed. • Outline and refine mitigation strategy needs, opportunities, constraints, and potential benefits.

Mitigation Strategy Development: The mitigation strategy development objective includes three elements:

1. Initial – Identify a broad spectrum of potential strategies to address circulation and water quality issues.

2. Refined – Narrow the range of initial strategies through metric-based evaluation of viability and effectiveness.

3. Ultimate – Finalize a selection of mitigation strategies and develop a report that documents mitigation strategy descriptions, implementation attributes, budget, and schedules for projects to address Harbor water quality issues.

Implementation Plan: A key project outcome is the development and communication of an Implementation Plan that includes select mitigation strategies to improve Harbor circulation and water quality, incorporating two elements:

1. Overall – Formulate an integrated, phased Implementation Plan to guide multi-benefit projects with cost-sharing opportunities.

2. Refined – Develop, document, and communicate a metric-based approach for adaptive strategy management and project planning.

The planned Implementation Plan adaptive management strategy will allow the City to adjust the phased project implementation based on ongoing water quality information, interested party input, available funding, and other factors that may influence long-term goals to improve circulation and water quality. These activities seek to maximize Harbor ecosystem, recreational, and commercial benefits.
689
14 STUDY PROCESS
Step 1: Diagnose & Understand Existing
Conditions
Evaluate water circulation patterns, water
quality status, and pollutant sources across
the watershed and Harbor.

Step 3: Refine Pollutant Control and Circulation
Improvement Measures to Support
Comprehensive Solutions
Refined watershed area pollutant control and
receiving water circulation improvement strategies
are key features to support development of
implementation permits for comprehensive
strategies for improvement of in-Harbor water
quality and circulation patterns.

Step 2: Develop Targeted, Phased
Solutions
Design a suite of near-, medium-, and
long-term solutions to address circulation
challenges and improve water quality.

Step 4: Define Project Roadmap
Establish a phased plan of viable projects
focused on improving water quality
discharging to Harbor in conjunction with
circulation enhancement project planning.

Step 5: Communicate Vision & Benefits
Convey the vision, approach, and costbenefit of proposed solutions to interested parties, regulatory agencies,
funding source representatives, and the
public.

The Study process aims to leverage
existing data and team expertise to
develop targeted, feasible solutions
that can be phased for maximum
effectiveness. Existing data,
combined with additional modeling
and analyses, informs planning
efforts and development and
assessment of mitigation strategies,
as well as the ultimate preparation
of a viable Implementation Plan.
690
15 KEY CHALLENGES
Complex Land Use & Ownership
Mixed ownership and land uses,
including a high percentage of
agriculture complicate planning
and implementation.

Multi-Jurisdictional Oversight
Multiple agencies share
management responsibilities
within the project area.

Variable Runoff Conditions
Seasonal fluctuations in dry- and
wet-weather flows due to the
region’s Mediterranean climate.

Regulatory and Permitting
Hurdles
Extensive coordination
required with local, state, and
federal permitting agencies.

Harbor Hydrodynamics
Current Harbor configuration
restricts tidal circulation and
flushing dynamics.

Funding Constraints
Limited and competitive
funding sources for water
quality and infrastructure
improvements.

The Harbor and Edison Canal
drainage area is comprised of
various land use types that
can oftentimes contribute
pollutants to receiving
waters. Potential pollutant
types include nutrients,
pesticides, fecal indicator
bacteria, metals, and toxic
substances.

The varying range of pollutants and pollution
sources creates a complex challenge that
cannot be addressed with any single “catch-all”
solution. Thus, current and future managers,
residents, and users must develop an
integrated, phased approach to address
various Harbor circulation and water quality
issues. Diverse drainage area land use and
ownership, variable dry- and wet-weather
runoff contributions, Harbor configuration and
tidal flushing dynamics, multi-jurisdictional
management responsibility and project
permitting authorities, and limited funding
opportunities each contribute as potential
limiting factors to expeditious solution
implementation. No single solution is a fix all
therefore implementing more than one
strategy and creating mitigation strategy
“phases” can be used to create a more efficient
well-rounded approach.
691
16 METHODS & APPROACH
This section summarizes the Study’s
background research and initial steps, which
included data collection, site visits, and
preliminary analyses to identify and define key
project issues.
692
17 STUDY PROCESS- INITIAL EVALUATION
Initial evaluation tasks focus on reviewing existing reports, conducting investigations, and performing analyses to define baseline conditions. This includes:
• Existing and available records/reports provided by the City/interested parties, and independent project team research.
• Input and other relevant information derived from interested party discussions and known best practices.

Findings from these initial steps culminated in the development of Appendix A – Goals and Objectives Memorandum, Appendix B – CIHWQFS Literature Review, and Appendix C – Field Visit Notes. These documents are used to inform ongoing efforts at coordination with interested parties as well as the eventual establishment of the Study’s ultimate goals and objectives. 01 03
Review existing studies,
reports, and relevant
regulations
Observe site conditions,
identify potential issues, and
verify key features
Analyze available
monitoring, mapping, and
historical datasets
Literature Review Field Visit Data Review
02 Various datasets and sources were acquired and analyzed in conjunction with the MAC’s more recent sampling efforts in order to fully understand the current water quality situation in the Harbor and contextualize it relative to historic trends. Gathering and evaluating available data and information included coordination with key interested parties such as the City, the MAC, the Farm Bureau, and other regional entities. This resulted in the development of focused datasets to characterize Harbor and watershed conditions, inform modeling analyses, and identify potential data gaps.

The Literature Review component of initial evaluation includes the review of existing studies and reports as well as relevant regulations, with a focus on upstream inputs and harbor environment and circulation. A Field Visit was also conducted with the intent of observing site conditions to identify potential issues and key features.

The most in-depth component of initial evaluation was a comprehensive Data Review, which involved the analysis of available monitoring, mapping, and historical datasets. The Data Review outcome included the development of an improved overall understanding of water quality issues being faced in the Harbor as well as other important features such as key pollutant input sources, primary constituents of concern, and magnitude and frequency of exceedances. Following initial evaluation steps, hydrologic modeling was conducted for both the watershed and in-Harbor areas. These efforts are discussed further in the Coordination & Goals section of this Report. 693
18 In marine and estuarine harbors with restricted tidal flow or poor circulation, nutrients and pesticides tend to accumulate, leading to harmful conditions such as hypoxia, where dissolved oxygen levels drop below critical thresholds, or toxicity to marine life. Hypoxia events are influenced by tidal, daily, lunar, and seasonal cycles. Poorly flushed areas, especially those with man-made structures restricting water flow, are highly susceptible to these events. Poor harbor circulation also contributes to exceedances of safe levels of fecal bacteria in recreational waters, as flushing out of these bacteria may be inhibited.

Physical processes like tidal range, wind, and water depth also regulate hypoxia and algal bloom dynamics. Systems with better tidal exchange can dilute nutrient concentrations more effectively, reducing the severity of eutrophication. Water bodies with long water residence times and limited flushing see more frequent and intense algal blooms, often driven by nutrient resuspension from sediments and stratification that prevents proper mixing.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Effective management of Harbor water quality requires addressing bacterial, pesticide, and nutrient inputs as well as physical water circulation. Strategies like enhancing tidal flushing and monitoring parameters such as dissolved oxygen, bacteria, pesticide, and nutrient levels are critical for adaptive management, especially in waterbodies with complex circulation dynamics. An array of structural and nonstructural solutions can be employed to address the variety of concerns facing Channel Islands Harbor.

The Literature Review, with all references used to prepare it, is provided in Appendix B – CIHWQFS Literature Review. The following is a summary of major takeaways.

Upstream Inputs
Nutrient enrichment in receiving waters, primarily from agricultural and urban runoff, is a leading cause of eutrophication, which results in harmful algal blooms and depleted levels of dissolved oxygen. Southern California’s unique bays and estuarine harbors are highly vulnerable to nutrient enrichment due to significant watershed modifications and geomorphological features. Seasonal shifts in nutrient sources—from riverine inputs in the wet season to bottom sediment nutrient recycling in the dry season—play a critical role in nutrient dynamics. Bottom sediments act as reservoirs of nutrients, releasing nitrogen and phosphorus during hypoxic conditions and supporting algal growth during low external loading. The combined effects of nutrient pulses after storm events, prolonged by altered hydrology, contribute to ongoing nutrient loading in these estuaries. Agricultural and urban land use areas are also capable of acting as sources of pesticides and fecal bacteria in stormwater, that can contribute to impairments and exceedances of Water Quality Objectives (WQOs) in receiving waters.

Harbor Environments & Circulation
The physical dynamics of water circulation like residence time and flushing time are critical in regulating nutrient levels and oxygenation in estuaries and harbors and can play a role in dilution of other constituents. These factors are particularly important in understanding how nutrients and oxygen are distributed, and they help predict when and where hypoxia is likely to occur. 694
19 The field visit to Channel Island Harbor provided valuable insights into water quality conditions and land use across various watershed and harbor locations to support the goals of the Study. Photographs and details from the field visit are included in the field notes that are included in Appendix C – Field Visit Notes.

Visual observations during the field visit varied across the harbor. In many areas, water appeared clear with minimal trash or suspended sediment, and there is evidence of good circulation, particularly in more open sections close to the outlet to the ocean. However, some areas exhibit signs of stagnation, cloudiness, and surface scum, especially in more isolated or confined zones.

Trash accumulation is noted in certain locations, especially at the debris boom that separates Edison Canal from the Harbor. It is noted that dead marine animals have also been found at this location, and fish kills have occurred in confined areas.

Land use immediately surrounding the Harbor is diverse, ranging from recreational beaches and parks to residential neighborhoods with individual boat slips. Near the Harbor entrance land uses include commercial areas with large parking lots and high boat density, with some heavy equipment present.

Potential pollutants observed as part of the field visit that may contribute to Harbor water quality challenges include trash, pet waste, waste from wildlife such as birds and seals, and oil and grease. The areas draining to Edison Canal are predominantly agricultural lands. Consistent dry weather flows in irrigation drainages were observed and are also noted. Water in the Edison Canal is recognized to be generally subject to limited mixing and contained varied amounts of trash.

Based on observational information gathered during the Field Visit, the Harbor displays a range of overall water quality conditions. Some areas appear to be well mixed and free of trash while others exhibit signs of anthropogenic debris and limited mixing.

FIELD VISIT
Figure 11: Mandalay Bay residential land use and boat slips in Seabridge Marina Site (left) and West 5th Street Drain discharge point Edison Canal Site (right)
695
20 DATA REVIEW
This section presents the Study’s analysis of
compiled data from various sources, evaluating
water quality conditions in the Harbor, Edison
Canal, and nearby areas against applicable Water
Quality Objectives.
696
21 …
Resource Source Period of Data
Available
Channel Islands Harbor: Nutrient Sources and Sinks Study City of Oxnard 2018 Data for Toxicity Report for Ventura County Watershed
Protection District County of Ventura 2021-2023
MO-OXN Dataset of Chemical, Metal, and Bacteria Conditions from County of Ventura County of Ventura 2021
Channel Islands Harbor Water Quality Data Memorandum by Anchor QEA MAC 2018
Study 319 Report: Monitoring of Dissolved Copper in California Coastal Waterbodies MAC 2022
Continuous Sensor Data at Seabridge and Westport MAC 2018 - 2024 Channel Island Harbor Water Quality Program City of Oxnard 2018 - 2024 Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group (VCAILG) Monitoring Program
Ventura County Watershed Protection
District 2011 – 2021
Ventura County Stormwater Quality Monitoring Program
Ventura County Watershed Protection
District 2010 – 2020
Ventura County Watershed Protection District Ocean
Monitoring Program
Ventura County Watershed Protection
District 2009 - 2023
Additional Physical, Chemical, and Biological Measurements CEDEN 2003 - 2023 Table 3: Datasets and sources in Data Review

DATA COMPILATION SOURCES AND METHODS
The water quality characterization process involved compiling a comprehensive master dataset of nearly 250,000 water quality observations collected from 54 sites between 2003 and 2024.

This dataset compiled key parameters including Site, Sample Type, Sample Date, Analyte(s), and Result. Data processing was performed to standardize data and address any qualifiers.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) information was reviewed to evaluate data integrity. The main sources of data available are summarized in Table 3. A more detailed list of all available data reviewed is documented in Appendix A – Goals and Objectives Memorandum. Once compiled, the data was
harmonized to create a master observations database and used in multi-variate analyses to evaluate patterns, trends, and outliers to support characterization of water quality conditions. 697
22 …

DATA REVIEW
Data review included evaluation of the frequency and
magnitude of Water Quality Objective exceedances
across monitored sites to investigate potential linkage between inputs to the Harbor and observed inHarbor conditions. Additionally, the identified constituents of concern are based on those with the
highest frequency and magnitude of exceedances, for
which will be the focus of evaluating each mitigation
strategy’s ability to improve water quality conditions
in the Harbor.

Figure 12: Compiled monitoring locations (July 2003 to May 2024; various sources) Compiled monitoring locations include 54
distinct sites and represent ~250,000 water
quality observations collected (Figure 12).

Site locations include areas representative of
beaches, discharge points to the Harbor and
Edison Canal, and receiving water locations
within the Harbor. Data collection methods
ranged from grab samples and autosamplercollected composite samples at discharge points to continuous sensor instrumentation
installed in the receiving water.

Oxnard
54 Monitoring Sites
Multiple Sites: Discharges,
Canal, Harbor, Ocean, Beaches
~250,000 Data Observations
Over 2 Decades of Data
Collection (2003 – 2024)
For the purposes of the Data Review,
watershed monitoring locations are
referred to as “discharges”. Later in
the Report, and moving forward,
these sites are referred to as
“Watershed” monitoring locations.
698
23 WATER QUALITY CHARACTERIZATION METHODS
Applicable Water Quality Objectives for key constituents were identified using the Los Angeles Region Basin Plan and 2024 303(d) listing decisions under the Clean Water Act (Table 4). Each observation in the database was compared against the corresponding Water Quality Objective and exceedances were flagged. The magnitude of exceedance was calculated for each result measured above the Water Quality Objective. Results were then evaluated by site locations and types to inform compliance, geographic, and trend analyses.

Analyte Category Water Quality
Objective
Units Source
Enterococcus Bacteria 110
CFU/100
mL Basin Plan
Dissolved Oxygen
Eutrophic
Conditions 5 mg/L Basin Plan
Copper Metals
Hardnessdependent ug/L California Toxics Rule
Nitrogen Nutrients 10 mg/L Basin Plan
Phosphorus Nutrients 1 mg/L
Standard practice
evaluated as 10% of
applicable Nitrogen
WQO
Bifenthrin Pesticides 0.00397 ug/L
CA Department of
Fish and Game
Permethrin Pesticides 0.001 ug/L
CA Department of
Fish and Game
Table 4: Water Quality Objectives (WQOs) for key constituents Applicable Regulatory
Standards
Comparison of Data
Events & Trends
699
24 …

WATER QUALITY CHARACTERIZATION METHODS
Compiled all Water Quality
Condition Data into a Master
Database
• Parameters: Site ID, Site Type,
Sample Date, Analyte and Result,
Fraction, Qualifier
•Standardize Analytes and Units
•Eliminate Duplicates
Summarized Applicable Water
Quality Objectives
•Basin Plan
•2024 303(d) listing decisions
Calculated Frequency and
Magnitude of Exceedances
based on Data compared to
Objectives
•Any exceedance had a calculated
magnitude in exceedance against
the objective for that analyte
700
25 …
Figure 13: Count of observations and frequency of exceedances of WQOs by site, before and after decommissioning of the MGS OTC pumps.

All Site Assessment
Overall results comparing discrete observation data values across all monitoring sites for all pollutants combined (except for DO) were compared to the respective Water Quality Objective for the periods prior to (Before) and following (After) the Mandalay Generating Station OTC pump decommissioning in 2018. Sample results were grouped for Beach, Discharge, Edison Canal, Harbor, and Ocean locations (Figure 13). This analysis was intended to identify any significant changes in conditions following the Mandalay Generating Station
decommissioning. It should be noted that limited data is available for the Edison Canal, Ocean, and Harbor locations prior to the Mandalay Generating Station decommissioning.

Across all site types and periods of data analyzed, the highest frequency of exceedances were observed at the Discharge locations, with similar exceedance frequencies before and after 2018. Harbor sites exceedance frequencies slightly increased following 2018, but as stated above, there are relatively few observations prior to 2018.

DATA ASSESSMENT
Summarized Data Assessment
Summary information presented in the following pages is derived from Appendix A – Goals and Objectives Memorandum for illustrative purposes.
701
26 …

PRIMARY CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN
Discharges
Chlordane
Enterococcus
Methoxychlor
Mirex
Permethrin
Discharges
Bifenthrin
Chlordane
DDT
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Enterococcus
Median Exceedance
Magnitude
Exceedance Frequency
Harbor
Copper
DDT
Enterococcus
Malathion
Permethrin
Harbor
Bifenthrin
Copper
DDT
Enterococcus
Selenium
Edison Canal
Bifenthrin
Copper
DDT
Enterococcus
Permethrin
Edison Canal
Bifenthrin
Copper
DDT
Permethrin
Selenium
The data assessment focuses on both the frequency and magnitude of Water Quality Objective exceedances. Frequency was emphasized to understand how often conditions deviate from protective thresholds, which indicates the persistence or recurrence of water quality problems. Magnitude was included to capture the severity of those exceedances, providing insight into the scale of potential impacts on beneficial uses. Together, these metrics offer a comprehensive picture of water quality conditions and display patterns which serve as indicators of circulation issues within the Harbor.

Results are presented across all monitoring locations within the discharge area, including the Edison Canal and Harbor site types, to assess potential correlations between external inputs to the Harbor and the environmental conditions measured within it. For the purposes of this assessment, Beach and Ocean location water quality conditions were considered ancillary to Study goals. Constituents with the highest frequency and magnitude of exceedances are highlighted as primary concerns and serve as the basis for evaluating the effectiveness of proposed mitigation strategies in improving Harbor water quality. This focus supports the design and implementation of mitigation strategies targeted at the most problematic pollutants and locations. Depicted below are the top five (5) constituents in terms of both median exceedance magnitude and exceedance frequency across discharge, Canal, and Harbor monitoring locations, presented in alphabetical order. 702
27 Each constituent was assessed based on the frequency and magnitudes observed through trends at various monitoring locations over select periods of interest. DO is a good example of how Dry Days and Summer months affect the exceedances. Other concerning constituents can be found in Appendix A – Goals and Objectives Memorandum.

Dissolved oxygen emerges as a critical condition in the Harbor, with concentrations dropping below recommended values supportive of aquatic life. When circulation is poor lower oxygen levels emerge which can promote algal blooms and degrade water quality causing nuisance odors and impairing beneficial uses. Depressed dissolved oxygen was observed in both Edison Canal and the Harbor, with 7-12% below recommended levels on wet days and up to 88% below recommended levels on dry days. DO levels in Channel Islands Harbor were analyzed using data from grab samples, composite samples, and continuous sensors at various sites; low levels (below 5 mg/L) can harm aquatic life by causing anaerobic conditions. During summer (May–September), depressed dissolved oxygen was more frequent in the Harbor (10.4% of observations), while Discharges and Edison Canal rarely dropped below 5 mg/L (3.0% and 2.8%, respectively).The summer trend of lower oxygen is linked to higher water temperatures, increased biological oxygen consumption, and poor circulation, especially in the Harbor.

Figure 15: Dissolved oxygen percent below Water Quality Objective (WQO) in Edison Canal and Harbor during dry days
Figure 14: Count of dissolved oxygen observations and frequency of depressed values (below 5 mg/L) by season

DATA REVIEW FINDINGS
703
28 NUTRIENTS

KEY TAKEAWAYS
Key constituents of concern in the Edison Canal and Harbor include the pesticides Bifenthrin and Permethrin, as well as Copper, all of which stand out due to both the frequency and magnitude of exceedances. Bacteria, particularly Enterococcus, also represents a priority concern given the observed exceedances relative to Water Quality Objectives. While nutrient exceedances are generally low in both magnitude and frequency, their role in promoting algal growth underscores their potential to degrade overall Harbor conditions. In addition, areas of depressed DO within the Harbor highlight a critical condition that can further stress aquatic life and beneficial uses. Discharge points are likely contributors to many of these pollutants, especially the pesticides, while circulation constraints within the Harbor can exacerbate their persistence. For these reasons, mitigation strategies will emphasize projects and BMPs that directly target these constituents and conditions, with particular attention to areas of impaired circulation. By prioritizing these drivers, management actions can provide both targeted pollutant reductions and broader improvements in overall Harbor water quality. 704
29 After identifying the key constituents of concern, a watershed source assessment was conducted to explore potential mitigation strategies, evaluating options to improve both in-Harbor water quality and circulation. The influence of agricultural and urban runoff, circulation and mixing dynamic, and seasonal variability on pollutant exceedances and low DO conditions relative to Water Quality Objectives are all factors. The following points outline the primary pollution sources and associated water quality effects:

1. Depressed dissolved oxygen in both Edison Canal and the Harbor can be linked to poor mixing, particularly in areas of the Harbor where circulation is limited, leading to higher exceedance frequencies (up to 13% during summer months). This trend is more severe in more isolated sections of the Harbor near Seabridge and Mandalay Bay.

2. Discharge sites representative of agricultural runoff are likely contributors to the high levels of Bifenthrin and Permethrin. These sites have been shown to exhibit large median exceedance magnitudes of these pesticides, with some discharge points (e.g., OXD_CENTR) showing a median exceedance magnitude of 2,044% (over 21 times the WQO) for Bifenthrin.

3. Urban runoff, anti-fouling boat paint, and aerial deposition are potential sources of copper observed in the Edison Canal and Harbor observations.

4. No notable observations were made indicating changes in exceedances of constituents at Discharge sites before and after the decommissioning of the Mandalay Generating Station, which suggests any observed degraded water quality in the Harbor following the MGS decommissioning is primarily a result of decreased circulation.

5. Seasonal influence was evident in data demonstrating a difference between summer and winter conditions. Depressed dissolved oxygen was more frequent and severe during the summer due to warmer water temperatures, which lower oxygen solubility and increase biological activity, leading to greater oxygen consumption. Chlorophyll-a exceedances align with this pattern, as observed during summer, highlighting the link between temperature, nutrient availability, and algae blooms.

ASSESSMENT OF CAUSES OF WATER QUALITY ISSUES
Figure 16: Pollutant runoff sources observed during the Site Visit, Drainage Structure at W 5th St. Site (top) and Edison Canal at Wooley Site (bottom) 705
30 COORDINATION & GOALS
This section explains how input from key
interested parties helped shape the study’s
goals and how previous data was used to
address concerns and prioritize the most
impacted areas.
706
31 INTERESTED PARTY COORDINATION
Following the conclusion of all initial evaluation efforts, coordination was undertaken with interested parties, which included the following:

1. Interested parties involved in Harbor water quality

2. Interested parties impacted by Harbor water quality

3. Organizations that can help improve the Harbor water quality Coordination goals include development of a comprehensive set of mitigation strategies to address priority circulation and water quality challenges affecting the range of interested parties with management, use, and economic interest responsibilities related to the Harbor, Ocean, and surrounding areas.

Interested Parties Involved in Harbor Water Quality
As water quality within the Harbor and the Canal is one of – if not the most – important driving factors behind this Study, engagement with interested parties involved in water quality and related issues in the area was critical in developing a deep understanding of the problems at hand and establishing appropriate goals and objectives. Interested parties and their roles include the following:
• LA Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) – regulates water quality • Ventura County Watershed Protection District – watershed management responsibility • City of Oxnard – Public Works Department
• Cities of Oxnard, Port Hueneme & County of Ventura – (MS4) storm drains that flow into Harbor • Farm Bureau of Ventura County continues to implement BMPs to reduce agricultural runoff that discharges nutrients and pollutants into CIH
• National Resource Conservation Services (NRCS) provide funding and BMP guidance • Harbor Marine Advisory Committee (MAC) – conducts water quality monitoring • Mandalay Solvere, LLC – Owner of Edison Canal and Mandalay Generating Station Interested Parties Impacted by Harbor Water Quality
Engaging with the interested parties most impacted by the water quality issues being faced in and around the Harbor was also a key step in understanding issues and establishing goals and objectives. Harbor and the Edison Canal water quality has the most substantial impact on the day-to-day lives of these parties. Thus, accounting for their perspectives and priorities is highly important, especially as it pertains to public perception of mitigation efforts and eventual outcomes. These parties include the following:
• Residents who live in the Harbor
• Businesses that operate in the Harbor
• Marine life whose survival is in jeopardy
• All Harbor visitors and tourists who enjoy the harbor • CenterPoint Energy
Figure 17: Harbor residential boat slips and visible water pollution observed in Mandalay Bay West Site during Field Visit
707
32 INTERESTED PARTY COORDINATION
Organizations That Can Help Improve the Harbor Water Quality Engagement efforts with interested parties both responsible for and impacted by Harbor water quality verified the complex nature of the issues at hand, further demonstrating the need for collaborative efforts in pursuit of any comprehensive, effective, and efficient solution or set of solutions. Subsequently, interested party coordination efforts were then shifted to those that may be of assistance in solving Harbor and Canal water quality issues.

Organizations that were identified as potential collaborators in solving these issues include the following:
• LA Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB)
• Ventura County Watershed Protection District
• US Army Corp of Engineers – built Harbor and the Edison Canal • CA & Federal EPA – assist in enforcing regulations
• CA Coastal Commission
• Environmental Groups: Heal the Bay, Santa Barbara Channelkeepers, Nature Conservancy, Wishtoyo/Ventura Coast Keepers, Ocean Protection Council, Surfrider Foundation • Channel Islands Neighborhood Council (CINC)
• Harbor Marine Advisory Committee (MAC)
• Farm Bureau
• City of Oxnard
• City of Port Hueneme
Interested party coordination efforts primarily included collaboration on initial Study processes (i.e. data solicitation/compilation, problem identification, analysis efforts, etc.), identification of different preferences/priorities, and solution development. Coordination with these three (3) distinct groups of interested parties served to provide insight for course corrections throughout Study development and inform the establishment of Study goals and objectives, while simultaneously providing clarity in terms of who may be incorporated in decision-making processes and eventual mitigation effort selection and implementation.

Establishment of
Goals & Objectives
Collaboration on
Decision-Making &
Implementation
Efforts
Parties
Responsible
for Harbor
Water Quality
Organizations
That Can Help
Improve
Harbor Water
Quality
Parties
Impacted by
Harbor Water
Quality
708
33 The literature review, field visit, and analysis of data from multiple water quality monitoring programs were conducted to provide context on the Harbor’s watershed challenges and to inform the goals and objectives of this Study.

A master observations database used for the data analysis was constructed from nearly 250,000 observations collected between July 2003 to May 2024. The 54 monitoring locations in the database represent Kiddie and Hobie Beach, discharges from the MS4 system and agricultural lands (Discharges), Edison Canal (Edison Canal), Channel Islands Harbor (Harbor), and the Pacific Ocean (Ocean), and are pictured in Figure 12. Data collection methods included grab samples, composite samples using autosamplers, and dissolved oxygen and chlorophyll-a measurements in the Harbor from continuously monitoring sensors. Table 3 of this Report catalogues the various datasets used throughout the data review effort.

The Los Angeles Region (Region 4) Basin Plan, which includes waterbodies in Ventura County, was referenced to determine the beneficial uses applicable to the Harbor and the Edison Canal. The Regional Water Board applies beneficial use designations to waterbodies to document the inherent ecosystem services and resources, which provide objectives for the level of water quality protective of those uses. With each of these beneficial uses comes a set of Water Quality Objectives that state a protective limit to physical, chemical, and/or biological constituents.

In addition to the Basin Plan, Water Quality Objectives were sourced based on references used for 303(d) listing decisions. The Clean Water Act 303(d) list identifies impairments to water bodies, which are intended to enforce the creation of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for constituents found to be negatively impacting water quality. Listing decisions for different constituents included references to the California Toxics Rule, which was established by the EPA to set numeric limits on harmful substances in waters in California to protect the health of humans and the environment, including aquatic life. In addition, certain 303(d) listing decisions for pesticides were based on objectives established in a hazard assessment by California Department of Fish and Game for synthetic pyrethroid insecticides from 2000. Relevant WQOs used in the development of this study were presented in Table 4.

After the Water Quality Objectives were established, observations from the master observations database were compared against the Water Quality Objective values. Observations exceeding established Water Quality Objectives were flagged as exceedances and the magnitude of that exceedances were calculated as the percent above the Water Quality Objective. Results were summarized across different site types and by various other groupings and are presented in the data review section.

ESTABLISHMENT OF GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Water Contact Recreation (REC-1)
Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC-2)
Marine Habitat (MAR)
Navigation (NAV)
Industrial Service Supply (IND)
Commercial & Sport Fishing (COMM)
Wildlife Habitat (WILD)
Harbor & Canal Beneficial Uses
709
34 Informing Goals & Objectives
Initial evaluation efforts provided much of the key background and contextual information upon which this Study has been based, including the provision of more specific details that can be used to tailor efforts towards the Study’s ultimate intent of addressing water quality and circulation issues in the Harbor and surrounding areas. The Literature Review, Field Visit, Data Review, and Interested Party Coordination efforts have not only confirmed the presence of such water quality and circulation issues but have also led to a much more comprehensive understanding of them.

This involved building general contextual understanding, determining key constituents (i.e.

Bifenthrin, Permethrin, Copper, Dissolved Oxygen), and identifying primary interested parties to consult and/or collaborate with throughout project processes. This has informed the establishment of the key goals of addressing water quality and circulation issues, providing pollutant source control and/or treatment options, and preparing a prioritized and phased Implementation Plan.

Potential Mitigation Strategies & Development
In line with Study goals and objectives, a suite of potential mitigation strategies have been developed for the water quality and circulation issues in and around the Harbor. These strategies have been developed with the intent to comply with relevant local/regional regulations. The complex nature and context of Harbor water quality and circulation issues creates the necessity for a phased approach in which several different types of strategies are implemented. Strategy types include both structural and nonstructural strategies that have been proposed for implementation upstream of the receiving water bodies as well as strategies proposed for in-harbor implementation.
• Watershed Nonstructural Strategies are generally relatively cost-effective with less annual O&M costs and typically do not require extensive cross-jurisdictional coordination relative to other strategies. However, they may have less efficacy in terms of total pollutant removal unless implemented strategically to maximize effectiveness. • Watershed Structural Strategies have higher pollutant removal efficacy at a site-scale but are usually limited to treating small portions of drainage areas at any given time. They are also often accompanied by high upfront capital costs and O&M obligations. • Receiving Water Strategies are unique in that they address pollutants through the improvement of in-Harbor water circulation and mixing, affording them high potential efficiency. Their drawbacks are primarily to do with challenging permitting requirements and generally very high capital and/or O&M costs.

Due to the widely ranging characteristics of the different types of potential mitigation strategies, an intensive process was carried out to evaluate strategies through a scoring system approach.

The following sections present the suite of potential mitigation strategies alongside a discussion of their characteristics, how they were developed, and details and results of the evaluation approach.

ESTABLISHMENT OF GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Initial Evaluation
Efforts
Literature Review, Field Visit,
Data Review, Interested
Party Coordination
Establishment of Goals
& Objectives
Address Water Quality +
Circulation Issues, Provide
Abatement Options, Develop
Implementation Plan
Mitigation Strategy
Development &
Evaluation
Watershed Nonstructural,
Watershed Structural, and
Receiving Water Strategies
710
35 The general modeling approach employed in
this study used a previously calibrated regional
water quality model that used local monitoring
data to establish baseline hydrology and water
quality conditions in the MS4. This model is
built in the Loading Simulation Program in C++
(LSPC) and adapted to produce model outputs
at each of the major MS4 outfalls flowing into
the Harbor and Edison Canal.

For Watershed Nonstructural mitigation
strategies, conservative load reduction rates
were applied to watershed model outputs
based on the findings detailed in the report:

Nonstructural Non-Modeled Activity Pollutant
Load Reduction Research (City of San Diego,
2014).

For Watershed Structural mitigation strategies,
BMP models represent potential project
locations and design components. Potential
locations were identified from previous work in
the region plus additional locations identified
by project engineering staff. Load reductions
from these projects were then applied as
reductions from the baseline land-based loads
in the watershed model.

WATERSHED MODELING APPROACH
The Loading Simulation Program in
C++ (LSPC), is the regional standard
for hydrology and water quality
monitoring.

The Water Quality
Analysis Simulation
Program (WASP)
The Environmental
Fluid Dynamics Code
(EFDC)
Load reductions from Structural
Strategies (BMP Model) and
Nonstructural Strategies applied
to LSPC outputs

METEOROLOGICAL DATA
Hourly precipitation and
evapotranspiration timeseries form the
boundary conditions used to executing
the hydrology and water quality
modules.

SUBWATERSHEDS
These hydrologic units delineate the
landscape and are the basis of the
model architecture linking the landscape
to the receiving waters.

HYDROLOGIC RESPONSE UNITS (HRUs)
HRUs are the core hydrologic modeling
land units representing areas of similar
physical characteristics based on land
use and land cover. The standard HRU-
defining approach associates all similar
land uses, soils, and slopes within a
subwatershed.
711
36 The outputs of the LSPC model are included as source inflows of stormwater into the hydrodynamic model, Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC). The hydrodynamic circulation patterns predicted by EFDC are fed into the Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program (WASP) to evaluate in harbor water quality trends focused on nutrients and dissolved oxygen. The EFDC and WASP modeling domain encompasses the Channel Islands Harbor area, Edison Canal, and extends offshore into the open ocean (shown in Figure 18). The hydrodynamic model uses tidal water surface elevations on the ocean boundary along with wind and atmospheric pressure. Regional data sources were used to establish the baseline water quality in the Pacific Ocean that served as a boundary condition for the WASP model (the composition of ocean water entering the harbor during flood tides).

Mitigation scenarios are evaluated in the EFDC and WASP models though a combination of sources and sinks representing water withdrawals, storages, and discharges throughout the harbor. Alternative passive circulation enhancements
throughout the harbor are implemented through culvert
connections of currently isolated areas of the harbor to introduce new water exchange pathways. These scenarios
quantify the potential reduction in flushing time of the system from targeted water discharges or additional harbor
connectivity.

IN-HARBOR MODELING APPROACH
Figure 18: Representation of EFDC and WASP model domain The Loading Simulation Program in C++
(LSPC)
The Water Quality Analysis
Simulation Program (WASP), is
a widely used model for
studying the surface water
quality response to pollutant
loading.

The Environmental Fluid
Dynamics Code (EFDC), is an
open-source surface water
modeling program applicable
to water circulation studies
involving rivers, lakes,
wetlands, estuaries, harbors,
and coastal regions.

Structural Strategies (BMP Model)
and Nonstructural Strategies
712
37 POTENTIAL MITIGATION STRATEGIES
This section outlines potential Watershed
Nonstructural/Structural and Receiving Water
mitigation strategies proposed to address the
Harbor’s water quality and circulation challenges,
each with distinct opportunities and constraints.
713
38 Detailed mitigation
strategy
information is
found in Appendix
D – Project Fact
Sheets.

Future strategy implementation must consider:
1) The complex nature of the water quality and circulation issues in and around the Harbor
2) Diverse interested parties responsible for, and subject to implementation 3) Planning, permitting, and logistical considerations
4) Costs
A combination of different strategies, phased to allow for adaptive management, is anticipated to be the most appropriate approach to address Harbor water quality and circulation issues.

POTENTIAL MITIGATION STRATEGIES
Table 5: Potential mitigation strategies organized by category Strategy Type Strategy Name
Watershed Nonstructural
Strategy: Targeted
Nutrient/Pesticide/Pollutant
Source Control
Outreach & Training
Illicit Discharge Detection & Elimination
Agricultural Coordination
Watershed Nonstructural
Strategy: Targeted Bacteria
Source Control
Sewer System Maintenance
Homeless Encampment Management
Animal Waste Management
Watershed Nonstructural
Strategy: Nonstructural
Operational Stormwater
Programs
Street Sweeping & Catch Basin Cleaning (CBC) Optimization Stormwater System Maintenance
Watershed Nonstructural
Strategy: Trash Reduction
Mechanical Filtration
Trash Source Reduction
Watershed Structural
Strategy
Filtration BMPs
Infiltration BMPs
Agricultural Runoff Treatment Systems
Receiving Water Strategy
Edison Canal Pump Resumption
Decommission Canal/Convert to Engineered Wetlands &
Potential Water Storage
Passive Circulation Enhancements
Open Passive Edison Canal Connection to Ocean
Storage Tank Water Release between Edison Canal/Harbor
Reuse Wastewater Release Tank
As a result of the constituents of concern, pollutant sources and circulation issues present in the Harbor, a three-category set of potential mitigation strategies have been developed that includes:

Watershed Nonstructural Strategies: Projects and/or programs that primarily address pollutant loading indirectly through source control efforts intended to reduce inputs of pollution.

Watershed Structural Strategies: Engineered water treatment, filtration, or infiltration projects that directly reduce pollutant loading.

Receiving Water Strategies: In-harbor strategies that focus on improving water circulation as a means of improving water quality and clarity.
714
39 Outreach & Training Illicit Discharge Detection & Elimination Agricultural Coordination

TARGETED NUTRIENT/PESTICIDE/POLLUTANT SOURCE CONTROL

POTENTIAL WATERSHED NONSTRUCTURAL MITIGATION STRATEGIES • Audience engagement often correlated with training
effectiveness.
• Necessity of voluntary participation from watershed owners. • Availability of training staff and/or appropriate resources may limit implementation capacity.
• Limited availability to correlate training implementation with load reductions of priority pollutants.
• Need for coordination with interested parties to maximize potential collaboration opportunities
Key Implementation Considerations
Targeted outreach and
training efforts for
landowners and workers
aimed at reducing nutrients
and pesticides by informing
individuals/groups about
potential behavioral
changes.
• IDDE identification & response timing and citizen observer knowledge/engagement can impact program effectiveness.
• Investment in field-deployed electronic data collection/ tracking equipment needed to support staff efficiency.
• Need for outreach and engagement efforts to address potential community opposition.
• Resource limitations related to necessity of staffing and timeconsuming follow-up efforts. • Audience engagement often correlated with training
effectiveness.
• Training staff availability may limit implementation capacity. • Limited availability to correlate training implementation with load reductions of priority pollutants.
• Necessity of voluntary participation from private growers may create challenges.
• Need for coordination with Farm Bureau and agricultural landowners/workers to maximize potential collaboration
opportunities.

Key Implementation Considerations Key Implementation Considerations Utilizes reporting and
investigation efforts to
detect and appropriately
respond to illicit discharges
and additionally provide for
efficient and effective
documentation and
tracking.

Fertilizer, pesticide and
irrigation reduction,
agricultural land mapping
and risk assessment, crop
rotation, and the relocation
and/or reduction of overall
agricultural land uses.
715
40 Sewer System Maintenance Homeless Encampment Management Animal Waste Management

TARGETED BACTERIA SOURCE CONTROL

POTENTIAL WATERSHED NONSTRUCTURAL MITIGATION STRATEGIES • Close coordination with sewer system owner/operators
required.
• Sewer system maintenance can be limited by owner/operator maintenance capacity/priorities.
• Additional baseline data & planning may be required for optimized system maintenance.

Key Implementation Considerations
Routine investigations and
maintenance, pipe lining,
leak identification and pipe
replacement prioritization,
MS4 maintenance, and
overall improvement and
technological upgrades to
the sewer system aimed at
preventing sewage
exfiltration.
• Potential for alternative housing homeless support resource limitations to impact management activities.
• Cleanup and abatement resource limitations may impact program implementation.
• Implementation capacity may be limited by ability for sufficient coordination with law enforcement and regional groups.
• Need for consideration of ethical factors related to encampment disturbance/cleanup.
• Citizen observer knowledge and engagement crucial to program effectiveness.
• Close coordination with Parks and Recreation and other responsible municipal department resources required.
• Additional operations and maintenance resources may be required.
• Potential need for comprehensive public outreach efforts to promote engagement and generate support.

Key Implementation Considerations Key Implementation Considerations Investigations and
volunteer-based cleanups,
education/outreach, social
service partnerships,
financial assistance, and
housing/facilities provision
to prevent bacteria
contamination from
encampments.

Investigations and targeted
education and outreach, pet
waste signage and fines,
installation and
maintenance of waste bag
dispensers/trash bins, and
physical waste removal.
716
41 Street Sweeping and Catch Basin Cleaning Optimization Stormwater System Maintenance

NONSTRUCTURAL OPERATIONAL STORMWATER PROGRAMS

POTENTIAL WATERSHED NONSTRUCTURAL MITIGATION STRATEGIES • Municipal operations staff/capacity planning required. • Additional baseline data may be required for optimization planning to balance optimization efforts with operational capacity.
• Potential requirement of comprehensive public outreach to promote engagement and generate support.

Key Implementation Considerations
Increased sweeping route
frequencies/new routes,
technology improvements,
additional parking
limitations, increased Catch
Basin Cleaning frequency
and geo-located data
capture.
• Close coordination with operations and maintenance staff required. • Maintenance may be limited by maintenance staff resources capacity and project prioritization.
• Additional baseline data & planning may be required for optimized system maintenance and monitoring.
• Potential for traffic, noise, and other ancillary impacts.

Key Implementation Considerations
Proactive repairs, MS4
component replacement
and open-channel cleaning,
physical trash removal,
monitoring and asset
management, and general
maintenance of stormwater
system.
717
42 Mechanical Filtration Source Reduction Strategies

TRASH REDUCTION

POTENTIAL WATERSHED NONSTRUCTURAL MITIGATION STRATEGIES • Close coordination with operations and maintenance staff required. • Maintenance can be limited by maintenance staff resources capacity and project prioritization.
• Clogging or high flow precipitation events can trigger localized flooding. • Additional baseline data and planning may be required for optimized implementation.

Key Implementation Considerations
Distributed catch basin-level
devices and centralized
high-volume underground
and end-of-pipe devices;
new site planning, design,
and resources and process
improvements /
optimization.
• Audience engagement often correlated with outreach effectiveness. • Limited opportunity to correlate source reduction implementation with load reductions.
• Potential need for extensive community outreach in the case of some optimization strategies.
• Need for comprehensive public outreach efforts to promote engagement and generate support.

Key Implementation Considerations
Reusable product
promotion, regulation of
single-use plastics,
education and outreach
efforts, physical cleanups
and other volunteer /
community-based events,
collaboration and
partnership opportunities.
718
43 Filtration BMPs Infiltration BMPs Agricultural Runoff Treatment Systems

POTENTIAL WATERSHED STRUCTURAL MITIGATION STRATEGIES
• Land ownership has potential to present challenges; limited private opportunities exist that are not accompanied with required land use reallocation.
• Potential for construction site-related disturbances. • Filtration structural strategies can potentially be combined with other types of strategies.

Key Implementation Considerations
Engineered treatment systems divert
and filter runoff along its conveyance
towards discharge points into the
Harbor.
• 41 Project Opportunities
• Avg. Capital Cost ~ $9.3M
• Avg. O&M Cost ~ $282k/yr
• Substantial potential for
benefitting
environmentally/socially
vulnerable communities
• Land ownership has potential to present challenges; limited private opportunities exist that are not accompanied with required land use reallocation.
• Potential for construction site-related disturbances and sitespecific disturbances; will need geotechnical information.

Information to determine whether infiltration rates will exceed

0.5 in/hr.
• Infiltration structural strategies can potentially be combined with other types of strategies.
• Agricultural runoff treatment system effects maximized with placement closer to runoff sources, may create need for additional coordination with agricultural landowners.
• Agricultural runoff treatment systems can potentially be combined with other types of strategies.

Key Implementation Considerations Key Implementation Considerations Engineered treatment systems divert
and infiltrate runoff along its
conveyance towards discharge points
into the Harbor.
• 41 Project Opportunities
• Avg. Capital Cost ~$12.5M
• Avg. O&M Cost ~$188k/yr
• Substantial potential for
benefitting
environmentally/socially
vulnerable communities
Engineered systems designed to
capture and treat runoff from farm
fields, aiming to remove pollutants like
sediment, nutrients, and pesticides
before they reach waterways.
• 4 Project Opportunities
• Avg. Capital Cost ~$40k
• Avg. O&M Cost ~$8k/yr
• High cost-effectiveness for
Nitrogen load reduction
LSPC watershed modeling and custom-python BMP models were used to determine optimal sizing, and locations were identified through geospatial analysis. Cost information derived based on similar projects ~2022-2024. 719
44 Edison Canal Pump Resumption Canal Decommissioned & Converted Passive Circulation Enhancements

POTENTIAL RECEIVING WATER MITIGATION STRATEGIES
• Potential need for mechanical equipment upgrades due to extended period of inactivity.
• May require specialized operating staff.
• Private/utility parcel ownership.

Key Implementation Considerations
Rehabilitation and
resumption of pumping at
the northern end of the
Edison Canal; refurbishment
of existing pump house
infrastructure and
rehabilitation/replacement
of pumps.
• Community engagement and awareness.
• Specialized staff for operation.
• Wildlife impact mitigation – Avoid sensitive habitats, minimize disturbances.
• City/County/private parcel ownership.
• Community engagement and awareness.
• Specialized staff for operation.
• Wildlife impact mitigation – Avoid sensitive habitats, minimize disturbances.
• City/County/private parcel ownership.

Key Implementation Considerations Key Implementation Considerations Installation of dam at
Wooley Bridge to
hydrologically disconnect
Harbor and direct
agricultural discharge to
wetlands at 5th St. / Harbor
Blvd.

Installation of culverts
within the Harbor to
connect different marinas
and improve water
circulation.

Permitting Permitting Permitting
• Medium effort – Coordination with County
departments/agencies recommended.
• Potential need for Encroachment Permit.
• Fish entrainment mitigation likely.
• Consultation with regulators recommended.
• Potential need for detailed/long-term special studies to support permitting efforts.
• High effort – Grading, Land-Use, Coastal Development Permits. • NPDES CG Permit during construction.
• Coordination with City/Regional/State Departments.
• Address utility constraints.
• High effort – Grading, Land-Use, Coastal Development Permits. • NPDES CG Permit during construction.
• Coordination with City/Regional/State Departments.
• Address utility constraints.
720
45 New Canal Connection Storage Tank Water Release Canal Decommissioned & Storage Tank

POTENTIAL RECEIVING WATER MITIGATION STRATEGIES
• Community engagement and awareness.
• Specialized staff for operation.
• Wildlife impact mitigation – Avoid sensitive habitats, minimize disturbances.
• City/County/private parcel ownership.

Key Implementation Considerations
Construction of a second
Harbor entrance to enhance
natural tidal circulation of
water in and around the
Harbor. Location of second
canal connection
anticipated to be at power
plant / pump station.
• Community engagement and awareness.
• Specialized staff for operation.
• Wildlife impact mitigation – Avoid sensitive habitats, minimize disturbances.
• City/County/private parcel ownership.
• Community engagement and awareness.
• Specialized staff for operation.
• Wildlife impact mitigation – Avoid sensitive habitats, minimize disturbances.
• City/County/private parcel ownership.

Key Implementation Considerations Key Implementation Considerations Strategic placement of
storage tanks near the Canal
and Harbor allowing for
controlled water release to
improve circulation and
reduce stagnation.

Decommissioning of Canal to
redirect water flow; strategic
placement of storage tanks near the
Harbor to facilitate the controlled
release of water to improve
circulation and reduce stagnation;
installation of Wooley Bridge dam
to hydrologically disconnect Harbor
and direct agricultural discharge to
wetlands at 5th St. / Harbor Blvd.

Permitting Permitting Permitting
• High effort – Requires Grading, Land-Use, and Coastal Development Permits.
• NPDES CG Permit during construction.
• Mitigation monitoring required.
• Coordination with City/Regional/State Departments.
• Address utility constraints.
• High effort – Coordination with local and state agencies. • Need for Water Quality Certification and Environmental Impact Assessment.
• Special studies to assess ecosystem impact.
• High effort – Coordination with local and state agencies. • Need for Water Quality Certification and Environmental Impact Assessment.
• Special studies to assess ecosystem impact.
721
46 FUNDING OF POTENTIAL MITIGATION STRATEGIES
Strategic Alignment of Mitigation Strategies with Grant Opportunities Grant programs were first evaluated based on how well priorities aligned with the City of Oxnard’s overarching goal: improving circulation and water quality issues.

Opportunities that emphasize measurable circulation and water quality improvement outcomes were prioritized. Programs offering funding for efforts such as reducing runoff pollution, enhancing groundwater recharge, mitigating flooding, and increasing circulation/connectivity were cataloged in a tracking spreadsheet. This tool is regularly updated as new grant opportunities emerge or additional details become available.

Project fact sheets were evaluated for alignment with the specific criteria and consistency with grant agency goals. Key considerations included impact, cost, location, community impact, and project readiness (e.g., completed designs and permits). Each project was assessed against these factors to determine its fit with the various relevant funding opportunities identified. Based on this analysis, funding sources were strategically matched to each project to maximize funding potential.

Funding Program Funding Amount Dates/Deadline
Coastal Conservancy Grants No min/max: Anticipated grant $200K – $5M.

Rolling
Nonpoint Source (NPS) 319 Program $50K - $1M Rolling
Stream Flow Enhancement $30M available Rolling
Agricultural Drainage Management Loan Program $100K - $5M Rolling Replacing, Removing, or Upgrading Underground Storage
Tanks (RUST) Program
$3K - $70K Rolling
Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) $6.5B available Rolling Port Infrastructure Development Program $1M - $125M Due September 10, 2025 F25AS00188 Coastal Program FY25 Up to 500K Due September 30, 2025 Small Surface Water and Groundwater Storage Projects (Small Storage Program)
Up to $30M Due April 17, 2026
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) $3B available annually Anticipated to open September 2025 Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) Program $300K - $29.5M Anticipated to open Fall 2025 Community Resilience Centers (CRC) Program $100K - $10M Anticipated to open Fall 2025 Climate Smart Agriculture Technical Assistance Grants Up to $150K Anticipated to open in 2025 Healthy Soils Block Grant Program $2M - $%M Anticipated to open in 2025 Regional Source Reduction Assistance Grant 7-27 awards with $40K – $240K Anticipated to open February 2026 National Wetland Program Development Grants $25K – $500K Anticipated to open May 2026 Environmental Enhancement & Mitigation $750K – $1.5M; $7M available Anticipated to open May 2026 Encampment Resolution Funding (ERF) Program $1.5M - $45M Anticipated to be due June 30 2026 FY 2026-27 Wildfire Prevention Grants $135M available Anticipated to open June 2026 Land and Water Conservation Fund Up to $6M Anticipated to open mid 2026 EJ4 Climate Grant Program Up to $175K Anticipated Fall 2026 California Proposition 4 Dependent on specific program; $10B available in total
Dependent on specific program
Table 6: Potential grant opportunities paired with potentially relevant projects in Appendix D – Project Fact Sheets.

A structured and criteria-based
approach has been developed to help
the City of Oxnard identify and
prioritize projects that are best
positioned for competitive grant
funding. This framework is designed to
reduce the City’s reliance on local
public funds while maximizing
equitable and measurable community
and environmental benefits, and
includes the following factors:

Impact
Cost
Location
Community Impact
Design Level/Project Readiness
722
47 FUNDING OF POTENTIAL MITIGATION STRATEGIES
Recommended Next Steps

1. Projects to Fund: Identify and refine a shortlist of candidate projects and project locations—ideally 3–5 based on the City’s input and the funding availability.

2. Funding Opportunities: Pair the identified projects with the most relevant funding opportunities.

3. Competitiveness Assessment: Complete competitiveness assessments to evaluate how well each project aligns with the priorities, eligibility criteria, and scoring methodologies of the target grant programs. This includes analyzing factors such as project readiness, community impact, equity considerations, and alignment with policy goals.

4. Meet with Grant Administrator(s): Initiate outreach to grant program coordinators for the programs identified as most competitive. These conversations will help confirm eligibility, clarify evaluation criteria, and strengthen applications through early engagement.

5. Data Request/Kickoff: Gather necessary background data, reports, and project documentation from City staff and partners to inform application development. This may include GIS data, demographic information, past planning efforts, and any previous community engagement findings.

6. Draft Application: Develop supporting materials such as concept-level drawings, cost estimates, benefit narratives, and maps. These will be key components of successful grant applications.

7. Final Application & Submittal: Track progress through funding agencies.

By adopting a strategic, datadriven approach, the City of Oxnard will increase its likelihood
of securing funding by
demonstrating readiness, impact,
and alignment with grant
priorities.
723
48 SCORING EVALUATIONS
This section describes the evaluation metrics used to build a Scoring Matrix for comparing potential mitigation
strategies based on their benefits, costs, feasibility, and constraints. Summary evaluation results presented
herein; Appendix E – Project Scoring Matrix Guide and
Appendix F – Project Scoring Matrix (available
electronically) contain comprehensive evaluation
framework and results.
724
49 Evaluation Metric Sources
Evaluation metrics utilize four general categories of information: (1) watershed and in-harbor model results, (2) available Geographic Information System (GIS) and community database information, (3) compiled engineering and construction cost data, and (4) best professional judgement. Watershed and in-harbor models provide predictive water quality- and circulation-related conditions based on calibrated representation of site-specific characteristics, input data, and modeled strategies. Various public databases and available GIS information are used to classify and categorize mitigation strategies based on type, location, and environmental/other impact attributes. Compiled engineering and construction cost information generally include industry publications and recent and/or published project cost information in Southern California. Engineering and environmental professional best professional judgement is used for assessments of certain mitigation strategy criteria where engineering delivery experience, construction or other industry knowledge, and/or environmental permitting acumen supports informed performance evaluation. Evaluation metrics are used in scoring of potential mitigation strategies.

The Project Scoring Matrix provides a framework for comparing the relative water quality and/or circulation improvement effectiveness, cost-benefit, and implementation viability and schedule.

The scoring framework integrates both qualitative and quantitative information to evaluate the features and characteristics of potential mitigation strategies and intentionally includes a diverse array of parameters to allow for filtering projects to optimize project sequencing and funding opportunities. However, only a subset of key parameters are ultimately used in scoring and ranking the potential mitigation strategies. Key scoring and ranking parameters for watershed-based projects include water quality benefits, cost, and implementation considerations. Similarly, Receiving Water project key parameters include circulation benefit, cost, and implementation considerations.

MITIGATION STRATEGY EVALUATION METRICS
Statistics Modeling
Geospatial
Analysis Preliminary
Capacity and
Feasibility
Metrics and
Scoring
725
50 Evaluation Approach & Relevant Metrics/Attributes
Watershed project water quality benefits are evaluated and assessed through regional water quality modeling with a focus on a few critical metrics related to pollutant loading. For each of the six main pollutants that were modeled (bifenthrin, permethrin, nitrogen, phosphorus, copper, Enterococcus), a Pollutant-Specific Modeled Load Reduction was calculated1. This metric refers to the amount of each pollutant removed via mitigation strategy implementation for total load reduced (pounds (lbs) per year) and proportion of the baseline watershed load reduced (%). These two components allow for calculation of the magnitude and percent of the strategy-specific load reduction relative to the overall watershed loading for each modeled pollutant. Pollutant-specific load reductions are combined to attain an Additive Aggregate Pollutant Load Reduction for each strategy. This metric assumes mitigation strategies that cumulatively reduce pollutant loading across multiple pollutant types provide a greater water quality benefit than strategies with singular pollutant load reduction benefit, even if the load reduction for a given pollutant is high.

Addressing multiple pollutants through integrated strategies assists in achieving holistic water quality improvements, especially in complex and urbanized watersheds.

Receiving Water strategies are more explicitly focused on water circulation improvements that support water quality benefits. Receiving Water strategies’ benefits are denoted by a metric representing Average Residence Time Reduction (days), referring to modeled results calculated as the average reduction in water parcel residence time within the Harbor across the nine modeled Harbor zones. It should be noted that analysis and comparison of individual critical water zone residence time improvements yielded similar results to the average reduction, and thus the average reduction in water parcel residence time across all zones was used for this metric.

MITIGATION STRATEGY SCORING – WATER QUALITY BENEFITS
The evaluation and assessment
of Water Quality Benefits
culminates in their synthesis into
the Additive Pollutant Load and
Residence Time Reduction
metrics. These metrics feed into
ranking of strategies individually
and are used for calculation of
the Cost-Effectiveness ranking
metric. A Geometric Mean
Ranking metric is used to rank
mitigation strategies in a
comparative manner, combining
the Reduction and CostEffectiveness metrics into a
single ranking. Geometric mean
is a type of average that
indicates the central tendency or
typical value of a set of numbers.

It is useful when calculating
normalized scores in systems
where each factor contributes
multiplicatively as is the case for
Watershed and Receiving Water
mitigation strategies.

The Additive Aggregate Pollutant Load Reduction (Watershed strategies) or the Average Residence Time Reduction (Receiving Water strategies) are used in calculation of Cost-Effectiveness, a calculated metric that combines water quality benefits with estimated Lifecycle Cost (see cost section below) to obtain a costper-unit load/residence time reduction cost-effectiveness measure.

Estimated costs for Watershed Structural mitigation strategies were developed using algorithms based on regional project information with available data. Receiving Water strategy cost estimates were based on a combination of estimated material, labor, and design/management costs from similar projects.
1Note: Bifenthrin, Permethrin, and Enterococcus were not explicitly modeled. Bifenthrin and Permethrin were represented based on a sediment-proxy and Enterococcus was represented based on a runoff volume-proxy.

Figure 19: Stagnant water at Hemlock Road Debris Boom Site 726
51 Evaluation Approach & Relevant Metrics/Attributes
Cost metrics include Capital, Annual O&M, and 30-year Lifecycle Cost parameters1. Capital Cost denotes the total estimated upfront investment required to plan, design, permit, and construct a project or implement a mitigation strategy. It includes expenditures necessary to bring a project from concept to operational readiness, excluding ongoing operational or maintenance expenses. For the purposes of this report, additional details of capital costs based on strategy type include the following:
• Watershed Nonstructural strategy capital costs utilized a combination of best available data and professional judgment based on project implementation efforts conducted by similar Phase I Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) programs in California and City-specific feedback from City of Oxnard staff. Most outreach and training costs assume mitigation strategy implementation integration with existing ongoing related programs. • Watershed Structural strategy capital costs utilized engineer best-estimate construction cost estimates based on regression and other analysis of line-item project construction cost estimates derived from projects in California 2022-2024. • Receiving Water mitigation strategies’ capital costs utilized engineer best-estimate construction cost estimates based on general requirements, site preparation, and new construction costs.

Annual O&M Cost refers to the estimated recurring expenses required to operate, monitor, and maintain a project or mitigation strategy over its useful life. For the purposes of this report, calculation of Annual O&M Cost utilized similar additional description information as Capital Cost (see above). The useful life of a given mitigation strategy is assumed to be 30 years for the purpose of this analysis. Annual O&M Cost is combined with Capital Cost in calculating 30-yr Lifecycle Cost, which is a calculated metric consisting of Capital Cost plus 30 years of Annual O&M Cost as well as Replacement Cost, which is assumed to be equal to Capital Cost.

MITIGATION STRATEGY SCORING – COSTS
Cost evaluation and assessment includes Capital Cost,
Annual O&M Cost, and 30-yr Lifecycle Cost. Capital Cost, Annual O&M Cost utilize best available data and
information including engineer best-estimate construction cost estimates based on projects in the Los Angeles basin 2022-2024. The 30-yr Lifecycle Cost includes Capital Cost plus 30 years of Annual O&M Cost as well as replacement cost at the end of the estimated useful life, which is
assumed to be equal to Capital Cost.
1Project capital and O&M costs are estimates and subject to change. Additional study needed to refine Receiving Water strategy permitting costs following conceptual design development, consultation with regulatory permitting agencies, and coordination with other interested parties.

Figure 20: Seabridge Viewpoint Site
727
52 Evaluation Approach & Relevant Metrics/Attributes
Implementation Considerations include factors that may influence mitigation strategy implementation capacity, cost, schedule, and/or operational parameter. Key factors included in the scoring matrix includes Parcel Ownership, Crossing Jurisdictional Boundaries, and perceived Permitting Difficulty. Parcel Ownership is an ownership attribute related to mitigation strategy implementation. Ownership information was derived from County of Ventura GIS information. The Crosses Jurisdictional Boundaries metric is calculated by parcel ownership but related to whether the mitigation strategy will require cross-jurisdiction coordination. Cross-jurisdiction coordination can oftentimes impact the ease of mitigation strategy implementation based on project location, type and coordination need (i.e. right of entry, legal liability, and/or cost-share agreement). The following criteria were used for Crosses Jurisdictional Boundaries, where a higher score denotes greater complexity:
• Project implementation on parcels with private, multiple other public agencies, or mixed parcel ownership that would expect to require multijurisdictional agreements, right-of-entry-permits, and/or other agreements prior to implementation scores 1 point.
• Project implementation requires multi-jurisdictional agreement with at least one other public or private agency scores 0.5 points. • Project implementation exclusively on City-owned parcels scores 0 points.

Here, point values serve as a qualitative measurement used in determination of overall Implementation Considerations for a given strategy. It is worth noting that certain Watershed Nonstructural mitigation strategies were assumed to be implemented within City jurisdiction only. This reduces the complexity of implementation and allows for specific implementation control within City jurisdiction.

MITIGATION STRATEGY SCORING – IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS Implementation Considerations are
presented as a combined assessment
of Parcel Ownership, CrossJurisdictional Coordination, and Permitting Difficulty. These attributes
were used to categorize strategies into
three tiers based on implementation
complexity.

Permitting Difficulty is a qualitative assessment of
anticipated environmental and other permitting
requirements necessary to facilitate mitigation strategy implementation. This categorical assessment metric
utilized industry permitting specialist best professional judgement to review anticipated agency coordination
and permit complexity according to the following criteria:
• Low- Anticipated requirements include local agency
coordination and/or low effort submittals.
• Medium- Anticipated requirements include local/state
agency coordination and/or medium effort submittals.
• High- Anticipated requirements include
local/state/federal agency coordination and/or high
effort submittals and/or monitoring/special studies.

Potential mitigation strategies were organized into one of three tiers of overall implementation ease based on a
combination of estimated permitting difficulty and
necessity of cross-jurisdictional coordination. Strategies were then ranked based on water quality benefits and
cost considerations within these tiers based on the
framework described in the Water Quality Benefits and
Costs sections. Refer to Appendix E – Project Scoring
Matrix Guide for further details of the Implementation
Considerations tiering process.

Figure 21: Aerial View of the Harbor
728
53 Permitting Evaluation Overview
To support mitigation strategy scoring efforts, all mitigation strategy options were determined to be low, medium or high levels of permitting effort. Low effort permitting was selected for Watershed Nonstructural mitigation strategies that require only local agency coordination which are anticipated to be a relatively streamlined process. Medium effort permitting was selected for Watershed Structural strategies that require local and state agency coordination with moderate associated permit constraints and approval timelines. High effort permitting was selected for Receiving Water strategies that require local, state and federal agency coordination with complex and lengthy permitting constraints, timelines and associated long term monitoring or special studies required for ecological impacts analysis.

MITIGATION STRATEGY SCORING – PERMITTING CONSIDERATIONS Low Permitting Effort: Local Agency Coordination
and Permits
• VC Public Works
• VC Transportation Department
• VC Resource Management Agency
• Encroachment/Watercourse Permits
• Municipal Authorization
• VC Resource Conservation District
• VC Farm Bureau & Agricultural Commissioner
• Natural Resources Conservation Service
• CA Department of Fish and Wildlife
• Certified Crop/Pest Advisor for Nutrient
Management Plans
Medium Permitting Effort: Local and State Agency Coordination and Permits
• Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (CDFW)
• CEQA compliance
• Waste Discharge Requirements (LARWQCB)
• Water Rights Assessment
• Grading Permit
• Floodplain Development Permit
• Clean Water Act Sec. 401 Water Quality Certification
• NPDES Construction General Permit Compliance
• Encroachment/Watercourse Permits
• Wastewater Treatment Plant connection permit
• Fish entrainment mitigation
• CA Department of Fish and Wildlife, National Marine Fisheries Service, LARWQCB, CA Coastal Commission
coordination/consultation
High Permitting Effort: Local, State and Federal Agency Coordination and Permits
• Grading Permit
• Land Use Permit
• Coastal Development Permit
• Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (CDFW)
• Clean Water Act Sec. 401 Water Quality Certification
• Clean Water Act Sec. 404 Dredge/Fill discharge requirements • NPDES Construction General Permit Compliance
• Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP) Development • US Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, LARWQCB, CA Coastal Commission coordination/consultation
729
54 Evaluation Approach & Relevant Metrics/Attributes
Community Benefits were used as a supplementary consideration for mitigation strategies to allow for potential future filtering and prioritization with respect to funding and other considerations.

Community Benefits do not factor into the explicit ranking of mitigation strategies but should be considered in context with multi-benefits and funding opportunities.

Potential Aesthetic Improvements utilizes Harbor residence time as an indicator to estimate aesthetic improvements in Harbor water quality.

A literature review was performed to assess California and other regional enclosed waterbody residence time thresholds that indicate aesthetic and potential water quality improvements including presence of trash and surface water clarity.

Generally, enclosed waterbodies with an average residence time less than 1-2 weeks is considered well-mixed. Enclosed harbor or bay residence times that exceed approximately 1-2 weeks generally correspond with increased turbidity and potential water quality issues.

Accordingly, for the purposes of this study the following criteria were applied:
• Strategies that reduce average water parcel residence time to less than 1-week scores 1 point.
• Strategies that reduce average water parcel residence time to between 1- and 2-weeks scores 0.5 points.
• Strategies that reduce average water parcel residence time to greater than 2-weeks or do not reduce average water parcel residence time scores 0 points.

MITIGATION STRATEGY SCORING – COMMUNITY BENEFITS
Community Benefits are presented for
supplementary consideration and
potential future funding
opportunities. Strategies are assessed
based on their potential to provide
Aesthetic Improvements, Trash
Reduction, and DAC Benefits. The
Community Benefits Total attribute
synthesizes the applicability of ten
potential individual community
benefits to each mitigation strategy.

Trash Reduction was also considered using a qualitative categorical (Yes/No) assessment potential trash reduction benefits. Available municipal program review, industry data, and literature sources were used to support best professional judgement assessments of mitigation strategy potential for trash reduction.

A categorical assessment of mitigation strategy potential to provide Disadvantaged Community Benefit (DAC) Benefits was performed. DACs were defined based on 2022 SB 535 DAC designations1. The following criteria were used:
• Mitigation strategies that occur within a disadvantaged community score 1 point.
• Mitigation strategies that occur adjacent to or partially within a disadvantaged community score 0.5 points.
• Mitigation strategies that occur outside of a disadvantaged community score 0 points.

Community Benefits Total synthesizes the applicability of ten potential individual community benefits to each mitigation strategy. Individual Community Benefits are determined to have either full (scores 1 point), partial (scores 0.5 points), or limited/no applicability (scores 0 points). The individual community benefits are summed and then divided by 10.

Community Benefits Total is presented as a proportion, ranging from 0 to 1, equating to the proportion of Community Benefits generated by a given mitigation strategy. This metric is ultimately presented with the designation of a strategy as ‘Good’, ‘Better’, or ‘Best’. A discussion of methods and a comprehensive list of potential Community Benefits that were evaluated is provided in Appendix E – Project Scoring Matrix Guide. 1DAC Designations and Community Benefits are discussed in further detail in Appendix E – Project Scoring Matrix Guide Figure 22: Field visit at former power plant site.
730
55 PROJECT SCORING MATRIX STRUCTURE

1. PROJECT SCORING MATRIX
Includes a comprehensive inventory of
metrics and attributes considered in the
potential mitigation strategies overall
evaluation process. Includes modeling
results for mitigation strategy pollutant
load reduction (Watershed strategies)
and harbor residence time reduction
(Receiving Water strategies).

3. COMMUNITY BENEFITS
Inventories the 10 potential
Community Benefits evaluated for
each potential mitigation strategy.

Note that Community Benefits are
compiled to support project
filtering for funding and other
benefits and do not directly impact
scoring.

4. SUMMARIZED / TIERED

WATERSHED /

RECEIVING WATER RESULTS

PROJECT

SCORING MATRIX

TAB STRUCTURE

2. WATERSHED / RECEIVING

WATER SCORING RESULTS
Compiles and synthesizes metrics and
attributes presented in the Project
Scoring Matrix tab and generates
summary information for
supplemental evaluation and filtering
of potential mitigation strategies.

Presents synthesized information and
mitigation strategy scoring results for
watershed water quality and Harbor
circulation improvement options.

Watershed strategies organized into tiers
by implementation feasibility.

Summarized results include only primary
metrics/attributes to enhance simplicity.

Given the separate but related Study goals for
identification of mitigation strategies to improve Harbor circulation and water quality, Watershed and Receiving
Water mitigation strategies are considered separately in Scoring Matrix structure. This format allows for potential pursuit of a suite of mitigation strategies to address both circulation and water quality improvement goals
concurrently.

The Appendix F – Project Scoring Matrix compiles and
combines the qualitative and quantitative metrics
mitigation strategy scoring elements to allow review and assessment of project opportunities. The Scoring Matrix structure is organized into four primary tabs in a
spreadsheet-based ‘living’ document. The structure
allows the City, with input and coordination with various interested parties, opportunities to review and adaptively manage the scoring metrics and calculation functionality.

Further, the range of mitigation strategy-specific metrics and attributes allows for filtering and ranking capabilities. 731
56 TIERED WATERSHED MITIGATION STRATEGY RANKING
Watershed mitigation strategies were ranked and assigned to one of three categories based on estimates of planning and implementation complexity. Three key criteria factor into the preliminary ranking process: estimated environmental permitting complexity and estimated need for cross-jurisdictional coordination – which are combined to assign strategies an Implementation Considerations Category – and Lifecycle Cost.

Mitigation strategies that can be implemented in municipal right-of-way, have limited environmental impact concerns and/or are anticipated to have limited regulatory agency review concerns are assigned either a ‘Low’ or ‘Medium’ permitting complexity score. Potential need for cross-jurisdictional coordination was also used to assign mitigation strategies to three categories of Implementation Considerations. The approach for assigning mitigation strategies into Implementation Considerations Categories is detailed in Appendix E – Project Scoring Matrix Guide.

Projects in the ‘Low’ Implementation Considerations Category with Lifecycle Costs below $50M are assigned to Tier 1. Projects in the ‘Low’ Implementation Considerations Category with Lifecycle Costs of $50M or greater are assigned to Tier 2. Also included in Tier 2 are Projects in the ‘Medium’ Implementation Considerations Category with Lifecycle Costs below $50M. Projects in the ‘Medium’ Implementation Considerations Category with Lifecycle Costs of $50M or greater are assigned to Tier 3.
• MEDIUM Implementation Considerations Category
• Lifecycle Cost >$50M($$$$)
• MEDIUM Implementation Considerations Category
• Lifecycle Cost <$5M ($), <$20M($$), <$50M($$$)
OR
• LOW Implementation Considerations Category
• Lifecycle Cost >$50M($$$$)
• LOW Implementation Considerations
Category
• Lifecycle Cost <$5M ($), <$20M($$),
TIER 1 <$50M($$$)
TIER 2
TIER 3
1 2
3 Note: No Watershed mitigation strategies were
assigned a ‘High’ permitting complexity score, and
thus this category was omitted from the tiering of
Watershed strategies. All Receiving Water strategies
were designated as ‘High’ permitting complexity.
732
57 Project Name1 Geometric Mean
Rank2
Additive Percent Load
Reduction (%)
Cost-Effectiveness
($/% Reduction)
Capital
Cost
Category
Lifecycle Cost
Category
Implementation
Considerations
Category
Aesthetic
Improvements
Community
Benefits
Total
DAC
Benefits
Tier 1
Targeted Nutrient/Pesticide Source
Control - Outreach and Training (NS) 1.4 77% $34,665 $ $$ Low No Better Yes Targeted Bacteria Source Control -
Animal Waste Management (NS) 3.0 51% $45,962 $ $$ Low No Better Partial Municipal Operations Enhancement
Source Control - Street Sweeping and
Catch Basin Cleaning (CBC)
Optimization (NS)

4.5 49% $478,054 $ $$$ Low Partial Better Partial
Tier 2
Targeted Nutrient/Pesticide Source
Control - Agricultural Coordination
(NS)

1.4 62% $5,300 $ $ Medium No Better Yes
Campus Park Infiltration BMP (S) 11.8 19% $2,882,848 $$$ $$$$ Low Partial Better No Campus Park Filtration BMP (S) 15.3 15% $3,546,360 $$$ $$$$ Low Partial Better No Tier 3
Oliveira Plaza Parking Lot Infiltration
BMP (S) 7.4 27% $2,065,112 $$$ $$$$ Medium Partial Good No Oxnard Airport East Filtration BMP (S) 9.5 25% $2,327,652 $$$ $$$$ Medium Partial Good Yes Oxnard Airport East Infiltration BMP
(S) 9.8 24% $2,290,818 $$$ $$$$ Medium Partial Good Yes

TIERED WATERSHED MITIGATION STRATEGY RESULTS SUMMARY
Table 9: Top-ranked tiered Watershed mitigation strategies from the Project Scoring Matrix Refer to Appendix E – Project Scoring
Matrix Guide for detailed descriptions
of all metrics and attributes considered
in the evaluation process.

Presented here are the 3 highest
ranking Watershed strategies in each
of the 3 tiers. For the complete
catalogue of potential mitigation
strategies, refer to Appendix F –
Project Scoring Matrix.

Watershed Mitigation Strategies:
• Can address multiple pollutants;
• Potentially cost-effective;
• Can be implemented by local
jurisdictions;
• Can be cost-effective.
1Blue cells indicate Watershed Nonstructural strategies, while yellow cells indicate Watershed Structural strategies. 2Lower Geometric Mean Rank values indicate more preferable projects.
733
58 WATERSHED MITIGATION STRATEGY EVALUATION RESULTS
Tiered and ranked Watershed mitigation strategies are organized by using the geometric mean of Pollutant Load Reduction and Cost-Effectiveness metrics within each Tier. A geometric mean is a type of average that indicates the central tendency or typical value of a set of numbers. The Geometric Mean Ranking metric is used to rank the different mitigation strategies in a comparative manner.

Estimated Capital Costs and Lifecycle Costs are used to evaluate relative mitigation strategy costs. Funding source, implementing agency capital and operational capacity, bond, grant, and loan requirements, and overall cost to modeled water quality and/or circulation benefit all factor into mitigation strategy implementation prioritization. Future work to identify appropriate lead agency, funding, long-term operations, and an/or refine capital and longterm O&M investment needs is expected to impact mitigation strategy priority.

Implementation Considerations include consideration of the need for cross-jurisdictional approvals and/or cost sharing, permitting complexity, and underlying parcel ownership factors. Individually or combined, these components can contribute to planning for staff resource, fiscal investment, and/or schedule details. For some projects, planning and acquisition of necessary environmental permits in particular can impact project implementation schedule and feasibility.

Community benefits provide context for mitigation strategy implementation opportunities.

The Project Scoring Matrix does not use community benefits directly to score or prioritize projects but rather compiles this information to allow for future project funding opportunity selection assistance, assessment of multi-benefit capacity, and potential to provide direct benefits to underserved communities.

Functionally, the Project Scoring Matrix ranks mitigation strategies in tiers by key implementation consideration components and then sequentially by prospective water quality and circulation improvement benefits and cost-effectiveness. The functional duality, where potential water quality improvement projects are grouped separately from circulation improvement projects is reflective of the fundamental difference between these two underlying goals. Supporting both inter-related goals supports an integrated solution. As implementation planning proceeds it is anticipated that regulatory agency approval of proposed circulation improvement project(s) will require an integrated pollutant load reduction approach.

Full Project Scoring Matrix results are presented in Appendix F – Project Scoring Matrix, which is a ‘living’ document intended to provide adaptive access to project evaluation information. A snapshot of top-ranked Watershed mitigation strategies at the time of this report is present on
Additive % Load
Reduction
Cost-Effectiveness
Geometric Mean Rank
Capital Cost Category
Lifecycle Cost Category Implementation
Considerations Category
Aesthetic Improvements
Community Benefits Total
DAC Benefits
734
59 This section summarizes the factors used for both
mitigation strategies scoring and ranking as well as
compiled to allow for filtering and tiering of results.

Scoring and ranking criteria generally include metrics
that indicate potential changes in water quality,
circulation, and project cost.

Criteria compiled to support project filtering for
potential funding and multi-benefits include
implementation considerations comprised of land
ownership, potential need for cross-jurisdiction
coordination, and permitting complexity, as well as
community benefit criteria. Implementation
consideration criteria are also used to assign
Watershed mitigation strategies to tiers based on
implementation complexity.

The Study Implementation Plan is expected to utilize a
combination of scoring and ranking as well as filtering criteria to generate an optimized mitigation strategy
implementation approach.

MITIGATION STRATEGY SCORING, FILTERING, AND RANKING
Table 7: Project Scoring Matrix Metrics & Attributes used for ranking, filtering, and tiering mitigation strategy options Metric/Attribute Factored into Project Ranking Supplementary Filter Criteria Tiers Ranking Bifenthrin Load Reduction (lbs/yr) Yes No No
Bifenthrin Watershed Load Reduction (%) Yes No No
Permethrin Load Reduction (lbs/yr) Yes No No
Permethrin Watershed Load Reduction (%) Yes No No
Nitrogen Load Reduction (lbs/yr) Yes No No
Nitrogen Watershed Load Reduction (%) Yes No No
Phosphorus Load Reduction (lbs/yr) Yes No No
Phosphorus Watershed Load Reduction (%) Yes No No
Copper Load Reduction (lbs/yr) Yes No No
Copper Watershed Load Reduction (%) Yes No No
Bacteria Load Reduction (MPN) Yes No No
Bacteria Watershed Load Reduction (%) Yes No No
Additive Percent Load Reduction (Upstream) (%) Yes No No Percent Residence Time (RT) Reduction (RW) (%) Yes No No Cost-Effectiveness Yes No No
Capital Cost Yes No No
Annual O&M Cost Yes No No
30-yr Lifecycle Cost Yes No No
Parcel Ownership No Yes Yes
Crosses Jurisdictional Boundaries No Yes Yes
Permitting No Yes Yes
DAC Benefits No Yes No
Aesthetics Y/N No Yes No
Aesthetic Improvements No Yes No
Average Residence Time (RT) (Days) No Yes No
Trash Reduction Y/N No Yes No
Community Benefits Total No Yes No
735
60 RECEIVING WATER MITIGATION STRATEGY EVALUATION RESULTS Effective circulation within an enclosed harbor is fundamental to sustaining high water quality. In semi-enclosed systems such as the Channel Islands Harbor, limited connectivity to the open ocean constrains flushing processes, making circulation critical for support of ambient water quality and beneficial uses.

A fundamental Study goal is the identification of mitigation strategies that improve circulation within the Harbor. Key attributes of Harbor configuration, surrounding land use, and available options for potential circulation improvements were evaluated. Detailed modeling was performed to assess select Receiving Water mitigation strategies’ potential for water residence time improvements.

Modeling results indicate certain mitigation strategies provide potential improvements in water circulation measured by water parcel residence time. Highest ranking Receiving Water mitigation strategies require Harbor configuration and/or infrastructure subject to regulatory agency approvals for effective implementation. A key consideration moving forward is planning, permitting, and design coordination needs for coastal infrastructure projects. Land ownership, adjacent use, public beach access, and other factors may influence the cost and feasibility of potential circulation improvement strategies.

Diverse technical and regulatory compliance needs are associated with engineered water circulation improvement mitigation strategies. To address these needs, a coordinated approach to convene interested parties including municipal and regulatory agencies, Harbor residents and organizational bodies, potential funding agencies, and watershed community representatives is recommended.

Prioritization results for circulation improvement mitigation strategies are presented in Table

8. Prioritization ranking is based on the Geometric Mean metric (Appendix E – Project Scoring Matrix Guide) which accounts for both the circulation benefits and costeffectiveness of a given mitigation strategy.

Figure 23: Modeled residence time improvements from Canal Decommissioning strategy 736
61 Project Name Geometric Mean
Rank
Percent RT Reduction
(%)
Cost-Effectiveness
($/% Reduction)
Capital Cost
Category
Lifecycle Cost
Category
Implementation
Considerations
Category
Aesthetic
Improvements
Community
Benefits
Total
DAC
Benefits
Storage Tank Water Release between
Canal/Harbor (RW) 1.7 45% $671,170 $$ $$$ High Partial Limited No Open Passive Edison Canal Connection
to Ocean (RW) 2.0 73% $2,571,000 $$$$ $$$$ High Yes Good Partial Edison Canal Pump Resumption- 67
MGD (RW) 2.4 46% $2,328,924 $$$$ $$$$ High Partial Limited No Passive Circulation Enhancements
(RW) 2.8 45% $1,127,925 $$$ $$$$ High Partial Good No
Decommission Canal/Convert to
Engineered Wetlands & Potential
Water Storage (RW)

5.5 40% $8,209,095 $$$$ $$$$ High Partial Good Partial
Edison Canal Pump Resumption- 4.3
MGD (RW) 5.9 14% $6,278,393 $$$$ $$$$ High No Limited No Decommission Canal/Storage Tank
(RW) 6.5 39% $9,164,061 $$$$ $$$$ High No Best Partial

RECEIVING WATER MITIGATION STRATEGY RANKING
Table 8: Ranked Receiving Water mitigation strategies from the Project Scoring Matix Refer to Appendix E – Project Scoring
Matrix Guide for detailed descriptions
of all metrics and attributes considered
in the evaluation process.

Presented here are ranked Receiving
Water mitigation strategies. For the
complete catalogue of potential
mitigation strategies, refer to Appendix
F – Project Scoring Matrix.

Receiving Water Mitigation Strategies:
• Can improve water circulation;
• Require extensive planning design
efforts;
• Potentially challenging permitting
framework;
• Potential for substantial capital and
O&M costs.
737
62 Open Passive Edison Canal Connection to Ocean

TOP RECEIVING WATER CONSIDERATION

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Construction of a second, potentially navigable Harbor entrance could serve to enhance natural tidal circulation of water in and around the Harbor. The location of this second canal connection would likely be at the power plant/pump station and would be beneficial for improving water quality through enhanced circulation and reduced
stagnation/residence times. The passive nature of this strategy provides benefits in the form of long-term energy conservation, with the bulk of infrastructural/technological investment being limited to the initial implementation of the project itself and the water flow being primarily managed by natural processes. Key components include jettied or rip rap side banks to stabilize the inlet opening. Enhanced strategies focus on planning and design of the passive canal connection in addition to improved engineering design of the canal’s structural components.

MODELED BENEFITS
Harbor Resistance Time (RT) Results
(Days):

Max: 15.15
Average: 5.91

TIMELINE
Long-term design/construction.

Permitting 3-10 years; Construction 2-5
years.

Project Cost Estimate
Capital Cost ($) $82,030,000
Annual O&M Costs ($) $789,514

KEY CONSIDERATIONS
• High permitting effort - grading, land-use, coastal
development, and NPDES CG permits required.
• Private land requires cross-jurisdictional coordination. • New jetty structures may require detailed planning
and permitting studies.
• O&M considers estimated mitigation and monitoring Figure 24: Modeled residence time improvements from Passive Edison Canal Connection strategy
738
63 TOP RECEIVING WATER CONSIDERATION

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project to rehabilitate and resume pumping at the northern end of the Edison Canal. The existing pump house infrastructure would have to be refurbished, and the pumps would be replaced. Water would be extracted from the canal adjacent to the pump house and discharged to the ocean side in a similar fashion to what had occurred while the power station was operational. The activation of the pumps serves to draw fresher harbor water further up the canal potentially providing better water quality to the northern reaches of the system.

MODELED BENEFITS
Harbor Resistance Time (RT) Results
(Days):

Max: 42.93
Average: 18.87

KEY CONSIDERATIONS
• Medium permitting effort – Coordination with
County departments/agencies recommended;
potential need for encroachment permit.
• Likely need for fish entrainment mitigation.
• Potential need for detailed/long-term special
studies to support permitting efforts.

Edison Canal Pump Resumption (4.3 MGD)
Project Cost Estimate1
Capital Cost ($) $29,520,000
Annual O&M Costs ($) $915,253

TIMELINE
Long-term design/construction.

Permitting 3-10 years; Construction
2-5 years.

Figure 25: Modeled residence time improvements from Edison Canal Pump Resumption strategy
1Cost estimates for the 4.3 MGD Pump Resumption strategy are discounted from the 67 MGD Pump Resumption strategy cost estimates based on anticipated operational cost savings. 739
64 NEXT STEPS
This section describes his section describes
next steps including development of a
phased implementation plan, monitoring
program, and adaptive management
process.
740
65 PHASED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
An implementation plan provides a structured, phased approach to advance Watershed Nonstructural/Structural strategies and Receiving Water strategies from concept to completion. An implementation plan can emphasize early engagement with interested parties, data-driven planning, and adaptive management to ensure that resources are invested effectively, and outcomes are measurable. Progression through defined phases utilizing adaptive management supports informed decision-making, maximizes pollutant load reduction benefits, and ensures long-term operational sustainability.

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Planning and
Initiation
Refinement
and Advanced
Planning
Implementation
and Monitoring
Phase 1: Establishes implementation of appropriate coordination protocols, data collection, and planning. Initial mitigation strategies include interested party engagement, hotspot assessment, and operations enhancement pilot projects including street sweeping and encampment abatement. Enhanced evaluation and planning for priority potential Watershed Structural projects and funding exploration also performed. Feasibility assessment and regulatory agency consultation initiated for Receiving Water strategies. Initiate monitoring and adaptive management.

Phase 2: Refine, advance, and fund strategies for implementation.

Leverage pilot and monitoring information to optimize operations, planning and implementation. Anticipate Watershed Structural strategies move into preliminary design with studies, reviews, and funding pursuits. Refinement of Receiving Water strategies with potential for design, permitting, and funding development.

Phase 3: Leverage adaptive management of Phases 1 and 2 outcomes. Implement remaining priority projects.

Develop mitigation
strategies with
scoring and ranking
Establish phased
implementation
approach with
adaptive
management-based
and effectiveness
monitoring
components
Initiate Phase 1
Projects
Initiate effective
monitoring
Utilize adaptive
management to
coordinate advance
planning and agency
consultations
- Initial projects leverage
ongoing municipal
operations and/or
require limited
additional funding
- Initiate planning for
appropriate structural
projects
- Initiate planning and
consultation for
receiving water
circulation
improvements Adaptive Management
741
66 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
The adaptive management strategy focuses on monitoring and management and implementation refinement for the phased, data-driven program of Watershed and Receiving Water mitigation strategies. It is designed to ensure measurable progress toward reducing key pollutant loads and improving water circulation in the Harbor while maintaining flexibility in response to changing conditions. The strategy integrates project implementation with a concurrent water quality and mitigation strategy effectiveness monitoring programs, allowing for data-driven adjustments that optimize both environmental outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Data and outcomes from the postimplementation monitoring program will be leveraged to inform ongoing adaptive management processes.

The adaptive management strategy emphasizes flexibility and responsiveness by aligning funding, regulatory processes, and interested party collaboration. It leverages federal, state, and local funding as opportunities arise, maximizing opportunity to maintain a pipeline of projects to adapt to condition changes and grant cycles. Proactive coordination with permitting and funding agencies ensures projects align with regulatory requirements and funding trends. Engagement with municipalities, regulatory agencies, community groups, and Harbor interested parties is part of the adaptive management process and aligns priorities, supports program development, and enables adaptive adjustments to maximizing project benefits.

By combining adaptive implementation with ongoing effectiveness monitoring, the overall adaptive management strategy creates a dynamic framework that can integrate realworld performance, funding opportunities, and regulatory standards. This ensures future project investments achieve pollutant reductions, protect water quality in the Harbor, and do so in a cost-effective and collaborative manner.

KEY ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

ELEMENTS
Monitoring and Feedback Phased Implementation Targeted Strategy Enhancement
Coordinated
effectiveness monitoring
to evaluate water quality
conditions and
performance of
individual and combined
strategies. Data used to
adjust operational
strategies, prioritize
locations and verity
progress of targets.

Phased implementation
of cost-effective
programs to reduce
pollutant sources with
concurrent planning,
design, and funding
development for
structural and
circulation
improvement
mitigation strategies.

Leverage a process to
implement programs
and assesses
outcomes. Enhance
effective strategies and
inform development of
additional and/or
innovative additional
strategies to meet
improvement goals.
742
67 This section describes potential Phase 1 implementation activities. The final deliverable for this Study is a detailed implementation plan. Additional City, agency, and
interested party discussions are anticipated to assist in shaping the final Phase 1 activities.
initial activities are anticipated to include optimized street sweeping in targeted corridors, coordinated cleanups
around homeless encampments, and outreach campaigns
tailored to the agricultural community. Planning for highpriority Watershed Structural project(s) with high pollutant reduction potential and public visibility is also anticipated to initiate. Effort to support Receiving Water strategies is anticipated to include preliminary concept design
development in order to inform and support early
regulatory agency consultation. May include detailed
feasibility assessment, cost estimate refinement, potential funding source evaluation, and environmental permitting requirement delineation.

PHASE 1 OF IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
1See Appendix D – Project Fact Sheets for more details on all Projects.

Potential Phase 1 Activities

RECEIVING WATER

WATERSHED

STRUCTURAL

WATERSHED

NONSTRUCTURAL
• Engage interested parties (municipal, regulatory,
community, AG) to gather baseline data on pollutant
sources and hotspots.
• Pilot targeted measures like optimized street sweeping, encampment coordination, and AG-focused outreach.
• Begin cost estimation and pursue initial funding
opportunities.

Project1: Target Nutrient/Pesticide Source
Control- Outreach and Training
• Low effort permitting and near-term design
timeline.
• Capital Cost: $30,000
Project: Campus Park Filtration BMP
• Low implementation, partial aesthetic
contribution, and notable community
benefits.
• Capital Cost: $22,790,000
Project: Open Passive Canal Connection to Ocean
• High pollutant load reduction, improved
overall circulation and aesthetics, notable
community benefits, DAC benefits,
contributes to both Rec-1 and Rec-2
standards.
• Capital Cost: $82,030,000
• Identify and scope a high-priority, high-load reduction site with public visibility.
• Conduct site screening, baseline data collection, and early conceptual planning.
• Develop preliminary cost estimates and pursue funding while coordinating with agencies and property owners.
• Coordinate with planners and interested parties to
assess mobility needs and constraints.
• Collect baseline data on circulation, water quality, and environmental factors.
• Develop conceptual alternatives, initial cost estimates, and identify funding and permitting pathways.
• Coordinate with regulatory agencies.
743
68 PHASES 2 & 3 OF IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

RECEIVING
WATER

WATERSHED

STRUCTURAL

WATERSHED

NONSTRUCTURAL
Phase 2
Refinement Advanced Planning
• Use adaptive management to evaluate Phase 1 results and refine sweeping, encampment coordination, and outreach strategies. • Standardize operational protocols and expand performance tracking systems.
• Identify funding and resources to support scaled implementation. ---
• Advance selected strategies to preliminary design, incorporating feasibility studies and pollutant reduction modeling.
• Refine cost estimates and pursue funding commitments for design and construction.
• Initiate planning for additional sites identified during Phase 1 if viable.
---
• Refine design concepts based on interested party input and feasibility constraints.
• Begin environmental documentation, permitting steps, and detailed cost estimates.
• Pursue targeted funding to position the project for construction readiness.

Phase 3
Implementation Monitoring
• Deploy optimized programs at full scale with established O&M schedules.
• Train staff and conduct ongoing performance monitoring. • Use results to guide future adaptive improvements.
---
• Complete final design, permitting, and construction if feasible.
• Incorporate educational signage and public-facing
elements.
• Implement post-construction monitoring to assess
effectiveness.
---
• Finalize design, secure permits, and construct if supported. • Monitor performance post-construction.
• Integrate lessons learned into future planning efforts.

Future phases will build on Phase 1 monitoring and
adaptive management outcomes to guide strategies.

Anticipated efforts include scaling pilot projects to
program-level implementation, improving coordination
to enhance efficiency and compliance, and integrating
standardized performance-tracking systems. Future
phases are also expected to streamline review and
approval processes to move designs efficiently from
concept to preliminary and final stages.

Phase 2 will focus on refining and expanding efforts.

Watershed Nonstructural strategies will shift from
pilot-scale to optimized, data-driven operations,
including adjustments to sweeping routes, improved
encampment coordination, updated outreach, and
standardized protocols supported by performance
tracking. Watershed Structural strategies will move
from conceptual to preliminary design through
feasibility studies, environmental reviews, cost
estimates, and funding pursuit, while exploring
additional sites. Receiving Water strategies will
similarly advance to refined preliminary design with
layouts, drainage considerations, permitting, cost
estimating, and stakeholder input.

Phase 3 will finalize design, permitting, and funding,
then construct, operate, and monitor Watershed
Nonstructural, Watershed Structural, and Receiving
Water projects if applicable depending on the
outcomes of previous stages.
744
69 IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH
Mitigation strategy evaluation results will be used to the development of an integrated strategy approach where selected complementary mitigation strategies that can be implemented in combination with one another in pursuit of specific priorities or funding sources. For example, one integrated suite may include a selection of strategies that provide the highest anticipated effectiveness specific to improving water quality in the Harbor and Canal. Depending on multivariate parameters, this approach could rely on watershed pollutant load reduction or in-Harbor circulation improvements. Strategy integration shall be developed in pursuit of the following priorities:
• Municipal implementation and logistical feasibility
• Overall pollutant load reductions
• Circulation improvements aimed to achieve REC-1 and/or REC-2 beneficial use standards Using this plan with included key resources as the base of choosing a strategy or strategies to implement through a phased approach and adaptive management elements is anticipated to support cost-effective long-term implementation and management.

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Planning and Initiation Refinement and
Advanced Planning
Implementation and
Monitoring
Adaptive Management
Key Resources:
• Past and current monitoring data evaluations, Appendix A – Goals and Objectives Memorandum
• Appendix D – Project Fact Sheets
• Appendix F – Project Scoring Matrix
• Interested Parties input through meetings and outreach opportunities • Coordination with Community Organization for optimal engagement and goal prioritization
745
70 POST-IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING
Objectives of the monitoring program include the following:
• Enable trend analysis of water quality conditions within the watershed and Harbor for various parameters (i.e. DO, temperature, salinity, pollutant concentrations, etc.); • Evaluate mitigation strategy effectiveness in reducing pollutant loads and improving water circulation;
• Demonstrate compliance with relevant WQOs and other regulatory considerations, especially in the context of preserving relevant beneficial uses (e.g. REC-1, REC-2); • Document additional co-benefits attributable to both the surrounding community and environment.

Development of the water quality portion of the monitoring program initiated with review of the network of previously monitored sites and stations distributed throughout the Harbor and beach areas, Edison Canal, and their surrounding drainage areas (Figure 12). Sites, monitored constituents, and sample frequency were evaluated for both pre- and post-2018 periods. Sample locations with greater than ~20 total sample events were considered as potential long-term water quality monitoring program candidates.

Prior to pump decommissioning, relatively few monitoring locations were frequently sampled (Figure 26). Watershed (discharge) sites include sample collection conducted by Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program (VCSQMP) and Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group (VCAILG). Following 2018, repeated monitoring was conducted at sites in the Harbor, Edison Canal, and beach sites at select locations for which pre-shutdown monitoring was conducted. In-Harbor and Canal monitoring includes data collected for a wide variety of constituents and compiled in datasets sourced from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network (CEDEN), the City of Oxnard (City), the County, and the MAC, as well as additional data from independent laboratory analyses and compiled through development of the Ventura Countywide Watershed Management Program. This data ranges from 2018 up through 2024. Consistent with pre-shutdown monitoring efforts, post-shutdown beach site monitoring is limited to fecal indicator bacteria data collected by the County of Ventura and ranges from 2018 – 2022. Post-shutdown monitoring site locations are depicted in Figure 27.

Figure 26: Pre-2018 monitoring site locations
with > 20 samples
Figure 27: Post-2018 monitoring site locations
with > 20 samples
Track Long-Term Trends
Assess Discharge
Characteristics
Guide Adaptive
Management
A comprehensive water quality and programmatic
monitoring program can be established to evaluate the
effectiveness of proposed mitigation strategies. Carefully designed monitoring can provide consistent, scientificallydefensible data that can be used to:
(1) track long-term trends in harbor conditions and
changes directly attributable to implemented projects;
(2) assess characteristics of discharges to Channel Islands Harbor; and
(3) guide adaptive management strategies for future
investments.
746
71 POST-IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING
Figure 28: Monitoring site locations recommended for inclusion in the post-implementation monitoring program
At a high level, our recommended framework includes quarterly water quality sampling across all selected Harbor and Canal monitoring sites. While sampling at a monthly frequency would be the optimal, more robust approach, quarterly sampling is being recommended as a baseline in accordance with cost-effectiveness preferences. Should sufficient funding be available, monthly sampling may be commenced as part of the adaptive management process. For certain mitigation strategies, additional special studies or monitoring locations may also be integrated. These sampling efforts will be supplemented by the compilation and continued integration of data collected at beach, discharge, and ocean sites by the VCSQMP, VCAILG, and MAC, as well as the City and County.

For any structural Watershed mitigation strategies, site-specific monitoring plans may be developed to assess the effectiveness of pollutant load reductions and inform decisionmaking related to the need for Watershed Structuralstrategy maintenance/improvements and/or the implementation of additional Watershed Structural strategies.

For any Watershed Nonstructural mitigation strategies, we recommend an integrated effectiveness monitoring program be developed to estimate pollutant load reductions of nonstructural programs. Reduction estimates will be based on various qualitative and quantitative parameters such as visual trash/debris removal, education and outreach impressions, miles of streets swept, and/or other measures of potential pollutant load reductions from Watershed Nonstructural strategy implementation. These parameters will be assessed through methods such as survey conduction and hotspot sampling in addition to water quality sampling.

Programmatic monitoring of the cost-effectiveness of implemented Watershed Nonstructural strategies will also be conducted in addition to estimations of pollutant load reductions. Measures of direct efforts (i.e. Staff hours, miles swept, assets cleaned) will be combined with costs of labor, equipment, disposals, outreach efforts, etc., yielding key cost-effectiveness ratios such as cost per curb-mile swept, cost per kg solids removed, and cost per participant impression.

Both pollutant load reduction and cost-effectiveness estimates will be used to adaptively manage Watershed Nonstructural strategies. Should key pollutant thresholds fail to be met within specified timelines, strategies can be adapted to increase effectiveness/efficiency. Should cost-effectiveness preferences be left unsatisfied, adaptive management may include adapting strategies to increase costeffectiveness or shifting resources to other, more cost-effective mitigation strategies.

Continued sampling at specified
monitoring locations will be used to
evaluate the effectiveness of
adaptive management processes in
achieving monitoring program
objectives. Monitoring site locations
recommended for inclusion in the
post-implementation monitoring
program include three distinct
locations in the Canal as well as nine
in the Harbor, with in-Harbor sites
being comprised of one discrete
location from each of the nine
Harbor zones. These sites are
depicted in Figure 28.

Recommended monitoring site
locations may be subject to change
as the Implementation Plan is
finalized.
747
72 POST-IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING
Sampled parameters at monitoring site locations will include basic field measurements including temperature, salinity, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen, as well as laboratory analyses of select contaminants of concern (Table 9). Sampled parameters may be subject to change as the Implementation Plan is finalized. These observations will be synthesized with historical data to establish baseline reference conditions.

Analyte Category WQO Units
Enterococcus Bacteria 110 CFU/100 mL
Dissolved Oxygen Eutrophic Conditions 5 mg/L
Copper Metals 230 ug/L
Nitrogen Nutrients 10 mg/L
Phosphorus Nutrients 1 mg/L
Bifenthrin Pesticides 0.00397 ug/L
Permethrin Pesticides 0.001 ug/L
Table 9: Constituents to be included within monitoring program sampling Ultimately, the monitoring program is not only intended to document water quality conditions, but also to serve as a feedback mechanism for the broader Harbor water quality improvement efforts. Findings from the monitoring program will be used to inform ongoing adaptive management of implemented projects as well as the potential need for the implementation of additional mitigation strategies.

Adaptive management decision-making processes will be centered on implemented mitigation strategies’ effectiveness in reducing pollutant loads as well as their evaluated costeffectiveness. By measuring the characteristics and outcomes of implemented projects, managers and interested parties will be able to determine which strategies are most effective, adaptively manage resources, and continue to improve the ecological health and resilience of the Harbor. Post-implementation monitoring will be further detailed in the future Implementation Plan and is dependent on the availability of sufficient dedicated funding.

Sampling will be conducted on a monthly to quarterly basis for dry weather. Wet weather sampling will target the first storm plus an additional 2-3 storm events in a wet season. This approach is intended to capture both seasonal variability and event-based changes, such as those occurring after major storm events. Collected data will be compiled into a centralized database and evaluated using a combination of statistical trend analyses, spatial comparisons, and project-specific performance metrics. Results will be summarized in annual data summaries and mitigation strategy effectiveness reports that highlight key findings, track progress toward regulatory objectives, and identify areas requiring additional management intervention, thus facilitating coordination with relevant interested parties to ensure effective communication and account for shifting priorities. Where appropriate, data will be made publicly accessible to ensure transparency and foster community engagement in harbor stewardship.

Program
Design & Data
Compilation Water Quality
Sampling
Cost-Effectiveness
Assessment
Evaluation of
Implemented
Strategies
Adaptive
Management
748
73 CONCLUSION
The Mitigation Strategies Analysis Report is intended to present the framework of the Channel Islands Harbor Water Quality Feasibility Study. Detailed analyses performed to this point provides a pathway for implementation for an inventory of potential appropriate mitigation strategies based on current conditions, data assessment, and interested party coordination efforts. An iterative, phased collaborative implementation approach will be key in developing appropriate, cost-effective solutions to ensure strategic process towards Harbor water quality and circulation improvements.

Improve
Harbor Water
Quality &
Circulation
Identify
constituents of
concern and root
causes of water
quality and
circulation issues
Develop Project
Scoring Matrix to
evaluate potential
mitigation
strategies
Ongoing
collaboration and
adaptive
management to
ensure long-term
effectiveness
Initial evaluation
and interested
party
coordination to
establish goals &
objectives
749
74 Tables
Table 1: Land uses in the Channel Islands Harbor watershed Table 2: Inventoried key features of the Oxnard storm drain system Table 3: Datasets and sources in Data Review
Table 4: Water Quality Objectives for key constituents
Table 5: Potential mitigation strategies organized by category Table 6: Potential grant opportunities paired with potentially relevant projects in Appendix D – Project Fact Sheets.

Table 7: Project Scoring Matrix Metrics & Attributes: Inventoried key features of the Oxnard storm drain systems used for ranking, filtering, and tiering mitigation strategy options Table 8: Ranked Receiving Water mitigation strategies from the Project Scoring Matix Table 9: Constituents to be included within monitoring program sampling

FIGURES & TABLES
Figures
Figure 1: Aerial view of MGS and Edison Canal
Figure 2: Recreators kayaking in the Harbor
Figure 3: 1949 USGS topographic map depicting the original man-made Canal Figure 4: Channel Islands Harbor Area 1) 1953 2) 1977 3) 2025 Figure 5: The former Mandalay Generating Station’s Once-Through-Cooling system previously pumped ~1.5 billion gallons/month out of the Edison Canal.

Figure 6: Average monthly precipitation in Oxnard, CA
Figure 7: Watershed area of the Channel Islands Harbor
Figure 8: Applicable land uses in the Channel Islands Harbor watershed Figure 9: Key features of the Oxnard storm drain system; additional County of Ventura storm drain infrastructure not pictured.

Figure 10: Modeled water residence times in CIH
Figure 11: Mandalay Bay residential land use and boat slips at Seabridge Marina Site (left) and West 5th Street Drain discharge point Edison Canal Site (right)
Figure 12: Compiled monitoring locations (July 2003 to May 2024; various sources) Figure 13: Count of observations and frequency of exceedances of WQOs by site, before and after decommissioning of the MGS OTC pumps.

Figure 14: Count of dissolved oxygen observations and frequency of depressed values (below 5 mg/L) by season
Figure 15: Dissolved oxygen percent below WQO in Edison Canal and Harbor during dry days Figure 16: Pollutant runoff sources observed during the Site Visit, Drainage Structure at W 5th St. Site (top) and Edison Canal at Wooley Site (bottom)
Figure 17: Harbor residential boat slips and visible water pollution observed in Mandalay Bay West Site during Field Visit
Figure 18: Representation of EFDC and WASP model domain Figure 19: Stagnant water at Hemlock Road Debris Boom Site Figure 20: Seabridge Viewpoint Site
Figure 21: Aerial view of the Harbor
Figure 22: Field Visit picture at Centerpoint Energy Site Figure 23: Modeled residence time improvements from Canal Decommissioning strategy Figure 24: Modeled residence time improvements from Passive Edison Canal Connection strategy Figure 25: Modeled residence time improvements from Edison Canal Pump Resumption strategy Figure 26: Pre-2018 monitoring site locations with > 20 samples Figure 27: Post-2018 monitoring site locations with > 20 samples Figure 28: Monitoring site locations recommended for inclusion in the post-implementation monitoring program
750
San Diego | Los Angeles
805.729.0943
craftwaterinc.com
MEMO
TO: Anthony Miller, City of Oxnard
FROM: Craftwater
SUBJECT: Goals & Objectives Memorandum
Channel Island Harbor Water Quality Feasibility Study & Implementation Plan Channel Islands Harbor (Harbor) is a constructed harbor area located in western Ventura County and in the City of Oxnard (City). The Harbor serves as the port for over 4,000 recreational, commercial, and industrial vessels and the adjacent area includes residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. For over 60 years, the Mandalay Generating Station (MGS) used a Once-Through Cooling (OTC) pump system to cool power generation equipment.

In 2018, the OTC pumps were decommissioned, resulting in a decrease in water circulation with subsequent observations by interested parties that indicate degradation of water quality. The Channel Islands Harbor Water Quality Feasibility Study (Study, CIHWQFS) and Implementation Plan effort will identify, evaluate feasibility, and document the potential costs and benefits of proposed mitigation strategies to address Harbor water qualityrelated challenges.

The ultimate goals of the Study are to develop a suite of mitigation strategies that will provide solutions to the water quality challenges facing the Harbor, and to outline a plan to implement those strategies. The strategies will span a range of options from pollutant source control and treatment options for the watershed areas draining into the Harbor to methods of enhancing water circulation and oxygenation within the Harbor. These strategies will aim to meet the goals in a phased approach, where the implementation plan will outline how solutions can be realistically applied in the near-, medium-, and long-term. This plan will be essential to provide a clear pathway forward and communicate the vision, strategies, and the cost-benefit analysis of these solutions to a wide array of stakeholders, ensuring that the project is transparent and accessible to all interested parties.

At this stage of the Study there is a need to establish a framework that will allow for the evaluation of various mitigation strategies in the context of the project’s overall goals. This memo aims to support a collaborative process where project stakeholders can review and help refine the metrics for evaluating mitigation strategies.

Presented herein is the process and information used to establish the Study goals and objectives, as well as the summary of evaluation metrics to be used for assessing proposed mitigation strategies to meet those goals and objectives (which will be detailed in a future report). 751
Goals & Objectives 2

1.0 PROCESS TO ESTABLISH GOALS & OBJECTIVES
This section discusses the methods and processes used to establish the overall goals and objectives of the Study.

Methods and processes include background research, data analysis, and coordination with interested parties. In order to provide context to the water quality challenges facing the Harbor and its contributing watershed, a literature review was conducted focusing on professional reports and scholarly articles, a field visit to the Harbor and surrounding area was performed, and data from various sources including the Channel Islands Harbor Water Quality Program, Ocean Monitoring Program, Ventura County Stormwater Quality Monitoring Program, and Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group Monitoring Program were reviewed and analyzed.

1.1 Literature Review
The literature review generally focused on watershed pollutant loading inputs and processes within harbors, bays, and/or estuaries that can potentially lead to water quality conditions like hypoxia, eutrophication, pesticide/bacterial impairment, and circulation issues in coastal environments. Compiled reports and articles were reviewed for key information relevant to the water quality and circulation concerns facing the Harbor. Insights from the literature review are summarized below in Section 2.1. The complete literature review with full references cited is included with this memo as Appendix A – CIHWQFS Literature Review.

1.2 Field Visit
A field visit was conducted with City and consultant representatives on July 8, 2024. The team discussed conditions in the four main harbor communities: Seabridge, Westport, Mandalay Bay, and Harbor Island. This included 11 locations within and around the Harbor, where water quality and stakeholder concerns facing the Harbor and its contributing watershed area were discussed. Photographs and details from the field visit are included in the field notes that were previously distributed among the team and isincluded with this memo as Appendix B – Field Visit Notes.

1.3 Data Review
The data review helped to identify areas within Channel Islands Harbor, Edison Canal, and Discharges from the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) system and agricultural lands that have had notably impaired water quality. Existing data was analyzed to narrow in on constituents of concern that have not been meeting established water quality objectives (WQOs) for the Harbor and associated water bodies. Measurements of pesticides, nutrients, metals, bacteria, and other standard water quality parameters were available from the City of Oxnard, County of Ventura, Marine Advisory Committee (MAC), California Environmental Data Exchange Network (CEDEN), and previous work covering the study area from development of the Watershed Management Programs (WMP).

A master observations database used for the data analysis was constructed from nearly 250,000 observations collected between July 2003 to May 2024. The 54 monitoring locations in the database represent Kiddie and Hobie Beach (Beach), discharges from the MS4 system and agricultural lands (Discharges), Edison Canal (Edison Canal), Channel Islands Harbor (Harbor), and the Pacific Ocean (Ocean), and are pictured in Figure 1-1. Data collection methods included grab samples, composite samples using autosamplers, and dissolved oxygen and chlorophyll-a measurementsin the Harbor from continuously monitoring sensors. The sources of data available are summarized in Table 1-1. The data were cleaned and harmonized to create a master observations database to be used in the data analysis, with findings presented in Section 3.0.
752
Goals & Objectives 3

Figure 1-1. Compiled Monitoring Locations (July 2003 to May 2024; various sources).

Table 1-1. Datasets and Sources in Data Review.

Dataset Source Period of Data Available
Channel Islands Harbor: Nutrient Sources and Sinks
Study City of Oxnard 2018
Data for Toxicity Report for Ventura County
Watershed Protection District County of Ventura 2021-2023 MO-OXN Dataset of Chemical, Metal, and Bacteria
Conditions from County of Ventura County of Ventura 2021 Channel Islands Harbor Water Quality Data
Memorandum by Anchor QEA MAC 2018
Study 319 Report: Monitoring of Dissolved Copper in
California Coastal Waterbodies MAC 2022
753
Goals & Objectives 4

Dataset Source Period of Data Available
Continuous Sensor Data at Seabridge and Westport MAC 2018 - 2024 Channel Island Harbor Water Quality Program
WMP Development - City of
Oxnard 2018 - 2024
Ventura County Agricultural Irrigated Lands Group
(VCAILG) Monitoring Program
WMP Development - Ventura
County Watershed Protection
District 2011 - 2021
Ventura County Stormwater Quality Monitoring
Program
WMP Development - Ventura
County Watershed Protection
District 2010 - 2020
Ventura County Watershed Protection District
Ocean Monitoring Program
WMP Development - Ventura
County Watershed Protection
District 2009 - 2023
Additional Physical, Chemical, and Biological
Measurements CEDEN 2003 - 2023
The Los Angeles Region (Region 4) Basin Plan, which includes waterbodies in Ventura County, was referenced to determine the beneficial uses applicable to Channel Islands Harbor and Edison Canal. The Regional Water Board applies beneficial use designations to waterbodies to document the ecosystem services and resources that are inherent to a water body, which provide objectives for the level of water quality protective of those uses. With each of these beneficial uses comes a set of WQOs that state a limit to physical, chemical, and/or biological constituents to be protective of said beneficial use. Beneficial uses for both the Harbor and Edison Canal are as follows:
• Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)
• Industrial Service Supply (IND)
• Marine Habitat (MAR)
• Navigation (NAV)
• Water Contact Recreation (REC-1)*
• Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC-2)*
• Wildlife Habitat (WILD)
*Water Contact Recreation (also known as REC-1) encompasses activities “involving body contact with water, where ingestion of water is reasonably possible” such as swimming and wading (California Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2014). Non-Contact Recreation (also known as REC-2) encompasses activities that take place in water but do not necessarily involve direct contact with water. The REC-1 designation for these waterbodies in the Basin Plan are limited to small portions. Lack of public access precludes recreational activities in Edison Canal, and water contact recreational activities are limited in Channel Islands Harbor to the easements of homes in the Mandalay Bay community and the waters at Kiddie and Hobie Beaches. For the data analysis, WQOs associated with both Water Contact Recreation and Non-Contact Water Recreation were evaluated across locations.

In addition to the Basin Plan, WQOs were sourced based on references used for 303(d) listing decisions. The Clean Water Act 303(d) list identifies impairments to water bodies, which are intended to enforce the creation of Total 754
Goals & Objectives 5

Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for constituents found to be negatively impacting water quality. Listing decisions for different constituents included references to the California Toxics Rule, which was established by the EPA to set numeric limits on harmful substances in waters in California to protect the health of humans and the environment, including aquatic life. In addition, certain 303(d) listing decisions for pesticides were based on objectives established in a hazard assessment by California Department of Fish and Game for synthetic pyrethroid insecticides from 2000. Constituents with WQOs in the Harbor are listed in Table 1-2 along with the source of their respective WQO values.

Table 1-2. Water Quality Objectives (WQOs) for constituents of concern in Channel Islands Harbor.

Analyte Category WQO Units Source
E. Coli Bacteria 320 CFU/100 ml Basin Plan
Enterococcus (Discrete) Bacteria 110 CFU/100 ml Basin Plan Enterococcus (Geometric Mean) Bacteria 35 CFU/100 ml Basin Plan Fecal Coliform (Discrete) Bacteria 400 CFU/100 ml Basin Plan Fecal Coliform (Geometric Mean) Bacteria 2,000 CFU/100 ml Basin Plan Total Coliform Bacteria 10,000 CFU/100 ml Basin Plan
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) Eutrophic Conditions 48 mg/L Basin Plan Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Eutrophic Conditions 360 mg/L Basin Plan Chlorophyll-a Eutrophic Conditions 20 ug/L
EPA Guidance and Carlson
Trophic Status Index
Dissolved Oxygen Eutrophic Conditions 5 mg/L Basin Plan Oxygen Saturation Eutrophic Conditions 80 % Basin Plan
Antimony Metals 0.006 mg/L Basin Plan
Arsenic Metals 0.01 mg/L Basin Plan
Cadmium Metals
hardnessdependent ug/L California Toxics Rule
Chromium Metals
hardnessdependent ug/L California Toxics Rule
Copper Metals
hardnessdependent ug/L California Toxics Rule
Lead Metals
hardnessdependent ug/L California Toxics Rule
Mercury Metals 0.002 mg/L Basin Plan
Nickel Metals
hardnessdependent ug/L California Toxics Rule
Selenium Metals 0.05 mg/L Basin Plan
Silver Metals
hardnessdependent ug/L California Toxics Rule
755
Goals & Objectives 6

Analyte Category WQO Units Source
Zinc Metals
hardnessdependent ug/L California Toxics Rule
Ammonia (various species) Nutrients pH dependent mg/L Basin Plan Nitrate as N Nutrients 10 mg/L Basin Plan
Nitrate/Nitrite as N Nutrients 10 mg/L Basin Plan
Nitrite as N Nutrients 1 mg/L Basin Plan
Nitrogen Nutrients 10 mg/L Basin Plan
Phosphorus Nutrients 1 mg/L
No applicable WQO; common
practice to evaluate as 10%
of TN WQO
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Nutrients 10 mg/L Basin Plan
Total Nitrogen Nutrients 10 mg/L Basin Plan
pH Other 6.5 ≤ pH ≤ 8.5 pH units Basin Plan
Aldrin Pesticides 0.65 ug/L California Toxics Rule
Aldrin Pesticides 650 ng/L California Toxics Rule
Azinphos methyl Pesticides 0.01 ug/L Basin Plan
(various species) Pesticides 0.00397 ug/L
California Department of Fish
and Game
Chlordane (various species) Pesticides 0.004 ug/L California Toxics Rule Chlorpyrifos Pesticides 0.009 ug/L Basin Plan
Cypermethrin Pesticides 0.016 ug/L Basin Plan
DDT (various species) Pesticides 0.001 ug/L California Toxics Rule Demeton (various species) Pesticides 0.1 ug/L Basin Plan Diazinon Pesticides 0.82 ug/L Basin Plan
Dieldrin Pesticides 0.0019 ug/L California Toxics Rule
Endosulfan Pesticides 0.0087 ug/L California Toxics Rule Endosulfan I Pesticides 0.056 ug/L California Toxics Rule Endosulfan II Pesticides 0.056 ug/L California Toxics Rule Endrin Pesticides 0.0023 mg/L Basin Plan
Endrin Aldehyde Pesticides 0.81 mg/L California Toxics Rule Endrin Ketone Pesticides 0.81 mg/L California Toxics Rule HCH, gamma- Pesticides 0.08 mg/L California Toxics Rule Heptachlor Pesticides 0.00001 mg/L Basin Plan
Heptachlor epoxide Pesticides 0.00001 mg/L Basin Plan
756
Goals & Objectives 7

Analyte Category WQO Units Source
Malathion Pesticides 0.1 ug/L Basin Plan
Methoxychlor Pesticides 0.03 ug/L Basin Plan
Mirex Pesticides 0.001 ug/L Basin Plan
Permethrin (various species) Pesticides 0.001 ug/L
California Department of Fish
and Game
Toxaphene Pesticides 0.003 mg/L Basin Plan
Benz(a)anthracene Toxics/ Organics 0.049 ug/L California Toxics Rule Benzo(a)pyrene Toxics/ Organics 0.0002 mg/L California Toxics Rule Chrysene Toxics/ Organics 0.049 ug/L California Toxics Rule Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Toxics/ Organics 0.049 ug/L California Toxics Rule Pentachlorophenol Toxics/ Organics 7.9 ug/L California Toxics Rule Pyrene Toxics/ Organics 11000 ug/L California Toxics Rule Total PCB Aroclor Toxics/ Organics 0.0005 mg/L Basin Plan E. Coli Bacteria 320 CFU/100 ml Basin Plan
After the WQOs were established, observations from the master observations database were compared against the WQO values. Observations exceeding established WQOs were flagged as exceedances and the magnitude of that exceedances were calculated as the percent above the WQO. Results were summarized across different site types and by various other groupings and are presented in Section 3.0.

1.4 Interested Party Coordination
During development of the Study goals and objectives and continued refinement of mitigation strategy evaluation metrics, regular coordination was held, and will continue to be held, with various interested parties including the MAC, local agricultural community representatives and the Farm Bureau, residents, City operations staff and management, adjacent landowners, regulatory agency staff, and others. Interested party coordination includes monthly update meetings, one-on-one focused discussions, and informal communications. Input from these meetings is regularly incorporated into the Study analyses and outcomes. 757
Goals & Objectives 8

2.0 BACKGROUND RESEARCH
This section provides an executive summary of the background research that was conducted for the Study. Full details of both the Literature Review and the Field Visit can be found in Appendix A – CIHWQFS Literature Review and Appendix B – Field Visit Notes, respectively.

2.1 Literature Review Summary
The following is a summarization of major takeaways from the literature review. The literature review, with all references used to prepare it, can be found in Appendix A – CIHWQFS Literature Review.

2.1.1 Upstream Inputs
Nutrient enrichment in receiving waters, primarily from agricultural and urban runoff, is a leading cause of eutrophication, which results in harmful algal blooms and low dissolved oxygen levels. Southern California’s unique bays, harbors, and estuaries are highly vulnerable to nutrient enrichment due to significant watershed modifications and geomorphological features. Seasonal shifts in nutrient sources—from riverine inputs in the wet season to bottom sediment nutrient recycling in the dry season—play a critical role in nutrient dynamics. Bottom sediments act as reservoirs of nutrients, releasing nitrogen and phosphorus during hypoxic conditions and supporting algal growth during low external loading. The combined effects of nutrient pulses after storm events, prolonged by altered hydrology, contribute to ongoing nutrient loading in these estuaries. Agricultural and urban land use areas are also capable of acting as sources of pesticides and fecal bacteria in stormwater, that can contribute to impairments and exceedances of WQOs in receiving waters.

2.1.2 Harbor Environments & Circulation
The physical dynamics of water circulation like residence time and flushing time are critical in regulating nutrient levels and oxygenation in estuaries and harbors and can play a role in dilution of other constituents. These factors are particularly important in understanding how nutrients and oxygen are distributed, and they help predict when and where hypoxia is likely to occur. In estuarine harbors with restricted tidal flow or poor circulation, nutrients and pesticides tend to accumulate, leading to harmful conditions such as hypoxia, where dissolved oxygen levels drop below critical thresholds, or toxicity to marine life. Hypoxia events are influenced by tidal, daily, lunar, and seasonal cycles. Poorly flushed areas, especially those with man-made structures restricting water flow, are highly susceptible to these events. Poor harbor circulation also contributes to exceedances of safe levels of fecal bacteria in recreational waters, as flushing out of these bacteria may be inhibited.

Physical processes like tidal range, wind, and water depth also regulate hypoxia and algal bloom dynamics.

Systems with better tidal exchange can dilute nutrient concentrations more effectively, reducing the severity of eutrophication. Water bodies with long water residence times and limited flushing see more frequent and intense algal blooms, often driven by nutrient resuspension from sediments and stratification that prevents proper mixing.

2.1.3 Management Implications
Effective management of harbor water quality requires addressing bacterial, pesticide, and nutrient inputs as well as physical water circulation. Strategies like enhancing tidal flushing and monitoring parameters such as dissolved oxygen, bacteria, pesticide, and nutrient levels are critical for adaptive management, especially in water bodies with complex circulation dynamics. An array of structural and nonstructural solutions can be employed to address the variety of concerns facing Channel Islands Harbor, which will be addressed at future stages of the Study. 758
Goals & Objectives 9

2.2 Field Visit Summary
The field visit to Channel Island Harbor provided valuable insights into water quality and land use across various watershed and harbor locations to support the goals of the Study. The following is a summarization of major takeaways from the field visit. Photographs and details from the field visit are included in the field notes that were previously distributed among the team and are attached to this memo as Appendix B – Field Visit Notes.

Visual observations during the field visit varied across the harbor. In many areas, water appeared clear with minimal trash or suspended sediment, and there was evidence of good circulation, particularly in more open sections close to the outlet to the ocean. However, some areas exhibited signs of stagnation, cloudiness, and surface scum, especially in more isolated or confined zones. Trash accumulation was noted in certain locations, especially at the debris boom that separates Edison Canal from the Harbor. It was noted that dead marine animals have also been found at this location, and fish kills have occurred in confined areas.

Land use immediately surrounding the Harbor is diverse, ranging from recreational beaches and parks to residential neighborhoods with individual boat slips to commercial areas with large parking lots and high boat density. Inputs contributing to water quality in this zone may include pet waste, waste from wildlife such as birds and seals, and urban runoff. The areas draining to Edison Canal are predominantly agricultural lands, which showed signs of irrigation drainage contributing dry-weather flow to the canal. Water in the canal was noted to be rather stagnant and contained varied amounts of trash.

Overall, the harbor displayed a range of water quality conditions, with some areas performing well in terms of clarity and circulation, while others faced challenges related to debris, stagnation, and pollutants. Harbor maintenance responsibility is shared between the City and Ventura County, with additional coordination from the Army Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard. The diverse land use and shared responsibility for maintenance highlight the need for coordinated efforts to address these water quality concerns. 759
Goals & Objectives 10

3.0 DATA REVIEW FINDINGS
This section presents results from analyses of the data reviewed for the Study from the sources referenced in Table 1-1. As discussed in Section 1.3, available data from the ocean and beaches at the outlet of the Harbor, MS4 and agricultural discharges to Edison Canal and the Harbor, and Edison Canal and the Harbor themselves were analyzed against applicable WQOs protective of established beneficial uses. The frequency and magnitude of WQO exceedances is presented for all locations and further broken down by site type to investigate potential linkage between inputs to the Harbor and observed in-Harbor conditions. The analysis highlights constituents of concern based on those with the highest frequency and magnitude of exceedances, for which will be the focus of evaluating each mitigation strategy’s ability to improve water quality conditions in the Harbor.

3.1 All Sites
Overall results comparing discrete observation data (other than dissolved oxygen discrete samples, which are combined with continuous observations in Section 3.1.1) against their respective WQO values prior to (Before) and following (After) the MGS decommissioning in 2018 for the Beach, Discharge, Edison Canal, Harbor, and Ocean locations are presented in Figure 3-1. This analysis was intended to identify any significant changes in conditions following the MGS decommissioning. However, due to limited data available at the Edison Canal, Ocean, and Harbor locations prior to the MGS decommissioning there are limited observations comparing these periods.

Results are still presented in Figure 3-1 for context. Across all site types and periods of data analyzed, the highest frequency of exceedances were observed at the Discharge locations, with similar exceedance frequencies before and after the MGS decommissioning. Harbor sites exceedance frequencies slightly increased following the MGS decommissioning, but as stated above, this is based on drastically different sizes of datasets available for the respective periods.

Figure 3-1: Count of Observations and Frequency of Exceedances of WQOs by Site, Before and After MGS Decommissioning in 2018.
760
Goals & Objectives 11

3.1.1 Dissolved Oxygen
Measurements from grab samples, composite samples, and continuous sensors in Channel Islands Harbor were combined to perform the analysis for dissolved oxygen. Dissolved oxygen observations were available at Discharges, Edison Canal, and Harbor sites. Depression of dissolved oxygen refers to dissolved oxygen concentrations below the 5 mg/L WQO limit, which can result in anaerobic conditions impairing aquatic life. The number of observations by site type and season (Summer is defined as May-September, Winter as October-April) are presented in Figure 3-2. Seasonal differences were explored to identify if problematic conditions of depressed dissolved oxygen were more prevalent during the summer season in the Harbor.

During the summer months, depressed dissolved oxygen, or any observations below the minimum of 5 mg/L, were more frequent as compared to winter months in the Harbor. Overall, dissolved oxygen dropped below recommended levels across 10.4% of all observations in the Harbor. Low observations of dissolved oxygen in Discharges or Edison Canal were very rare, only dropping below 5 mg/L for 3.0% of all observations from Discharges and 2.8% of all observations from Edison Canal.

The overall trend of depressed dissolved oxygen in the summer can be explained, at least in part, by increased water temperatures, which reduce oxygen solubility and promote biological activity that consumes oxygen. The lack of circulation, especially in areas like the Harbor, exacerbates the problem during warmer months, which can lead to more frequent and severe depressed dissolved oxygen. 761
Goals & Objectives 12
Figure 3-2. Count of Dissolved Oxygen Observations and Frequency of Depressed Values (below 5 mg/L) by Season.

3.1.2 Chlorophyll-a
Measurements from continuous monitoring sensors in Channel Islands Harbor were used to assess chlorophyll-a concentrations as part of the analysis characterizing water quality conditions. Chlorophyll-a indicates algal growth that can be potentially harmful to aquatic life. The number of observations in the Harbor and by season (Summer 762
Goals & Objectives 13
is defined as May-September, winter as October-April) are presented in Figure 3-3, which also shows the frequency of exceedances (when Chlorophyll-a is above 20 ug/L). Seasonal differences were explored to identify if problematic conditions of algal growth were more prevalent during the summer season in the Harbor.

In the summer, there are a total of 95,120 observations of chlorophyll-a in the Harbor, with an overall frequency of exceedances of 8.1%. In the winter, there were 21,263 observations, with a frequency of exceedances of 4.9%.

In addition to the frequency, the median magnitude of chlorophyll-a exceedance in the summer is 40%, or 1.4 times the WQO, indicating that when exceedances do occur, the levels are moderately higher than the WQO. The median magnitude of exceedances in the winter was 64%, or 1.64 times the WQO, indicating that winter algae blooms may be slightly more severe or widespread than those in the summer. However, the low frequency of exceedances in both seasons suggests that while there is some evidence of periodic algae blooms, the majority of the time chlorophyll-a levels remain below the limit that would impair aquatic life.

Figure 3-3: Count of Chlorophyll-a Observations and Frequency of Exceedances (above 20 ug/L) in the Harbor, by Season.

3.2 Discharges
Available data from discharges from the MS4 system and agricultural lands in the Channel Islands Harbor watershed were reviewed. Discharge data provides context for constituents entering the Harbor from the upstream watershed, either directly or indirectly via Edison Canal. Observations included measured bacteria, metals, and pesticides, and were analyzed relative to applicable WQOs as listed in Table 1-2. Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-5 present results in terms of the median magnitude of exceedances, as the percent above their respective WQOs. Figure 3-6 presentsthe same median magnitudes of exceedances along with the frequency of exceedances of their respective WQOs.
763
Goals & Objectives 14
Observations from discharges highlight several trends, particularly for constituents such as Mirex, Permethrin (trans), and Permethrin (cis), which stand out due to higher magnitudes of exceedance. In general several pesticides measured in discharges exceeded WQOs at higher frequencies and magnitudes. Mirex exhibits a high median magnitude of exceedance at over 74,460%, or 745 times the WQO, making it a notable outlier. However, it is important to note that while the magnitude of exceedance is the highest observed across constituents at discharge sites, the frequency of exceedance for Mirex is at 9%. Permethrin (trans) and Permethrin (cis) show the next highest magnitudes of exceedance at 14,800% (149 times the WQO) and 10,110% (102 times the WQO), respectively, and a frequency of 11%. The next highest magnitude of exceedances were for Chlordane and Methoxychlor, with median exceedances at 9,900% (100 times the WQO) and 3,780% (39 times the WQO), respectively.

The top five constituents with the highest magnitude of exceedances at Discharge sites were Mirex, Permethrin, Chlordane, Methoxychlor, and Enterococcus. The top five constituents with the highest frequency of exceedances at Discharge sites were Chlordane, Dibenz(a,h)anthracene, DDT, Enterococcus(excluding Total Coliform and Fecal Coliform as secondary fecal indicator bacteria objectives), and Bifenthrin. 764
Goals & Objectives 15
Figure 3-4. Median Magnitude of Exceedances of WQOs at Discharge Sites (top 15 constituents exceedance magnitudes).

Note: Select pesticides included distinct measurements of trans- and cis- isomers, which represent different arrangements of atoms in the molecule.
765
Goals & Objectives 16
Figure 3-5: Median Magnitude of Exceedances of WQOs at Discharge Sites (remaining constituents with exceedances).

Note: Select pesticides included distinct measurements of trans- and cis- isomers, which represent different arrangements of atoms in the molecule.
766
Goals & Objectives 17
Figure 3-6: Frequency of Exceedances and Median Magnitude of Exceedances of WQOs at Discharge Sites.

3.3 Edison Canal
Available data from Edison Canal, which feeds into Channel Islands Harbor, were reviewed. Observations included grab samples and composite samples with measured bacteria, metals, and pesticides, and were analyzed relative to applicable WQOs as listed in Table 1-2. Figure 3-7 and Figure 3-8 presents results in terms of the median magnitude of exceedances, as the percent above their respective WQOs. Figure 3-9 presents the same median magnitudes of exceedances along with the frequency of exceedances of their respective WQOs.

Pesticides such as Permethrin are the most notable constituents at Edison Canal sites, with a median exceedance of over 1,000,000% (more than 10,000 times the WQO). This highlights high levels of contamination, combined with the fact that Permethrin exceeded limits across 50% of the observations, indicating not only high magnitudes but also frequent instances of exceedance. Metals of concern are Copper, which had a median exceedance of over 28,000% (over 280 times the WQO) with a 59% frequency of exceedance, and Selenium, which exceeded limits across all observations analyzed. Bifenthrin follows closely, with a median exceedance of 8,212% (83 times the WQO) and a 72% frequency of exceedance. DDT, had a median exceedance of 5,400% (55 times the WQO) but a frequency of only 8%. Further, nutrients such as Nitrogen in the form of Nitrate and Nitrite exhibit more moderate exceedances compared to the pesticides and metals, with median exceedance magnitudes of 472% (5.7 times the WQO) and 180% (2.8 times the WQO), respectively.
767
Goals & Objectives 18
The top five constituents with the highest magnitude of exceedances at Edison Canal sites were Permethrin, Copper, Bifenthrin, DDT, and Enterococcus. The top five constituents with the highest frequency of exceedances at Edison Canal sites were Selenium, Bifenthrin, Copper, DDT, and Permethrin (excluding TDS [Total Dissolved Solids] as a secondary pollutant of concern).

Figure 3-7: Median Magnitude of Exceedances of WQOs at Edison Canal Sites (top 12 constituents exceedance magnitudes).

Note: Select pesticides included distinct measurements of trans- and cis- isomers, which represent different arrangements of atoms in the molecule.
768
Goals & Objectives 19
Figure 3-8. Median Magnitude of Exceedances of WQOs at Edison Canal Sites (remaining constituents with exceedances). 769
Goals & Objectives 20
Figure 3-9: Frequency of Exceedances and Median Magnitude of Exceedances of WQOs at Edison Canal Sites.

3.4 Channel Islands Harbor
Available data from observationsthroughout the Harbor were reviewed and included grab samples and composite samples with measured bacteria, metals, and pesticides, and were analyzed relative to applicable WQOs as listed in Table 1-2. Figure 3-10 presents results in terms of the median magnitude of exceedances, as the percent above their respective WQOs. Figure 3-11 presents the same median magnitudes of exceedances along with the frequency of exceedances of their respective WQOs.

Within the Harbor, similar to Edison Canal, Permethrin stood out with the highest median magnitude of exceedances, with a median exceedance of nearly 200,000% (2,000 times the WQO). However, the frequency of 770
Goals & Objectives 21
exceedance for Permethrin is 17% across all Harbor observations. Copper is another constituent of concern similar between Edison Canal and the Harbor, showing a median exceedance in the Harbor of over 28,000% (over 281 times the WQO) and a relatively higher frequency of exceedances in the Harbor of 43%. Malathion, though its median exceedance is 4,700% (48 times the WQO), has a much lower frequency of 2%. Further, constituents like Enterococcusshow a consistent pattern of exceedance as compared to REC-1 standards with a median exceedance of 1,526% (16 times the WQO) and a frequency of exceedances of 20%. Bifenthrin in the Harbor had a median magnitude of exceedance of over 400% (over 5 times the WQO), and a 35% frequency of exceedance.

The top five constituents with the highest magnitude of exceedances at Harbor sites were Permethrin, Copper, Malathion, Enterococcus, and DDT (excluding TDS [Total Dissolved Solids] as a secondary constituent of concern).

The top five constituents with the highest frequency of exceedances at Harbor sites were Selenium, Copper, Bifenthrin, DDT, and Enterococcus (excluding TDS [Total Dissolved Solids] as a secondary constituent of concern).

Figure 3-10: Median Magnitude of Exceedances of WQOs at Harbor Sites. 771
Goals & Objectives 22
Figure 3-11: Frequency of Exceedances and Median Magnitude of Exceedances of WQOs at Harbor Sites.

3.5 Beaches
Available data from Beach sites, which represent Kiddie and Hobie beaches at the mouth of the Harbor, were reviewed. While the beaches are not the focus of this Study, water quality conditions were reviewed for context at the downstream extent of the Harbor. Observations included grab samples and composite samples specifically for fecal indicator bacteria. Figure 3-12 presents results in terms of the median magnitude of exceedances, as the percent above their respective WQOs. Figure 3-13 presents the same median magnitudes along with the frequency of exceedance of their respective WQOs. WQOs for discrete observations (tagged with _Single) and geometric means over a rolling 30-day period (tagged with _Geo) were referenced where applicable for different fecal indicator bacteria.

Enterococcus had a median magnitude of exceedance for the single observation objective at beaches at over 200% (3 times the WQO), followed by Fecal Coliform at 169% (2.7 times the WQO), and Total Coliform at 142% (2.4 times the WQO). However, the frequency of these exceedances remains relatively low, with Enterococcus exceeding single observation limits 8.0% of the time and Fecal Coliform and Total Coliform only 4.0% and 2.6%, respectively. Geometric mean calculations of Enterococcus had a lower median magnitude of exceedance of 44% (1.4 times the WQO), but a frequency of exceedance at 13%. 772
Goals & Objectives 23
Figure 3-12: Median Magnitude of Exceedances of WQOs at Beach Sites (Kiddie and Hobie Beaches).

Figure 3-13: Frequency of Exceedances and Median Magnitude of Exceedances of WQOs at Beach Sites (Kiddie and Hobie Beaches).
773
Goals & Objectives 24

3.6 Constituents of Concern and Key Takeaways
This section summarizes the key takeaways from the data analysis, highlights constituents of concern based on the frequency and magnitude of exceedances observed in Edison Canal and the Harbor, and constituent trends at the various monitoring locations. Figure 3-14 and Figure 3-15 present the median magnitudes of exceedances of Bifenthrin and Permethrin across individual monitoring sites in Edison Canal and the Harbor to provide more spatial context on exceedances observed. Bifenthrin and Permethrin were an initial focus given both pesticides were recently added to the 2024 303(d) list for impairments to Channel Islands Harbor. Figure 3-16 present the average percent below the dissolved oxygen minimum threshold (5 mg/L) across individual monitoring sites in Edison Canal and the Harbor. Dissolved oxygen is a key parameter to focus on as it relates to water quality conditions protective of aquatic life.

3.6.1 Constituents of Concern
Bifenthrin and Permethrin are consistently identified as constituents of concern in both Edison Canal and the Harbor areas. These pesticides exhibit high exceedance magnitudes, particularly during dry days.

1. Bifenthrin shows a median exceedance magnitude reaching up to 550,000% (over 5,500 times the WQO) in the Harbor under dry weather conditions.

Figure 3-14. Bifenthrin Magnitude of Exceedances in Edison Canal and Harbor. 774
Goals & Objectives 25

2. Permethrin exceeds standards by up to 530,000% (over 5,300 times the WQO) in Edison Canal and the Harbor, with the highest concentrations observed near discharge points.

Figure 3-15. Permethrin Magnitude of Exceedances in Edison Canal and Harbor. 775
Goals & Objectives 26

3. Dissolved oxygen also emerges as a critical condition in the Harbor, with concentrations dropping below recommended values supportive of aquatic life. Depressed dissolved oxygen was observed in both Edison Canal and the Harbor, with 7-12% below recommended levels on wet days and up to 88% below recommended levels on dry days.

Figure 3-16: Dissolved Oxygen Percent Below WQO in Edison Canal and Harbor During Wet (Top) and Dry (Bottom) Days.

Average Percent Below Dissolved Oxygen
WQO (Wet Days)
Average Percent Below Dissolved Oxygen WQO (Dry Days)
776
Goals & Objectives 27

4. Median Copper concentrations exceed WQOs by over 25,000% (over 250 times the WQO) in Edison Canal and the Harbor.

3.6.2 Sources of Pollution

5. Discharge sites representative of agricultural runoff are likely contributors to the high levels of Bifenthrin and Permethrin. These sites have been shown to exhibit large median exceedance magnitudes, with some discharge points (e.g., OXD_CENTR) showing a median exceedance magnitude of 2,044% (over 21 times the WQO) for Bifenthrin.

6. Depressed dissolved oxygen in both Edison Canal and the Harbor can be linked to poor mixing, particularly in areas of the Harbor where circulation is limited, leading to higher exceedance frequencies (up to 13% during summer months). This trend is more severe in more isolated sections of the harbor near Seabridge and Mandalay.

7. Urban runoff, anti-fouling boat paint, and aerial deposition are potential sources of Copper observed in the Edison Canal and Harbor observations.

8. No notable observations were made indicating changes in exceedances of constituents at Discharge sites before and after the decommissioning of the MGS, which suggests any observed degraded water quality in the Harbor following the MGS decommissioning is primarily a result of decreased circulation.

9. Seasonal Influence:
o The data demonstrated a difference between summer and winter conditions. Depressed dissolved oxygen was more frequent and severe during summer due to warmer water temperatures, which lower oxygen solubility and increase biological activity, leading to greater oxygen consumption.
o Chlorophyll-a exceedances align with this pattern, as observed during summer, highlighting the link between temperature, nutrient availability, and phytoplankton blooms.

3.6.3 Conclusions
Constituents of concern within Edison Canal and the Harbor are Bifenthrin and Permethrin, as well as Copper based on the magnitude and frequency of exceedances. Bacteria is also of concern, with a focus on Enterococcus observed exceedances. Though nutrients generally demonstrated low magnitudes and frequencies of exceedances across observations, they are linked to potential algal growth in the Harbor and therefore impacting overall conditions. Finally, depressed Dissolved Oxygen in certain areas of the Harbor is a condition of concern to aim to address. Discharge points are likely contributors to these constituents, particularly for the pesticides.

Efforts to address these constituents and water quality conditions, particularly in areas with poor circulation in the Harbor, are a focus of mitigation strategies moving forward with the Study. 777
Goals & Objectives 28

4.0 MITIGATION STRATEGY EVALUATION METRICS
This section highlights select metrics used for the evaluation of potential mitigation strategies. The metrics will be used to construct a weighted decision matrix to allow for a comprehensive summarization of each strategy’s potential benefits, costs, feasibility, and constraints. The decision matrix will be organized into three main sections: Benefits, Implementation Considerations, and Costs. Benefit metrics aim to both quantitatively and qualitatively assess pollutant load reductions and in-harbor water quality as well as identify additional benefits to the community. Implementation considerations are the metrics by which mitigation strategy feasibility will be assessed. Cost metrics will consider capital and long-term costs for mitigation strategies as well as possible funding mechanisms. The relative weights applied to the matrix to compare projects will involve stakeholder input and will lead to the construction of the phased implementation plan. A list of all proposed metrics is presented in Table 4-1. Specific metrics for benefits, implementation considerations, and costs are discussed further in sections 4.1,

4.2, and 4.3, respectively.

Evaluation Metric Sources
Study evaluation metric assessments utilize four general categories of information sources: (1) watershed and inharbor model results, (2) available Geographic Information System (GIS) and community database information, (3) compiled engineering and construction cost data, and (4) best professional judgement. Watershed and inharbor models provide predictive water quality- and circulation-related conditions based on calibrated representation of site-specific characteristics, input data, and modeled strategies. Various public databases and available GIS information are used to classify and categorize mitigation strategies based on type, location, and environmental/other impact attributes. Compiled engineering and construction cost information generally include industry publications and recent and/or published project cost information. Engineering and environmental professional best professional judgement is used for assessments of certain mitigation strategy criteria where engineering delivery experience, construction or other industry knowledge, and/or environmental permitting acumen is needed to perform evaluations. Evaluation metrics and associated assessment information are summarized in Table 4-1.
778
Goals & Objectives 29

Table 4-1. List of Proposed Evaluation Metrics
Evaluation Metric Metric Group Unit Area
Applied
Source
Pesticide Load Reduction
(Bifenthrin and Permethrin)
Water Quality
Benefits
Lbs/yr (sediment as proxy) Watershed Modeling -WY 2011-2020 Exceedance Days Reduced
(Pesticides)
Water Quality
Benefits
Days exceeding ug/L WQOs Harbor Modeling -WY 2011-2020
Nutrient Load Reduction (Total
Phosphorous and Total
Nitrogen)
Water Quality
Benefits
Lbs/year; mg/L Watershed Modeling -WY 2011-2020
Exceedance Days Reduced
(Nutrients)
Water Quality
Benefits
Days exceeding mg/L WQOs Harbor Modeling -WY 2011-2020
Copper Load Reduction Water Quality
Benefits
Lbs/year Watershed Modeling -WY 2011-2020
Exceedance Days Reduced
(Copper)
Water Quality
Benefits
Days exceeding ug/L WQOs Harbor Modeling -WY 2011-2020
Bacteria Load Reduction Water Quality
Benefits
CFU (runoff volume ac-ft/yr as proxy) Watershed Modeling -WY 2011-2020 Exceedance Days Reduced
(Bacteria)
Water Quality
Benefits
Days exceeding CFU/100mL WQOs Harbor Modeling -WY 2011-2020 Exceedance Days Reduced
(Dissolved Oxygen)
Water Quality
Benefits
Days dissolved oxygen below 5 mg/L Harbor Modeling -WY 2011-2020 Residence Time Water Quality
Benefits
Days Harbor Modeling -WY 2011-2020
Urban Greening Community
Benefits
Acres impervious -> green space Watershed NLCD Imperviousness Recreational Improvements Community
Benefits
Is parcel a park or potential park? (Y/N) Watershed Oxnard Parks GIS Community Anchors Community
Benefits
Is parcel a school, library,
medical/healthcare or social service
facility, or other public facility (Y/N)
Watershed Oxnard Public Facilities and Large Family Daycare GIS Community Education
Opportunity
Community
Benefits
Can parcel support educational signage
or promote education-focused
community events? (Y/N)
Watershed Oxnard City Owned Parcels GIS
Pedestrian & Traffic Safety Community
Benefits
Does parcel contain or is adjacent to
right-of-way in high injury network?
(Y/N)
Watershed SCAG High Injury Network GIS
779
Goals & Objectives 30

Evaluation Metric Metric Group Unit Area
Applied
Source
Oxnard Sustainable
Transportation Plan
Community
Benefits
Is parcel in or adjacent to priority area?
(Y/N)
Watershed Oxnard Sustainable Transportation Plan GIS
Disadvantaged Community Community
Benefits
Is parcel in a Disadvantaged Community?
(Y/N)
Watershed SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities GIS
Environmental & Social Health
Indices
Community
Benefits
Is parcel in an environmentally or socially
vulnerable community? (Y/N)
Watershed CalEnviroScreen, The Center for Disease Control Social Vulnerability Index, The California Healthy Places Index, and the SCAG Green Region Initiative and Priority Growth Areas
Parcel Ownership Implementation
Considerations
Is parcel privately owned, or owned by
municipality, agency, utility?
(Public/Private)
Watershed
and Harbor
Oxnard City Owned Parcels GIS
Permitting Implementation
Considerations
Estimated environmental permitting level
of effort (High/Med/Low)
Watershed
and Harbor
Coastal Zone Management Act,401 Water Quality Certification Program, Clean Water Act Section 404 for Dredge and Fill, Endangered Species Act; Applicable State and Local Biological Guidelines
Utility Constraints Implementation
Considerations
Will strategy be limited by existing
utilities? (Y/N)
Watershed
and Harbor
Request as-built information from City, Utilities, Agencies Design/Construction Timeline Implementation
Considerations
Near, Mid, or Long-term,
continual/protracted project timeline
Watershed
and Harbor
Engineering Review
Long-Term O&M
Responsibilities
Implementation
Considerations
What is the frequency and staff required
for O&M? (Extensive, Moderate, Limited)
Watershed
and Harbor
Engineering Review/land owner collaboration
Existing City Maintenance Area Implementation
Considerations
Is parcel already within City maintenance
plan? (Y/N)
Watershed Oxnard City Maintained Areas GIS
Sanitary Sewer Diversion
Feasibility
Implementation
Considerations
Is sewer diversion feasible?
(Potential/No)
Watershed Oxnard Sanitary Sewer GIS
Order-of-Magnitude Capital
Cost
Cost $ Watershed
and Harbor
Standardized Cost Estimation Functions
Order-of-Magnitude Long-Term
O&M Cost
Cost $/year Watershed
and Harbor
Standardized Cost Estimation Functions
Potential Outside Funding
Sources
Cost Does the strategy align with a potential
outside funding source? (Y/N)
If yes, order -of-magnitude available
funding ($)
Watershed
and Harbor
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
780
Goals & Objectives 31

4.1 Proposed Benefit Evaluation Metrics for Mitigation Strategies To evaluate the effectiveness of alternative mitigation strategies, various benefit metrics will be utilized. The modeling tools being developed both for the contributing watershed area (using the USEPA Loading Simulation Program in C++ [LSPC]) and the Harbor itself (using the USEPA Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code [EFDC] and Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program [WASP]) will quantitatively evaluate strategies’ effectiveness at reducing pollutants being transported to and cycling within the Harbor. These models will evaluate conditions over a long-term 10-year period, using water year 2011 to water year 2020, and will directly represent constituent movement and cycling for Runoff, Sediment, Total Phosphorus, Total Nitrogen, dissolved oxygen, and select metals, such as Copper. Pesticide fate and transport is associated with suspended sediments, therefore sediment load reductions will be used as a proxy to estimate pesticide removal. Bacteria are a water quality concern for the Harbor, and while the modeling tools do not explicitly handle bacteria, the relationship between runoff from contributing lands and bacteria loading can be better understood in the region based on monitoring data collected. Therefore, runoff responses from rain events will be used as a proxy to estimate the relative bacteria load reductions that each proposed strategy is capable of. Mitigation strategies will also be evaluated for their influence on dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll-a (a proxy for algal growth), and residence times at various locations within the Harbor. Model results for these constituents will be summarized as average annual load reductions and changes to in-harbor concentrations and estimated residence times with and without mitigation strategy implementation. In addition to average annual summarizations, the in-harbor model will evaluate the period leading up to observed algal blooms in spring of 2018 that followed OTC decommissioning. The upstream load reductions and changes in in-harbor conditions from proposed mitigation strategies will be added to the matrix in a quantitative manner.

In addition to the quantitative evaluation of pollution reduction and water quality benefits, strategies will be evaluated for the potential additional community benefits that their implementation could provide. Projects capacity to allow for the creation or improvement of recreational facilities and/or green spaces such as parks, tree canopy, and landscaping will be considered at this stage. Projects that create or update green spaces also can facilitate educating the public about environmental and stormwater related concerns via signage and gathering spaces. Potential project locations will be evaluated in the context of socio-environmental scoring datasets such as CalEnviroScreen, The Center for Disease Control Social Vulnerability Index, The California Healthy Places Index, and the Southern California Association of Governments Green Region Initiative and Priority Growth Areas, which compile various environmental, health, and socioeconomic measures to give a score to each census tract in the state. Poorly scoring areas demonstrate greater need for community improvements and can be prioritized for projects. Projects along corridors identified in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) High Injury Network dataset will be prioritized for potential traffic flow and pedestrian improvements. Community benefits will be added to the decision matrix in a binary flag, where a yes/no will be applied for each strategy for each community benefit.

4.2 Proposed Implementation Consideration Evaluation Metrics for Mitigation Strategies
The implementation consideration evaluation metrics will serve as the main checks for the feasibility of each mitigation strategy across multiple parameters. It will be important to determine the ownership status of any lands that are explored to locate mitigation strategies to identify the responsible parties and gauge their interest and cooperation in hosting a project or other strategy. This step will also help identify what environmental permitting may be required for a particular project location and type, which may contribute to the overall 781
Goals & Objectives 32
understanding of a mitigation strategy’s ease of implementation. Certain types of strategies may involve a significant component of long-term operations and maintenance of a project or facility, and a relative estimate will be made for the required labor, equipment, disposal methods, and other responsibilities required. The parties responsible for each strategy’s maintenance will be identified and their willingness to participate will be considered. Depending on the locations and landowners that are engaged, there will be a potential need for new cooperative agreements of memorandums of understanding to be created between relevant agencies or entities.

Additionally, the technical feasibility of each mitigation strategy will be evaluated. Key technical considerations include, but are not limited to, the design and construction timeline, constraints presented by existing utilities or infrastructure onsite, and physical site suitability.

Regional-scale stormwater capture opportunities on public property have already been identified in the County of Ventura Watershed Management Program for Ventura County Coastal Watersheds (Watershed Management Program). These were developed using public parcels and storm drains and used desktop GIS analysis to determine optimal diversion points and service drainage areas to each parcel. Potential project footprints were identified after buffering 20 feet from existing buildings. Drainage areas, footprints, and diversion points were used to estimate the cost and potential Best Management Practice (BMP) performance of each project parcel. A desktop engineering review of these opportunities was carried out by design engineers to screen out immediately infeasible opportunities identified through the GIS analysis and provide context as to what types of BMPs would best fit in each location. The review helped to gain context for each location: where it is situated within the built environment, topographical considerations, and other tangibles that may point to project viability that may not otherwise be easy to discern from other desktop datasets. The main function of the preliminary engineering review was to assess the constructability and potential of each individual opportunity compared to others within the jurisdiction of interest. This review eliminated opportunities with clear challenges that would make costeffective construction unviable or where limited runoff capture would warrant expensive, overly challenging engineered solutions. In addition, projects kept as opportunities were classified into three different tiers of potential effectiveness (Tier 1 being the best projects per cost). Prioritized project opportunities identified from the Watershed Management Program were reviewed independently with each agency the City in a series of meetings to incorporate local knowledge in the viability and prioritization of a project. This included environmental, ongoing infrastructure planning, or political factors that further informed project preferences or roadblocks in potential constructability. Additional upstream project opportunities may be identified through this Study, including opportunities on private lands, and will undergo similar review for initial feasibility.

4.3 Proposed Cost Evaluation Metrics for Mitigation Strategies It is important to consider the financial capability of implementing each mitigation strategy that is proposed.

Estimations of capital costs as well as costs of long-term operations and maintenance will be made. Additionally, a preliminary estimate of responsible part(ies) for project costs will be made at this stage, as well as recording what party will be responsible for those costs. Once this is established, existing and potential funding opportunities will be evaluated for applicability to the proposed mitigation strategies. These funding sources could include municipal funds, grants, public-private partnerships, or levying taxes, fines/fees, or HOA dues. The applicability and amount of available funding from different sources will be identified as a potential offset to large implementation costs.
782
Goals & Objectives 33

5.0 NEXT STEPS
Following the finalization of the Study goals and objectives, the list of potential mitigation strategies will be developed to potentially address them. Strategies will be assessed using the evaluation metrics established herein and align with the Study problem statement and goals. Critical tools to support analysis of evaluation metrics are the watershed and in-harbor models that are under development. Models will be executed in the context of the evaluation metrics to characterize each strategy’s relative performance in terms of water quality benefits. Other identified sources of data, as identified in Table 4-1, will be used to characterize community benefits, implementation considerations, costs, and potential funding sources. This will lead to construction of a decision matrix containing relative tiers among potential strategies along with detailed outcomes within each metric. This will provide a transparent and comprehensive summary of outcomes for stakeholders to explore and provide input. The resulting matrix will lead to the construction of a phased implementation plan that will be outlined in a future report.
783
Goals & Objectives 34

6.0 REFERENCES
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region. Water Quality Control Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. Los Angeles, CA: California Environmental Protection Agency, 2014. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/.

California State Water Resources Control Board. 2024 California Integrated Report: Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters and 305(b) Surface Water Quality Assessment. Sacramento, CA: California Environmental Protection Agency, 2024.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_quality_assessment/2024-integratedreport.html.

California State Water Resources Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California.

Sacramento, CA: California Environmental Protection Agency, 2019. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ocean/docs/oceanplan2019.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants for the State of California; California Toxics Rule. 40 CFR § 131.38. Washington, DC:

Government Printing Office, 2000. https://www.epa.gov/wqs-tech/water-quality-standards-establishmentnumeric-criteria-priority-toxic-pollutants-state. 784
San Diego | Los Angeles
805.729.0943
craftwaterinc.com

APPENDIX B
TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

Anthony Miller, City of Oxnard
Craftwater
Appendix B – Literature Review- Goals & Objectives Memorandum Channel Island Harbor Water Quality Feasibility Study & Implementation Plan This appendix to the Channel Island Harbor Water Quality Feasibility Study & Implementation Plan Goals & Objectives Memorandum contains findings from topical literature reviews relevant to the study. Literature sources are organized into groupings of Nutrient Cycling & Eutrophication, Harbor/Bay/Estuarine Environments & Circulation Issues, and Pesticides & Fecal Bacteria. The sources explored for this review include scholarly journal articles, professional reports and memos. Sources are listed in Section 4.0.

1.0 NUTRIENT CYCLING & EUTROPHICATION
Nutrient dynamics are crucial to understanding the causes and effects of eutrophication in coastal ecosystems.

Anthropogenic sources, particularly from agricultural and urban runoff, lead to excessive nutrient loads in coastal water bodies, often resulting in harmful algal blooms and low DO levels (Kennison and Fong, 2014). Southern California estuaries and similar enclosed coastal waterbodies subject to tidal circulation and mixing have unique geomorphology and significant watershed modifications. Combined with urban and agricultural stormwater inputs, this makes them are particularly vulnerable to nutrient enrichment. Coastal water bodies with freshwater inputs experience seasonal shifts in nutrient inputs, with riverine sources dominating in the winter and spring, and sediment nutrient recycling becoming more prominent during the summer and fall (Kennison, Kamer, and Fong, 2003; Boyle, Kamer, and Fong, 2004). High nutrient loads can stimulate algal blooms, especially when stratification and poor flushing prevent proper mixing and oxygenation (Müller et al., 2020). • Watershed contributions: Watersheds are significant sources of nutrients, especially nitrogen and phosphorus. Precipitation and associated runoff contribute large amounts of these nutrients to estuaries, particularly during storm events (Kennison and Fong, 2014). o Seasonal pulses of nutrients, particularly after storm events, increase nutrient availability in estuaries. These pulses, combined with altered hydrology due to urbanization, prolong nutrient loading (Kennison, Kamer, and Fong, 2003).
o Nitrogen and phosphorus from agricultural runoff and urban landscapes are the primary contributors to nutrient enrichment (Müller et al., 2020). o Herbicides and pesticides in agricultural runoff can also affect algal growth, complicating nutrient dynamics in estuarine systems (Kennison and Fong, 2014). 785
Literature Review 2
• Nutrient storage in sediments: In addition to direct watershed inputs, bottom sediments in coastal water bodies play a significant role in nutrient storage and recycling. o Sediments act as seasonal nutrient sinks, particularly for nitrogen, supporting macroalgal blooms during times of high nutrient supply (Kennison, Kamer, and Fong, 2003). o Sediment nutrient fluxes can be as significant as, or greater than, external watershed nutrient inputs, providing a continuous source of nutrients for algae during periods of low external loading (Boyle, Kamer, and Fong, 2004).
o Nutrient releases from sediments during hypoxic conditions further contribute to algal blooms, especially in systems experiencing frequent oxygen depletion (Carstensen, Henriksen, and Heiskanen, 2007).

Nutrient dynamics also play a pivotal role in nitrogen removal through denitrification in estuaries and coastal water bodies. A model of water residence time on nitrogen export and denitrification showed that denitrification accounted for 69-75% of total annual nitrogen removal, highlighting its significance in regulating nutrient loads in estuarine systems (Dettmann, 2001). However, not all nutrients are removed through natural processes, and excess nutrients can lead to eutrophication and hypoxic conditions if not managed properly (Müller et al., 2020). • Denitrification: Freshwater residence time significantly influences nitrogen removal via denitrification, which can account for a substantial proportion of total nitrogen removal in estuaries (Dettmann, 2001). o Nitrogen that enters estuaries and coastal water bodies can either be exported or removed via denitrification, and this process is crucial in regulating overall nitrogen loads (Dettmann, 2001). o The efficiency of denitrification depends on factors like residence time, salinity, and the availability of organic matter (Dettmann, 2001).

Macroalgal blooms, frequently observed in shallow coastal water bodies during the summer, are closely linked to nutrient enrichment. These blooms are often characterized by significant deviations in chlorophyll a concentrations from normal seasonal cycles and are driven by mechanisms such as nutrient releases from sediments during hypoxic conditions and the decoupling of benthic grazers that would otherwise control algal populations (Carstensen, Henriksen, and Heiskanen, 2007). • Mechanisms behind algae blooms:
o Advection of nutrient-rich water from inner estuary regions (Carstensen, Henriksen, and Heiskanen, 2007).
o Resuspension of nutrients and algae from sediments, especially during hypoxia (Carstensen, Henriksen, and Heiskanen, 2007).
o Nutrient releases from sediments during periods of low oxygen or anoxia (Carstensen, Henriksen, and Heiskanen, 2007).
786
Literature Review 3
o The absence of benthic grazers, which typically help control algal populations, can lead to unchecked algal growth (Carstensen, Henriksen, and Heiskanen, 2007). o These factors are especially significant in systems with poor flushing and long water residence times (Müller et al., 2020).

In estuaries and coastal water bodies where anthropogenic nutrient inputs are high, there is often a direct relationship between nutrient concentrations and eutrophication expression. However, nutrient concentrations alone do not explain the full picture. The interaction between nutrient inputs and physical factors, such as water residence time and tidal exchange, plays a crucial role in determining the overall ecological health of estuaries (Hughes et al., 2011; Wurtsbaugh, Paerl, and Dodds, 2019). • Tidal influence on nutrient dynamics: Systems with greater tidal exchange tend to dilute nutrient concentrations more effectively, reducing the overall expression of eutrophication (Wurtsbaugh, Paerl, and Dodds, 2019).
• Estuaries with low tidal range or restricted tidal flow, such as those with man-made structures, are more prone to nutrient buildup and hypoxia (Ghane et al., 2016).

2.0 HARBOR/BAY/ESTUARINE ENVIRONMENTS &

CIRCULATION ISSUES
In harbor environments, the dynamics of residence time and flushing time provide essential frameworks for understanding water movement and its impact on nutrient and oxygen levels. Flushing time, a spatially integrative metric, provides a broad understanding of water exchange, while residence time is more location-specific and useful for predicting chemical and biological processes within a particular estuary (Matso, 2018). However, readers must be cautious about the inconsistency in the use of these terms across studies, as they are often applied differently (Matso, 2018).
• Residence time vs. flushing time:
o Flushing time: Represents the time it takes for the entire water mass in a system to be replaced.

It is a generalized measure of water exchange, commonly used to compare different estuaries (Matso, 2018).
o Residence time: More specific to a parcel of water, tracking how long it stays in a given location before being flushed out. This metric is important for understanding location-specific processes like chemical reactions and biological activities (Matso, 2018). o These terms are sometimes used interchangeably, but they describe different processes, making it essential to understand their specific application in each study (Matso, 2018).

Hypoxia—a common consequence of poor circulation and insufficient water exchange—presents significant challenges in harbor environments. Hypoxia can vary over time, influenced by daily, tidal, lunar, and seasonal 787
Literature Review 4
cycles. For instance, Elkhorn Slough, a shallow estuary, experiences frequent summer hypoxia near the estuary's bottom, driven by low turbulent diffusion around slack tides (Sutula et al., 2012; Santana et al., 2018). These hypoxia events, lasting an average of 40 minutes, occur despite tidal influences, highlighting the vulnerability of poorly flushed estuaries like Elkhorn Slough to low oxygen conditions (Santana et al., 2018). • Factors influencing hypoxia in harbors:
o Daily, tidal, lunar, and seasonal cycles play a role in oxygen variability, with seasonal hypoxia often driven by water stratification, which prevents oxygen mixing (Sutula et al., 2012). o Tidal and lunar cycles are more noticeable in poorly flushed areas, with greater exchange during flood or spring tides. This increased exchange can help alleviate hypoxic conditions, but poorly mixed areas remain vulnerable to oxygen depletion (Sutula et al., 2012; Santana et al., 2018). o Aquatic organisms’ reactions to hypoxia depend on the severity, duration, and frequency of oxygen depletion (Sutula et al., 2012).

The 2011 fish mortality event in Redondo Beach serves as an example of the consequences of poor tidal circulation rather than nutrient enrichment. Minimal tidal exchange and a neap tide created hypoxic conditions in King Harbor, leading to the death of approximately 1.5 million Pacific sardines. This event illustrates how physical factors, such as tidal amplitude, can significantly impact DO levels, particularly in enclosed or poorly flushed harbors (Miller, 2014).

Several studies reveal that the expression of eutrophication is not solely driven by nutrient concentrations but is also mediated by environmental filters like tidal range, depth, and salinity (Hughes et al., 2011). Systems with greater tidal exchange tend to exhibit lower levels of eutrophication, which suggests that management efforts should focus on enhancing tidal flushing in addition to reducing nutrient inputs (Hughes et al., 2011). Tidal dynamics are especially critical in the distribution and patchiness of bloom-forming organisms. For example, in the Lafayette River in Virginia, water residence times of 1 to 4 months, depending on annual rainfall, influence the occurrence of phytoplankton blooms, which are driven by spring-neap tidal modulation and wind-driven mixing (Morse et al., 2014).
• Tidal modulation of algae blooms:
o Phytoplankton blooms in estuaries like the Lafayette River are highly influenced by spring-neap tidal cycles. Water residence times of 1 to 4 months, depending on rainfall, dictate when blooms are likely to occur (Morse et al., 2014).
o Tidal transport and circulation play a significant role in controlling bloom dynamics in coastal water bodies, especially in poorly mixed regions (Morse et al., 2014). o High nutrient concentrations, coupled with favorable tidal conditions, can trigger significant algal blooms (Morse et al., 2014).

DO dynamics are closely tied to tidal and circulation patterns. In the Upper Newport Bay, six hypoxic events were recorded over a six-month period, driven by factors such as low solar radiation, increased freshwater discharge, and haline stratification during reduced tidal ranges (Nezlin et al., 2009). These events highlight how tidal 788
Literature Review 5
exchange serves as a principal source of ventilation for near-bottom waters, with spring tides eroding vertical stratification and neap tides increasing near-bottom water residence time (Nezlin et al., 2009). The influence of physical factors such as tidal range and stratification emphasizes the need for adaptive management strategies that take local circulation conditions into account (Nezlin et al., 2009).

Management strategies for mitigating eutrophication and hypoxia in harbor environments must consider the complex interplay between nutrient inputs and physical circulation. While reducing nutrient inputs is essential, studies suggest that physical modifications to enhance tidal flushing or manage nutrient cycling within sediments may be equally important (Hughes et al., 2011; Kemp et al., 2009). Furthermore, high-frequency monitoring of key parameters, such as DO and nutrient concentrations, is crucial to understanding the temporal and spatial dynamics influencing eutrophication and hypoxia (Kemp et al., 2009; Nezlin et al., 2009). Adaptive management, particularly in systems like the Upper Newport Bay where hypoxia is driven by both natural and anthropogenic forces, must address both watershed-level nutrient inputs and estuarine-specific physical conditions (Nezlin et al., 2009).

3.0 PESTICIDES & FECAL BACTERIA
Pyrethroids are a class of pesticides that permethrin and bifenthrin belong to. These hydrophobic compounds have been identified in stormwater and in some cases is attributed to urban runoff (Wolfand et al., 2019) and in other cases to agricultural runoff (Mangiafico et al., 2009), (Commelin et al., 2022). It has been noted that hydrophobic pesticides are often applied in a solid form, and multiple studies have confirmed that waters containing these compounds are often not at equilibrium with the measured loads in a solid phase (Wolfand et al., 2019). Drivers of distribution between phases include rain event characteristics, the formulation of pesticide and the land surface characteristics of the application location. Thus, load reduction strategies for these compounds should include both filtration for dissolved phases and TSS capture of solid phases (Wolfand et al., 2019).
• Statistics from Pesticide Studies
o Over 5 million pounds of agricultural pesticides are sprayed in Ventura County each year (data from 2015-2020). Over 20% of pesticides applied are linked to cancer (Temkin and Naidenko, 2022).
o In the City of Oxnard, more than 10 tons of pesticides are applied each year per square mile, or

0.48 lbs per square foot (Temkin and Naidenko, 2022).
o Commelin et. al. found that the amount of solid phase pesticides in runoff from an agricultural catchment could range from 12 to 3700 times that of the dissolved phase  69% of dissolved phase transport occurs within the first 10 days after application (Commelin et al., 2022).
 solid phase transport is lagged where it takes 100 days for 90% of pesticides to make their way into runoff (Commelin et al., 2022).
789
Literature Review 6
o In surveys of irrigation and resulting runoff from 17 agricultural facilities in California, only 2 of the facilities’ irrigation produced runoff that exited the property. Both of these facilities had consistent flows during dry periods, indicating that some facilities have chronic mismanagement of irrigation runoff, while others have it well under control (Mangiafico et al., 2009).

In a study of the San Diego River Watershed, Wolfand et. al. measured pesticide concentrations in stormwater at multiple locations and used the data to construct a watershed/BMP model using SUSTAIN, the researchers simulated pesticide load reductions from biofiltration BMPs with and without biochar amendments, with both filtration and infiltration-type outflows.
o Building off of pesticide removal rates from previous studies, they found that standard biofiltration infiltration BMPs could reduce 55-79% of pesticides (Wolfand et al., 2019). o Biochar amended BMPs would reduce 82-93% of pesticide loads (Wolfand et al., 2019). o In order to reduce all influent pesticides measured in San Diego, it would require a combination of filtration and infiltration style BMPs, as using all infiltration BMPs would remove enough water from the system to actually concentrate pesticides in the receiving water (Wolfand et al., 2019).

Human fecal contamination poses a threat to stormwater and receiving water quality and to users of water bodies that are afflicted. Fecal bacteria are a priority contaminant across southern California and numerous studies have been conducted to characterize the degree of impairment of waterways and the likely sources of contamination.

The Southern California Coastal Water Research Project published a study in 2024 prompted by a 2019 Investigative Order by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board that identified the most likely contributors of fecal bacteria to the San Diego River Watershed. The main sources identified were homeless encampments, leaking septic tanks, leaking private sewer laterals, private sanitary sewer overflows, leaking public sewers, and public sanitary sewer overflows, with the latter three being the most prominent (Schiff et. al., 2024).

The main strategies have been vetted and proposed to mitigate fecal bacteria in stormwater are nonstructural source control measures. Structural control measures for bacteria have a wide range of performance, sometimes contributing bacteria to the system (Wolfland et. al., 2018; Taylor et. al., 2018). Therefore, source control measures are the most effective way to mitigate fecal bacteria in stormwater systems (Craftwater Engineering, Inc. 2022).
790
Literature Review 7

4.0 REFERENCES
A. Müller, H. Österlund, J. Marsalek, and M. Viklander, “The Pollution Conveyed by Urban Runoff: A Review of Sources,” Science of The Total Environment, vol. 709, p. 136125, Mar. 2020, doi:

10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136125.

Alexis Temkin and Olga Naidenko, “Environmental Working Group Report,” 2022.

Alexis Temkin and Olga Naidenko. 2022. “Report: 32 Million Pounds of Toxic Pesticides Sprayed on Ventura County Fields from 2015 to 2020.” EWG.Org. February 3, 2022.

B. Hughes, J. Haskins, K. Wasson, and E. Watson, “Identifying Factors that Influence Expression of Eutrophication in a Central California Estuary,” Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., vol. 439, pp. 31–43, Oct. 2011, doi: 10.3354/meps09295.

Commelin et al., “Solid Phase Pesticide Transport in Runoff: A Comparative Study of Urban and Agricultural Areas,” 2022.

Commelin, Meindert C., Jantiene E. M. Baartman, Paul Zomer, Michel Riksen, and Violette Geissen. 2022. “Pesticides Are Substantially Transported in Particulate Phase, Driven by Land Use, Rainfall Event and Pesticide Characteristics—A Runoff and Erosion Study in a Small Agricultural Catchment.” Frontiers in Environmental Science 10 (June):830589. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.830589.

Craftwater Engineering, Inc. 2022. “ULAR LRS Adaptation Source Abatement Strategies Addendum.” E. F. Miller, “Description of Conditions Preceding the 2011 Redondo Beach, California, Fish Kill,” Journal of Coastal Research, vol. 30, no. 4, p. 795, Jul. 2014, doi: 10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-12-00199.1.

E. Ghane, A. Z. Ranaivoson, G. W. Feyereisen, C. J. Rosen, and J. F. Moncrief, “Comparison of Contaminant Transport in Agricultural Drainage Water and Urban Stormwater Runoff,” PLoS ONE, vol. 11, no. 12, p. e0167834, Dec. 2016, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0167834.

E. H. Dettmann, “Effect of Water Residence Time on Annual Export and Denitrification of Nitrogen in Estuaries: A Model Analysis,” Estuaries, vol. 24, no. 4, p. 481, Aug. 2001, doi: 10.2307/1353250.

F. Mangiafico, “Assessing Agricultural Runoff and Its Control in California,” 2009.

J. Carstensen, P. Henriksen, and A.-S. Heiskanen, “Summer Algal Blooms in Shallow Estuaries: Definition, Mechanisms, and Link to Eutrophication,” Limnology & Oceanography, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 370–384, Jan. 2007, doi: 10.4319/lo.2007.52.1.0370.

K. A. Boyle, K. Kamer, and P. Fong, “Spatial and Temporal Patterns in Sediment and Water Column Nutrients in a Eutrophic Southern California Estuary,” Estuaries, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 378–388, Jun. 2004, doi:

10.1007/BF02803530.

K. Matso, “Flushing Time Versus Residence Time for the Great Bay Estuary,” University of New Hampshire Scholars’ Repository, vol. 9–2018, 2018.

L. Wolfand, J. Boehm, and J. Luthy, “Pesticides in Urban and Agricultural Runoff and Their Fate in Receiving Waters,” 2019.
791
Literature Review 8
Mangiafico, Salvatore S, Julie Newman, Donald J Merhaut, Jay Gan, Ben Faber, and Laosheng Wu. 2009. “Nutrients and Pesticides in Stormwater Runoff and Soil Water in Production Nurseries and Citrus and Avocado Groves in California.”
Martha Sutula, Howard Bailey, Sherry Poucher, and The California Environmental Protection Agency State Water Resources Control Board, “Science Supporting Dissolved Oxygen Objectives in California Estuaries,” Dec. 2012.

N. P. Nezlin, K. Kamer, J. Hyde, and E. D. Stein, “Dissolved Oxygen Dynamics in a Eutrophic Estuary, Upper Newport Bay, California,” Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 139–151, Mar. 2009, doi:

10.1016/j.ecss.2009.01.004.

R. Kennison, K. Kamer, and P. Fong, “Nutrient Dynamics and Macroalgal Blooms: A Comparison of Five Southern California Estuaries,” Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, 2003.

R. L. Kennison and P. Fong, “Extreme Eutrophication in Shallow Estuaries and Lagoons of California Is Driven by a Unique Combination of Local Watershed Modifications That Trump Variability Associated with Wet and Dry Seasons,” Estuaries and Coasts, vol. 37, no. S1, pp. 164–179, Mar. 2014, doi: 10.1007/s12237-013-9687-z.

R. Morse, M. Mulholland, T. Egerton, and H. Marshall, “Phytoplankton and Nutrient Dynamics in a Tidally Dominated Eutrophic Estuary: Daily Variability and Controls on Bloom Formation,” Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., vol. 503, pp. 59–74, Apr. 2014, doi: 10.3354/meps10743.

R. Santana, G. C. Lessa, J. Haskins, and K. Wasson, “Continuous Monitoring Reveals Drivers of Dissolved Oxygen Variability in a Small California Estuary,” Estuaries and Coasts, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 99–113, Jan. 2018, doi:

10.1007/s12237-017-0329-8.

San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, “Investigative Order R9-2019-0014: Technical Reports on Fecal Pollution in the San Diego River Watershed,” 2019.

Schiff, Kenneth, John Griffith, Joshua Steele, and Adriana Gonzalez-Fernandez. n.d. “Summary of Technical Research: Quantifying Sources of Human Fecal Pollution in the Lower San Diego River Watershed.” SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL WATER RESEARCH PROJECT. 2024.

Taylor, Alex, Alicia Flatt, Marc Beutel, Morgan Wolff, Katherine Brownson, and Paul Stamets. 2015. “Removal of Escherichia Coli from Synthetic Stormwater Using Mycofiltration.” Ecological Engineering 78 (May):79–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.05.016.

W. A. Wurtsbaugh, H. W. Paerl, and W. K. Dodds, “Nutrients, Eutrophication and Harmful Algal Blooms along the Freshwater to Marine Continuum,” WIREs Water, vol. 6, no. 5, p. e1373, Sep. 2019, doi: 10.1002/wat2.1373.

W. M. Kemp, J. M. Testa, D. J. Conley, D. Gilbert, and J. D. Hagy, “Temporal Responses of Coastal Hypoxia to Nutrient Loading and Physical Controls,” Biogeosciences, vol. 6, no. 12, pp. 2985–3008, Dec. 2009, doi:

10.5194/bg-6-2985-2009.

Wolfand, Jordyn M., Carolin Seller, Colin D. Bell, Yeo-Myoung Cho, Karl Oetjen, Terri S. Hogue, and Richard G.

Luthy. 2019. “Occurrence of Urban-Use Pesticides and Management with Enhanced Stormwater Control 792
Literature Review 9
Measures at the Watershed Scale.” Environmental Science & Technology 53 (7): 3634–44. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b05833.

Wolfand, Jordyn M., Colin D. Bell, Alexandria B. Boehm, Terri S. Hogue, and Richard G. Luthy. 2018. “Multiple Pathways to Bacterial Load Reduction by Stormwater Best Management Practices: Trade-Offs in Performance, Volume, and Treated Area.” Environmental Science & Technology 52 (11): 6370–79. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b00408.
793

FIELD VISIT NOTES
PROJECT: Channel Island Harbor Water Quality Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan
SUBJECT: Field Visit
TIME: 10AM, July 8, 2024
LOCATION: 4151 S. Victoria Ave. Oxnard, CA 93035 (Meeting Spot in Parking Lot adjacent to Pelican Way)

GENERAL NOTES
• Field visit attendees:
o City of Oxnard (City): Anthony Miller, Sarah Rowley
o Consultant team: Bryn Evans, Brianna Datti, Randy Wade, Emily McCord • Attendees met at designated location/time and briefly discussed safety and overall field visit goals. o Goal: Provide consultant team a geographic and informational overview of Harbor features and attributes for use in planning and execution of the feasibility study and implementation plan. • Four main Harbor communities identified: Seabridge, Westport, Mandalay Bay, Harbor Island o Seabridge and Westpoint developed around 2003, Mandalay Bay and Harbor Island in 1970s • Ten locations were visited (Figure 1).
• County of Ventura (County) and City have shared jurisdiction/responsibility in the Harbor- effectively bifurcated by the W Channel Islands Boulevard bridge. Other coordinating entities include the Army Corp and Coast Guard
• City previously was doing regular debris maintenance (manual removal of debris in Harbor) – communities decided to stop funding this a few months ago o **City to provide any data available from previous debris removal efforts1 o City previously investigated a mechanical skimmer, but did not proceed with as cost-prohibitive • The team discussed whether boat cleaning is a potential concern with metals in Mandalay Bay o Booms/submerged booms are meant to be placed around boats during any cleaning o **Note copper removed from 303(d) list – Craftwater to provide summary of listing decisions • Noted no debris screens on non-City storm drains (all but one of City drainage to harbor have screens) • City filters are on a 5-year replacement intended schedule, 2-year inspection frequency o Replaced filters in mass last year, working to get back on track with maintenance o Power washing filters was previously considered, but was cost prohibitive 1 ** Flagged lines are action items for City/Consultant team to follow up on. 794
Channel Island Harbor Water Quality Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan 2 Figure 1. Field visit site locations.
795
Channel Island Harbor Water Quality Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan 3

SITE SUMMARIES

1. Meeting point at Pelican Way and Channel Island Harbor Inlet; Kiddie/Hobie Beaches • Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for maintenance at mouth of harbor i. Responsible for dredging operations
• Limited maintenance occurs in this immediate area
• Recreation areas at Silver Strand, Kiddie, and Hobie beaches • Recreational and residential surrounding land use
• Water Quality Observations:
i. Very little trash observed
ii. Water appears clear
iii. No visible suspended sediment
796
Channel Island Harbor Water Quality Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan 4 Channel Islands Harbor Inlet from Silver Strand Beach Channel Islands Harbor Inlet from Silver Strand Beach Surf School at Silver Strand Beach Kiddie Beach in foreground, Hobie Beach in background; taken from Silver Strand Beach
797
Channel Island Harbor Water Quality Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan 5

2. Channel Island Harbor @ Peninsula Park
• County responsible for harbor maintenance in this area, this is main channel and located near harbor mouth
• Mostly commercial/multi-family residential land use
• Public dock located here, popular kayak launch
• Water Quality Observations:
i. Visible current/circulation observed in harbor
ii. Very little trash observed
iii. Water appears clear
798
Channel Island Harbor Water Quality Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan 6 Channel Island Harbor from Peninsula Park, facing
northwest
Channel Island Harbor from Peninsula Park, facing
south
Parked commercial vessels
799
Channel Island Harbor Water Quality Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan 7

3. Channel Island Harbor @ Hollywood / Harbor Landing
• County harbor maintenance responsibility in this area • Surrounding land use mostly commercial/parking lots,some residential • High density of boat slips
• Stormwater drain outfalls are not outfitted with trash screens in this area • Water Quality Observations:
i. Water appears somewhat cloudy but mostly clear (bottom still visible) ii. Less water circulation, more isolated area of harbor iii. Small amount ofsurface film/scum present at margins iv. No trash present
800
Channel Island Harbor Water Quality Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan 8 View of Channel Island Harbor from Harbor Landing, facing east
Stormwater outfall at northwest corner of parking lot
Surface scum at margin of harbor
801
Channel Island Harbor Water Quality Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan 9

4. Channel Island Harbor @ Mandalay Bay West
• City harbor maintenance responsibility in this area.
• Residential land use
i. Single family residences with individual boat slips
ii. “Pocket” parks between some houses
• Some areas of shallow water area, dredged previously in 2004 • Marine wildlife activity has been noted in this area
• Most curb inlets drain directly to harbor with no trash screens • Water Quality Observations:
i. Some surface film/scum present
ii. Some suspended silt observed
iii. Small amount of trash observed
802
Channel Island Harbor Water Quality Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan 10 Channel Island Harbor at Mandalay Bay West, facing
southwest
Channel Island Harbor at Mandalay Bay West, facing
southeast
Channel Island Harbor at Mandalay Bay West, facing south Surface scum near margin of harbor 803
Channel Island Harbor Water Quality Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan 11

5. Edison Canal @ One Mandalay
• Both Mandalay and McGrath power plants are entirely decommissioned, Peaker power plant still runs occasionally
i. Plans to be torn down
ii. CenterPoint property recently sold to One Mandalay, currently being used for filming
• Industrial land use and open space in surrounding area • Site visit team granted access to CenterPoint Energy site through gate by onsite security guard
• Water Quality:
i. Significant amount of trash observed along banks
ii. Significant periphyton layer on submerged surfaces
iii. Water appears more cloudy/silty than main harbor
iv. Little to no current/circulation observed; stagnant v. Oil observed leaking from pumps
804
Channel Island Harbor Water Quality Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan 12 Edison Canal with McGrath power plant in background, One Mandalay power plant inlet pump structure at right edge of frame One Mandalay power plant inlet pump structure One Mandalay power plant 805
806
Channel Island Harbor Water Quality Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan 14

6. Edison Canal @ W 5th Street
• Surrounding land use is agricultural and open space
• Significant flow observed from western-draining channel adjacent to W 5th Street i. primarily draining surrounding agricultural lands
ii. extensive drain system over large agricultural area iii. Noted as some of the oldest built drains leading to harbor • Houseless community (100-200 people) noted living in areas adjacent to canal i. City coordinates with County Human Services Agency
• Water Quality Observations:
i. Significant trash observed in water and on banks
ii. Little/no current/circulation observed;stagnant
iii. Similar suspended silt as most of harbor
iv. Some periphyton on submerged surfaces
807
Channel Island Harbor Water Quality Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan 15 Agricultural drain flowing towards Edison Canal at W 5th st, facing east Outfall for agricultural drain flowing towards Edison Canal at W 5th st, facing east
Outfall for drain flowing towards Edison Canal at W 5th st, facing north
Outfall for drain flowing towards Edison Canal at W 5th st, facing west 808
Channel Island Harbor Water Quality Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan 16

7. Edison Canal @ W. Wooley Rd
• Surrounding land use is agricultural and the Westpoint residential community • Debris screen installed as part of housing development i. Tetra Tech is responsible for canal and debris screen maintenance under the power plant contract; City is responsible for harbor maintenance up to debris screen
ii. City Code Compliance typically requests cleanup every ~3-6 months iii. Dead marine animals have been observed here
• Some transient/houseless people have been observed in the area • Water Quality Observations:
i. Trash observed in water and on banks
ii. Little/no current/circulation observed; stagnant
iii. Similar suspended silt as most of harbor
iv. Some periphyton on submerged surfaces
809
Channel Island Harbor Water Quality Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan 17 Edison Canal agricultural drain outfall at W. Wooley Rd, facing east Edison Canal drain outfall at W. Wooley Rd, facing west Edison Canal agricultural drain outfall at W. Wooley Rd, facing west Edison canal at W. Wooley Rd, facing south 810
Channel Island Harbor Water Quality Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan 18

8. Channel Island Harbor @ Seabridge Marketplace
• City harbor maintenance responsibility in this area
• Community gathering/anchor point, park space adjacent to water, commercial boat tours
• Surrounding land use is commercial, residential, and open space i. Farthest corner of harbor from main channel
ii. Area experiences most circulation issues
• Six bubble aerators running in this section of harbor • Debris removal service (no longer in operation) used to visit this area most frequently • **Stormwater BMPs present in area, City to follow up on number of filter units and specifications
• City conducts daily debris removal and landscaping on adjacent park/open space i. No pesticides or herbicides applied to prevent contaminant contribution to harbor
• Water Quality Observations:
i. Little current/circulation observed; stagnant
ii. Some periphyton on submerged surfaces
iii. Significant amount of scum on water surface on margins 811
Channel Island Harbor Water Quality Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan 19 Channel Islands Harbor at Seabridge Marketplace,
facing north
Surface film at Seabridge Marketplace
Surface film at Seabridge Marketplace Aerator at Seabridge Marketplace 812
Channel Island Harbor Water Quality Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan 20 Aerators at Seabridge Marketplace
813
Channel Island Harbor Water Quality Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan 21

9. Channel Island Harbor @ Hemlock Road Debris Boom
• City harbor maintenance responsibility
• East side of Mandalay Bay community
i. Some residences noted as long term rentals
• Surrounding land use is residential
i. Debris boom capturestrash from residential community to east • Water Quality Observations:
i. Observed surface film/scum
ii. Small amount of trash observed in water and trapped in boom iii. Similar suspended silt compared to most of harbor
iv. Some periphyton on submerged surfaces
v. Small amount of circulation/eddies observed
814
Channel Island Harbor Water Quality Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan 22 Hemlock Road outfall debris boom Channel Islands Harbor at Hemlock Road debris boom, facing southwest
Surface scum in corner eddy
815
Channel Island Harbor Water Quality Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan 23

10. Oxnard West Drain/Channel Islands Harbor Outfall
• Two locations visited, drain channel in median of W. Channel Island Blvd and drain’s outfall into harbor at northwest corner of intersection of W. Channel Island Blvd. and Victoria Ave.
• Within Port Hueneme jurisdiction, also adjacent to Navy base • Runs for almost 1.5 miles as open channel
• Surrounding land uses are recreational (golf course) commercial, and residential • Tidal influence
• Water Quality:
i. Water appeared to have similar clarity to main harbor 816
Channel Island Harbor Water Quality Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan 24 Oxnard West Drain, facing east Oxnard West Drain, facing west Oxnard West Drain outfall to Channel Islands Harbor Channel Islands Harbor at Oxnard West Drain outfall 817
Capital Cost ($) $36,900,000
Annual O&M Costs ($) $1,144,066
Cost Assumptions:
• Potential cost savings due to prior existence of pumping system • Potential additional costs for conduction of studies to support ongoing permitting efforts.

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE

KEY IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
• Ongoing pump operation expected to call for
recurring energy and routine maintenance costs.
• Potential need for upgrades to reduce impacts to
marine life.
• Potential City/County/private/Coastal Commission
partner(s).

PROJECT EVALUATION

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
Edison Canal Pump Resumption – 67 MGD

RECEIVING WATER STRATEGIES

PROJECT DESCRIPTRION
This alternative involves the rehabilitation and resumption of pumping at the northern end of the Edison canal. The existing pump house infrastructure would have to be refurbished and the pumps would be replaced. Water would be extracted from the canal adjacent to the pump house and discharged to the ocean side in a similar fashion to what had occurred while the power station was operational. The activation of the pumps serves to draw fresher harbor water further up the canal potentially providing better water quality to the northern reaches of the system.

LOCATION
The previously decommissioned Mandalay
Generating Station once-through-cooling pumps.

Modeled Benefits
Harbor Residence Time (RT) Results (days):

Max RT: 22.99
Average RT: 11.73
• Potential educational and recreational opportunities. • Potential benefits to environmentally vulnerable
community.

Additional Community Benefits
• Water withdrawal specified at the location of the previous pump station that serviced the powerplant.
• Long term average withdrawal rate (67 MGD) used.

Model methods
• High effort – Coordination with County
departments/agencies recommended.
• Potential need for Encroachment Permit.
• Fish entrainment mitigation likely.
• Consultation with regulators recommended.
• Potential need for detailed/long-term special
studies to support permitting efforts.
• Mid-term design/construction timeline.
• Permitting 3-10 yrs; Operational rehabilitation 0.5-
2 yrs.

Timeline:

Permitting:
• Potential need for mechanical equipment upgrades
due to extended period of inactivity.
• May require specialized operating staff.
• Private/utility parcel ownership.

Other:

Long-term O&M:
• Nonpoint Source Pollution 319 Grant Program (Open on a per project basis – expected to release a call for projects in December) • Proposition 4 (Anticipated 2026)
• Agricultural Drainage Management Loan Program (Current) • State Water Resource Control Board Clean Water State Revolving Fund (Current) • California Wildlife Conservation Control Board Stream Flow Enhancement Program (Current) 1 1 of 2
818
WATER QUALITY & CIRCULATION RESULTS – EDISON CANAL PUMP RESUMPTION – 67 MGD 2 of 2

RECEIVING WATER STRATEGIES
1 2 3
4 5
6 7
9 8
Exceedance Percentage (%)
Zone TN TP DO CU CHLA Bacteria Bifenthrin Permethrin
Zone 1 0 0 0 0 0 8.04 1.92 29.28
Zone 2 0 0 0 0 0 11.00 1.92 33.13
Zone 3 0 0 0 0 0 14.50 2.61 36.22
Zone 4 0 0 0 0 0 12.44 1.92 34.50
Zone 5 0 0 0 0 0 18.49 3.23 37.32
Zone 6 0 0 0 0 0 13.20 1.24 35.46
Zone 7 0 0 0 0 0 12.99 1.24 35.88
Zone 8 0 0 0 0 0 12.37 0.82 35.40
Zone 9 0 0 0 0 0 14.02 1.31 36.43

CANAL / HARBOR ZONES MODEL RESULTS MODELED RESIDENCE TIME Harbor circulation model results indicate
the Edison Canal Pump Resumption (67
MGD) strategy results in an average
residence time reduction of 46% relative to
the baseline. Measured concentrations of
conventional constituents (TN, TP, CU,
CHLA) are generally low in the receiving
water data, potentially due to sedimentbinding or rapid cycling of these constituents. Nutrient concentrations are
low in areas subject to tidal flushing, which
promotes dilution and export. Dissolved
Oxygen (DO) exceedance levels vary
among different strategies, potentially due
to stratification or high oxygen demand
causing episodic DO depletions. Both
pesticides and bacteria show relatively
consistent exceedances throughout the
Harbor area for all strategies, which is
potentially attributable to their origination
from ongoing surface runoff and/or
stormwater inputs as well as their typically
slow degradation process. It should be
noted that bacterial concentrations decline
rapidly following watershed-derived
loadings, and the model does not include
any in-Harbor bacteria sources.

LEGEND
TN: Total Nitrogen
TP: Total Phosphorus
DO: Dissolved Oxygen
CU: Copper
CHLA: Chlorophyll-A
Bacteria: Enterococcus
Pesticides:

Bifenthrin/Permethrin
Water quality and circulation modeling results for Receiving Water Strategies were measured across nine distinct zones throughout the Harbor, as depicted above. Residence time results are presented as an average residence time
measurement across the nine zones, while the table to the right presents modeled exceedances for selected constituents
individually in each of the nine zones.
819
Capital Cost ($) $29,520,000
Annual O&M Costs ($) $915,253
Cost Assumptions:
• Potential cost savings due to prior existence of pumping system • Potential additional costs for conduction of studies to support ongoing permitting efforts.

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE

KEY IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
• Ongoing pump operation expected to call for
recurring energy and routine maintenance costs.
• Potential need for upgrades to reduce impacts to
marine life.
• Potential City/County/private/Coastal Commission
partner(s).

PROJECT EVALUATION

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
Edison Canal Pump Resumption (4.3 MGD)

RECEIVING WATER STRATEGIES

PROJECT DESCRIPTRION
This alternative involves the rehabilitation and resumption of pumping at the northern end of the Edison canal. The existing pump house infrastructure would have to be refurbished and the pumps would be replaced. Water would be extracted from the canal adjacent to the pump house and discharged to the ocean side in a similar fashion to what had occurred while the power station was operational. The activation of the pumps serves to draw fresher harbor water further up the canal potentially providing better water quality to the northern reaches of the system.

LOCATION
The previously decommissioned Mandalay
Generating Station once-through-cooling pumps.

Modeled Benefits
Harbor Residence Time (RT) Results (days):

Max RT: 42.93
Average RT: 18.87
• Potential educational and recreational opportunities. • Potential benefits to environmentally vulnerable
community.

Additional Community Benefits
• Water withdrawal specified at the location of the previous pump station that serviced the powerplant.
• Low-capacity withdrawal rate (4.3 MGD) used.

Model methods
• High effort – Coordination with County
departments/agencies recommended.
• Potential need for Encroachment Permit.
• Fish entrainment mitigation likely.
• Consultation with regulators recommended.
• Potential need for detailed/long-term special
studies to support permitting efforts.
• Mid-term design/construction timeline.
• Permitting 3-10 yrs; Operational rehabilitation 0.5-
2 yrs.

Timeline:

Permitting:
• Potential need for mechanical equipment upgrades
due to extended period of inactivity.
• May require specialized operating staff.
• Private/utility parcel ownership.

Other:

Long-term O&M:
• Nonpoint Source Pollution 319 Grant Program (Open on a per project basis – expected to release a call for projects in December) • Proposition 4 (Anticipated 2026)
• Agricultural Drainage Management Loan Program (Current) • State Water Resource Control Board Clean Water State Revolving Fund (Current) • California Wildlife Conservation Control Board Stream Flow Enhancement Program (Current) 1 of 2
820
WATER QUALITY & CIRCULATION RESULTS – EDISON CANAL PUMP RESUMPTION (4.3 MGD) 2 of 2

RECEIVING WATER STRATEGIES
1 2 3
4 5
6 7
9 8
Exceedance Percentage (%)
Zone TN TP DO CU CHLA Bacteria Bifenthrin Permethrin
Zone 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.82 31.04
Zone 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.55 33.79
Zone 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.65 37.36
Zone 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.10 35.16
Zone 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.47 37.64
Zone 6 0 0 0.27 0 0 0 1.37 34.62
Zone 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.27 35.44
Zone 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35.44
Zone 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.55 35.44

CANAL / HARBOR ZONES MODELED RESIDENCE TIME
LEGEND
TN: Total Nitrogen
TP: Total Phosphorus
DO: Dissolved Oxygen
CU: Copper
CHLA: Chlorophyll-A
Bacteria: Enterococcus
Pesticides:

Bifenthrin/Permethrin

MODEL RESULTS
Harbor circulation model results indicate
the Edison Canal Pump Resumption (4.3
MGD) strategy results in an average
residence time reduction of 14% relative to
the baseline. Measured concentrations of
conventional constituents (TN, TP, CU,
CHLA) are generally low in the receiving
water data, potentially due to sedimentbinding or rapid cycling of these constituents. Nutrient concentrations are
low in areas subject to tidal flushing, which
promotes dilution and export. Dissolved
Oxygen (DO) exceedance levels vary
among different strategies, potentially due
to stratification or high oxygen demand
causing episodic DO depletions. Both
pesticides and bacteria show relatively
consistent exceedances throughout the
Harbor area for all strategies, which is
potentially attributable to their origination
from ongoing surface runoff and/or
stormwater inputs as well as their typically
slow degradation process. It should be
noted that bacterial concentrations decline
rapidly following watershed-derived
loadings, and the model does not include
any in-Harbor bacteria sources.

Water quality and circulation modeling results for Receiving Water Strategies were measured across nine distinct zones throughout the Harbor, as depicted above. Residence time results are presented as an average residence time
measurement across the nine zones, while the table to the right presents modeled exceedances for selected constituents
individually in each of the nine zones.
821
Capital Cost ($) $103,000,000
Annual O&M Costs ($) $4,049,244
Cost Assumptions:

Refer to cost estimate document.

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE

KEY IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
• Regular monitoring and maintenance.
• Periodic inspections for functionality.
• Ongoing maintenance costs.
• Potential City/County/Coastal Commission
partner(s).

PROJECT EVALUATION

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
Decommission Canal/Convert to Engineered Wetlands

RECEIVING WATER STRATEGIES

PROJECT DESCRIPTRION
This regional scale restoration approach would involve the installation of a dam at Wooley Bridge intended to hydrologically disconnect the Harbor and direct agricultural discharge to the historic wetlands at 5th Street / Harbor Blvd. Wetlands serve as a natural means of water filtration and would be beneficial in reducing loads of pollutants such as nutrients and pesticides entering waterways due to agricultural runoff. Enhanced strategies focus on overall planning and design improvements as well as engineering design regarding the prospective dam at Wooley Bridge with the intention of maximizing water quality benefits and ensuring proper functionality of the engineered wetlands.

LOCATION
Dam at Wooley Bridge and wetlands in North section
of canal, from W Wooley Rd to Harbor Blvd.

Modeled Benefits
Harbor Residence Time (RT) Results (days):

Max RT: 31.69
Average RT: 13.16
• Enhanced local biodiversity, habitat creation.
• Improved water quality, flood control.
• Community engagement & education.
• Benefits to disadvantaged or socially/environmentally vulnerable community.

Additional Community Benefits
• Canal cells removed from model domain and do not contribute to the water exchange/circulation in the southern portions of the harbor.

Model methods
• High effort – Grading, Land-Use, Coastal
Development Permits.
• NPDES CG Permit during construction.
• Coordination with City/Regional/State
Departments.
• Address utility constraints.
• Long-term design/construction.
• Permitting 3-10 years; Construction 2-5 years.

Timeline:

Permitting:
• Community engagement and awareness.
• Specialized staff for operation.
• Wildlife impact mitigation – Avoid sensitive
habitats, minimize disturbances.
• City/County/private parcel ownership.

Other:

Long-term O&M:
• Nonpoint Source Pollution 319 Grant Program (Open on a per project basis – expected to release a call for projects in December) • Proposition 4 (Anticipated 2026)
• Agricultural Drainage Management Loan Program (Current) • State Water Resource Control Board Clean Water State Revolving Fund (Current) • California Department of Parks and Recreation Land and Water Conservation Fund (Current) • California Wildlife Conservation Control Board Stream Flow Enhancement Program (Current) 1 of 2
822
WATER QUALITY & CIRCULATION RESULTS – DECOMMISSION CANAL/CONVERT TO ENGINEERED WETLANDS 2 of 2

RECEIVING WATER STRATEGIES
1 2 3
4 5
6 7
9 8

CANAL / HARBOR ZONES MODELED RESIDENCE TIME
Exceedance Percentage (%)
Zone TN TP DO CU CHLA Bacteria Bifenthrin Permethrin
Zone 1 0 0 0 0 0 12.85 3.02 37.59
Zone 2 0 0 0.14 0 0 14.57 4.05 40.14
Zone 3 0 0 0.34 0 0 16.43 5.36 41.31
Zone 4 0 0 0.27 0 0 13.75 3.09 40.00
Zone 5 0 0 0.34 0 0 19.73 7.84 41.65
Zone 6 0 0 1.10 0 0 13.68 2.47 39.73
Zone 7 0 0 0 0 0 13.33 2.41 39.18
Zone 8 0 0 0 0 0 13.81 2.54 39.68
Zone 9 0 0 0 0 0 11.68 1.72 38.21
LEGEND
TN: Total Nitrogen
TP: Total Phosphorus
DO: Dissolved Oxygen
CU: Copper
CHLA: Chlorophyll-A
Bacteria: Enterococcus
Pesticides:

Bifenthrin/Permethrin

MODEL RESULTS
Harbor circulation model results indicate the
Decommission Canal/Convert to Engineered
Wetlands strategy results in an average
residence time reduction of 40% relative to
the baseline. Measured concentrations of
conventional constituents (TN, TP, CU, CHLA)
are generally low in the receiving water
data, potentially due to sediment-binding or
rapid cycling of these constituents. Nutrient
concentrations are low in areas subject to
tidal flushing, which promotes dilution and
export. Dissolved Oxygen (DO) exceedance
levels vary among different strategies,
potentially due to stratification or high
oxygen demand causing episodic DO
depletions. Both pesticides and bacteria
show relatively consistent exceedances
throughout the Harbor area for all
strategies, which is potentially attributable
to their origination from ongoing surface
runoff and/or stormwater inputs as well as
their typically slow degradation process. It
should be noted that bacterial
concentrations decline rapidly following
watershed-derived loadings, and the model
does not include any in-Harbor bacteria
sources.

Water quality and circulation modeling results for Receiving Water Strategies were measured across nine distinct zones throughout the Harbor, as depicted above. Residence time results are presented as an average residence time
measurement across the nine zones, while the table to the right presents modeled exceedances for selected constituents
individually in each of the nine zones.
823
Capital Cost ($) $25,100,000
Annual O&M Costs ($) $6,608
Cost Assumptions:

Refer to cost estimate document.

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE

KEY IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
• Regular monitoring and maintenance.
• Periodic inspections for functionality.
• Ongoing maintenance costs.
• Potential City/County/Coastal Commission
partner(s).

PROJECT EVALUATION

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
Passive Circulation Enhancements

RECEIVING WATER STRATEGIES

PROJECT DESCRIPTRION
Passive circulation enhancements would be achieved through the installation of culverts within the Harbor and with the intention of connecting different marinas and subsequently improving overall water circulation. Functionally, these operate by using a segment of conduit to transport water underneath roadways or other structures and subsequently reducing stagnation in areas where circulation may otherwise be of concern. Culverts consist of an entrance, outlet, and culvert barrel. Typical culvert shapes include circular pipes and rectangular boxes, as well as ellipses and arches. These could be installed at various identified in-Harbor problem areas. Enhanced strategies focus on improved planning and engineering design as well as increased implementation of culverts across a wider range of problem areas within the Harbor. It should be noted Mandalay Bay vaults were assessed during the site visit, but no inlets or outlets were seen or had information hence the circulation would be restricted.

LOCATION
10 sites within the Harbor between existing properties
Modeled Benefits
Harbor Residence Time (RT) Results (days):

Max RT: 34.89
Average RT: 12.11
• Natural water flow improvement & sediment
reduction.
• Enhanced aquatic habitat, biodiversity.
• Recreational & educational opportunities.
• Benefits to environmentally vulnerable community.

Additional Community Benefits
• Series of 10 culverts are placed throughout the
harbor to passively connect and exchange water
across smaller canals.

Model methods
• High effort – Grading, Land-Use, Coastal
Development Permits.
• NPDES CG Permit during construction.
• Coordination with City/Regional/State
Departments.
• Address utility constraints.
• Long-term design/construction.
• Permitting 3-10 years; Construction 2-5 years.

Timeline:

Permitting:
• Community engagement and awareness.
• Specialized staff for operation.
• Wildlife impact mitigation – Avoid sensitive habitats, minimize disturbances.
• City/County/private parcel ownership.

Other:

Long-term O&M:
• Nonpoint Source Pollution 319 Grant Program (Open on a per project basis – expected to release a call for projects in December) • Proposition 4 (Anticipated 2026)
• Agricultural Drainage Management Loan Program (Current) • State Water Resource Control Board Clean Water State Revolving Fund (Current) • Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Coastal Program (Current) • California Wildlife Conservation Control Board Stream Flow Enhancement Program (Current) 1 of 2
*It should be noted Mandalay Bay
vaults were assessed during the site
visit, but no inlet or outlets were
seen hence the circulation would be
integrated in a small restricted area.
824
WATER QUALITY & CIRCULATION RESULTS – PASSIVE CIRCULATION ENHANCEMENTS 2 of 2

RECEIVING WATER STRATEGIES
1 2 3
4 5
6 7
9 8

CANAL / HARBOR ZONES MODELED RESIDENCE TIME
Exceedance Percentage (%)
Zone TN TP DO CU CHLA Bacteria Bifenthrin Permethrin
Zone 1 0 0 0 0 0 7.91 1.86 30.56
Zone 2 0 0 0 0 0 10.86 1.86 33.95
Zone 3 0 0 0 0 0 14.64 2.82 36.63
Zone 4 0 0 0 0 0 12.78 1.92 34.85
Zone 5 0 0 0 0 0 19.52 4.81 38.28
Zone 6 0 0 0 0 0 13.29 1.40 35.52
Zone 7 0 0 0 0 0 13.20 1.31 35.53
Zone 8 0 0 0 0 0 12.51 1.03 35.74
Zone 9 0 0 0 0 0 14.16 1.44 35.95
LEGEND
TN: Total Nitrogen
TP: Total Phosphorus
DO: Dissolved Oxygen
CU: Copper
CHLA: Chlorophyll-A
Bacteria: Enterococcus
Pesticides:

Bifenthrin/Permethrin

MODEL RESULTS
Harbor circulation model results indicate
the Passive Circulation Enhancements
strategy results in an average residence
time reduction of 45% relative to the
baseline. Measured concentrations of
conventional constituents (TN, TP, CU,
CHLA) are generally low in the receiving
water data, potentially due to sedimentbinding or rapid cycling of these constituents. Nutrient concentrations are
low in areas subject to tidal flushing, which
promotes dilution and export. Dissolved
Oxygen (DO) exceedance levels vary
among different strategies, potentially due
to stratification or high oxygen demand
causing episodic DO depletions. Both
pesticides and bacteria show relatively
consistent exceedances throughout the
Harbor area for all strategies, which is
potentially attributable to their origination
from ongoing surface runoff and/or
stormwater inputs as well as their typically
slow degradation process. It should be
noted that bacterial concentrations decline
rapidly following watershed-derived
loadings, and the model does not include
any in-Harbor bacteria sources.

Water quality and circulation modeling results for Receiving Water Strategies were measured across nine distinct zones throughout the Harbor, as depicted above. Residence time results are presented as an average residence time
measurement across the nine zones, while the table to the right presents modeled exceedances for selected constituents
individually in each of the nine zones.
825
Capital Cost ($) $82,030,000
Annual O&M Costs ($) $789,514
Cost Assumptions:

Refer to cost estimate document.

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE

KEY IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
• Regular monitoring and maintenance.
• Periodic inspections for functionality.
• Ongoing maintenance costs.
• Potential City/County/Coastal Commission
partner(s).

PROJECT EVALUATION

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
Open Passive Edison Canal Connection to Ocean

RECEIVING WATER STRATEGIES

PROJECT DESCRIPTRION
Construction of a second, potentially navigable Harbor entrance could serve to enhance natural tidal circulation of water in and around the Harbor. The location of this second canal connection would likely be at the power plant/pump station and would be beneficial for improving water quality through enhanced circulation and reduced stagnation/residence times. The passive nature of this strategy provides benefits in the form of long-term energy conservation, with the bulk of infrastructural/technological investment being limited to the initial implementation of the project itself and the water flow being primarily managed by natural processes.

Key components include jettied or rip rap side banks to stabilize the inlet opening. Enhanced strategies focus on planning and design of the passive canal connection in addition to improved engineering design of the canal’s structural components.

LOCATION
The previously decommissioned MGS, West to the
Ocean.

Modeled Benefits
Harbor Residence Time (RT) Results (days):

Max RT: 15.15
Average RT: 5.91
• Improved tidal exchange and water quality.
• Enhanced marine habitat connectivity.
• Potential for recreational and educational
opportunities.
• Potential benefits to disadvantaged and
socially/environmentally vulnerable community.

Additional Community Benefits
• A new model grid is created which incorporates a 2nd inlet opening at the northern end of the Edison canal allowing the tide to propagate.

Model methods
• High effort – Requires Grading, Land-Use, and
Coastal Development Permits.
• NPDES CG Permit during construction.
• Mitigation monitoring required.
• Coordination with City/Regional/State
Departments.
• Address utility constraints.
• Long-term design/construction.
• Permitting 3-10 years; Construction 2-5 years.

Timeline:

Permitting:
• Community engagement and awareness.
• Specialized staff for operation.
• Wildlife impact mitigation – Avoid sensitive
habitats, minimize disturbances.
• City/County/private parcel ownership.

Other:

Long-term O&M:
• Nonpoint Source Pollution 319 Grant Program (Open on a per project basis – expected to release a call for projects in December) • Proposition 4 (Anticipated 2026)
• Agricultural Drainage Management Loan Program (Current) • State Water Resource Control Board Clean Water State Revolving Fund (Current) • Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Coastal Program (Current) • Department of Transportation Port Infrastructure Development Program (Current) • California Department of Parks and Recreation Land and Water Conservation Fund (Current) • California Wildlife Conservation Control Board Stream Flow Enhancement Program (Current) 9 1 of 2
826
WATER QUALITY & CIRCULATION RESULTS – OPEN PASSIVE EDISON CANAL CONNECTION TO OCEAN 2 of 2

RECEIVING WATER STRATEGIES
1 2 3
4 5
6 7
9 8

CANAL / HARBOR ZONES MODELED RESIDENCE TIME
Exceedance Percentage (%)
Zone TN TP DO CU CHLA Bacteria Bifenthrin Permethrin
Zone 1 0 0 0 0 0 13.05 2.14 34.88
Zone 2 0 0 0 0 0 13.33 2.21 34.05
Zone 3 0 0 0 0 0 17.89 4.70 36.67
Zone 4 0 0 0 0 0 14.23 3.04 32.73
Zone 5 0 0 0 0 0 21.62 7.80 37.71
Zone 6 0 0 0 0 0 17.54 2.42 30.39
Zone 7 0 0 0 0 0 16.44 2.62 34.74
Zone 8 0 0 0 0 0 16.71 2.21 34.39
Zone 9 0 0 0 0 0 16.99 3.04 33.84
LEGEND
TN: Total Nitrogen
TP: Total Phosphorus
DO: Dissolved Oxygen
CU: Copper
CHLA: Chlorophyll-A
Bacteria: Enterococcus
Pesticides:

Bifenthrin/Permethrin

MODEL RESULTS
Harbor circulation model results indicate
the Open Passive Edison Canal Connection
to Ocean strategy results in an average
residence time reduction of 73% relative to
the baseline. Measured concentrations of
conventional constituents (TN, TP, CU,
CHLA) are generally low in the receiving
water data, potentially due to sedimentbinding or rapid cycling of these constituents. Nutrient concentrations are
low in areas subject to tidal flushing, which
promotes dilution and export. Dissolved
Oxygen (DO) exceedance levels vary
among different strategies, potentially due
to stratification or high oxygen demand
causing episodic DO depletions. Both
pesticides and bacteria show relatively
consistent exceedances throughout the
Harbor area for all strategies, which is
potentially attributable to their origination
from ongoing surface runoff and/or
stormwater inputs as well as their typically
slow degradation process. It should be
noted that bacterial concentrations decline
rapidly following watershed-derived
loadings, and the model does not include
any in-Harbor bacteria sources.

Water quality and circulation modeling results for Receiving Water Strategies were measured across nine distinct zones throughout the Harbor, as depicted above. Residence time results are presented as an average residence time
measurement across the nine zones, while the table to the right presents modeled exceedances for selected constituents
individually in each of the nine zones.
827
Capital Cost ($) $9,200,000
Annual O&M Costs ($) $410,131
Cost Assumptions:

Refer to cost estimate document.

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE

KEY IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
• Regular monitoring and maintenance.
• Periodic inspections for functionality.
• Ongoing maintenance costs.
• Potential City/County/Coastal Commission
partner(s).

Dam at Wooley Bridge, wetlands in North section of
Canal, MGS and North end of Harbor

PROJECT EVALUATION

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
Storage Tank Water Release Between Canal/Harbor

RECEIVING WATER STRATEGIES

PROJECT DESCRIPTRION
The implementation of a storage tank water release system between the canal and harbor could significantly enhance water management and quality in the area. The strategic placement of storage tanks near the canal and harbor would allow for controlled water release, improving circulation and reducing stagnation. This system would be particularly beneficial at locations such as the power plant/pump station, where enhanced water flow can mitigate residence times and promote healthier aquatic environments. The passive nature of this strategy offers long-term energy conservation benefits, with the primary investment focused on the initial setup of the storage tank release and associated infrastructure. This project aims to improve water quality and circulation through thoughtful engineering and sustainable practices, ensuring efficient water distribution and management within the harbor.

LOCATION
Modeled Benefits
Harbor Residence Time (RT) Results (days):

Max RT: 28.74
Average RT: 11.97
• Improved water quality, controlled discharge
management.
• Enhanced flood control and resilience.
• Habitat restoration, increased biodiversity.
• Recreational and educational opportunities.
• Benefits to socially vulnerable community.

Additional Community Benefits
• Timed water discharge to coincide with neap tide periods (~biweekly). • Assumes (2) 50k gallon storage tanks will discharge into the harbor over a 6-hour period to help flush harbor.
• Canal cells removed from model domain and do not contribute to the water exchange/circulation in the southern portions of the harbor.

Model methods
• High effort – Coordination with local and state
agencies.
• Need for Water Quality Certification and
Environmental Impact Assessment.
• Special studies to assess ecosystem impact.
• Long-term design/construction.
• Permitting 3-10 years; Construction 2-5 years.

Timeline:

Permitting:
• Community engagement and awareness.
• Specialized staff for operation.
• Wildlife impact mitigation – Avoid sensitive
habitats, minimize disturbances.
• City/County/private parcel ownership.

Other:

Long-term O&M:
• Proposition 4 (Anticipated 2026)
• Agricultural Drainage Management Loan Program (Current) • State Water Resource Control Board Clean Water State Revolving Fund (Current) • State Water Resource Control Board Replacing, Removing, or Upgrading Underground Storage Tanks (Current) • California Wildlife Conservation Control Board Stream Flow Enhancement Program (Current) 1 of 2
828
WATER QUALITY & CIRCULATION RESULTS – STORAGE TANK WATER RELEASE BETWEEN CANAL/HARBOR 2 of 2

RECEIVING WATER STRATEGIES
1 2 3
4 5
6 7
9 8

CANAL / HARBOR ZONES MODELED RESIDENCE TIME
Exceedance Percentage (%)
Zone TN TP DO CU CHLA Bacteria Bifenthrin Permethrin
Zone 1 0 0 0 0 0 11.75 2.47 35.74
Zone 2 0 0 0 0 0 13.47 3.78 38.28
Zone 3 0 0 0 0 0 17.25 5.22 41.10
Zone 4 0 0 0 0 0 14.09 4.47 39.52
Zone 5 0 0 0 0 0 19.93 7.97 41.51
Zone 6 0 0 0.21 0 0 14.16 4.12 40.00
Zone 7 0 0 0 0 0 14.71 2.89 40.62
Zone 8 0 0 0 0 0 14.57 2.82 40.89
Zone 9 0 0 0 0 0 14.78 3.37 41.37
LEGEND
TN: Total Nitrogen
TP: Total Phosphorus
DO: Dissolved Oxygen
CU: Copper
CHLA: Chlorophyll-A
Bacteria: Enterococcus
Pesticides:

Bifenthrin/Permethrin

MODEL RESULTS
Harbor circulation model results indicate
the Storage Tank Water Release Between
Canal/Harbor strategy results in an average
residence time reduction of 45% relative to
the baseline. Measured concentrations of
conventional constituents (TN, TP, CU,
CHLA) are generally low in the receiving
water data, potentially due to sedimentbinding or rapid cycling of these constituents. Nutrient concentrations are
low in areas subject to tidal flushing, which
promotes dilution and export. Dissolved
Oxygen (DO) exceedance levels vary
among different strategies, potentially due
to stratification or high oxygen demand
causing episodic DO depletions. Both
pesticides and bacteria show relatively
consistent exceedances throughout the
Harbor area for all strategies, which is
potentially attributable to their origination
from ongoing surface runoff and/or
stormwater inputs as well as their typically
slow degradation process. It should be
noted that bacterial concentrations decline
rapidly following watershed-derived
loadings, and the model does not include
any in-Harbor bacteria sources.

Water quality and circulation modeling results for Receiving Water Strategies were measured across nine distinct zones throughout the Harbor, as depicted above. Residence time results are presented as an average residence time
measurement across the nine zones, while the table to the right presents modeled exceedances for selected constituents
individually in each of the nine zones.
829
Capital Cost ($) $112,200,000
Annual O&M Costs ($) $4,459,376
Cost Assumptions:

Refer to cost estimate document.

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE

KEY IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
• Regular monitoring and maintenance.
• Periodic inspections for functionality.
• Ongoing maintenance costs.
• Potential City/County/Coastal Commission
partner(s).

Dam at Wooley Bridge, wetlands in North section of
Canal, MGS and North end of Harbor

PROJECT EVALUATION

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
Canal Decommissioned & Water Tank Discharge into Harbor

RECEIVING WATER STRATEGIES

PROJECT DESCRIPTRION
The decommissioning of the canal and the installation of a water tank discharge system into the harbor represent a comprehensive approach to enhancing water management and quality. By decommissioning the canal, water flow will be redirected, allowing for more controlled and efficient management of water resources. The strategic placement of storage tanks near the harbor will facilitate the controlled release of water, improving circulation and reducing stagnation. Additionally, the installation of a dam at Wooley Bridge will hydrologically disconnect the harbor, directing agricultural discharge to historic wetlands. These wetlands will serve as natural filtration systems, reducing pollutants such as nutrients and pesticides from agricultural runoff. This project aims to improve water quality and circulation through thoughtful engineering and sustainable practices, ensuring efficient water distribution and management within the harbor.

LOCATION
Modeled Benefits
Harbor Residence Time (RT) Results (days):

Max RT: 31.75
Average RT: 13.33
• Improved water quality, controlled discharge
management.
• Enhanced flood control and resilience.
• Habitat restoration, increased biodiversity.
• Recreational and educational opportunities.
• Benefits to socially vulnerable community.

Additional Community Benefits
• Timed water discharge to coincide with neap tide periods (~biweekly). • Assumes (2) 50k gallon storage tanks will discharge into the harbor over a 6-hour period to help flush harbor.
• Canal cells removed from model domain and do not contribute to the water exchange/circulation in the southern portions of the harbor.

Model methods
• High effort – Coordination with local and state
agencies.
• Need for Water Quality Certification and
Environmental Impact Assessment.
• Special studies to assess ecosystem impact.
• Long-term design/construction.
• Permitting 3-10 years; Construction 2-5 years.

Timeline:

Permitting:
• Community engagement and awareness.
• Specialized staff for operation.
• Wildlife impact mitigation – Avoid sensitive
habitats, minimize disturbances.
• City/County/private parcel ownership.

Other:

Long-term O&M:
• Proposition 4 (Anticipated 2026)
• Agricultural Drainage Management Loan Program (Current) • State Water Resource Control Board Clean Water State Revolving Fund (Current) • State Water Resource Control Board Replacing, Removing, or Upgrading Underground Storage Tanks (Current) • California Wildlife Conservation Control Board Stream Flow Enhancement Program (Current) 1 of 2
830
WATER QUALITY & CIRCULATION RESULTS – CANAL DECOMMISSIONED & WATER TANK DISCHARGE INTO HARBOR 2 of 2

RECEIVING WATER STRATEGIES
1 2 3
4 5
6 7
9 8

CANAL / HARBOR ZONES MODELED RESIDENCE TIME
Exceedance Percentage (%)
Zone TN TP DO CU CHLA Bacteria Bifenthrin Permethrin
Zone 1 0 0 0 0 0 12.85 3.02 37.59
Zone 2 0 0 0 0 0 14.57 4.05 40.14
Zone 3 0 0 0 0 0 16.43 5.36 41.31
Zone 4 0 0 0 0 0 13.75 3.09 39.93
Zone 5 0 0 0 0 0 19.73 7.84 41.58
Zone 6 0 0 1.79 0 0 13.68 2.47 39.73
Zone 7 0 0 0 0 0 13.33 2.41 39.18
Zone 8 0 0 0 0 0 13.88 2.54 39.86
Zone 9 0 0 0 0 0 11.68 1.72 38.21
LEGEND
TN: Total Nitrogen
TP: Total Phosphorus
DO: Dissolved Oxygen
CU: Copper
CHLA: Chlorophyll-A
Bacteria: Enterococcus
Pesticides:

Bifenthrin/Permethrin

MODEL RESULTS
Harbor circulation model results indicate the
Canal Decommissioned & Water Tank
Discharge into Harbor strategy results in an
average residence time reduction of 39%
relative to the baseline. Measured
concentrations of conventional constituents
(TN, TP, CU, CHLA) are generally low in the
receiving water data, potentially due to
sediment-binding or rapid cycling of these
constituents. Nutrient concentrations are
low in areas subject to tidal flushing, which
promotes dilution and export. Dissolved
Oxygen (DO) exceedance levels vary among
different strategies, potentially due to
stratification or high oxygen demand causing
episodic DO depletions. Both pesticides and
bacteria show relatively consistent
exceedances throughout the Harbor area for
all strategies, which is potentially
attributable to their origination from
ongoing surface runoff and/or stormwater
inputs as well as their typically slow
degradation process. It should be noted that
bacterial concentrations decline rapidly
following watershed-derived loadings, and
the model does not include any in-Harbor
bacteria sources.

Water quality and circulation modeling results for Receiving Water Strategies were measured across nine distinct zones throughout the Harbor, as depicted above. Residence time results are presented as an average residence time
measurement across the nine zones, while the table to the right presents modeled exceedances for selected constituents
individually in each of the nine zones.
831

KEY IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
Targeted Nutrient/Pesticide Source Control – Outreach and Training

NONSTRUCTURAL STRATEGIES

PROJECT DESCRIPTRION
Targeted outreach and training for landowners and workers in commercial, cultivated, industrial, and residential areas can reduce sources of nutrients and pesticides by informing individuals/groups about behavioral changes to support various pollutant reduction strategies/practices that reduce pollutant loads to receiving waters. Functionally, outreach and training strategies will be focused on providing information and training that would provide baseline knowledge and skills upon which targeted individuals/groups can build actionable practices to create a tangible reduction in their contribution to nutrient/pesticide loads.

These strategies may include things like conservation practices, personal consumption and reduction strategies, outreach to HOAs, improved web resources, volunteer and community-based events, collaboration with activist groups, and outreach and training programs on water quality impairments.

Enhanced strategies focus on intensification of outreach and training efforts, expansion to new media and markets, improved education and outreach materials including language translations, additional resource provision, and increased staffing to generate and deliver outreach and education messaging.

LOCATION
Targeted locations/communities based on land use,
audience, and project nature.
• Low effort – Coordination with County
Departments recommended.
• Near-term design/construction timeline.

Timeline:

Permitting:
• Audience engagement often correlated with training
effectiveness.
• Necessity of voluntary participation from watershed
owners.
• Availability of training staff and/or appropriate
resources may limit implementation capacity.
• Limited availability to correlate training
implementation with load reductions of priority
pollutants.
• Need for coordination with interested parties to
maximize potential collaboration opportunities.

Other:
1 of 1
The following examples exist in relation to the distribution of applicable land uses in and around the Channel Islands Harbor.

Commercial/Institutional: Distribution of outreach/engagement materials and advertisements for related events at commercial/institutional facilities through existing inspection processes and/or during business licensing process.

Cultivated: See Agricultural Coordination Fact Sheet for example outreach/engagement activities related to agricultural land uses.

Multi/Single Family Residential: Targeted community outreach through HOAs, community meeting groups, Nextdoor, and potential tabling activities at local community gatherings such as farmer’s markets.

Outreach and training efforts for targeted nutrient/pesticide source control can be performed in various ways, primarily differing based on applicable land uses that are present in the targeted area(s).

EXAMPLE ACTIVITIES
832
Evaluation of nonstructural projects for the Channel Islands Harbor is based primarily on the given strategy’s potential for providing both water quality benefits and additional miscellaneous benefits to the surrounding communities. Information below presents an overview of the modeled water quality and community benefits of this Outreach and Training strategy, as well as up-to-date cost estimates.

WATER QUALITY RESULTS – EDISON CANAL PUMP RESUMPTION
1 of 1

NONSTRUCTURAL STRATEGIES
Targeted Nutrient/Pesticide Source Control – Outreach and Training Enhanced Program Cost Assumptions:
• Capital cost assumes development of targeted audience-specific outreach • Annual outreach media purchase
• Programs provide roughly 2 hours training annually
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE1
Capital Cost ($) $30,000
Annual O&M Costs ($) $50,000 - $100,000

PROJECT EVALUATION
• Benefits to community anchor parcel(s).
• Community education opportunity.
• Implementation in disadvantaged communities.
• Provision of benefits to socially-vulnerable communities. • Provision of benefits to environmentally-vulnerable communities. • Potential for implementation in local Priority Growth Area(s). • Provision of benefits to areas encountering high pollution burdens.

Additional Community Benefits
Water Quality Benefits
Constituent Average Annual Load Reduction
Pesticides - Bifenthrin 0.2 lbs
Pesticides - Permethrin 96 lbs
Nutrients - Total Nitrogen (TN) 701 lbs
Nutrients - Total Phosphorus (TP) 437 lbs
Metals – Copper (Cu) 15 lbs
Bacteria – Enterococcus 1.96*1011 MPN
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) --
Water Residence Time Impact To Harbor Circulation
None
1Estimated costs based on information derived from similar programs; subject to change.

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• Nonpoint Source Pollution 319 Grant Program (Open on a per project basis – expected to release a call for projects in December)
• Proposition 4 (Anticipated 2026)
• State Water Resource Control Board Clean Water State Revolving Fund (Current) • The general modeling approach employed a previously calibrated regional water quality model built in LSPC and adapted to produce model outputs at each of the major MS4 outfalls flowing into the Harbor and Canal. • Model outputs represented as watershed-wide load reductions relative to baseline watershed conditions for Sediment, TN, TP, Cu, Pesticides, Enterococcus, Trash.

Model Methods
833

KEY IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
Targeted Nutrient/Pesticide Source Control – Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE)

NONSTRUCTURAL STRATEGIES

PROJECT DESCRIPTRION
Illicit discharges (ID) refer to specific incidents where pollutants and unauthorized flows such as sanitary sewer spills, industrial wastewater, vehicle fluids, and restaurant fats, oils and/or grease enter stormwater systems. IDDE programs utilize hotline calls and investigations to detect and respond to illicit discharges, and include provisions for the documentation, tracking, and reporting of all cases of illicit discharges to the storm drain system as well as mandating the timely response to reported IDs. When applicable, IDDE can include enforcement action for responsible parties to non-compliant discharges to the storm drain system by mandating either elimination of IDs or the requirement of dischargers to obtain an appropriate permit.

Enhanced strategies include options for increased supporting education and outreach to inform citizens of water pollution prevention and reporting procedures, increased staffing and resources to address reported illicit discharges, and upgraded surveillance and water testing materials.

LOCATION
Specified locations/areas identified by inspections
stemming from ID reports and investigations.
• Low effort – Coordination with County
Departments recommended.
• Consultation with Advisors and Management Plans
recommended.
• Near-term design/construction timeline.

Timeline:

Permitting:
• IDDE identification & response timing and citizen
observer knowledge/engagement can impact program
effectiveness.
• Investment in field-deployed electronic data collection/ tracking equipment needed to support staff efficiency.
• Need for outreach and engagement efforts to address
potential community opposition.
• Resource limitations related to necessity of staffing and time-consuming follow-up efforts..

Other:
1 of 1
IDDE includes activities/efforts to detect and respond to reported illicit discharges in and around the Channel Islands Harbor and surrounding areas. Potential strategies for targeted nutrient/pesticide source control through IDDE include the following:
• Enhancement of existing reporting procedures, such as increased staffing for receipt of and response to hotline calls, and/or documentation and tracking of reported IDs.
• Technological upgrades to surveillance and water quality testing materials and procedures. • Development of education/outreach program(s) to inform community members of ID-related regulations and reporting/permitting procedures.

EXAMPLE ACTIVITIES
834
Evaluation of nonstructural projects for the Channel Islands Harbor is based primarily on the given strategy’s potential for providing both water quality benefits and additional miscellaneous benefits to the surrounding communities. Information below presents an overview of the modeled water quality and community benefits of this Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination strategy, as well as up-to-date cost estimates.

WATER QUALITY RESULTS – EDISON CANAL PUMP RESUMPTION
1 of 1

NONSTRUCTURAL STRATEGIES
Enhanced Program Cost Assumptions:
• Capital cost assumes development of workforce training program • Programs provide roughly 2 hours training annually
• Capital cost includes on-the-ground investigation and elimination costs PROJECT COST ESTIMATE1
Capital Cost ($) $50,000
Annual O&M Costs ($) $50,000

PROJECT EVALUATION
• Community education opportunity.
• Implementation in disadvantaged communities.
• Provision of benefits to socially-vulnerable communities. • Provision of benefits to environmentally-vulnerable communities. • Potential for implementation in local Priority Growth Area(s). • Provision of benefits to areas encountering high pollution burdens. • Potential to improve environmental and social health and safety.

Additional Community Benefits
Water Quality Benefits
Constituent Average Annual Load Reduction
Pesticides - Bifenthrin 0.1 lbs
Pesticides - Permethrin 32 lbs
Nutrients - Total Nitrogen (TN) 231 lbs
Nutrients - Total Phosphorus (TP) 144 lbs
Metals – Copper (Cu) 3.6 lbs
Bacteria – Enterococcus 5.75*1010 MPN
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) --
Water Residence Time Impact To Harbor Circulation
None
1Estimated costs based on information derived from similar programs; subject to change.

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• Proposition 4 (Anticipated 2026)
• State Water Resource Control Board Clean Water State Revolving Fund (Current) • The general modeling approach employed a previously calibrated regional water quality model built in LSPC and adapted to produce model outputs at each of the major MS4 outfalls flowing into the Harbor and Canal. • Model outputs represented as watershed-wide load reductions relative to baseline watershed conditions for Sediment, TN, TP, Cu, Pesticides, Enterococcus, Trash.

Model Methods
Targeted Nutrient/Pesticide Source Control – Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) 835

KEY IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
Targeted Nutrient/Pesticide Source Control – Agricultural Coordination

NONSTRUCTURAL STRATEGIES

PROJECT DESCRIPTRION
Coordinated source reduction management in the context of the agricultural sector can reduce pollutant loads in irrigated agricultural discharges particularly regarding nutrients and pesticides. Source reduction management includes practices such as fertilizer, pesticides and irrigation reduction, mapping agricultural lands and risk assessment, crop rotation, and the relocation and/or reduction of overall agricultural land uses. Additionally, these strategies would include annual educational training on water quality impairments related to irrigated agricultural discharges, regulatory requirements, and management practices that treat or control these discharges as mandated by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. Enhanced strategies include the intensification of source reduction management practices and/or their implementation on a larger scale across a more complete set of agricultural land uses to the extent of compliance with regulatory requirements.

LOCATION
Agricultural areas relating to specific
individuals/groups based on specific project nature.
• Low effort – Coordination with County
Departments recommended.
• Consultation with Advisors and Management Plans
recommended.
• Mid-term design/construction timeline.

Timeline:

Permitting:
• Audience engagement often correlated with training
effectiveness.
• Training staff availability may limit implementation
capacity.
• Limited availability to correlate training
implementation with load reductions of priority
pollutants.
• Necessity of voluntary participation from private
growers may create challenges.
• Need for coordination with Farm Bureau to maximize
potential collaboration opportunities.

Other:
1 of 1
Agricultural coordination activities include potential outreach efforts to agricultural land users in the form of educational and/or training programs to facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of practical source reduction practices for nutrients and other pollutants. Potential strategies for targeted nutrient/pesticide source control through agricultural coordination in the areas surrounding the Channel Islands Harbor include the following:
• Coordinate with ongoing training required under LARWQCB Order No. R4-2023-03532. • Develop enhanced training for specific crop types and/or land uses with high fertilizer use. • Development of a farmers' market-based education and outreach program for both agricultural producers and the public. • Direct outreach at local farm supply distributors and storefronts. • Development of a ‘self-certification’ incentive program for nutrient- and pollutant-reduction.

EXAMPLE ACTIVITIES
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/323-Acs-Oxnard-CA-93036/442376715_zpid/ https://news.ventura.org/en/county-department-of-agricultureweights-and-measures-releases-2021-crop-and-livestock-report/ 836
Evaluation of nonstructural projects for the Channel Islands Harbor is based primarily on the given strategy’s potential for providing both water quality benefits and additional miscellaneous benefits to the surrounding communities. Information below presents an overview of the modeled water quality and community benefits of this Agricultural Coordination strategy, as well as up-to-date cost estimates.

WATER QUALITY RESULTS – EDISON CANAL PUMP RESUMPTION
1 of 1

NONSTRUCTURAL STRATEGIES
Enhanced Program Cost Assumptions:
• Initial investment in program development
• Ongoing staff resource costs for active engagement
• Includes cost provision for mandated 2 hours of annual educational training PROJECT COST ESTIMATE1
Capital Cost ($) $15,000
Annual O&M Costs ($) $10,000

PROJECT EVALUATION
• Benefits to community anchor parcel(s).
• Community education opportunity.
• Implementation in disadvantaged communities.
• Provision of benefits to socially-vulnerable communities. • Provision of benefits to environmentally-vulnerable communities. • Potential for implementation in local Priority Growth Area(s). • Provision of benefits to areas encountering high pollution burdens. • Coordination opportunity with ongoing programs (Ag Order compliance). • Potential to improve environmental and social health and safety.

Additional Community Benefits
Water Quality Benefits
Constituent Average Annual Load Reduction
Pesticides - Bifenthrin 0.2 lbs
Pesticides - Permethrin 96 lbs
Nutrients - Total Nitrogen (TN) 701 lbs
Nutrients - Total Phosphorus (TP) 437 lbs
Metals – Copper (Cu) 3.6 lbs
Bacteria – Enterococcus 5.75*1010 MPN
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) --
Water Residence Time Impact To Harbor Circulation
None
1Estimated costs based on information derived from similar programs; subject to change.

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• Nonpoint Source Pollution 319 Grant Program (Open on a per project basis – expected to release a call for projects in December)
• Proposition 4 (Anticipated 2026)
• Agricultural Drainage Management Loan Program (Current) • State Water Resource Control Board Clean Water State Revolving Fund (Current) • The general modeling approach employed a previously calibrated regional water quality model built in LSPC and adapted to produce model outputs at each of the major MS4 outfalls flowing into the Harbor and Canal. • Model outputs represented as watershed-wide load reductions relative to baseline watershed conditions for Sediment, TN, TP, Cu, Pesticides, Enterococcus, Trash.

Model Methods
Targeted Nutrient/Pesticide Source Control – Agricultural Coordination 837

KEY IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
Targeted Bacteria Source Control – Sewer System Maintenance

NONSTRUCTURAL STRATEGIES

PROJECT DESCRIPTRION
Maintenance of the sewer system can reduce or prevent sewage spills and/or exfiltration that may contribute to elevated bacteria levels. Targeted sewer system maintenance initiates with initial investigations to identify potential problem areas and associated abatement strategies. Source reduction management strategies related to the sewer system include routine maintenance, pipe lining, leak identification and pipe replacement prioritization, MS4 maintenance to prevent infiltration into the system, and overall improvement and technological upgrades to the various components of the sewer system. Enhanced strategies include increased frequency of routine maintenance activities, improved monitoring practices, and additional technological upgrades to the sewer system.

LOCATION
Portions/components of sewer system identified to
be in need of maintenance and repair.
.
• Low effort – Coordination with County
Departments recommended.
• Mid-term design/construction timeline.

Timeline:

Permitting:
• Close coordination with sewer system owner/operators
required.
• Sewer system maintenance can be limited by
owner/operator maintenance capacity/priorities.
• Additional baseline data & planning may be required
for optimized system maintenance.

Other:
1 of 1
Sewer system maintenance is characterized by the end goal of preventing spills and/or exfiltration of sewage that can lead to elevated levels of bacteria pollution. Potential strategies for targeted bacteria source control through sewer system maintenance activities include the following:
• Development of a funding mechanism for general efforts related to maintenance and upkeep of the sewer pipeline system in and around the Channel Islands Harbor.
• Enhancement of existing activities, such as increased inspection and routine maintenance frequency. • Technological upgrades in relation to existing procedures, such as improved monitoring/surveillance technology, improvements to existing sewer system assets, and refinement of approaches to prioritization practices.

EXAMPLE ACTIVITIES
838
Evaluation of nonstructural projects for the Channel Islands Harbor is based primarily on the given strategy’s potential for providing both water quality benefits and additional miscellaneous benefits to the surrounding communities. Information below presents an overview of the modeled water quality and community benefits of this Sewer System Maintenance strategy, as well as up-to-date cost estimates.

WATER QUALITY RESULTS – EDISON CANAL PUMP RESUMPTION
1 of 1

NONSTRUCTURAL STRATEGIES
Enhanced Program Cost Assumptions:
• Capital cost includes integrated asset management prioritization approach • O&M costs range based on pipe repair/replacement needs/capacity PROJECT COST ESTIMATE1
Capital Cost ($) $150,000- $300,000
Annual O&M Costs ($) $50,000- $5,000,000

PROJECT EVALUATION
• Community education opportunity.
• Potential for implementation in disadvantaged communities. • Provision of benefits to socially-vulnerable communities. • Provision of benefits to environmentally-vulnerable communities. • Potential for implementation in local Priority Growth Area(s) • Provision of benefits to areas encountering high pollution burdens. • Potential to improve environmental and social health and safety.

Additional Community Benefits
Water Quality Benefits
Constituent Average Annual Load Reduction
Pesticides - Bifenthrin 0 lbs
Pesticides - Permethrin 11 lbs
Nutrients - Total Nitrogen (TN) 78 lbs
Nutrients - Total Phosphorus (TP) 49 lbs
Metals – Copper (Cu) 0 lbs
Bacteria – Enterococcus 8.71*1010 MPN
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) --
Water Residence Time Impact To Harbor Circulation
None
1Estimated costs based on information derived from similar programs; subject to change.

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• Proposition 4 (Anticipated 2026)
• Community Development Block Grant Program (Annual)
• State Water Resource Control Board Clean Water State Revolving Fund (Current) • Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (Current) • The general modeling approach employed a previously calibrated regional water quality model built in LSPC and adapted to produce model outputs at each of the major MS4 outfalls flowing into the Harbor and Canal. • Model outputs represented as watershed-wide load reductions relative to baseline watershed conditions for Sediment, TN, TP, Cu, Pesticides, Enterococcus, Trash.

Model Methods
Targeted Bacteria Source Control – Sewer System Maintenance 839

KEY IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
Targeted Bacteria Source Control – Homeless Encampment Management

NONSTRUCTURAL STRATEGIES

PROJECT DESCRIPTRION
Sources of bacteria can be contributed by encampments inhabited by individuals experiencing homelessness. Targeted bacteria source control begins with initial investigations to identify contributing sources and associated abatement strategies. Source reduction management strategies related to encampments include volunteer-based cleanups, education/outreach, social service partnerships, financial assistance, and the provision of emergency housing and/or other facilities for individuals experiencing homelessness. Enhanced strategies include the overall intensification of source reduction management strategies such as increased cleanup activity performance, improvement of provided facilities / provision of additional facilities across more locations, enhanced financial assistance programs, and improved education/outreach efforts for the general public.

LOCATION
Targeted locations identified by reporting and
investigations of homeless encampments.
.
• Low effort – Coordination with County
Departments recommended.
• Mid-term design/construction timeline.

Timeline:

Permitting:
• Potential for alternative housing homeless support
resource limitations to impact management activities.
• Cleanup and abatement resource limitations may
impact program implementation.
• Implementation capacity may be limited by ability for sufficient coordination with law enforcement and
regional groups.
• Need for consideration of ethical factors related to
encampment disturbance/cleanup.

Other:
1 of 1
Homeless encampments and homeless activity can be significant contributors to water quality impairments through bacteria pollution, primarily due to pollution stemming from human fecal matter. The following strategies could potentially be applied to homeless encampment management efforts in and around the Channel Islands Harbor:
• Develop education/outreach program for front line workers in homeless management/services to inform them about water quality issues associated with encampments and best practices for abatement/mitigation. • Coordinate with law enforcement and code enforcement to verify debris removal at 311 management sites. • Pilot project implementation to develop methods for the safe removal of possible bacteria pollution sources during homeless encampment site investigations and/or cleanups.

EXAMPLE ACTIVITIES
https://www.latimes.com/la-me-oxnard-homeless-pictures-20150817- photogallery.html https://www.latimes.com/la-me-oxnard-homeless-pictures-20150817-photogallery.html https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-oxnard-homelessencampment-20150817-story.html 840
Evaluation of nonstructural projects for the Channel Islands Harbor is based primarily on the given strategy’s potential for providing both water quality benefits and additional miscellaneous benefits to the surrounding communities. Information below presents an overview of the modeled water quality and community benefits of this Homeless Encampment management strategy, as well as up-do-date cost estimates.

WATER QUALITY RESULTS – EDISON CANAL PUMP RESUMPTION
1 of 1

NONSTRUCTURAL STRATEGIES
• Enhanced Program Cost Assumptions:
• Estimates based on regional coastal municipal programs, scaled by population • Program costs include prevention, assistance, and cleanup costs PROJECT COST ESTIMATE1
Capital Cost ($) $250,000
Annual O&M Costs ($) $5,000,000

PROJECT EVALUATION
• Community education opportunity.
• Implementation in disadvantaged communities.
• Provision of benefits to socially-vulnerable communities. • Provision of benefits to environmentally-vulnerable communities. • Potential for implementation in local Priority Growth Area(s). • Provision of benefits to areas encountering high pollution burdens. • Potential to improve environmental and social health and safety. • Aesthetic improvements.

Additional Community Benefits
Water Quality Benefits
Constituent Average Annual Load Reduction
Pesticides - Bifenthrin 0 lbs
Pesticides - Permethrin 0 lbs
Nutrients - Total Nitrogen (TN) 78 lbs
Nutrients - Total Phosphorus (TP) 49 lbs
Metals – Copper (Cu) 0 lbs
Bacteria – Enterococcus 1.96*1011 MPN
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) --
Water Residence Time Impact To Harbor Circulation
None
1Estimated costs based on information derived from similar programs; subject to change.

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• Proposition 4 (Anticipated 2026)
• Encampment Resolution Funding Program (Anticipated 2026) • Community Development Block Grant Program (Annual)
• State Water Resource Control Board Clean Water State Revolving Fund (Current) • The general modeling approach employed a previously calibrated regional water quality model built in LSPC and adapted to produce model outputs at each of the major MS4 outfalls flowing into the Harbor and Canal. • Model outputs represented as watershed-wide load reductions relative to baseline watershed conditions for Sediment, TN, TP, Cu, Pesticides, Enterococcus, Trash.

Model Methods
Targeted Bacteria Source Control – Homeless Encampment Management 841

KEY IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
Targeted Bacteria Source Control – Animal Waste Management

NONSTRUCTURAL STRATEGIES

PROJECT DESCRIPTRION
Animal waste contributes to bacteria and nutrient levels in the environment and can refer to sources from both domesticated and undomesticated animals. Targeted bacteria source control begins with an initial investigation to identify contributing sources and associated abatement strategies. Source reduction management strategies include targeted public education and outreach, pet waste signage, installation and maintenance of pet waste bag dispensers/trash bins, and physical removal of pet waste. Enhanced strategies focus on increased signage/fines relating to pet waste, intensification of public outreach/education efforts, and operations and maintenance/upkeep of pet waste bag dispensers/trash bins. Increased regulations and fines related to pet waste may create the need for additional community engagement to limit potential issues related to public disapproval.

LOCATION
Targeted locations/areas deemed to be significant
sources of animal waste-related pollutants.
.
• Low effort – Coordination with County
Departments recommended.
• Mid-term design/construction timeline.

Timeline:

Permitting:
• Citizen observer knowledge and engagement crucial to
program effectiveness.
• Close coordination with Parks and Recreation and
other responsible municipal department resources
required.
• Additional operations and maintenance resources may
be required.
• Potential need for comprehensive public outreach
efforts to promote engagement and generate support.

Other:
1 of 1
Improper management and disposal of animal waste can lead to elevated bacteria levels that degrade water quality. Potential strategiesfor targeted bacteria source control through animal waste management include the following:
• Increased posting of signage in public spaces to inform community members of animal waste-related regulations and associated fines/penalties.
• Increased installation of pet waste bag dispensers and trash bins in public spaces such as parks and beaches. • Enhanced penalties and fines for violations of regulations related to animal waste, intended to deter community members from violating said regulations.
• Development of scheduled cleanup activities in public spaces to ensure timely and effective removal of pet waste to prevent it contributing to pollution in and around the Channel Islands Harbor.

EXAMPLE ACTIVITIES
https://www.bringfido.com/attraction/11842
842
Evaluation of nonstructural projects for the Channel Islands Harbor is based primarily on the given strategy’s potential for providing both water quality benefits and additional miscellaneous benefits to the surrounding communities. Information below presents an overview of the modeled water quality and community benefits of this Animal Waste Management strategy, as well as up-to-date cost estimates.

WATER QUALITY RESULTS – EDISON CANAL PUMP RESUMPTION
1 of 1

NONSTRUCTURAL STRATEGIES
• Enhanced Program Cost Assumptions:
• Capital investment includes pet waste bag dispenser and signage materials and installation • Ongoing O&M includes outreach material and media purchase PROJECT COST ESTIMATE1
Capital Cost ($) $50,000
Annual O&M Costs ($) $75,000

PROJECT EVALUATION
• Recreational improvements.
• Benefits to community anchor parcel(s).
• Community education opportunity.
• Potential for implementation in disadvantaged communities. • Provision of benefits to socially-vulnerable communities. • Provision of benefits to environmentally-vulnerable communities. • Potential for implementation in local Priority Growth Area(s). • Potential provision of benefits to areas encountering high pollution burdens. • Potential to improve environmental and social health and safety. • Aesthetic improvements.

Additional Community Benefits
Water Quality Benefits
Constituent Average Annual Load Reduction
Pesticides - Bifenthrin 0.2 lbs
Pesticides - Permethrin 63 lbs
Nutrients - Total Nitrogen (TN) 462 lbs
Nutrients - Total Phosphorus (TP) 288 lbs
Metals – Copper (Cu) 0 lbs
Bacteria – Enterococcus 1.29*1011 MPN
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) --
Water Residence Time Impact To Harbor Circulation
None
1Estimated costs based on information derived from similar programs; subject to change.

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• Agricultural Drainage Management Loan Program (Current) • Proposition 4 (Anticipated 2026)
• State Water Resource Control Board Clean Water State Revolving Fund (Current) • The general modeling approach employed a previously calibrated regional water quality model built in LSPC and adapted to produce model outputs at each of the major MS4 outfalls flowing into the Harbor and Canal. • Model outputs represented as watershed-wide load reductions relative to baseline watershed conditions for Sediment, TN, TP, Cu, Pesticides, Enterococcus, Trash.

Model Methods
Targeted Bacteria Source Control – Animal Waste Management 843

KEY IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
Street Sweeping and Catch Basin Cleaning (CBC) Optimization

NONSTRUCTURAL STRATEGIES

PROJECT DESCRIPTRION
Street sweeping and CBC remove debris, litter, pollutants, and other harmful substances from streets on a scheduled basis to prevent them from entering storm drains and discharging to local waterbodies.

Enhanced street sweeping scenarios include increased route frequencies/new routes, technology improvements, and increased incorporation of route-specific limited-hour ‘no parking’ signage. Enhanced CBC scenarios include increased basin-specific frequency and/or geo-located data capture. Additional cobenefits include aesthetic improvements, trash removal/management, and neighborhood/community enhancements. Street sweeping/CBC enhancements require detailed planning to balance optimization with operational goals, logistics, and community engagement. Additional limited-hour ‘no parking’ signage may create need for substantial community outreach/engagement to limit potential issues stemming from public disapproval of increased parking regulations and associated citation frequencies and fine amounts.

LOCATION
City Streets and municipal separate storm sewer
system (MS4) within the City of Oxnard, CA.
.
• Low effort – Potential need for Encroachment
Permit or municipal authorization.
• Near-term design/construction timeline.

Timeline:

Permitting:
• Municipal operations staff/capacity planning required. • Additional baseline data may be required for
optimization planning to balance optimization efforts
with operational capacity.
• Potential requirement of comprehensive public
outreach to promote engagement and generate
support.

Other:
1 of 1
Street sweeping and CBC activities are intended to remove pollutants and other harmful substances from streets and roadways to prevent them discharging into local waterbodies. Potential strategies for street sweeping and CBC optimization include the following:
• Increased incorporation of route-specific parking limitations and/or increased fines for parking violations along sweeping routes to prevent route obstruction and promote effectiveness of sweeping activities. • Technological upgrades to sweeping and CBC assets, such as improved street sweepers. • Incorporation of new strategies, such as median sweeping, to promote more complete cleaning of roadways along sweeping routes. • Improvement of data collection/analysis capabilities to inform adaptive management of street sweeping/CBC programs and promote optimization of these activities.

EXAMPLE ACTIVITIES
844
Evaluation of nonstructural projects for the Channel Islands Harbor is based primarily on the given strategy’s potential for providing both water quality benefits and additional miscellaneous benefits to the surrounding communities. Information below presents an overview of the modeled water quality and community benefits of this Street Sweeping and CBC optimization strategy, as well as up-to-date cost estimates.

WATER QUALITY RESULTS – EDISON CANAL PUMP RESUMPTION
1 of 1

NONSTRUCTURAL STRATEGIES
• Enhanced Program Cost Assumptions:
• Current sweeping program ~$1.5M/yr.
• ~200 out of 1,032 miles of sweeping route drains to Harbor. • 1,300 catch basins in drainage area.

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE1
Capital Cost ($) $0
Annual O&M Costs ($) $420,000- $910,000

PROJECT EVALUATION
• Community education opportunity.
• Pedestrian and traffic safety improvements.
• Benefits to Oxnard STP priority areas.
• Potential for implementation in disadvantaged communities. • Provision of benefits to socially-vulnerable communities. • Provision of benefits to environmentally-vulnerable communities. • Potential for implementation in local Priority Growth Area(s). • Potential provision of benefits to areas encountering high pollution burdens. • Aesthetic improvements.
• Compliance (Trash Amendment) credit potential.

Additional Community Benefits
Water Quality Benefits
Constituent Average Annual Load Reduction
Pesticides - Bifenthrin 0.2 lbs
Pesticides - Permethrin 64 lbs
Nutrients - Total Nitrogen (TN) 123 lbs
Nutrients - Total Phosphorus (TP) 317 lbs
Metals – Copper (Cu) 30 lbs
Bacteria – Enterococcus 1.08*1010 MPN
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) --
Water Residence Time Impact To Harbor Circulation
None
1Estimated costs based on information derived from similar programs; subject to change.

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• Proposition 4 (Anticipated 2026)
• State Water Resource Control Board Clean Water State Revolving Fund (Current) • The general modeling approach employed a previously calibrated regional water quality model built in LSPC and adapted to produce model outputs at each of the major MS4 outfalls flowing into the Harbor and Canal. • Existing CBs cleaned additional 2x/yr in model.
• Sweeping freq. doubled in model.
• Model outputs represented as watershed-wide load reductions relative to baseline watershed conditions for Enterococcus & Trash.

Model Methods
Street Sweeping and Catch Basin Cleaning (CBC) Optimization 845

KEY IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
Stormwater System Maintenance

NONSTRUCTURAL STRATEGIES

PROJECT DESCRIPTRION
Operational stormwater programs help to reduce pollutants before they can be transported to downstream waterbodies. Source reduction management strategies include proactive repairs, replacement of MS4 components and open-channel cleaning to reduce pollutant loads, physical trash removal activities, monitoring and asset management, and general maintenance of stormwater system components such as pipes and storm drains. Asset management activities refer to the evaluation of criteria from which one can develop scores related to probability and consequences of asset failure, which can be used to inform project prioritization and influence decision-making. Relevant criteria include asset age/size, surrounding soil characteristics, street traffic, institutional knowledge, as well as visual inspections and CCTV monitoring. Consequence of failure scores are also impacted by factors such as compliance needs, regulatory guidelines, and potential environmental impacts and city operational disruptions related to asset failure. Enhanced strategies include increased asset management/monitoring activities, improved trash removal/capture capabilities, increased frequency of open-channel cleaning, and additional general upkeep/maintenance.

LOCATION
Portions/components of stormwater system deemed
to be in need of maintenance/repair.
.
• Low effort – Potential need for Encroachment
Permit or municipal authorization.
• Near-term design/construction timeline.

Timeline:

Permitting:
• Close coordination with operations and maintenance
staff required.
• Maintenance may be limited by maintenance staff
resources capacity and project prioritization.
• Additional baseline data & planning may be required
for optimized system maintenance and monitoring.
• Potential for traffic, noise, and other ancillary impacts.

Other:
1 of 1
Stormwater system maintenance is intended to safeguard the integrity of the existing stormwater system to prevent failures/deficiencies that may result in the contribution of pollutants and other harmful substances into local waterbodies. Potential strategies for stormwater system maintenance in and around the Channel Islands Harbor include the following:
• Enhanced data collection/management procedures to inform overall adaptive management practices in relation to the stormwater system. • Increased inspection/surveillance frequency of stormwater system assets to detect faults/deficiencies proactively and allow for the performance of maintenance prior to system failures.
• Technological upgrades to improve capacity for monitoring, surveillance, data collection, and maintenance.

EXAMPLE ACTIVITIES
846
Evaluation of nonstructural projects for the Channel Islands Harbor is based primarily on the given strategy’s potential for providing both water quality benefits and additional miscellaneous benefits to the surrounding communities. Information below presents an overview of the modeled water quality and community benefits of this Stormwater System Maintenance strategy, as well as up-to-date cost estimates.

WATER QUALITY RESULTS – EDISON CANAL PUMP RESUMPTION
1 of 1

NONSTRUCTURAL STRATEGIES
• Enhanced Program Cost Assumptions:
• Capital cost includes integrated asset management prioritization approach • O&M costs range based on pipe repair/replacement needs/capacity PROJECT COST ESTIMATE1
Capital Cost ($) $150,000- $300,000
Annual O&M Costs ($) $50,000- $5,000,000

PROJECT EVALUATION
• Community education opportunity.
• Implementation in disadvantaged communities.
• Provision of benefits to socially-vulnerable communities. • Provision of benefits to environmentally-vulnerable communities. • Potential for implementation in local Priority Growth Area(s). • Provision of benefits to areas encountering high pollution burdens. • Potential for flood risk reduction.
• Potential to improve environmental and social health and safety.

Additional Community Benefits
Water Quality Benefits
Constituent Average Annual Load Reduction
Pesticides - Bifenthrin 0 lbs
Pesticides - Permethrin 0 lbs
Nutrients - Total Nitrogen (TN) 26 lbs
Nutrients - Total Phosphorus (TP) 16 lbs
Metals – Copper (Cu) 11 lbs
Bacteria – Enterococcus 7.13*109 MPN
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) --
Water Residence Time Impact To Harbor Circulation
None
1Estimated costs based on information derived from similar programs; subject to change.

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• Proposition 4 (Anticipated 2026)
• Community Development Block Grant Program (Annual)
• State Water Resource Control Board Clean Water State Revolving Fund (Current) • California Wildlife Conservation Control Board Stream Flow Enhancement Program (Current) • Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (Current) • The general modeling approach employed a previously calibrated regional water quality model built in LSPC and adapted to produce model outputs at each of the major MS4 outfalls flowing into the Harbor and Canal. • Model outputs represented as watershed-wide load reductions relative to baseline watershed conditions for Sediment, TN, TP, Cu, Pesticides, Enterococcus, Trash.

Model Methods
Stormwater System Maintenance
847

KEY IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
Trash Reduction- Mechanical Filtration

NONSTRUCTURAL STRATEGIES

PROJECT DESCRIPTRION
Structural trash reduction programs utilize mechanical filtration to filter and/or capture trash and anthropogenic debris prior to its entry into the stormwater system and connected waterways. Common structural options include both distributed catch basin-level devices and centralized high-volume underground and end-of-pipe devices. Enhanced strategies include new site planning, design, and resources for materials and installation, additional resources and equipment for ongoing maintenance, and process improvements to allow for optimized planning and implementation scenarios.

LOCATION
Specified catch basins and pipe inlets/outlets
contributing significant anthropogenic debris.
.
• Low effort: Potential need for Encroachment Permit
and/or Encroachment/Watercourse Permit.
• Near-term design/construction timeline.

Timeline:

Permitting:
• Close coordination with operations and maintenance
staff required.
• Maintenance can be limited by maintenance staff
resources capacity and project prioritization.
• Clogging or high flow precipitation events can trigger localized flooding.
• Additional baseline data & planning may be required
for optimized implementation.

Other:
1 of 1
Regardless of preventative measures, trash and other anthropogenic debris are likely to enter the stormwater system to some extent.

Mechanical trash filtration efforts are intended to capture debris prior to its eventual entry into local waterbodies. Potential strategies for trash reduction through mechanical filtration include the following:
• Technological upgrades to mechanical trash filtration devices to enhance capacity for trash capture and removal. • Increased distribution of filtration devices to a larger number of catch basins within the stormwater system. • Increased implementation of centralized high-volume trash capture/filtration devices. • Enhanced data collection/analysis efforts to inform optimization efforts regarding the distribution of trash capture/filtration devices in areas which will provide the most significant capacity for pollutant removal. • Increased staffing and improved training to enhance cleaning activities for filtration/capture devices and promote their ongoing effectiveness in trash removal.

EXAMPLE ACTIVITIES
https://www.stormwater.com/stormwater-management/article/33053608/trashcapture-devices-aid-in-clearing-storm-water-systems https://scvurppp.org/trash/ https://19january2021snapshot.epa.gov/
trash-free-waters/trash-capturetechnologies_.html
848
Evaluation of nonstructural projects for the Channel Islands Harbor is based primarily on the given strategy’s potential for providing both water quality benefits and additional miscellaneous benefits to the surrounding communities. Information below presents an overview of the modeled water quality and community benefits of this Mechanical Trash Filtration strategy, as well as up-to-date cost estimates.

WATER QUALITY RESULTS – EDISON CANAL PUMP RESUMPTION
1 of 1

NONSTRUCTURAL STRATEGIES
• Enhanced Program Cost Assumptions:
• Capital planning/device costs ~$2.5k-$20k+/~$750-$50k+ per location, respectively • O&M includes staff and equipment resources
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE1
Capital Cost ($) $3,000,000
Annual O&M Costs ($) $200,000

PROJECT EVALUATION
• Recreational improvements.
• Community education opportunity.
• Potential for implementation in disadvantaged communities. • Provision of benefits to socially-vulnerable communities. • Provision of benefits to environmentally-vulnerable communities. • Potential for implementation in local Priority Growth Area(s). • Provision of benefits to areas encountering high pollution burdens. • Aesthetic improvements.
• Potential to improve environmental and social health and safety.

Additional Community Benefits
Water Quality Benefits
Constituent Average Annual Load Reduction
Pesticides - Bifenthrin 0 lbs
Pesticides - Permethrin 0 lbs
Nutrients - Total Nitrogen (TN) 26 lbs
Nutrients - Total Phosphorus (TP) 16 lbs
Metals – Copper (Cu) 11 lbs
Bacteria – Enterococcus 7.13*109 MPN
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) --
Water Residence Time Impact To Harbor Circulation
None
1Estimated costs based on information derived from similar programs; subject to change.

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• Proposition 4 (Anticipated 2026)
• State Water Resource Control Board Clean Water State Revolving Fund (Current) • The general modeling approach employed a previously calibrated regional water quality model built in LSPC and adapted to produce model outputs at each of the major MS4 outfalls flowing into the Harbor and Canal. • Model outputs represented as watershed-wide load reductions relative to baseline watershed conditions for Sediment, TN, TP, Cu, Pesticides, Enterococcus, Trash.
• Model outputs depict 10% reduction in trash load.

Model Methods
Trash Reduction- Mechanical Filtration
849

KEY IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
Trash Reduction- Source Reduction Strategies

NONSTRUCTURAL STRATEGIES

PROJECT DESCRIPTRION
Nonstructural trash reduction programs utilize source reduction strategies to reduce trash and anthropogenic debris at the source and prevent its entry into the stormwater system and connected waterways. Common practices include reusable product promotion, limits and/or bans on single-use plastics, and public outreach and education efforts that can inform the public about relevant behavioral changes. Examples include regulation of single-use plastics, outreach and training programs for the general public and schools, physical cleanups and other volunteer and community-based events, collaboration with activist groups, and partnership opportunities. Outreach and education efforts to local residents provide additional benefit in their potential to motivate community-based social marketing between residents and further reinforce behavioral changes. Enhanced strategies include increased reusable product promotion, support for current and/or additional single-use plastic regulations, options for improved education and outreach materials including language translations, expansion to new media and markets, increased physical cleanup frequency, and increased staffing and resources to generate and deliver outreach and education messaging.

LOCATION
Targeted locations/communities based on land use,
local policy, and project nature.
.
• Low effort: Potential need for Encroachment Permit
and/or Encroachment/Watercourse Permit.
• Near-term design/construction timeline.

Timeline:

Permitting:
• Audience engagement often correlated with outreach
effectiveness.
• Limited opportunity to correlate source reduction
implementation with load reductions.
• Potential need for extensive community outreach in
the case of some optimization strategies.
• Need for comprehensive public outreach efforts to
promote engagement and generate support.

Other:
1 of 1
Nonstructural trash source reduction efforts are intended to address trash and anthropogenic debris at the source to prevent their entry into the stormwater system and local waterbodies. Potential trash source reduction strategies for implementation in and around the Channel Islands Harbor include the following:
• Partnership with local agencies and/or NGOs/CBOs in efforts to promote the use of reusable products in lieu of single use plastics that often end up polluting the local environment.
• Development of community outreach/education programs to inform community members of sustainable practices that can reduce personal contributions of trash and anthropogenic debris.
• Implementation of recycling programs to prevent the disposal of single use plastics and other debris. • Increased physical cleanup frequency in and around local waterways.

EXAMPLE ACTIVITIES
850
Evaluation of nonstructural projects for the Channel Islands Harbor is based primarily on the given strategy’s potential for providing both water quality benefits and additional miscellaneous benefits to the surrounding communities. Information below presents an overview of the modeled water quality and community benefits of this Trash Source Reduction strategy, as well as up-to-date cost estimates.

WATER QUALITY RESULTS – EDISON CANAL PUMP RESUMPTION
1 of 1

NONSTRUCTURAL STRATEGIES
• Enhanced Program Cost Assumptions:
• Range of capital costs based on program implementation details • Ongoing O&M includes outreach material and media purchase PROJECT COST ESTIMATE1
Capital Cost ($) $25,000- $250,000
Annual O&M Costs ($) $50,000- $150,000

PROJECT EVALUATION
• Recreational improvements.
• Benefits to community anchor parcel(s).
• Community education opportunity.
• Pedestrian and traffic safety improvements.
• Benefits to Oxnard STP priority areas.
• Implementation in disadvantaged communities.
• Provision of benefits to socially-vulnerable communities. • Provision of benefits to environmentally-vulnerable communities. • Potential for implementation in local Priority Growth Area(s). • Provision of benefits to areas encountering high pollution burdens. • Aesthetic improvements.

Additional Community Benefits
Water Quality Benefits
Constituent Average Annual Load Reduction
Pesticides - Bifenthrin 0 lbs
Pesticides - Permethrin 7 lbs
Nutrients - Total Nitrogen (TN) 0 lbs
Nutrients - Total Phosphorus (TP) 0 lbs
Metals – Copper (Cu) 2.4 lbs
Bacteria – Enterococcus 5.75*1010 MPN
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) --
Water Residence Time Impact To Harbor Circulation
None
1Estimated costs based on information derived from similar programs; subject to change.

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• Proposition 4 (Anticipated 2026)
• State Water Resource Control Board Clean Water State Revolving Fund (Current) • The general modeling approach employed a previously calibrated regional water quality model built in LSPC and adapted to produce model outputs at each of the major MS4 outfalls flowing into the Harbor and Canal. • Model outputs represented as watershed-wide load reductions relative to baseline watershed conditions for Sediment, TN, TP, Cu, Pesticides, Enterococcus, Trash.
• Model outputs depict 10% reduction in trash load.

Model Methods
Trash Reduction- Source Reduction Strategies
851
Structural Control Measure – Campus Park Filtration BMP

STRUCTURAL STRATEGIES

PROJECT DESCRIPTRION
The treatment of key pollutants of concern, such as nutrients and pesticides, can be carried out via engineered treatment systems that divert and filter stormwater along its conveyance towards select discharge points to the Harbor. Treatment systems can include proprietary capture and filtration systems with subsurface storage (which parks and parking lots can be built on) and utilize filter devices to remove particles and associated pollutants.

A stormwater pipe currently runs beneath W. 5th street which could be diverted to an underground storage gallery located under the existing grass field. The parking lot would also benefit from surface drainage treatment via the implementation of Low Impact Design, which could feature native vegetation. Stormwater management could coincide with significant improvementsto the park. 1 of 1

KEY IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
• Filtration BMPs accompanied by requirements for
O&M as well as associated costs.
• Medium effort – Potential need for Encroachment
and Grading, Floodplain Development, NPDES
Construction General Permits.
• Additional site-specific permitting requirements
may apply.
• Mid-term design/construction timeline.

Timeline:

Permitting:
• City-owned parcel; low potential for jurisdictional
complications.
• Potential for construction site-related disturbances.

Other:

Long-term O&M:

Parcel Information:
• APN: 202001072
• Owner: City of Oxnard
Utility Constraints
• Necessity for consideration of utility-related
constraints, such as proximity to sanitary sewers, gas
and power lines, etc.

Project Cost Assumptions:
• Capital costs estimated using most updated unit costs for key components of project design.
• O&M costs estimated using available information from similar project types.

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE1
Capital Cost ($) $22,790,000
Annual O&M Costs ($) $300,000
1Preliminary costs are a planning level estimate that serve as a basis for comparison between project site locations and strategy types, but a more detailed site-specific cost estimate will be required to secure future project phases; information used is most up-to-date as of early 2025.

These costs reflect the optimized storage volume configurations.

Model Details:
• 150 ft diversion from storm
drain, with drainage area
of 485 acres.
• Maximum feasible footprint
based on desktop GIS;
subsurface gallery storage
volume optimized to 8.5 ac-ft
• Also modeled with 1 acre
footprint (10 ac-ft storage) as
hypothetical land use
reallocation
• Kraken 2.88 cfs filter unit,
returns treated water to the
MS4.

DRAINAGE AREA & PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA COVERED 485 acres
TOTAL STORAGE VOLUME 8.5 acre-ft
TOTAL RUNOFF FILTERED 100 acre-ft/yr
852
BMP Storage Volume Optimization compared various diversion rates ranging from 10-50 cfs and storage volumes ranging from 0.25 ac-ft up to the largest volume possible based on a project’s maximum feasible footprint, selecting the most cost-efficient configuration.

Field Filtration Unit
• Improves water quality through
stormwater capture, storage and
filtration.
• Reduces pollutant loads in
stormwater runoff prior to its entry
into waterways.
• Prevents impacts to public health
from pesticides and metals.
• Can prevent nutrient load
exceedances and subsequent impacts
such as eutrophication and algal
blooms.
• Can be installed under existing
development structures such as
parking lots, roadways, parks, etc.

The Campus Park Filtration BMP project offers substantial potential benefits in terms of both pollutant load reductions and benefits to surrounding communities. Among this particular project’s key features are its potential for nutrient load reductions and the inclusion of disadvantaged community area within and in close proximity to the approximate drainage area boundaries. This project is among the most preferable of the structural projects evaluated as part of the overall Channel Islands Harbor Water Quality Project, and we anticipate evidential support for this preference to emerge following the completion of the ongoing Project Scoring Matrix effort.

WATER QUALITY RESULTS – EDISON CANAL PUMP RESUMPTION
1 of 1

STRUCTURAL STRATEGIES
Structural Control Measure – Campus Park Filtration BMP

PROJECT EVALUATION
• Project is in a park or potential park
• Project is on community anchor parcel
• Project is can support educational signage or
promote education-focused events
• Project benefits a socially vulnerable community
• Project benefits an environmentally vulnerable
community
• Project is located in one or more priority growth
areas
• Project is in a tract w/ CalEnviroscreen score >50th
pct.

Additional Community Benefits

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• Nonpoint Source Pollution 319 Grant Program (Open
on a per project basis – expected to release a call for projects in December)
• State Water Resource Control Board Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (Current)
• Community Development Block Grant Program
(Annual)
• California Department of Parks and Recreation Land
and Water Conservation Fund (Current)
• California Wildlife Conservation Control Board Stream Flow Enhancement Program (Current)
Water Quality Benefits
Constituent
Optimized Configuration Standardized 10 acre-foot
Storage
Average Annual Load Reduction (lbs)
Pesticides - Bifenthrin 0.07 0.08
Pesticides - Permethrin 30 32
Nutrients - Total Nitrogen (TN) 154.36 150.79
Nutrients - Total Phosphorus (TP) 123 133.46
Metals – Copper (Cu) 9.19 9.97
Bacteria – Enterococcous -- --
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) -- --
Water Residence Time Impact To Harbor Circulation: None

DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY MAP
853
Structural Control Measure – Dunkirk Park Filtration BMP

STRUCTURAL STRATEGIES

PROJECT DESCRIPTRION
The treatment of key pollutants of concern, such as nutrients and pesticides, can be carried out via engineered treatment systems that divert and filter stormwater along its conveyance towards select discharge points to the Harbor. Treatment systems can include proprietary capture and filtration systems with subsurface storage (which parks and parking lots can be built on) and utilize filter devices to remove particles and associated pollutants.

A stormwater pipe currently runs beneath W. 5th St. which could be diverted to an underground storage gallery located under the existing grass field. Further investigation is required to determine the current status of various City and County-owned storm drains in this area, but a project in this area would help treat drainage from industrial parcels surrounding the airport.
1 of 1

KEY IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
• Filtration BMPs accompanied by requirements for
O&M as well as associated costs.
• Medium effort – Potential need for Encroachment
and Grading, Floodplain Development, NPDES
Construction General Permits.
• Additional site-specific permitting requirements
may apply.
• Mid-term design/construction timeline.

Timeline:

Permitting:
• Land ownership has potential to present challenges;
limited private opportunities exist that are not
accompanied with required land use reallocation.
• Potential for construction site-related disturbances.

Other:

Long-term O&M:

Parcel Information:
• APN: 185020101
• Owner: City of Oxnard
Utility Constraints
• Necessity for consideration of utility-related
constraints, such as proximity to sanitary sewers, gas
and power lines, etc.

Project Cost Assumptions:
• Capital costs estimated using most updated unit costs for key components of project design
• O&M costs estimated using available information from similar project types.

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE1
Capital Cost ($) $4,845,000
Annual O&M Costs ($) $300,000
1Preliminary costs are a planning level estimate that serve as a basis for comparison between project site locations and strategy types, but a more detailed site-specific cost estimate will be required to secure future project phases; information used is most up-to-date as of early 2025.

These costs reflect the optimized storage volume configurations.

Model Details:
• 150 ft diversion from storm
drain, with drainage area
of 25 acres.
• Maximum feasible footprint
based on desktop GIS;
subsurface gallery storage
volume optimized to 0.75 acft
• Also modeled with 1 acre
footprint (10 ac-ft storage) as
hypothetical land use
reallocation
• Kraken 2.88 cfs filter unit,
returns treated water to the
MS4.

DRAINAGE AREA & PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA COVERED 25 acres
TOTAL STORAGE VOLUME 0.75 acre-ft
TOTAL RUNOFF FILTERED 21 acre-ft/yr
854
BMP Storage Volume Optimization compared various diversion rates ranging from 10-50 cfs and storage volumes ranging from 0.25 ac-ft up to the largest volume possible based on a project’s maximum feasible footprint, selecting the most cost-efficient configuration.

Field Filtration Unit
• Improves water quality through
stormwater capture, storage and
filtration.
• Reduces pollutant loads in
stormwater runoff prior to its entry
into waterways.
• Prevents impacts to public health
from pesticides and metals.
• Can prevent nutrient load
exceedances and subsequent impacts
such as eutrophication and algal
blooms.
• Can be installed under existing
development structures such as
parking lots, roadways, parks, etc. The Dunkirk Park Filtration BMP project offers substantial potential benefits to disadvantaged communities. Among this particular project’s key features are its potential for phosphorus load reductions and the inclusion of disadvantaged community area within nearly all of its approximate drainage area. This project is among the most preferable of the structural projects evaluated as part of the overall Channel Islands Harbor Water Quality Project, and we anticipate evidential support for this preference to emerge following the completion of the ongoing Project Scoring Matrix effort.

WATER QUALITY RESULTS – EDISON CANAL PUMP RESUMPTION
1 of 1

STRUCTURAL STRATEGIES
Structural Control Measure –Dunkirk Park Filtration BMP

PROJECT EVALUATION
• Project is in a park or potential park
• Project is on community anchor parcel
• Project is can support educational signage or
promote education-focused events
• Project benefits a socially vulnerable community
Additional Community Benefits

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• Nonpoint Source Pollution 319 Grant Program (Open
on a per project basis – expected to release a call for projects in December)
• State Water Resource Control Board Clean Water
State Revolving Fund (Current)
• Community Development Block Grant Program
(Annual)
• California Department of Parks and Recreation Land
and Water Conservation Fund (Current)
• California Wildlife Conservation Control Board
Stream Flow Enhancement Program (Current)
Water Quality Benefits DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY MAP
Constituent
Optimized Configuration Standardized 10 acre-foot
Storage
Average Annual Load Reduction (lbs)
Pesticides - Bifenthrin 0.01 0.01
Pesticides - Permethrin 3.2 3.2
Nutrients - Total Nitrogen (TN) 7.3 7.3
Nutrients - Total Phosphorus (TP) 14.2 14.31
Metals – Copper (Cu) 0.96 0.96
Bacteria – Enterococcous -- --
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) -- --
Water Residence Time Impact To Harbor Circulation: None 855
Structural Control Measure – Doris Drain Outfall Filtration BMP

STRUCTURAL STRATEGIES

PROJECT DESCRIPTRION
The treatment of key pollutants of concern, such as nutrients and pesticides, can be carried out via engineered treatment systems that divert and filter stormwater along its conveyance towards select discharge points to the Harbor. Treatment systems can include proprietary capture and filtration systems with subsurface storage (which parks and parking lots can be built on) and utilize filter devices to remove particles and associated pollutants.

The Doris Drain channel is owned by the Ventura County Flood control district. Project footprint space is limited on the site but a small subsurface storage gallery could be built near its outfall to Edison Canal. 1 of 1

KEY IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
• Filtration BMPs accompanied by requirements for
O&M as well as associated costs.
• Medium effort – Potential need for Encroachment
and Grading, Floodplain Development, NPDES
Construction General Permits.
• Additional site-specific permitting requirements
may apply.
• Mid-term design/construction timeline.

Timeline:

Permitting:
• Land ownership has potential to present challenges;
limited private opportunities exist that are not
accompanied with required land use reallocation.
• Potential for construction site-related disturbances.

Other:

Long-term O&M:

Parcel Information:
• APN: 183001065
• Owner: Ventura County Flood Control District
Utility Constraints
• Necessity for consideration of utility-related
constraints, such as proximity to sanitary sewers, gas
and power lines, etc.

Project Cost Assumptions:
• Capital costs estimated using most updated unit costs for key components of project design
• O&M costs estimated using available information from similar project types.

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE1
Capital Cost ($) $4,340,000
Annual O&M Costs ($) $150,000
1Preliminary costs are a planning level estimate that serve as a basis for comparison between project site locations and strategy types, but a more detailed site-specific cost estimate will be required to secure future project phases; information used is most up-to-date as of early 2025.

These costs reflect the optimized storage volume configurations.

Model Details:
• 25 ft diversion from channel,
with drainage area of 733
acres.
• Maximum feasible footprint
based on desktop GIS;
subsurface gallery storage
volume limited to 0.3 ac-ft
• Also modeled with 1 acre
footprint (10 ac-ft storage) as
hypothetical land use
reallocation
• Kraken 2.88 cfs filter unit,
returns treated water to the
MS4. DRAINAGE AREA & PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA COVERED 733 acres
TOTAL STORAGE VOLUME 0.3 acre-ft
TOTAL RUNOFF FILTERED 195 acre-ft/yr
856
BMP Storage Volume Optimization compared various diversion rates ranging from 10-50 cfs and storage volumes ranging from 0.25 ac-ft up to the largest volume possible based on a project’s maximum feasible footprint, selecting the most cost-efficient configuration.

Field Filtration Unit
• Improves water quality through
stormwater capture, storage and
filtration.
• Reduces pollutant loads in
stormwater runoff prior to its entry
into waterways.
• Prevents impacts to public health
from pesticides and metals.
• Can prevent nutrient load
exceedances and subsequent impacts
such as eutrophication and algal
blooms.
• Can be installed under existing
development structures such as
parking lots, roadways, parks, etc. The Doris Drain Outfall Filtration BMP project offers substantial potential benefits in terms of both pollutant load reductions and benefits to surrounding communities. Among this project’s key features are its potential for nutrient load reductions and the inclusion of disadvantaged community area within and in close proximity to the approximate drainage area boundaries. This project is among the preferable of the structural projects evaluated as part of the overall Channel Islands Harbor Water Quality Project, and we anticipate evidential support for this preference to emerge following the completion of the ongoing Project Scoring Matrix effort.

WATER QUALITY RESULTS – EDISON CANAL PUMP RESUMPTION
1 of 1

STRUCTURAL STRATEGIES
Structural Control Measure –Doris Drain Outfall Filtration BMP

PROJECT EVALUATION
• Project benefits a disadvantaged community
• Project benefits a socially vulnerable community
• Project benefits an environmentally vulnerable
community
• Project is in a tract w/ CalEnviroscreen score >50th pct.

Additional Community Benefits

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• Nonpoint Source Pollution 319 Grant Program (Open
on a per project basis – expected to release a call for projects in December)
• State Water Resource Control Board Clean Water
State Revolving Fund (Current)
• Community Development Block Grant Program
(Annual)
• California Department of Parks and Recreation Land
and Water Conservation Fund (Current)
• California Wildlife Conservation Control Board
Stream Flow Enhancement Program (Current)
Water Quality Benefits DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY MAP
Constituent
Optimized Configuration Standardized 10 acre-foot
Storage
Average Annual Load Reduction (lbs)
Pesticides - Bifenthrin 0.02 0.04
Pesticides - Permethrin 6.7 19
Nutrients - Total Nitrogen (TN) 66.71 107.82
Nutrients - Total Phosphorus (TP) 28.06 77.81
Metals – Copper (Cu) 2.06 5.68
Bacteria – Enterococcous -- --
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) -- --
Water Residence Time Impact To Harbor Circulation: None 857
Structural Control Measure – Edison Hemlock Drain North

STRUCTURAL STRATEGIES

PROJECT DESCRIPTRION
The treatment of key pollutants of concern, such as nutrients and pesticides, can be carried out via engineered treatment systems that divert and filter stormwater along its conveyance towards select discharge points to the Harbor. Treatment systems can include proprietary capture and filtration systems with subsurface storage (which parks and parking lots can be built on) and utilize filter devices to remove particles and associated pollutants.

There is currently unused open grass in this parcel adjacent to Edison power equipment. A storm drain runs beneath Victoria Ave. that could be diverted to a subsurface storage gallery and treated before its outfall to the Harbor.
1 of 1

KEY IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
• Infiltration BMPs accompanied by requirements
for O&M as well as associated costs.
• Medium effort – Potential need for Encroachment
and Grading, Floodplain Development, NPDES
Construction General Permits.
• Additional site-specific permitting requirements
may apply.
• Mid-term design/construction timeline.

Timeline:

Permitting:
• Land ownership has potential to present challenges;
limited private opportunities exist that are not
accompanied with required land use reallocation.
• Potential for construction site-related disturbances
and site-specific disturbances; will need geotech.

Information to determine whether infiltration rates
will exceed 0.5 in/hr.

Other:

Long-term O&M:

Parcel Information:
• APN: 188031008
• Owner: Southern California Edison Company
Utility Constraints
• Necessity for consideration of utility-related
constraints, such as proximity to sanitary sewers, gas
and power lines, etc.

Project Cost Assumptions:
• Capital costs estimated using most updated unit costs for key components of project design
• O&M costs estimated using available information from similar project types.

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE1
Capital Cost ($) $6,674,000
Annual O&M Costs ($) $300,000
1Preliminary costs are a planning level estimate that serve as a basis for comparison between project site locations and strategy types, but a more detailed site-specific cost estimate will be required to secure future project phases; information used is most up-to-date as of early 2025.

These costs reflect the optimized storage volume configurations.

Model Details:
• 25 ft diversion from storm
drain, with drainage area
of 114 acres.
• Maximum feasible footprint
based on desktop GIS;
subsurface gallery storage
volume optimized to 1.5 ac-ft
• Also modeled with 1 acre
footprint (10 ac-ft storage) as
hypothetical land use
reallocation
• Kraken 2.88 cfs filter unit,
returns treated water to the
MS4. DRAINAGE AREA & PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA COVERED 114 acres
TOTAL STORAGE VOLUME 1.5 acre-ft
TOTAL RUNOFF FILTERED 32 acre-ft/yr
858
BMP Storage Volume Optimization compared various diversion rates ranging from 10-50 cfs and storage volumes ranging from 0.25 ac-ft up to the largest volume possible based on a project’s maximum feasible footprint, selecting the most cost-efficient configuration.

Field Filtration Unit
• Improves water quality through
stormwater capture, storage and
filtration.
• Reduces pollutant loads in
stormwater runoff prior to its entry
into waterways.
• Prevents impacts to public health
from pesticides and metals.
• Can prevent nutrient load
exceedances and subsequent impacts
such as eutrophication and algal
blooms.
• Can be installed under existing
development structures such as
parking lots, roadways, parks, etc. The Edison Hemlock Drain Nork project offers substantial potential benefits in terms of both pollutant load reductions and benefits to surrounding communities. Among this project’s key features are its potential for nutrient load reductions and the inclusion of disadvantaged community area within and in close proximity to the approximate drainage area boundaries. This project is among the preferable of the structural projects evaluated as part of the overall Channel Islands Harbor Water Quality Project, and we anticipate evidential support for this preference to emerge following the completion of the ongoing Project Scoring Matrix effort.

WATER QUALITY RESULTS – EDISON CANAL PUMP RESUMPTION
1 of 1

STRUCTURAL STRATEGIES
Structural Control Measure –Edison Hemlock Drain North

PROJECT EVALUATION
• Project benefits a socially vulnerable community.
• Supplementary efforts may be necessary to enhance
this project’s potential to provide community benefits.

Additional Community Benefits

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• Nonpoint Source Pollution 319 Grant Program (Open
on a per project basis – expected to release a call for projects in December)
• State Water Resource Control Board Clean Water
State Revolving Fund (Current)
• Community Development Block Grant Program
(Annual)
• California Department of Parks and Recreation Land
and Water Conservation Fund (Current)
• California Wildlife Conservation Control Board
Stream Flow Enhancement Program (Current)
Water Quality Benefits DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY MAP
Constituent
Optimized Configuration Standardized 10 acre-foot
Storage
Average Annual Load Reduction (lbs)
Pesticides - Bifenthrin 0.02 0.02
Pesticides - Permethrin 8.7 10
Nutrients - Total Nitrogen (TN) 51.61 50.73
Nutrients - Total Phosphorus (TP) 41.54 49.14
Metals – Copper (Cu) 2.89 3.33
Bacteria – Enterococcous -- --
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) -- --
Water Residence Time Impact To Harbor Circulation: None 859
Structural Control Measure – Seabridge Elementary

STRUCTURAL STRATEGIES

PROJECT DESCRIPTRION
The treatment of key pollutants of concern, such as nutrients and pesticides, can be carried out via engineered treatment systems that divert and filter stormwater along its conveyance towards select discharge points to the Harbor. Treatment systems can include proprietary capture and filtration systems with subsurface storage (which parks and parking lots can be built on) and utilize filter devices to remove particles and associated pollutants.

A storm drain runs beneath W. Wooley Rd. adjacent to the future site of Seabridge Elementary. Stormwater flow could be diverted from this pipe to a subsurface gallery that could be included in the development of the school site. The development of a new school at the site provides a good opportunity to include regional stormwater management and Low Impact Design at the site.
1 of 1

KEY IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
• Infiltration BMPs accompanied by requirements
for O&M as well as associated costs.
• Medium effort – Potential need for Encroachment
and Grading, Floodplain Development, NPDES
Construction General Permits.
• Additional site-specific permitting requirements
may apply.
• Mid-term design/construction timeline.

Timeline:

Permitting:
• Land ownership has potential to present challenges;
limited private opportunities exist that are not
accompanied with required land use reallocation.
• Potential for construction site-related disturbances
and site-specific disturbances; will need geotech.

Information to determine whether infiltration rates
will exceed 0.5 in/hr.

Other:

Long-term O&M:

Parcel Information:
• APN: 188025030
• Owner: Oxnard School District
Utility Constraints
• Necessity for consideration of utility-related
constraints, such as proximity to sanitary sewers, gas
and power lines, etc.

Project Cost Assumptions:
• Capital costs estimated using most updated unit costs for key components of project design
• O&M costs estimated using available information from similar project types.

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE1
Capital Cost ($) $14,359,000
Annual O&M Costs ($) $300,000
1Preliminary costs are a planning level estimate that serve as a basis for comparison between project site locations and strategy types, but a more detailed site-specific cost estimate will be required to secure future project phases; information used is most up-to-date as of early 2025.

These costs reflect the optimized storage volume configurations.

Model Details:
• 125 ft diversion from storm
drain, with drainage area
of 273 acres.
• Maximum feasible footprint
based on desktop GIS;
subsurface gallery storage
volume optimized to 4.75 acft
• Also modeled with 1 acre
footprint (10 ac-ft storage) as
hypothetical land use
reallocation
• Kraken 2.88 cfs filter unit,
returns treated water to the
MS4.

DRAINAGE AREA & PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA COVERED 273 acres
TOTAL STORAGE VOLUME 4.75 acre-ft
TOTAL RUNOFF FILTERED 50 acre-ft/yr
860
BMP Storage Volume Optimization compared various diversion rates ranging from 10-50 cfs and storage volumes ranging from 0.25 ac-ft up to the largest volume possible based on a project’s maximum feasible footprint, selecting the most cost-efficient configuration.

Field Filtration Unit
• Improves water quality through
stormwater capture, storage and
filtration.
• Reduces pollutant loads in
stormwater runoff prior to its entry
into waterways.
• Prevents impacts to public health
from pesticides and metals.
• Can prevent nutrient load
exceedances and subsequent impacts
such as eutrophication and algal
blooms.
• Can be installed under existing
development structures such as
parking lots, roadways, parks, etc. The Seabridge Elementary project offers substantial potential benefits in terms of both pollutant load reductions and benefits to surrounding communities. Among this project’s key features are its potential for nutrients (TN and TP) load reductions and the parallelism of disadvantaged community area within and in close proximity to the approximate drainage area boundaries. This project is among the most preferable of the structural projects evaluated as part of the overall Channel Islands Harbor Water Quality Project, and we anticipate evidential support for this preference to emerge following the completion of the ongoing Project Scoring Matrix effort.

WATER QUALITY RESULTS – EDISON CANAL PUMP RESUMPTION
1 of 1

STRUCTURAL STRATEGIES
Structural Control Measure – Seabridge Elementary

PROJECT EVALUATION
• Project is on community anchor parcel
• Project is adjacent to right-of-way in high injury
network
• Project benefits a socially vulnerable community
Additional Community Benefits

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• Nonpoint Source Pollution 319 Grant Program (Open
on a per project basis – expected to release a call for projects in December)
• State Water Resource Control Board Clean Water
State Revolving Fund (Current)
• Community Development Block Grant Program
(Annual)
• California Department of Parks and Recreation Land
and Water Conservation Fund (Current)
• California Wildlife Conservation Control Board
Stream Flow Enhancement Program (Current)
Water Quality Benefits DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY MAP
Constituent
Optimized Configuration Standardized 10 acre-foot
Storage
Average Annual Load Reduction (lbs)
Pesticides - Bifenthrin 0.04 0.04
Pesticides - Permethrin 15 16
Nutrients - Total Nitrogen (TN) 71.44 70.84
Nutrients - Total Phosphorus (TP) 68.76 76.44
Metals – Copper (Cu) 4.85 5.27
Bacteria – Enterococcous -- --
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) -- --
Water Residence Time Impact To Harbor Circulation: None 861
Structural Control Measure – Teal Club Infiltration BMP (Configured as Filtration Project)

STRUCTURAL STRATEGIES

PROJECT DESCRIPTRION
The treatment of key pollutants of concern, such as nutrients and pesticides, can be carried out via engineered treatment systems that divert and filter stormwater along its conveyance towards select discharge points to the Harbor. Treatment systems can include proprietary capture and filtration systems with subsurface storage (which parks and parking lots can be built on) and utilize filter devices to remove particles and associated pollutants.

This site has been previously identified in planning efforts related for a potential housing development in the area. This project would treat stormwater draining from the subdivision to the north. This site was identified as a location for an infiltration project, which would require geotechnical verification for proper infiltration rates in the native soil.

This project has also been evaluated as a filtration treatment rather than infiltration. Water would need to be diverted from the drain that runs under Lilac Walk and daylights after crossing beneath N Patterson Rd.
1 of 1

KEY IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
• Infiltration BMPs accompanied by requirements
for O&M as well as associated costs.
• Medium effort – Potential need for Encroachment
and Grading, Floodplain Development, NPDES
Construction General Permits.
• Additional site-specific permitting requirements
may apply.
• Mid-term design/construction timeline.

Timeline:

Permitting:
• Land ownership has potential to present challenges;
limited private opportunities exist that are not
accompanied with required land use reallocation.
• Potential for construction site-related disturbances
and site-specific disturbances; will need geotech.

Information to determine whether infiltration rates
will exceed 0.5 in/hr.

Other:

Long-term O&M:

Parcel Information:
• APN: 183007025
• Owner: Oxnard School District
Utility Constraints
• Necessity for consideration of utility-related
constraints, such as proximity to sanitary sewers, gas
and power lines, etc.

Project Cost Assumptions:
• Capital costs estimated using most updated unit costs for key components of project design
• O&M costs estimated using available information from similar project types.

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE1
Capital Cost ($) $11,398,000
Annual O&M Costs ($) $300,000
1Preliminary costs are a planning level estimate that serve as a basis for comparison between project site locations and strategy types, but a more detailed site-specific cost estimate will be required to secure future project phases; information used is most up-to-date as of early 2025.

These costs reflect the optimized storage volume configurations.

Model Details:
• 1200 ft storm drain diversion,
with drainage area of 352
acres.
• Maximum feasible footprint
based on desktop GIS;
subsurface gallery storage
volume optimized to 3.25 acft
• Also modeled with 1 acre
footprint (10 ac-ft storage) as
hypothetical land use
reallocation
• Kraken 2.88 cfs filter unit,
returns treated water to the
MS4.

DRAINAGE AREA & PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA COVERED 352 acres
TOTAL STORAGE VOLUME 3.25 acre-ft
TOTAL RUNOFF FILTERED 75 acre-ft/yr
862
BMP Storage Volume Optimization compared various diversion rates ranging from 10-50 cfs and storage volumes ranging from 0.25 ac-ft up to the largest volume possible based on a project’s maximum feasible footprint, selecting the most cost-efficient configuration.

Field Filtration Unit
• Improves water quality through
stormwater capture, storage and
filtration.
• Reduces pollutant loads in
stormwater runoff prior to its entry
into waterways.
• Prevents impacts to public health
from pesticides and metals.
• Can prevent nutrient load
exceedances and subsequent impacts
such as eutrophication and algal
blooms.
• Can be installed under existing
development structures such as
parking lots, roadways, parks, etc. The Teal Club Infiltration BMP (Configured as Filtration Project) project offers substantial potential benefits in terms of pollutant load reductions and benefits to surrounding communities. Among this particular project’s key features are its potential for nitrogen and phosphorus load reductions and the inclusion of disadvantaged community area within nearly all of its approximate drainage area. This project is among the most preferable of the structural projects evaluated as part of the overall Channel Islands Harbor Water Quality Project, and we anticipate evidential support for this preference to emerge following the completion of the ongoing Project Scoring Matrix effort.

WATER QUALITY RESULTS – EDISON CANAL PUMP RESUMPTION
1 of 1

STRUCTURAL STRATEGIES

PROJECT EVALUATION
• Project is adjacent to right-of-way in high injury
network
• Project benefits a disadvantaged community
• Project benefits a socially vulnerable community
• Project benefits an environmentally vulnerable
community
• Project is in a tract w/ CalEnviroscreen score >50th
pct
Additional Community Benefits

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• Nonpoint Source Pollution 319 Grant Program (Open
on a per project basis – expected to release a call for projects in December)
• State Water Resource Control Board Clean Water
State Revolving Fund (Current)
• Community Development Block Grant Program
(Annual)
• California Department of Parks and Recreation Land
and Water Conservation Fund (Current)
• California Wildlife Conservation Control Board
Stream Flow Enhancement Program (Current)
Water Quality Benefits DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY MAP
Constituent
Optimized Configuration Standardized 10 acre-foot
Storage
Average Annual Load Reduction (lbs)
Pesticides - Bifenthrin 0.02 0.03
Pesticides - Permethrin 10 11
Nutrients - Total Nitrogen (TN) 40.13 40.12
Nutrients - Total Phosphorus (TP) 45.36 49.31
Metals – Copper (Cu) 3.37 3.59
Bacteria – Enterococcous -- --
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) -- --
Water Residence Time Impact To Harbor Circulation: None Structural Control Measure – Teal Club Infiltration BMP (Configured as Filtration Project) 863
Structural Control Measure – Teal Club Infiltration BMP

STRUCTURAL STRATEGIES

PROJECT DESCRIPTRION
The reduction of key pollutants of concern can be carried out via engineered treatment systems that divert and infiltrate stormwater along its conveyance towards select discharge points to the Harbor.

Treatment systems can focus on infiltration, where runoff infiltrates into underlying soil.

This site has been previously identified in planning efforts related for a potential housing development in the area. This project would treat stormwater draining from the subdivision to the north. This site was identified as a location for an infiltration project, which would require geotechnical verification for proper infiltration rates in the native soil.

This project has also been evaluated as a filtration treatment rather than infiltration. Water would need to be diverted from the drain that runs under Lilac Walk and daylights after crossing beneath N Patterson Rd.
1 of 1

KEY IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
• Infiltration BMPs accompanied by requirements
for O&M as well as associated costs.
• Medium effort – Potential need for Encroachment
and Grading, Floodplain Development, NPDES
Construction General Permits.
• Additional site-specific permitting requirements
may apply.
• Mid-term design/construction timeline.

Timeline:

Permitting:
• Land ownership has potential to present challenges;
limited private opportunities exist that are not
accompanied with required land use reallocation.
• Potential for construction site-related disturbances
and site-specific disturbances; will need geotech.

Information to determine whether infiltration rates
will exceed 0.5 in/hr.

Other:

Long-term O&M:

Parcel Information:
• APN: 183007025
• Owner: Oxnard School District
Utility Constraints
• Necessity for consideration of utility-related
constraints, such as proximity to sanitary sewers, gas
and power lines, etc.

Project Cost Assumptions:
• Capital costs estimated using most updated unit costs for key components of project design
• O&M costs estimated using available information from similar project types.

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE1
Capital Cost ($) $17,169,000
Annual O&M Costs ($) $188,000
1Preliminary costs are a planning level estimate that serve as a basis for comparison between project site locations and strategy types, but a more detailed site-specific cost estimate will be required to secure future project phases; information used is most up-to-date as of early 2025.

These costs reflect the optimized storage volume configurations.

Model Details:
• 1200 ft storm drain diversion,
with drainage area of 352
acres.
• Maximum feasible footprint
based on desktop GIS;
subsurface gallery storage
volume optimized to 6.25 acft
• Also modeled with 1 acre
footprint (10 ac-ft storage) as
hypothetical land use
reallocation
• Infiltration rate of 0.5 in/hr
(per Ventura County Technical
Guidance Manual for
Stormwater Quality Measures)

DRAINAGE AREA & PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA COVERED 352 acres
TOTAL STORAGE VOLUME 6.25 acre-ft
TOTAL RUNOFF FILTERED 61 acre-ft/yr
864
BMP Storage Volume Optimization compared various diversion rates ranging from 10-50 cfs and storage volumes ranging from 0.25 ac-ft up to the largest volume possible based on a project’s maximum feasible footprint, selecting the most cost-efficient configuration.

Underground Infiltration Tank
• Improves water quality through
stormwater capture, storage, and
infiltration.
• Reduces surface runoff and lowers
peak flows into stormwater systems
by capturing runoff.
• Prevents impacts to public health
from pesticides and metals.
• Can prevent nutrient load
exceedances and impacts such as
eutrophication and algal blooms.
• Potential for groundwater recharge
• Low impact development (LID)
strategies help reduce the
environmental impact of land
development.
• Can be installed under existing
development structures such as
parking lots, roadways, parks, etc.

The Teal Club Infiltration BMP project offers substantial potential benefits in terms of pollutant load reductions and benefits to surrounding communities. Among this particular project’s key features are its potential for nitrogen and bacteria load reductions and the inclusion of disadvantaged community area within nearly all of its approximate drainage area. This project is among the most preferable of the structural projects evaluated as part of the overall Channel Islands Harbor Water Quality Project, and we anticipate evidential support for this preference to emerge following the completion of the ongoing Project Scoring Matrix effort.

WATER QUALITY RESULTS – EDISON CANAL PUMP RESUMPTION
1 of 1

STRUCTURAL STRATEGIES
Structural Control Measure – Teal Club Infiltration BMP

PROJECT EVALUATION
• Project is adjacent to right-of-way in high injury
network
• Project benefits a disadvantaged community
• Project benefits a socially vulnerable community
• Project benefits an environmentally vulnerable
community
• Project is in a tract w/ CalEnviroscreen score >50th
pct
Additional Community Benefits

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• Proposition 4 (Anticipated 2026)
• State Water Resource Control Board Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (Current)
• State Water Resource Control Board Replacing,
Removing, or Upgrading Underground Storage Tanks
(Current)
• California Department of Parks and Recreation Land
and Water Conservation Fund (Current)
• Small Surface Water and Groundwater Storage
Projects (Anticipated 2026)
• California Wildlife Conservation Control Board Stream Flow Enhancement Program (Current)
Water Quality Benefits
Constituent
Optimized Configuration Standardized 10 acre-foot
Storage
Average Annual Load Reduction (lbs)
Pesticides - Bifenthrin 0.02 0.03
Pesticides - Permethrin 8.9 11
Nutrients - Total Nitrogen (TN) 81.94 87.55
Nutrients - Total Phosphorus (TP) 42.11 51.23
Metals – Copper (Cu) 3.34 4.00
Bacteria – Enterococcous 6.4 x 10 9 MPN --
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) -- --
Water Residence Time Impact To Harbor Circulation: None

DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY MAP
865
Structural Control Measure – Doris Drain Agricultural Runoff Treatment System

STRUCTURAL STRATEGIES

PROJECT DESCRIPTRION
An agricultural runoff treatment system is an engineered system designed to capture and treat water runoff from farm fields, aiming to remove pollutants like sediment, nutrients, and pesticides before they reach waterways. Design features typically include components like sedimentation basins, constructed wetlands, water control structure(s), and in some cases proprietary-type nutrient or other pollutant removal active treatment stages. Specifically, a system option that has potential for use in this context is a denitrifying bioreactor, which operates by reducing nitrate to nitrogen gas.

This opportunity would require the installation of a weir in the flood control channel that would raise the water level and maintain some water in the channel at most times of the year. This system’s design configuration would depend on the target removal concentration and site constraints. The project was modeled using the recommended pump size based on the available space at the site (15 GPM) as well as a large system to determine a more idealized treatment for this location (100 GPM). These sorts of systems could also be designed at a small scale to treat drainage from individual farmer’s fields. This treatment type could also be combined with other treatment devices. 1 of 1

KEY IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
• System accompanied by requirements for O&M as
well as associated costs.
• Medium effort – Potential need for
Encroachment/Watercourse Permit.
• Need for consideration of regulatory compliance.
• Coordination with County Departments
recommended.
• Mid-term design/construction timeline.

Timeline:

Permitting:
• Agricultural runoff treatment system effects maximized with placement closer to runoff sources, may create
need for additional coordination with agricultural
landowners.
• Agricultural runoff treatment systems can potentially be combined with other types of strategies.

Other:

Long-term O&M:

Parcel Information:
• APN: 183001065
• Owner: Ventura County Flood
Control District
Utility Constraints
• Necessity for consideration of utility-related
constraints, such as proximity to sanitary sewers, gas
and power lines, etc.

Project Cost Assumptions:
• Capital costs estimated using most updated unit costs for key components of project design
• O&M costs estimated using available information from similar project types.

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE1
Capital Cost ($) $40,000
Annual O&M Costs ($) $8,000
1Preliminary costs are a planning level estimate that serve as a basis for comparison between project site locations and strategy types, but a more detailed site-specific cost estimate will be required to secure future project phases; information used is most up-to-date as of early 2025.

These costs reflect the optimized storage volume configurations.

Model Details:
• Located at major agricultural
drainage outfall to Edison
Canal. Tailwater Systems
Denitrifying Bioreactors
modeled as 15 GPM and 100
GPM nitrogen removal
devices.
• Model assumes construction
of weir at outfall to canal;
increasing water depth.
• Storage volume assumed as
volume in channel behind 4ft
DRAINAGE AREA & PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS weir
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA COVERED 733 acres
TOTAL NITROGEN CAPTURED 1.4 - 40 lbs/yr
<- Bioreactor
Trailer
1Preliminary costs are a planning level estimate that serve as a basis for comparison between project site locations and strategy types, but a more detailed site-specific cost estimate will be required to secure future project phases; information used is most upto-date as of early 2025. These costs reflect the optimized storage volume configurations.
866
Tailwater Systems Denitrifying
Bioreactor
• Improves water quality through the
removal of nitrogen from agricultural
runoff.
• Prevents consequential impacts of
nutrient load exceedances such as
algal blooms and eutrophication,
which can cause decreases in DO
levels and negatively affect aquatic
life.
• Potential for water conservation
through beneficial reuse of treated
runoff for irrigation.
• Prevents infiltration of nutrient
pollution into groundwater
resources.
• Additional systems can be added to
increase Nitrogen removal
The Doris Drain Agricultural Runoff Treatment System project offers substantial potential benefits in terms of both pollutant load reductions and benefits to surrounding communities. Among this project’s key features are its potential for nutritent (TN) load reductions and the inclusion of disadvantaged community area within and in close proximity to the approximate drainage area boundaries. This project is among the preferable of the structural projects evaluated as part of the overall Channel Islands Harbor Water Quality Project, and we anticipate evidential support for this preference to emerge following the completion of the ongoing Project Scoring Matrix effort.

WATER QUALITY RESULTS – EDISON CANAL PUMP RESUMPTION
1 of 1

STRUCTURAL STRATEGIES

PROJECT EVALUATION
• 3 out of 4 projects benefit a disadvantaged community • 4 out of 4 projects benefit a socially vulnerable
community
• 2 out of 4 projects benefit an environmentally
vulnerable community
• 3 out of 4 projects in a tract w/ CalEnviroscreen score >50th pct.

Additional Community Benefits

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• Nonpoint Source Pollution 319 Grant Program (Open
on a per project basis – expected to release a call for projects in December)
• Proposition 4 (Anticipated 2026)
• Agricultural Drainage Management Loan Program
(Current)
• State Water Resource Control Board Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (Current)
• California Wildlife Conservation Control Board Stream Flow Enhancement Program (Current)
Water Quality Benefits
Constituent
15 GPM Pump 100 GPM Pump
Average Annual Load Reduction (lbs)
Pesticides - Bifenthrin -- --
Pesticides - Permethrin -- --
Nutrients - Total Nitrogen (TN) 1.4 40
Nutrients - Total Phosphorus (TP) -- --
Metals – Copper (Cu) -- --
Bacteria – Enterococcous -- --
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) -- --
Water Residence Time Impact To Harbor Circulation: None

DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY MAP
Structural Control Measure – Doris Drain Agricultural Runoff Treatment System 867
CIH Project Scoring Matrix Guide
1 Channel Island Harbor Project Scoring Matrix
The Project Scoring Matrix integrates both qualitative and quantitative information to evaluate the features and characteristics of potential mitigation strategies evaluated for potential implementation to address water quality and circulation challenges in the Channel Islands Harbor (Harbor). While the qualitative and quantitative information includes a diverse array of potential evaluation parameters, only a subset of key parameters are ultimately used in scoring and ranking the potential mitigation strategies.

Key scoring and ranking parameters include water quality and circulation benefits, cost, and calculated measures combining water quality, circulation benefits, and cost to address overall cost effectiveness. Other evaluated parameters including various implementation considerations and community benefits may be used for future project evaluation and/or prioritization for specific funding or other purposes, but are not used as factors to rank mitigation strategies. A summary of the metrics and attributes used for scoring and ranking projects, supplementary filtering options, and ranking into implementation tiers is presented in Table 1.

The Project Scoring Matrix includes six tabs: Project Scoring Matrix, Community Benefits, Watershed Scoring Results, Receiving Water Scoring Results, Tiered Watershed Results, and Cleaned Receiving Water Results.
• The Project Scoring Matrix Tab 1 includes a comprehensive inventory of metrics and attributes considered in the overall evaluation process of potential mitigation strategies.
• The Community Benefits Tab 2 inventories 10 potential community benefits evaluated for each potential mitigation strategy. These factors are not used directly in project ranking.
• The Watershed Scoring Results and Receiving Water Scoring Results (Tabs 3 and 4, respectively) compile and synthesize metrics and attributes presented in the Project Scoring Matrix tab – separately for both Watershed and Receiving Water Mitigation Strategies – and generate summary information informative for supplemental evaluation and filtering of potential mitigation strategies. • The Tiered Watershed Results and Cleaned Receiving Water Results (Tabs 5 and 6, respectively) reframe the synthesized information and present mitigation strategies ranked by water quality and circulation improvement parameters. For Watershed strategies, results are presented within tiers organized by implementation considerations and complexity. Receiving Water strategy results are presented in a simplified manner for easy data visualization. 868
CIH Project Scoring Matrix Guide
2 Table 1. Metrics and Attributes Use Summary in Project Scoring Matrix Metric/Attribute
Factored into
Project
Ranking
Supplementary
Filter Criteria
Tiers
Ranking
Bifenthrin Load Reduction (lbs/yr) Yes No No
Bifenthrin Watershed Load Reduction (%) Yes No No
Permethrin Load Reduction (lbs/yr) Yes No No
Permethrin Watershed Load Reduction (%) Yes No No
Nitrogen Load Reduction (lbs/yr) Yes No No
Nitrogen Watershed Load Reduction (%) Yes No No
Phosphorus Load Reduction (lbs/yr) Yes No No
Phosphorus Watershed Load Reduction (%) Yes No No
Copper Load Reduction (lbs/yr) Yes No No
Copper Watershed Load Reduction (%) Yes No No
Bacteria Load Reduction (MPN) Yes No No
Bacteria Watershed Load Reduction (%) Yes No No
Additive Percent Load Reduction (Upstream) OR Percent RT Reduction (RW) (%) Yes No No
Cost-Effectiveness Yes No No
Capital Cost Yes No No
Annual O&M Cost Yes No No
30-yr Lifecycle Cost Yes No No
Parcel Ownership No Yes Yes
Crosses Jurisdictional Boundaries No Yes Yes
Permitting No Yes Yes
DAC Benefits No Yes No
Aesthetics Y/N No Yes No
Aesthetic Improvements No Yes No
Average Residence Time (RT) (Days) No Yes No
Trash Reduction Y/N No Yes No
CB Proportion No Yes No
869
CIH Project Scoring Matrix Guide
3 Both quantitative and qualitative data were used to evaluate key features of the various proposed watershed and in-harbor mitigation strategies. Quantitative data provides objective, measurable indicators for comparing project benefits and includes parameters such as pollutant discharge reductions, water residence time, and costs. Qualitative attributes capture contextual and subjective factors that influence project feasibility and community value. These attributes include parameters such as community enhancements and various implementation considerations such as permitting complexity, land use/ownership, and multi-jurisdictional coordination.

A normalization approach was used to meaningfully compare the disparate metrics and attributes used as part of mitigation strategy evaluation given the varied units and scales and qualitative assessments of implementation complexity. This structured approach enables a balanced assessment of multiple criteria, ensuring that projects are evaluated not only on technical merit but also on broader community and implementation feasibility considerations.

Scoring matrix outputs may be used for planning, implementation decision-making, and mitigation strategy prioritization. Projects with the highest scores typically deliver significant pollutant reductions at reasonable cost and/or may be prioritized by various compiled qualitative parameters. Prioritization parameters include items such as implementation complexity and timeline, eligibility for certain funding opportunities, or effectiveness in meeting specific goals such as improved water quality and clarity.

Tab 1 - Project Scoring Matrix: Contains an inventory of metrics and attributes for the compiled list of potential mitigation strategies. Compiled information includes four categories of metrics and attributes: Water Quality Benefits, Costs, Implementation Considerations, and Community Benefits.

Note that projects are described by Type and Name in Sheet 1 Column A. Project Type/Name color coding is carried throughout the Project Scoring Matrix tabs. Watershed Nonstructural Projects are blue. Watershed Structural Projects are yellow/orange. InHarbor Receiving Water Projects are pink.

Detailed descriptions of the calculated and compiled metrics and attributes within the general categories are presented below. It should be noted that some metrics are repeated between the different Project Scoring Matrix tabs, repeated metrics and attributes are described in the first appearance.

Water Quality Benefits
Pollutant-specific modeled load reductions: Modeled results calculated relative to the amount of pollutant removed via mitigation strategy implementation for Load Reduction 870
CIH Project Scoring Matrix Guide
4 (pounds (lbs) per year) and Watershed Load Reduction (%) which is the relative percent of the strategy-specific load reduction relative to the overall watershed loading for each modeled pollutant. Note- these metrics or presented for each modeled pollutant.

Average Residence Time (RT) (days): Modeled results calculated as the average reduction in water parcel residence time within the Channel Islands Harbor (Harbor) across the nine modeled Harbor zones. It should be noted that analysis and comparison of individual critical water zone residence time improvements yielded similar results to the average reduction, and thus the average reduction in water parcel residence time was used for this metric.

Additive Aggregate Pollutant Load Reduction or Percent RT Reduction (%): Calculated metric synthesizing the cumulative modeled pollutant-specific Load Reductions for upstream strategies. This metric assumes mitigation strategies that cumulatively reduce pollutant loading across multiple pollutant types provide a greater water quality benefit than strategies with less overall pollutant load reduction benefit. Recent research indicates addressing multiple pollutants through integrated strategies assists in achieving holistic water quality improvements, especially in complex and urbanized watersheds (Strokal et al 2018). Note- the load reductions are presented as watershed (watershed) or receiving water (RW) benefit based on strategy type. For receiving water strategies, this metric depicts the percent reduction in water parcel residence time rather than pollutant load reduction.

Cost-Effectiveness: Calculated metric that combines Additive Aggregate Percent Load Reduction or Percent RT Reduction with estimated Lifecycle Cost (see cost section below) to obtain a cost-per-unit load/RT reduction cost-effectiveness measure.

Costs
Cost metrics include capital, annual O&M, and 30-year lifecycle cost parameters.

Capital Cost: The total estimated upfront investment required to plan, design, permit, and construct a project or implement a mitigation strategy. It includes all expenditures necessary to bring a project from concept to operational readiness, excluding ongoing operational or maintenance expenses. For the purposes of this report, additional description includes:
• Watershed nonstructural strategy capital costs utilized a combination of best available data and professional judgment based on project implementation efforts conducted by similar Phase I Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) programs in southern California and City-specific feedback from City of Oxnard 871
CIH Project Scoring Matrix Guide
5 staff. Most outreach and training costs assume mitigation strategy implementation integration with existing ongoing related programs.
• Watershed structural strategy capital costs utilized engineer best-estimate construction cost estimates based on regression and other analysis of line-item project construction cost estimates derived from projects in the Los Angeles basin 2022-2024.
• In-harbor mitigation strategies capital costs utilized engineer best-estimate construction cost estimates based on general requirements, site preparation, and new construction costs.

Annual O&M Cost: Estimated recurring expenses required to operate, monitor, and maintain a project or mitigation strategy over its useful life. For the purposes of this report, calculation of Annual O&M Cost utilized similar additional description information as Capital Cost (see above).
30-yr Lifecycle Cost: Calculated metric consisting of: Capital Cost + (30 * Annual O&M Cost) + Replacement Cost (assumed to be equal to Capital Cost).

Project Capital and O&M Costs are estimates and subject to change. Additional study is needed to refine receiving water strategy permitting costs following conceptual design development, consultation with regulatory permitting agencies, and coordination with other interested parties.

Implementation Considerations
Parcel Ownership: General parcel ownership attribute related to mitigation strategy implementation. Information derived from County of Ventura GIS information.

Crosses Jurisdictional Boundaries: Calculated assessment metric related to expected ease of mitigation strategy implementation based on project location and underlying parcel ownership. Evaluated according to the following criteria:
• Project implementation on parcels on parcels with private, multiple other public agencies, or mixed parcel ownership that would expect to require multijurisdictional agreements, right-of-entry-permits, and/or other agreements prior to implementation scores 1 point.
• Project implementation requires multi-jurisdictional agreement with at least one other public or private agency scores 0.5 points.
• Project implementation exclusively on City-owned parcels scores 0 points. 872
CIH Project Scoring Matrix Guide
6 Note that certain non-structural mitigation strategies were assumed to be implemented within City jurisdiction only. This reduces the complexity of implementation and allows for specific implementation control within City jurisdiction.

Permitting Difficulty: Qualitative assessment of anticipated environmental and other permitting requirements necessary to facilitate mitigation strategy implementation.

Categorical assessment metric utilized best professional judgement to review anticipated agency coordination and permit complexity.
• Low- Anticipated requirements include local agency coordination and/or low effort submittals.
• Medium- Anticipated requirements include local/state agency coordination and/or medium effort submittals.
• High- Anticipated requirements include local/state/federal agency coordination and/or high effort submittals and/or monitoring/special studies.

Community Benefits
Aesthetic Improvements: Aggregate attribute utilizing Harbor resistance time as the main indicator to estimate aesthetic improvements in water quality. Literature review was performed to assess potential waterbody residence time thresholds used to determine potential benefits to water quality aesthetics including presence of trash, water clarity, and water quality relative to waterbody beneficial use(s). Generally, a harbor with an average residence time exceeding 1-2 weeks is considered well-mixed (Uncles et. al 2002).

Enclosed harbor or bay residence times that exceed approximately 1-2 weeks generally correspond with increased turbidity and potential water quality issues (Marsooli et. al 2018). Accordingly, for the purposes of this study the following criteria were applied:
• Strategies that reduce average water parcel residence time to less than 1-week scores 1 point.
• Strategies that reduce average water parcel residence time to between 1- and 2- weeks scores 0.5 points.
• Strategies that reduce average water parcel residence time to greater than 2-weeks or do not reduce average water parcel residence time scores 0 points.

Trash Reduction: Qualitative categorical (Yes/No) assessment of watershed mitigation strategy for potential trash reduction benefits based on comparable municipal program reviews and best professional judgement.
873
CIH Project Scoring Matrix Guide
7 CB Proportion: Assessment metric to synthesize ten potential individual community benefits (see Tab- 2 Community Benefits). Individual community benefit evaluated according to the following criteria:
• Applicable scores 1 point.
• Partially/Potentially Applicable scores 0.5 points.
• Not Applicable scores 0 points.

CB Proportion is the sum of individual community benefit scores / 10.

DAC Benefits: Categorical assessment based on mitigation strategy potential to impact disadvantaged community(ies). Evaluated according to the following criteria:
• Mitigation strategy occurs within a disadvantaged community scores 1 point. • Mitigation strategy occurs adjacent to or partially within a disadvantaged community scores 0.5 points.
• Mitigation strategy occurs outside of a disadvantaged community scores 0 point DACs were defined based on 2022 SB 535 DAC designations, which include the following:
a. Census tracts receiving the highest 25% of overall scores in CalEnviroScreen

4.0. b. Census tracts lacking overall scores in CalEnviroScreen 4.0 due to data gaps, but receiving the highest 5% of cumulative pollution burden scores. c. Census tracts identified in the 2017 DAC designation as disadvantaged, regardless of CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores.
d. Lands under the control of federally recognized tribes.

Tab 2 – Community Benefits: Presents applicability information for each of the 10 evaluated potential community benefits.

Recreational Improvements: The project parcel is located on or adjacent to a park or potential park.

Community Anchors: The parcel is located on or adjacent to a school, library, medical/healthcare or social service facility, or other public facility.

Community Education Opportunity: The parcel can support educational signage or promote education-focused community events.

Pedestrian & Traffic Safety: The parcel contains or is adjacent to a right-of-way in a high injury network.
874
CIH Project Scoring Matrix Guide
8 Sustainable Transportation Plan: The parcel is on or adjacent to a priority area as outlined in the Oxnard Sustainable Transportation Plan.

Disadvantaged Community (DAC) Benefits: The parcel is on or adjacent to a disadvantaged community. DAC locations based on https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/dacs/ Social Health Indices (Social Vulnerability Index): The parcel is in a socially vulnerable community according to the Center for Disease Control Social Vulnerability Index.

Social Health Indices (Healthy Places Index): The parcel is in an environmentally vulnerable community according to the California Healthy Places Index.

Social Health Indices (Priority Growth Areas): The parcel is in a priority growth area according to the SCAG Green Region Initiative and Priority Growth Areas.

CalEnviroScreen 4.0: The parcel is in a tract with a CalEnviroscreen 4.0 score above the 50th percentile.

Tabs 3 and 4 – Watershed and Receiving Water Scoring Results: Present results of various metrics and attributes for each potential mitigation strategy derived from the Tab 1 Project Scoring Matrix information, including synthesis based on water quality benefits, cost-effectiveness, and combination thereof.

Reduction Ranking: Metric uses the Additive Percent Load Reduction (Upstream) or Percent RT Reduction (RW) metric (see Tab 1- Project Scoring Matrix) to rank potential mitigation strategies based on modeled Water Quality Benefits.

Cost-Effectiveness Ranking: Metric uses the Cost-Effectiveness metric (see Tab 1- Project Scoring Matrix) to rank potential mitigation strategies based on the modeled Lifecycle Cost per percentage point of the Additive Percent Load Reduction (Upstream) or Percent RT Reduction (RW) metric.

Geometric Mean Rank: The Geometric Mean Rank metric combines the Reduction Ranking and the Cost-Effectiveness Ranking. The geometric mean is a type of average that indicates the central tendency or typical value of a set of positive numbers. It is useful when calculating normalized scores in systems where each factor contributes multiplicatively. It provides a more comprehensive ranking approach by sequentially ranking potential mitigation strategies based on the geometric mean of the Reduction and Cost-Effectiveness Rankings.

Capital Cost Category: Categorical assessment of estimated Capital Cost (Tab 1-Project Scoring Matrix), organizing mitigation strategy costs into one of four classifications. 875
CIH Project Scoring Matrix Guide
9 Capital Cost Category Range of Estimated Cost
$ $0 - $4,999,999
$$ $5,000,000 - $14,999,999
$$$ $15,000,000 - $29,999,999
$$$$ $30,000,000 -
Lifecycle Cost Category: Categorical assessment of estimated Lifecycle Cost (Tab 1- Project Scoring Matrix), organizing mitigation strategy lifecycle costs into one of four classifications.

Lifecycle Cost Category Range of Estimated Cost
$ $0 - $499,999
$$ $500,000 - $19,999,999
$$$ $20,000,000 - $49,999,999
$$$$ $50,000,000 -
Implementation Considerations Category: Categorical synthesis and assessment of Parcel Ownership, Crosses Jurisdictional Boundaries?, and Permitting Difficulty (Tab 1- Project Scoring Matrix), organizing mitigation strategies into one of three tiers.

Implementation Considerations
Category
Criteria
Low Does not cross jurisdictional boundaries + LOW/MED
permitting difficulty
Medium Does not cross jurisdictional boundaries + HIGH permitting difficulty OR Crosses one or more jurisdictional boundaries + LOW/MED permitting difficulty
High Crosses one or more jurisdictional boundaries + HIGH permitting difficulty
Aesthetic Improvements: See Tab 1-Project Scoring Matrix description.

Trash Reduction: Qualitative binary (Yes/No) assessment of mitigation strategy potential to reduce trash inputs/presence in Harbor receiving waters based on similar program reviews/best professional judgement.

Community Benefits Total: Categorical synthesis and assessment of CB Proportion metric (Tab 1-Project Scoring Matrix), organizing mitigation strategy community benefits attributes into one of four classifications.
876
CIH Project Scoring Matrix Guide
10 Community Benefits Category CB Proportion Criteria
Limited < 0.4
Good > 0.4
Better > 0.51
Best > 0.75
DAC Benefits: See Tab 1-Project Scoring Matrix description.

Tabs 5 and 6 – Tiered Watershed Results and Cleaned Receiving Water Results: These sheets do not present any new metrics or attributes. Potential Receiving Water mitigation strategies are presented with simplified scoring results. Potential Watershed mitigation strategies are organized into three tiers for potential future planning and implementation considerations. Watershed mitigation strategy Tiers are based on Implementation Considerations Category and Lifecycle Cost.
- Tier 1: ‘Low’ Implementation Considerations Category and Lifecycle Cost Category of ‘$$$’ or lower.
- Tier 2: ‘Low’ Implementation Considerations Category and Lifecycle Cost Category of ‘$$$$’ OR ‘Medium’ Implementation Considerations Category and Lifecycle Cost Category of ‘$$$’ or lower.
- Tier 3: ‘Medium’ Implementation Considerations Category and Lifecycle Cost Category of ‘$$$$’.
877
Project Scoring Specifications NOTE: Incorporate exceedance days reduced from each strategy The Project Scoring Matrix has both qualitative and quantitative components that are normalized to allow for comparison across strategy types.

All Nonstructural (NS), Structural (S) and Receiving Water (RW) Strategies have been evaluated and scored relative to ALL other strategies.

Ranking of strategies is performed through the use of two distinct metrics:

1. Additive percent load reduction of pollutants of concern / average Harbor residence time reductions in accordance with the methodology described in the Water Quality Benefits section below.

2. Cost-effectiveness of their Water Quality Benefits, which refers to the dollar amount of cost per percentage reduction of pollutant loads/residence time. Following the evaluation of each individual strategy, ranking is performed in two ways:

1. Strategies are ranked solely based off of the two metrics listed above, using the geometric mean of these two metrics as the final determinant of strategy ranking.

2. Strategies are organized into tiers based on their implementation feasibility in accordance with the criteria outlined in the below Implementation Considerations section. Within these tiers, strategies are then ranked using the geometric mean approach described above.

The following sections describe specific details of the approach to evaluating the various characteristics of each individual strategy.

Water Quality Benefits:

For Upstream (Nonstructural & Structural) Strategies, Water Quality Benefits are evaluated as percent load reductions relative to the total average annual watershed load for each constituent of concern. Strategies are then assessed based on an additive percent load reduction that is cumulative across the individual percent load reductions for each evaluated constituent. This additive percent load reduction is then combined with estimated Lifecycle Cost to obtain a cost-effectiveness figure. For Receiving Water Strategies, the average reduction in Harbor residence time is used in lieu of pollutant load reduction and also combined with Lifecycle Cost to calculate cost-effectivess. Costs: Costs were evaluted in two parts. For part 1, strategies were evaluated in terms of Capital Costs and categorized as either Low, Medium, or High based on thresholds which correspond to the distribution of costs across all strategies. For part 2, strategies were evaluated in terms of their estimated 30-year Lifecycle Cost. This is comprised of the estimated Capital Cost plus 30 years of estimated Annual O&M Cost, and corresponds to the strategy's categorization as either Low, Medium, or High.

The ranking of strategies is performed by using the estimated Lifecycle Cost to obtain a cost-effectiveness figure that represents the cost per percentage point of overall pollutant load / residence time reduction.

Implementation Considerations:

Assessment of a strategy's implementation considerations includes the determination of whether the strategy will require coordination across jurisdictional boundaries. This is evaluated alongside the strategy's permitting difficulty level. Strategies were then categorized based on the combination of these two implementation considerations based on the following criteria:
- Low: Does not cross jurisdictional boundaries + LOW/MED permitting difficulty - Medium: Does not cross jurisdictional boundaries + HIGH permitting difficulty OR Crosses jurisdictional boundaries + LOW/MED permitting difficulty
- High: Crosses jurisdictional boundaries + HIGH permitting difficulty Implementation considerations do not factor into the explicit scoring of strategies, but rather serve as a means by which to organize strategies into tiers of implementation feasibility. Within these tiers, strategies are ranked in accordance with the framework outlined above.

Community Benefits (CBs):

Community Benefits are a qualitative component of the overall characteristics of a given strategy, which are being evaluated and scored in a quantitative fashion to allow for normalization and scoring across all strategy types.

Nonstructural Strategy, Receiving Water Strategy, and Single Structural Project Opportunity CBs are presented as a proportion of the 10 potential community benefits that could be provided by the project.

Applicable = 1 point
Partially/Potentially Applicable = 0.5 points
Not Applicable = 0 points
- Strategies are distributed into Good/Better/Best rankings based on the proportion out of the 10 potential CBs that the given strategy provides.Ranking correspond to the following benchmarks: Good = 0.4 or above Better = 0.51 or above Best = 0.75 or above Strategies for which the provision of DAC Benefits is scored greater than 0.5 were automatically moved up one ranking (i.e. good to better, better to best) unless they already achieved the best ranking. Strategies which do not meet the threshold for a "Good" classification and also do not provide DAC Benefits are categorized as N/A. Community Benefits do not factor into the explicit scoring and ranking of strategies, and are presented as a supplementary factor to be considered alongside rankings.

Alternative Evaluation Framework Ideas: Water Quality Benefits:
- Thom's geometric mean approach.
- Use median concentrations of pollutants rather than average? May help to account for the uneven distribution of reductions across the different strategies.
- Weighted load reduction, either summation or percentage reduction; account for magnitude of exceedance.

Strategies should still be scored well if they have a substantial impact on one pollutant even if the others are not reduced substantially.
- additive percent load reduction of total watershed load to account for difference in units - set thresholds following ranking of projects from above approach - add percent watershed load reduced column for each pollutant to scoring matrix table. - each project individually ranked between additive percent reduction along with the $/% reduction and then rank based on the geo mean of those two Costs:
- potentially change to 4 levels; medium should maybe not include the RW strategies - change categories to : $, $$, $$$, $$$$
- cost-effectiveness criteria? (cost per pct reduction) fiddle with units/presentation of this to make it look not scary - thom's geometric mean methodology
Implementation Considerations:
- remove implementation considerations from main considerations; rank everything by the above factors and tier them within the different tiers of implementation considerations. - Incorporate feasibility of O&M? (equipment availability, logistical capacity, cost) - 2 columns in this category?
Community Benefits:
- Reframe to emphasize CBs being external to the primary considerations for evaluating potential mitigation strategies; these are a bonus and are not one of the main things influencing scoring/prioritization. - Emphasize linkage between CBs and other benefits:
- WQ Benefits --> CBs (Clean water increases property value, tourism, aesthetics) - Economic component of community benefits
- score the projects differently if they impact trash: aesthetics, odor, trash, water clarity 878

08.01.2025 Update
Project Type/Name
Bifenthrin
Load
Reduction
(lbs/yr)
Bifenthrin
Watershed
Load
Reduction (%)
Permethrin
Load
Reduction
(lbs/yr)
Permethrin
Watershed
Load
Reduction (%)
Nitrogen Load
Reduction
(lbs/yr)
Nitrogen
Watershed
Load Reduction
(%)
Phosphorus
Load
Reduction
(lbs/yr)
Phosphorus
Watershed
Load Reduction
(%)
Copper
Load
Reduction
(lbs/yr)
Copper
Watershed Load
Reduction (%)
Bacteria Load
Reduction
(MPN/yr)
Bacteria
Watershed Load
Reduction (%)
Average
Residence
Time (RT)
(Days)
Additive Aggregate
Percent Load Reduction
(Upstream) or Percent
RT Reduction (RW) (%)
CostEffectiveness
($/% Aggregate
Load Reduction)
Capital Cost
($)
Annual O&M Cost
($)
30-yr Lifecycle
Cost
($)
Parcel
Ownership
Crosses
Jurisdictional
Boundaries?
Permitting
Difficulty
Aesthetic
Improvements
Trash
Reduction
CB
Proportion
DAC
Benefits
Contributes to
Maintenance of
Rec-2 Std
Contributes to WQ
Commensurate
with Rec-1 Std
Targeted Nutrient/Pesticide Source Control- Outreach and 0.2 13% 96 15% 701 15% 437 15% 15 6% 196,025,410,494 15% N/A 77% $ 34,665 $ 30,000 $ 87,500 $ 2,685,000 Mixed No Low No No 0.65 Yes Yes Yes Open Passive Edison Canal Connection to Ocean (RW) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6 73% $ 2,571,000 $ 82,030,000 $ 789,514 $ 187,745,420 Mixed Yes High Yes No 0.45 Partial Yes Yes Targeted Nutrient/Pesticide Source Control- Agricultural 0.2 13% 96 15% 701 15% 437 15% 4 2% 57,543,810,488 4% N/A 62% $ 5,300 $ 15,000 $ 10,000 $ 330,000 Mixed Partial Low No No 0.65 Yes Yes Yes Targeted Bacteria Source Control - Animal Waste 0.2 13% 63 10% 462 10% 288 10% 0 0% 129,339,125,442 10% N/A 51% $ 45,962 $ 50,000 $ 75,000 $ 2,350,000 Mixed No Low No No 0.65 Partial Yes Yes Municipal Operations Enhancement Source Control - Street 0.2 13% 64 10% 123 3% 317 11% 30 13% 10,755,852,428 1% N/A 49% $ 478,054 $ - $ 787,500 $ 23,625,000 Mixed No Low Partial Yes 0.65 Partial Yes Yes Edison Canal Pump Resumption- 67 MGD (RW) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 12 46% $ 2,328,924 $ 36,900,000 $ 1,144,066 $ 108,121,980 Mixed Yes High Partial No 0.3 No Yes Yes Storage Tank Water Release between Canal/Harbor (RW) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 12 45% $ 677,170 $ 9,200,000 $ 410,131 $ 30,703,930 Mixed Yes High Partial No 0.3 No Yes Yes Passive Circulation Enhancements (RW) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 12 45% $ 1,127,925 $ 25,100,000 $ 6,608 $ 50,398,240 Mixed Partial High Partial No 0.4 No Yes Yes Decommission Canal/Convert to Engineered Wetlands & N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 13 40% $ 8,209,095 $ 103,000,000 $ 4,049,244 $ 327,477,320 Mixed Yes High Partial No 0.45 Partial Yes Yes Decommission Canal/Storage Tank (RW) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 13 39% $ 9,164,061 $ 112,200,000 $ 4,459,376 $ 358,181,280 Mixed Yes High Partial No 5.5 Partial Yes Yes Oliveira Plaza Parking Lot Infiltration BMP (S) 0.05 3% 21 3% 535 11% 93 3% 7 3% 44,275,588,219 3% N/A 27% $ 2,065,112 $ 25,020,000 $ 200,000 $ 56,040,000 Private Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.5 No Yes Yes Targeted Nutrient/Pesticide Source Control- Illicit Discharge 0.1 6% 32 5% 231 5% 144 5% 4 2% 57,543,810,488 4% N/A 27% $ 60,073 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 1,600,000 Mixed No Low Partial Partial 0.55 Yes Yes Yes Oxnard Airport East Filtration BMP (S) 0.08 5% 34 5% 259 5% 139 5% 10 5% 0 0% N/A 25% $ 2,327,652 $ 24,460,000 $ 300,000 $ 57,920,000 County Partial Medium Partial Partial 0.5 Yes Yes No Oxnard Airport East Infiltration BMP (S) 0.05 3% 21 3% 409 9% 96 3% 8 3% 39,348,928,328 3% N/A 24% $ 2,290,818 $ 25,020,000 $ 200,000 $ 56,040,000 County Partial Medium Partial Partial 0.5 Yes Yes Yes Oliveira Plaza Parking Lot Filtration BMP (S) 0.06 4% 24 4% 328 7% 98 3% 7 3% 0 0% N/A 21% $ 2,964,011 $ 26,130,000 $ 300,000 $ 61,260,000 Private Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.5 No Yes No Campus Park Infiltration BMP (S) 0.05 3% 20 3% 231 5% 90 3% 7 3% 32,794,338,199 2% N/A 19% $ 2,882,848 $ 25,020,000 $ 200,000 $ 56,040,000 City No Medium Partial Partial 0.7 No Yes Yes Targeted Bacteria Source Control - Homeless Encampment 0 0% 0 0% 78 2% 49 2% 0 0% 196,025,410,494 15% N/A 18% $ 8,444,541 $ 250,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 150,500,000 Mixed Partial Low Partial Yes 0.55 Yes Yes Yes County Parcel S Ventura Infiltration BMP (S) 0.05 3% 20 3% 144 3% 88 3% 7 3% 29,561,743,076 2% N/A 17% $ 3,267,732 $ 25,020,000 $ 200,000 $ 56,040,000 County Partial Medium Partial Partial 0.4 No Yes Yes Campus Park Filtration BMP (S) 0.06 3% 23 3% 98 2% 96 3% 7 3% 0 0% N/A 15% $ 3,546,360 $ 22,790,000 $ 300,000 $ 54,580,000 City No Medium Partial Partial 0.7 No Yes No Edison Canal Pump Resumption- 4.3 MGD (RW) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 19 14% $ 6,278,393 $ 29,520,000 $ 915,253 $ 86,497,590 Mixed Yes High No No 0.3 No Yes Yes Wilson Park Infiltration BMP (S) 0.03 2% 14 2% 127 3% 62 2% 5 2% 21,526,659,023 2% N/A 13% $ 3,528,380 $ 19,445,000 $ 200,000 $ 44,890,000 City No Medium Partial Partial 0.9 No Yes Yes County Parcel S Ventura Filtration BMP (S) 0.05 3% 20 3% 18 0.4% 85 3% 6 3% 0 0% N/A 12% $ 4,745,938 $ 24,460,000 $ 300,000 $ 57,920,000 County Partial Medium Partial Partial 0.4 No Yes No Targeted Bacteria Source Control - Sewer System 0 0% 11 2% 78 2% 49 2% 0 0% 87,122,404,664 6% N/A 11% $ 9,995,621 $ 262,500 $ 3,762,500 $ 113,400,000 Mixed No Low No No 0.5 Partial Yes Yes Edison Doris East Infiltration BMP (S) 0.03 2% 11 2% 77 2% 53 2% 4 2% 27,340,423,797 2% N/A 11% $ 5,234,972 $ 25,020,000 $ 200,000 $ 56,040,000 Utility Partial Medium Partial Partial 0.4 Yes Yes Yes Trash Reduction - Mechanical Filtration (NS) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 1% 129,339,125,442 10% N/A 11% $ 1,122,898 $ 3,000,000 $ 200,000 $ 12,000,000 Mixed No Low Partial Yes 0.6 Partial Yes Yes Wilson Park Filtration BMP (S) 0.03 2% 14 2% 57 1% 60 2% 4 2% 0 0% N/A 10% $ 3,575,943 $ 12,585,000 $ 300,000 $ 34,170,000 City No Medium Partial Partial 0.9 No Yes No Seabridge Planter East Infiltration BMP (S) 0.02 2% 10 2% 77 2% 50 2% 4 2% 16,162,105,391 1% N/A 9% $ 4,658,362 $ 18,325,000 $ 200,000 $ 42,650,000 City No Medium Partial Partial 0.2 No Yes Yes N Patterson Rd Green Streets Infiltration BMP (S) 0.02 1% 9 1% 82 2% 41 1% 3 1% 23,362,687,376 2% N/A 9% $ 4,284,384 $ 16,075,000 $ 200,000 $ 38,150,000 Public Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.5 Yes Yes Yes Oxnard Airport Southwest Infiltration BMP (S) 0.02 1% 9 1% 50 1% 44 1% 3 1% 18,401,075,422 1% N/A 8% $ 5,379,217 $ 18,885,000 $ 200,000 $ 43,770,000 County Partial Medium Partial Partial 0.5 Yes Yes Yes N Patterson Rd Green Streets Filtration BMP (S) 0.02 2% 10 2% 40 1% 44 1% 3 1% 0 0% N/A 7% $ 4,320,617 $ 10,290,000 $ 300,000 $ 29,580,000 Public Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.5 Yes Yes No Trash Reduction - Source Reduction Strategies (NS) 0 0% 7 1% 0 0% 0 0% 2 1% 57,543,810,487 4% N/A 6% $ 645,649 $ 193,750 $ 125,000 $ 4,137,500 Mixed No Low Partial Yes 0.95 Yes Yes Yes Non-Structural Operational Stormwater Programs - 0 0% 0 0% 26 1% 15.9 1% 11 5% 7,125,752,233 1% N/A 6% $ 17,744,075 $ 262,500 $ 3,762,500 $ 113,400,000 Mixed No Low No No 0.55 Yes Yes Yes Mariner's Place Green Streets Infiltration BMP (S) 0.02 1% 7 1% 66 1% 30 1% 2 1% 10,567,151,866 1% N/A 6% $ 4,235,187 $ 10,295,000 $ 200,000 $ 26,590,000 Private Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.5 No Yes Yes Marina West Park Infiltration BMP (S) 0.02 1% 7 1% 63 1% 30 1% 2 1% 10,351,615,423 1% N/A 6% $ 4,325,362 $ 10,295,000 $ 200,000 $ 26,590,000 City No Medium Partial Partial 0.4 No Yes Yes Edison Doris East Filtration BMP (S) 0.02 1% 9 1% 25 1% 40 1% 3 1% 0 0% N/A 6% $ 8,055,754 $ 19,435,000 $ 300,000 $ 47,870,000 Utility Partial Medium Partial Partial 0.4 Yes Yes No Edison Hemlock Drain North Infiltration BMP (S) 0.01 1% 6 1% 79 2% 28 1% 2 1% 9,480,782,918 1% N/A 6% $ 3,917,269 $ 8,565,000 $ 200,000 $ 23,130,000 Utility Partial Medium Partial Partial 0.1 No Yes Yes Edison Doris West Infiltration BMP (S) 0.01 1% 6 1% 38 1% 29 1% 2 1% 15,035,681,564 1% N/A 6% $ 9,857,782 $ 25,020,000 $ 200,000 $ 56,040,000 Utility Partial Medium Partial Partial 0.4 Yes Yes Yes Seabridge Planter East Filtration BMP (S) 0.02 1% 8 1% 34 1% 37 1% 3 1% 0 0% N/A 5% $ 5,867,920 $ 11,440,000 $ 300,000 $ 31,880,000 City No Medium Partial Partial 0.2 No Yes No S Victoria Ave Green Streets Infiltration BMP (S) 0.01 1% 5 1% 69 1% 26 1% 2 1% 8,947,657,214 1% N/A 5% $ 4,267,483 $ 8,565,000 $ 200,000 $ 23,130,000 Public Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.3 No Yes Yes Edison Hemlock Drain North Filtration BMP (S) 0.02 1% 7 1% 42 1% 35 1% 2 1% 0 0% N/A 5% $ 4,216,268 $ 6,675,000 $ 300,000 $ 22,350,000 Utility Partial Medium Partial Partial 0.1 No Yes No Mariner's Place Green Streets Filtration BMP (S) 0.02 1% 8 1% 33 1% 32 1% 2 1% 0 0% N/A 5% $ 4,364,557 $ 6,675,000 $ 300,000 $ 22,350,000 Private Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.5 No Yes No S Victoria Ave Green Streets Filtration BMP (S) 0.02 1% 7 1% 38 1% 32 1% 2 1% 0 0% N/A 5% $ 4,489,204 $ 6,675,000 $ 300,000 $ 22,350,000 Public Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.3 No Yes No Marina West Park Filtration BMP (S) 0.02 1% 7 1% 31 1% 31 1% 2 1% 0 0% N/A 5% $ 4,518,103 $ 6,675,000 $ 300,000 $ 22,350,000 City No Medium Partial Partial 0.4 No Yes No Oxnard School District Administration Parking Lot 0.01 1% 5 1% 39 1% 22 1% 2 1% 7,641,000,767 1% N/A 4% $ 5,768,072 $ 9,720,000 $ 200,000 $ 25,440,000 School District Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.6 No Yes Yes Sea Air Park Infiltration BMP (S) 0.01 1% 5 1% 39 1% 22 1% 2 1% 7,628,643,378 1% N/A 4% $ 5,779,403 $ 9,720,000 $ 200,000 $ 25,440,000 City No Medium Partial Partial 0.6 No Yes Yes Driffill Elementary Basketball Courts Infiltration BMP (S) 0.01 1% 5 1% 20 0.4% 23 1% 2 1% 8,039,320,203 1% N/A 4% $ 10,919,669 $ 19,445,000 $ 200,000 $ 44,890,000 School District Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.7 No Yes Yes Mangeon W 5th St Ag Field Filtration BMP (S) 0.01 1% 6 1% 22 0.5% 27 1% 2 1% 0 0% N/A 4% $ 3,995,002 $ 3,545,000 $ 300,000 $ 16,090,000 Private Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.5 Yes Yes No Faith Community Church Infiltration BMP (S) 0.01 1% 5 1% 32 1% 21 1% 2 1% 7,201,597,691 1% N/A 4% $ 7,216,623 $ 11,440,000 $ 200,000 $ 28,880,000 Private Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.5 No Yes Yes Oxnard High Infiltration BMP (S) 0.01 1% 4 1% 25 1% 19 1% 1 1% 11,021,477,383 1% N/A 4% $ 14,717,072 $ 25,085,000 $ 200,000 $ 56,170,000 School District Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.5 Yes Yes Yes Plaza Park Infiltration BMP (S) 0.01 1% 4 1% 31 1% 17 1% 1 1% 5,750,579,411 0.4% N/A 3% $ 6,145,911 $ 7,400,000 $ 200,000 $ 20,800,000 City No Medium Partial Partial 0.8 No Yes Yes Oxnard School District Administration Parking Lot Filtration 0.01 1% 5 1% 19 0.4% 20 1% 2 1% 0 0% N/A 3% $ 6,872,142 $ 6,675,000 $ 300,000 $ 22,350,000 School District Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.6 No Yes No Sea Air Park Filtration BMP (S) 0.01 1% 5 1% 19 0.4% 20 1% 2 1% 0 0% N/A 3% $ 6,886,328 $ 6,675,000 $ 300,000 $ 22,350,000 City No Medium Partial Partial 0.6 No Yes No Edison Doris West Filtration BMP (S) 0.01 1% 5 1% 13 0.3% 20 1% 1 1% 0 0% N/A 3% $ 16,657,056 $ 20,555,000 $ 300,000 $ 50,110,000 Utility Partial Medium Partial Partial 0.4 Yes Yes No Oxnard Airport Southwest Filtration BMP (S) 0.01 1% 5 1% 5 0.1% 22 1% 1 1% 0 0% N/A 3% $ 9,900,279 $ 10,190,000 $ 300,000 $ 29,380,000 County Partial Medium Partial Partial 0.5 Yes Yes No Kellner Doris Ag Field Infiltration BMP (S) 0.01 0.4% 3 0.4% 21 0.4% 13 0.4% 1 0.5% 7,294,302,508 1% N/A 3% $ 9,293,050 $ 9,720,000 $ 200,000 $ 25,440,000 Private Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.4 Yes Yes Yes Borchard Doris Drain Ag Field Filtration BMP (S) 0.01 1% 4 1% 18 0.4% 17 1% 1 1% 0 0% N/A 3% $ 8,009,935 $ 6,075,000 $ 300,000 $ 21,150,000 Private Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.4 Yes Yes No Oxnard Airport Northwest Infiltration BMP (S) 0.01 0.4% 3 0.4% 18 0.4% 13 0.4% 1 0.4% 6,977,182,563 1% N/A 3% $ 10,185,771 $ 10,295,000 $ 200,000 $ 26,590,000 County Partial Medium Partial Partial 0.5 Yes Yes Yes Faith Community Church Filtration BMP (S) 0.01 1% 4 1% 15 0.3% 16 1% 1 1% 0 0% N/A 3% $ 8,652,355 $ 6,675,000 $ 300,000 $ 22,350,000 Private Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.5 No Yes No Doris Drain Outfall Filtration BMP (S) 0.01 1% 3 1% 22 0.5% 15 0.5% 1 0.5% 0 0% N/A 2% $ 5,355,968 $ 4,340,000 $ 150,000 $ 13,180,000 County Partial Medium Partial Partial 0.4 Yes Yes No Plaza Park Filtration BMP (S) 0.01 1% 4 1% 15 0.3% 15 0.5% 1 0.5% 0 0% N/A 2% $ 7,208,195 $ 4,210,000 $ 300,000 $ 17,420,000 City No Medium Partial Partial 0.8 No Yes No Teal Club Infiltration BMP (S) 0.01 0.4% 3 0.4% 8 0.2% 13 0.4% 1 0.4% 6,376,244,870 0.5% N/A 2% $ 16,761,791 $ 17,170,000 $ 200,000 $ 40,340,000 School District Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.5 Yes Yes Yes Borchard Doris Drain Ag Field Infiltration BMP (S) 0.004 0.3% 2 0.3% 32 1% 8 0.3% 1 0.3% 7,167,041,005 1% N/A 2% $ 7,115,944 $ 5,025,000 $ 200,000 $ 16,050,000 Private Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.4 Yes Yes Yes Oliveira Development Infiltration BMP (S) 0.01 0.4% 2 0.4% 18 0.4% 12 0.4% 1 0.4% 3,928,152,273 0.3% N/A 2% $ 8,919,264 $ 6,815,000 $ 200,000 $ 19,630,000 Private Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.4 No Yes Yes Driffill Elementary Baseball Field Infiltration BMP (S) 0.01 0.4% 3 0.4% 15 0.3% 11 0.4% 1 0.4% 4,604,391,064 0.3% N/A 2% $ 17,282,173 $ 15,510,000 $ 200,000 $ 37,020,000 School District Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.7 No Yes Yes Marathon W 5th St Ag Field Infiltration BMP (S) 0.004 0.3% 2 0.3% 21 0.4% 9 0.3% 1 0.3% 6,529,423,923 0.5% N/A 2% $ 7,775,594 $ 5,025,000 $ 200,000 $ 16,050,000 Private Partial Medium Partial Partial 0.4 Yes Yes Yes Mangeon W 5th St Ag Field Infiltration BMP (S) 0.003 0.2% 1 0.2% 26 1% 6 0.2% 0.5 0.2% 8,966,131,813 1% N/A 2% $ 8,013,679 $ 5,025,000 $ 200,000 $ 16,050,000 Private Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.5 Yes Yes Yes HHR W 5th St Ag Field Filtration BMP (S) 0.01 0.5% 3 0.5% 8 0.2% 14 0.5% 1 0.4% 0 0% N/A 2% $ 8,186,433 $ 3,545,000 $ 300,000 $ 16,090,000 Private Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.4 Yes Yes No Oxnard High Filtration BMP (S) 0.01 0.5% 3 0.5% 10 0.2% 13 0.4% 1 0.4% 0 0% N/A 2% $ 17,539,539 $ 12,585,000 $ 300,000 $ 34,170,000 School District Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.5 Yes Yes No HHR W 5th St Ag Field Infiltration BMP (S) 0.005 0.3% 2 0.3% 17 0.4% 9 0.3% 1 0.3% 5,527,046,085 0.4% N/A 2% $ 8,298,248 $ 5,025,000 $ 200,000 $ 16,050,000 Private Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.4 Yes Yes Yes Driffill Elementary Basketball Courts Filtration BMP (S) 0.01 0.5% 3 0.5% 6 0.1% 13 0.4% 1 0.4% 0 0% N/A 2% $ 17,443,468 $ 12,015,000 $ 300,000 $ 33,030,000 School District Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.7 No Yes No Kellner Doris Ag Field Filtration BMP (S) 0.01 0.4% 3 0.4% 11 0.2% 12 0.4% 1 0.4% 0 0% N/A 2% $ 10,245,911 $ 4,845,000 $ 300,000 $ 18,690,000 Private Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.4 Yes Yes No Oxnard Airport Northwest Filtration BMP (S) 0.01 0.4% 3 0.4% 6 0.1% 12 0.4% 1 0.4% 0 0% N/A 2% $ 10,033,059 $ 4,210,000 $ 300,000 $ 17,420,000 County Partial Medium Partial Partial 0.5 Yes Yes No Oliveira Development Filtration BMP (S) 0.01 0.3% 2 0.3% 10 0.2% 11 0.4% 1 0.3% 0 0% N/A 2% $ 11,661,243 $ 4,845,000 $ 300,000 $ 18,690,000 Private Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.4 No Yes No Driffill Elementary Baseball Field Filtration BMP (S) 0.01 0.4% 2 0.4% 7 0.1% 10 0.3% 1 0.3% 0 0% N/A 1% $ 18,994,195 $ 9,610,000 $ 300,000 $ 28,220,000 School District Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.7 No Yes No Seabridge Elementary Infiltration BMP (S) 0.004 0.2% 2 0.2% 5 0.1% 8 0.3% 0.5 0.2% 4,203,673,302 0.3% N/A 1% $ 36,815,130 $ 22,300,000 $ 200,000 $ 50,600,000 School District Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.3 No Yes Yes Seabridge Planter West Infiltration BMP (S) 0.004 0.2% 2 0.2% 4 0.1% 8 0.3% 1 0.2% 3,154,656,107 0.2% N/A 1% $ 21,083,014 $ 10,865,000 $ 200,000 $ 27,730,000 City No Medium Partial Partial 0.2 No Yes Yes Southwest Community Park Infiltration BMP (S) 0.003 0.2% 1 0.2% 9 0.2% 7 0.2% 0.5 0.2% 3,493,866,704 0.3% N/A 1% $ 15,014,843 $ 6,815,000 $ 200,000 $ 19,630,000 City No Medium Partial Partial 0.6 No Yes Yes Marathon W 5th St Ag Field Filtration BMP (S) 0.005 0.3% 2 0.3% 7 0.1% 8 0.3% 1 0.2% 0 0% N/A 1% $ 12,979,446 $ 3,545,000 $ 300,000 $ 16,090,000 Private Partial Medium Partial Partial 0.4 Yes Yes No Oxnard Airport Central Infiltration BMP (S) 0.003 0.2% 1 0.2% 8 0.2% 6 0.2% 0.4 0.2% 3,268,456,095 0.2% N/A 1% $ 16,079,243 $ 6,815,000 $ 200,000 $ 19,630,000 County Partial Medium Partial Partial 0.4 Yes Yes Yes W 5th St Drain Outfall Filtration BMP (S) 0.004 0.3% 2 0.3% 5 0.1% 8 0.3% 1 0.2% 0 0% N/A 1% $ 10,999,731 $ 4,340,000 $ 150,000 $ 13,180,000 Private Partial Medium Partial Partial 0.4 Yes Yes No Kiddie Beach ROW Filtration BMP (S) 0.004 0.3% 2 0.3% 6 0.1% 6 0.2% 0.5 0.2% 0 0% N/A 1% $ 15,649,542 $ 4,210,000 $ 300,000 $ 17,420,000 Private Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.2 No Yes No Marathon Drain Outfall Filtration BMP (S) 0.004 0.3% 2 0.3% 3 0.1% 8 0.3% 1 0.2% 0 0% N/A 1% $ 12,009,503 $ 4,340,000 $ 150,000 $ 13,180,000 Private Partial Medium Partial Partial 0.4 Yes Yes No Kiddie Beach ROW Infiltration BMP (S) 0.002 0.1% 1 0.1% 15 0.3% 3 0.1% 0.2 0.1% 3,003,927,291 0.2% N/A 1% $ 14,622,822 $ 3,800,000 $ 200,000 $ 13,600,000 Private Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.2 No Yes Yes W 5th St Drain Outfall Infiltration BMP (S) 0.001 0.1% 1 0.1% 11 0.2% 3 0.1% 0.2 0.1% 3,747,740,276 0.3% N/A 1% $ 10,720,267 $ 3,295,000 $ 100,000 $ 9,590,000 Private Partial Medium Partial Partial 0.4 Yes Yes Yes Marathon Drain Outfall Infiltration BMP (S) 0.001 0.1% 0.5 0.1% 6 0.1% 3 0.1% 0.2 0.1% 5,810,232,762 0.4% N/A 1% $ 10,980,906 $ 3,295,000 $ 100,000 $ 9,590,000 Private Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.4 Yes Yes Yes Southwest Community Park Filtration BMP (S) 0.003 0.2% 1 0.2% 3 0.1% 6 0.2% 0.4 0.2% 0 0% N/A 1% $ 18,824,813 $ 3,545,000 $ 300,000 $ 16,090,000 City No Medium Partial Partial 0.6 No Yes No Doris Drain Outfall Infiltration BMP (S) 0.001 0.03% 0.2 0.03% 8 0.2% 1 0.04% 0.1 0.04% 6,406,176,332 0.5% N/A 1% $ 12,081,897 $ 3,295,000 $ 100,000 $ 9,590,000 County Partial Medium Partial Partial 0.4 Yes Yes Yes Oxnard Airport Central Filtration BMP (S) 0.003 0.2% 1 0.2% 3 0.1% 6 0.2% 0.4 0.2% 0 0% N/A 1% $ 20,386,318 $ 3,545,000 $ 300,000 $ 16,090,000 County Partial Medium Partial Partial 0.4 Yes Yes No Teal Club Filtration BMP (S) 0.003 0.2% 1 0.2% 0.0001 0.000003% 6 0.2% 0.4 0.2% 0 0% N/A 1% $ 41,999,189 $ 11,400,000 $ 300,000 $ 31,800,000 School District Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.5 Yes Yes No Seabridge Planter West Filtration BMP (S) 0.003 0.2% 1 0.2% 1 0.02% 6 0.2% 0.3 0.2% 0 0% N/A 1% $ 34,028,582 $ 7,860,000 $ 300,000 $ 24,720,000 City No Medium Partial Partial 0.2 No Yes No Seabridge Elementary Filtration BMP (S) 0.003 0.2% 1 0.2% 2 0.03% 5 0.2% 0.3 0.1% 0 0% N/A 1% $ 56,337,358 $ 14,360,000 $ 300,000 $ 37,720,000 School District Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.3 No Yes No Dunkirk Park Infiltration BMP (S) 0.002 0.1% 1 0.1% 4 0.1% 3 0.1% 0.2 0.1% 1,913,670,470 0.1% N/A 1% $ 38,151,142 $ 9,720,000 $ 200,000 $ 25,440,000 City No Medium Partial Partial 0.4 No Yes Yes Diacos Private Ag Field Drain Outfall Infiltration BMP (S) 0.0004 0.02% 0.2 0.02% 0.3 0.01% 1 0.03% 0.1 0.03% 4,866,903,005 0.4% N/A 0.5% $ 18,345,617 $ 2,850,000 $ 100,000 $ 8,700,000 Private Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.1 No Yes Yes Chesapeak Drive Infiltration BMP (S) 0.001 0.1% 0.4 0.1% 3 0.1% 2 0.1% 0.1 0.1% 1,356,042,426 0.1% N/A 0.4% $ 68,027,239 $ 12,010,000 $ 200,000 $ 30,020,000 Public Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.3 No Yes Yes Diacos Private Ag Field Drain Outfall Filtration BMP (S) 0.001 0.1% 1 0.1% 0.01 0.0001% 3 0.1% 0.3 0.1% 0 0% N/A 0.4% $ 30,984,887 $ 3,900,000 $ 150,000 $ 12,300,000 Private Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.1 No Yes No Dunkirk Park Filtration BMP (S) 0.001 0.1% 1 0.1% 1 0.03% 3 0.1% 0.2 0.1% 0 0% N/A 0.4% $ 47,535,256 $ 4,845,000 $ 300,000 $ 18,690,000 City No Medium Partial Partial 0.4 No Yes No Doris Drain Outfall Agricultural Runoff Treatment System 0 0% 0 0% 18 0.4% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% N/A 0.4% $ 867,206 $ 40,000 $ 8,000 $ 320,000 County Partial Medium Partial Partial 0.4 Yes Yes No W 5th St Drain Outfall Agricultural Runoff Treatment System 0 0% 0 0% 16 0.3% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% N/A 0.3% $ 979,415 $ 40,000 $ 8,000 $ 320,000 Private Partial Medium Partial Partial 0.4 Yes Yes No Chesapeak Drive Filtration BMP (S) 0.001 0.1% 0.5 0.1% 2 0.04% 2 0.1% 0.1 0.1% 0 0% N/A 0.3% $ 98,185,854 $ 10,290,000 $ 300,000 $ 29,580,000 Public Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.3 No Yes No Marathon Drain Outfall Agriciltural Runoff Treatment 0 0% 0 0% 7 0.2% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% N/A 0.2% $ 2,062,473 $ 40,000 $ 8,000 $ 320,000 Private Partial Medium Partial Partial 0.4 Yes Yes No W Wooley Rd Drain Outfall Infiltration BMP (S) 0.0003 0.02% 0.1 0.02% 1 0.02% 1 0.02% 0.1 0.02% 275,936,380 0.02% N/A 0.1% $ 72,108,455 $ 3,295,000 $ 100,000 $ 9,590,000 Private Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.2 No Yes Yes W Wooley Rd Drain Outfall Filtration BMP (S) 0.0003 0.02% 0.1 0.02% 1 0.01% 1 0.02% 0.04 0.02% 0 0% N/A 0.1% $ 144,131,478 $ 4,340,000 $ 150,000 $ 13,180,000 Private Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.2 No Yes No Diacos Private Ag Field Drain Outfall Agricultural Runoff 0 0% 0 0% 0.3 0.01% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% N/A 0.01% $ 46,933,450 $ 40,000 $ 8,000 $ 320,000 Private Yes Medium Partial Partial 0.1 No Yes No Water Quality Benefits Costs Implementation Considerations Community Benefits Tab 1- Project Scoring Matrix Page 2 of 10
879

08.01.2025 Update
Project Name Recreational
Improvements
Community
Anchors
Community
Education
Opportunity
Pedestrian &
Traffic Safety
Oxnard
Sustainable
Transportation
Disadvantaged
Community (DAC)
Benefits
Environmental &
Social Health
Indices: Social
Environmental &
Social Health
Indices: Healthy
Environmental &
Social Health
Indices: Priority
CalEnviroScreen

4.0 Targeted NutrientPartialPesticide Source Control- Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Partial Applicable Targeted NutrientPartialPesticide Source Control- Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Partial Applicable Targeted NutrientPartialPesticide Source Control- Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Partial Applicable Targeted Bacteria Source Control - Sewer System Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Partial Applicable Applicable Partial Applicable Targeted Bacteria Source Control - Homeless Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Partial Applicable Targeted Bacteria Source Control - Animal Waste Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Partial Applicable Applicable Partial Partial Municipal Operations Enhancement Source Control Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Partial Applicable Applicable Partial Partial Non-Structural Operational Stormwater Programs - Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Partial Applicable Trash Reduction - Mechanical Filtration (NS) Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Partial Applicable Applicable Partial Applicable Trash Reduction - Source Reduction Strategies Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Partial Applicable Wilson Park Filtration BMP (S) Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Driffill Elementary Basketball Courts Filtration BMP Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Mariner's Place Green Streets Filtration BMP (S) Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Southwest Community Park Filtration BMP (S) Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Chesapeak Drive Filtration BMP (S) Not Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Seabridge Planter East Filtration BMP (S) Not Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Dunkirk Park Filtration BMP (S) Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Campus Park Filtration BMP (S) Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable OApplicablenard Airport Central Filtration BMP (S) Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable OApplicablenard School District Administration Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Marina West Park Filtration BMP (S) Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable N Patterson Rd Green Streets Filtration BMP (S) Not Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Seabridge Planter West Filtration BMP (S) Not Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable S Victoria Ave Green Streets Filtration BMP (S) Not Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Edison Doris East Filtration BMP (S) Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable OApplicablenard High Filtration BMP (S) Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Kiddie Beach ROW Filtration BMP (S) Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Doris Drain Outfall Filtration BMP (S) Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Edison Doris West Filtration BMP (S) Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Kellner Doris Ag Field Filtration BMP (S) Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable OApplicablenard Airport Southwest Filtration BMP Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable OApplicablenard Airport Northwest Filtration BMP Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Sea Air Park Filtration BMP (S) Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable W 5th St Drain Outfall Filtration BMP (S) Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable W Wooley Rd Drain Outfall Filtration BMP (S) Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Edison Hemlock Drain North Filtration BMP (S) Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Marathon Drain Outfall Filtration BMP (S) Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Oliveira Development Filtration BMP (S) Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Seabridge Elementary Filtration BMP (S) Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Marathon W 5th St Ag Field Filtration BMP (S) Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable HHR W 5th St Ag Field Filtration BMP (S) Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Diacos Private Ag Field Drain Outfall Filtration BMP Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Mangeon W 5th St Ag Field Filtration BMP (S) Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable OApplicablenard Airport East Filtration BMP (S) Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable County Parcel S Ventura Filtration BMP (S) Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Borchard Doris Drain Ag Field Filtration BMP (S) Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Driffill Elementary Baseball Field Filtration BMP (S) Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Faith Community Church Filtration BMP (S) Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Plaza Park Filtration BMP (S) Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Oliveira Plaza Parking Lot Filtration BMP (S) Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Teal Club Filtration BMP (S) Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable Tab 2- Community Benefits Page 3 of 10
880