Old, Grand Prix, and Padua Fires (October, 2003) Burn Impacts to Water Systems and Resources

Santa Ana River Watershed Area San Bernardino National Forest, California

Prepared for: Burn Area Emergency Response (BAER) Team U.S. National Forest Service

Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority 11615 Sterling Avenue Riverside, CA 92503 (909) 354-4224 www.sawpa.org

November 10, 2003 (Revised December 5, 2003) SUMMARY

The Santa Ana Watershed supplies most of the drinking water for over 5 million of the Watershed’s residents. Rainfall in and around the San Bernardino, San Gorgonio and San Jacinto Mountains’ forest areas, provides surface water flows and groundwater recharge throughout the region via the Santa Ana River and its tributaries. Recent fires in these areas were large and difficult to contain and the aftermath of these fire events have resulted in extraordinary impacts on the forest and the Watershed. The recent Grand Prix, Old and Padua Fires burned over 120,000 acres (more than 185 square miles) of wild land habitat in the Santa Ana Watershed, primarily within the San Bernardino National Forest. These fires will have significant impacts on the Santa Ana River and its associated water quality for an extended period and will impact areas far from the burned sites. It is estimated that the fires’ effects will impact an additional 430 square miles of the Watershed. In sum, Burned Mountaintop the recent fires will impact one-quarter of the Watershed and without intervention most of the associated costs will be borne by local government.

The purpose of this summary is to document the likely impacts to water supply, quality, habitat Issues Summary and flood control throughout the Watershed resulting from the Grand Prix, Old and Padua Fires. The · Severe fire in area information contained herein is intended to provide providing drinking water for over 5 million people background and support for the United States Forest Service (USFS) Burn Area Emergency Response · Water resources already (BAER) Team. Upon review by the BAER Team, this reduced by drought summary will intend to inform and aid decision makers

· Sediment, ash and debris and other interested parties throughout the Watershed. will flow out of burn areas and damage infrastructure Fuel loads in the San Bernardino National Forest and · Impacts will occur in adjoining areas are extraordinarily high due to forest burned areas and and private property management practices in these downstream urban forest areas. Estimating the water quality impacts · Mitigation costs cannot be after a large burn across these fuel-laden areas is borne by cash-strapped difficult, but research by SAWPA indicates that the local governments Santa Ana Watershed is at risk if winter rains are average to heavy. SAWPA staff reviewed the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Forest Service Environmental Impact Reports for controlled burn management, Forest Service research publications, Los Angeles County Flood Control plans, impact history from the Heyman fire in Colorado, and personal communications with Riverside Fire Lab personnel.

- 1 –

Although recent analysis has focused on fire effects within the burn area and areas directly adjacent, much of the impacted infrastructure will be far from the burn areas and located in the heavily populated valleys. Infrastructure needs within the Santa Ana Watershed were identified in 1999, as part of the development of an Integrated Watershed Program (IWP). SAWPA was directed by the five largest water districts in the region to develop and implement a plan to ensure sufficient clean water to entirely support watershed needs, presently and in the future. To prepare for greater water demands, projected to increase nearly 30% within 20 years, and seeking to drought proof the region so that no imported water would be required during drought years, SAWPA developed a 10-year IWP to Flood Control Channel Downstream of Fire address regional needs. Over 200 water resource-related projects were identified as part of this program to date. Three billion dollars were estimated to implement the 10-year IWP. In 2000, SAWPA successfully contracted with the State Water Resources Control Board to use $235 million in Proposition 13 Water Bond funds to begin construction of over 800 million dollars in projects, directly supporting the IWP. Costs borne by local agencies in response to problems arising from recent fire events will significantly impact the ability of cooperating agencies to implement the SAWPA IWP. Therefore, efforts to reduce the region’s dependence on imported water will be drastically impacted and consequently, will have a lasting impact on water supplies statewide.

Costs of mitigating the effects of recent fires within the Watershed are estimated to be near $450 million, and are summarized below:

Fire Impact Cost Estimates

Impact Type Total Cost First Year Sediment Removal (5 years) $ 125,250,000 $12,525,000 Flood Control Improvements (56 basins) $ 56,000,000 $5,600,000 Basin Percolation Restoration (25 basins) $ 6,250,000 $1,250,000 Habitat Restoration (7,500 acres) $ 15,000,000 $1,500,000 Toxic or Radiological Treatment $ 13,000,000 $500,000 Inorganic Salt Removal (Capital and 20 yrs. Op) $ 182,000,000 $18,200,000 River and Basin Quality Monitoring $ 8,850,000 $1,770,000 Water Supply Emergency $ 35,350,000 $3,535,000 Wetland Restoration (2,500 acres) $ 5,000,000 $500,000 TOTAL $446,700,000 $45,380,000

- 2 – In addition, local water agencies have expressed concern over the direct infrastructural damage to wells, access roads and other infrastructures resulting from increased debris and sediment flow from storm events following the fires.

Although the fires did not burn every area anticipated in Recent Fires Will Increase earlier calculations, impacts are likely to be severe over five Levels of: or more years, depending on rainfall and storm intensity. · Sediment/Silt The estimated cumulative cost to the Watershed is estimated to be greater that $800 million, not including fire damage to · Contaminants homes and habitat. In addition, much of the unburned area is · Salts still at extreme risk for catastrophic fire. In the future, costs · Ash are likely to be higher than those projected from the recent fire events.

Anticipated Effects to the Watershed from Recent Fire Events

The Grand Prix, Old and Padua fires of October and November of 2003, burned over 185 square miles of the front country, urbanized facing slopes, in the San Bernardino National Forest and adjacent lands. Fire damage was limited in the mountainous upper watershed containing high populations of pine trees suffering mortality from drought and bark beetle infestation. Approximately three percent or 3,600 acres of the standing timber impacted by the bark beetle burned in this fire.

Much of the area burned by the fire was located in the mountain foothills and consisted of invasive, exotic grasses and inland coastal sage scrub habitats.

Discussion with local water agencies identified the following areas of risk to the Grand Prix Fire Watershed associated with the October and November 2003 fires:

1. Water Quality and Supply Impacts;

2. Habitat and Endangered Species Impacts; and

3. Flood Control Impacts.

Each area will be discussed more thoroughly in subsequent sections.

- 3 – INTRODUCTION

This section provides an overview of the existing geologic and hydrologic features, and ecological features of the Watershed.

Existing Geologic, Hydrologic, and Ecological Features of the Santa Ana Watershed

The upper watershed or headwaters, including the highest point in the drainage system, is delineated by the east-west ridgeline of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains (Fig. 1). Over this ridgeline lies the Mojave Desert, which is part of the Lahontan Basin. This upper “erosion” zone of the Watershed has the highest gradient, highest erosion level of new sediment to the system, and fastest stormwater runoff. As flows consist mainly of snowmelt and storm runoff from the undeveloped land in the San Bernardino National Forest, water quality tends to be high, with low concentrations of total dissolved solids, nitrates, and other pollutants. In this zone, the Santa Ana River (River) channel is confined in its lateral movement, contained by the slope of the high, mountainous terrain. Within the upper watershed, the River and its tributaries travel around large boulders and over sand and gravel bars punctuated by pools and riffles reaching depths of approximately six feet.

Sedimentary and crystalline materials from the upper watershed move down slope through a process fed by storm pulses; therefore, sediment does not move at a continuous speed. River flow from Seven Oaks Dam to the City of San Bernardino consists mainly of storm flows, flows from the Lower San Timoteo Creek, and groundwater that is rising due to local geological features. From the City of San Bernardino to the City of Riverside, the River flows perennially and much of the reach is operated as a flood control facility. The principal tributary streams in the upper Santa Ana Watershed originate in the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains.

From the City of Riverside to the recharge basins downstream from Imperial Highway, River flow, under non-storm conditions, consists of highly treated Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) effluent, urban runoff, irrigation runoff, imported water applied for groundwater recharge, and groundwater forced to the surface by underground barriers. Near Corona, the River cuts through the Santa Ana Mountains and the Puente-Chino Hills, which together form the northern end of the Peninsular Ranges in Southern California. The River then flows onto the Orange County coastal plain where the channel lessens in gradient, the Burn Area, San Bernardino Mountains valley floor is reached, and the soft features of the channel where sediment has deposited is more prevalent. Floodplains are strewn with boulders and characterized by sand and gravel washes.

- 4 –

The Orange County coastal plain is composed of alluvium derived from the mountains. Prado dam and the Prado Wetlands is located upstream from the Santa Ana Canyon. A portion of River flows are passed through the Prado Wetlands to improve water quality and remove nitrates before being used for Orange County Water District groundwater basin recharge.

Groundwater in the Watershed is highly controlled by the geology of the area, both by the configuration of bedrock and by the extensive faulting. In general, groundwater flows in the same direction as surface water from the mountains in the east and north to the Pacific Ocean in the west. There are about 40 groundwater basins in the Watershed, depending on how they are defined and the way in which the boundaries are drawn. Many basins are inter-related.

Some of the largest groundwater basins include the Potential Impacts to Species of Chino Basin (Chino/Ontario/Fontana area), the Orange Concern County Basin, the Bunker Hill Basin (San Bernardino Plants area), the San Timoteo Basin · Santa Ana River Woolly (Yucaipa/Banning/Beaumont area) and the San Star Jacinto/Hemet Basins. · Slender Horned Spineflower The varied geography and natural features of the Santa Fish Ana Watershed provide habitat for a number of · Santa Ana Sucker federally and/or state-listed species. As the Santa Ana · Arroyo Chub Integrated Watershed Plan focuses on the resources in · Santa Ana Speckled Dace and around the Santa Ana River, listed species of · Three Spined Stickleback concern herein are those that occupy aquatic, wetland, Amphibians riparian, or riparian-adjacent areas. Of these, two are · Arroyo Toad plants, the Santa Ana River wooly star and the slender- · Yellow Legged Frog horned spine flower; four native non-game freshwater Birds fish found in non-estuarine waters, the Santa Ana River · Least Bells Vireo sucker, arroyo chub, Santa Ana speckled dace, and three · Southwestern Willow spine stickleback; two amphibians, the arroyo toad and Flycatcher yellow legged frog; three birds, the least bell’s vireo, Mammal southwestern willow flycatcher, and bald eagle; one · San Bernardino mammal, the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. Kangaroo Rat

Pre-Burn Expectations

In the summer of 2003 before the devastating wildfires, SAWPA staff projected the following impacts to the Watershed following a catastrophic fire event:

1. Total runoff is likely to increase by more than 10% and peak storm flows increase about five times the average to between 200,000 and 300,000 cubic feet per second. This is also likely to be exacerbated by rapid snow melt;

2. Sediment loads carried downstream could be above 30 to 50 times the average,

- 5 – transporting an estimated 1.7 billion cubic yards of rock, sand, and debris to control structures and dams. Quantities of this magnitude may require months or years to remove and will likely impact the region’s groundwater recharge efforts through the SAWPA IWP;

3. Long duration increases in water turbidity with fine sediment transported far downstream, complicates groundwater recharge efforts;

4. A two to ten fold increase in total dissolved solids (TDS) or salts with increased flows could result in as much as 500,000 tons of added salt in the river and groundwater basins. Runoff water is required for recharge or consumptive use, creating significant treatment requirements to remove or mitigate this TDS;

5. As much as 20,000 tons of nutrients, nitrates and phosphorus, formerly bound in soil and from prior airborne deposition, released into the peak storm flows, may eventually make its way into the groundwater in the first few years;

6. Significant transport of uranium and its radiological progeny downstream in surface waters and into near surface groundwater increasing the cost of radon treatment and future monitoring;

7. Increases in organics, including toxic organics and carcinogenic compounds from partial combustion of forest materials that will decrease the usability of this region’s primary drinking water sources; and

8. Sedimentation of the lands used by the San Bernardino kangaroo rat and the Santa Ana woolystar and, choking turbidity reducing the useable habitat for the Santa Ana sucker fish.

1. Water Quality and Supply Impacts

With the occurrence of major forest and urban fires in late October and November 2003 (Fig. 2) in the San Bernardino forest, much of the devastating impacts to the Santa Ana River Watershed hydrology and water resources previously described will most likely be realized. In preparation for rainfall events, which will prompt much of the water quality and resource degradation, various monitoring and remediation measures are suggested. Post-wildfire runoff could contain high concentrations of manganese, lead, phosphorus, mercury, total organic carbon, and uranium.

This degraded runoff may impact downstream watercourses and receiving waters.

Old Fire Impacts

The massive fire located in the San Bernardino Mountains north and northwest of the City of San Bernardino destroyed approximately 91,300 acres of land. This burn area, labeled the “Old

- 6 – Fire” is located just north of the following major tributaries: Lytle Creek, Cajon Creek, Waterman Creek, Warm Creek, City Creek and Plunge Creek. Under a single five-year, 24-hour rainfall event, seven to ten inches of rain are expected. This could result in approximately 20,000 acre-feet of sediment- laden runoff and is expected to flow down the tributary streams filling debris basins and silting in many of the recharge basins constructed along the tributaries to capture and percolate storm flow. These recharge Burn Area Above Lytle Creek basins play a major role in refilling the groundwater basin in this region described as the Bunker Hill Basin. Local water supply agencies and agricultural pumpers rely upon replenishment of low TDS water from local tributaries to fill the Bunker Hill groundwater basin that is later pumped out to meet the water demands throughout the San Bernardino Valley. On average, 70% of the Watershed’s water supply is based on groundwater sources (Fig. 3).

It is anticipated that with increased silting of the recharge basins (Fig. 4), increased costs will occur to maintain the percolation rate of the basins by operating agencies such as the San Bernardino County Flood Control District and local cities in the area. In addition to silting impacts, the runoff will contain increased levels of total dissolved solids, turbidity and nutrients such as nitrates from the burned area. Assuming a five-fold increase in salt levels in runoff waters, approximately 135,000 tons of salt are expected to infiltrate the groundwater basin and degrade groundwater quality in the Bunker Hill Basin under average rainfall conditions over the next five to ten years. Without some means of offsetting the increased salt loads to the groundwater basins, local water and wastewater agencies will be unable to meet California State and Federally mandated water quality regulations necessary to protect downstream beneficial uses. With larger storm runoff events, the salt infiltration quantities are likely to be even greater.

To mitigate the impacts of the salt increase to the Bunker Hill Basin, a desalination facility is proposed near the southwest corner of the most-impacted groundwater basin to remove the increased salts and nitrates entering the basin from the burned areas under rainfall events.

As previously stated, since the impacts to the burned area is expected to last between five to ten years, a 16 million gallons per day (MGD) desalination facility is proposed to remove an equivalent amount of salt over a 20-year period, a typical capital improvement facility amortization period. The value of such a facility will be particularly important for local agencies in continuing to meet surface discharge and groundwater quality objectives defined by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.

- 7 – Grand Prix/Padua Fire Impacts

Another major burn area resulting from the wildfire labeled the “Grand Prix Fire” could have devastating impacts to debris and recharge basins located throughout the Chino Basin area. This fire area covered approximately 59,500 acres and will drain into the major tributaries of San Antonio Creek, Cucamonga Creek, Deer Creek, and Day Creek (Fig. 5). Similar to the "Old Fire", maintenance costs are expected to rise as efforts are made to prepare for increased silting in the existing debris and recharge basins located along the various tributaries. Also similar to the Bunker Hill Basin, increased salt loads can also be expected to negatively impact the upper reaches of the Chino Basin.

To offset the salt loads added to Chino Basin from the stormwater runoff reaching the basin from the burn areas, an expansion to existing desalination facilities is proposed in the southern portions of Chino Basin. Since there is an existing groundwater desalting facility and a planned second desalting facility proposed for the south Chino Basin, expansion of these facilities to offset the salt added by the burn region runoff can be accomplished with additional funding assistance.

Again assuming a five-fold increase in salt levels from the Grand Prix fire area, the estimated amount of the salt that would need to be removed from the basin is approximately 90,000 tons. Constructing an expansion to the desalting facilities of 10.5 mgd will allow an equivalent amount of salt to be removed over a 20-year time period (Fig. 6).

Another negative impact to water quality in the Santa Ana Watershed will be the increased silt that reaches the Prado wetlands area. Currently, just upstream of Gully Erosion in Burn Area Prado Dam, the Orange County Water District (OCWD) owns and operates 2,150 acres of wetlands for natural nitrate purification of approximately one half the Santa Ana River flow before it reaches percolation basins in Anaheim. Over 90% of the nitrate removal is accomplished through denitrification processes occurring in the bottom of the wetlands substrate. Under storm runoff conditions, the silt coming into the wetlands from the upstream tributaries of Chino Basin will likely result in severe clogging impacts, reducing the effectiveness of the natural nitrate removal processes. Furthermore, high organic and ash content of first flush stormwater runoff from burned areas could affect the net oxygen availability in the Prado Basin. To mitigate the impacts to the Prado Wetlands area, ongoing silt management measures will need to be undertaken by OCWD resulting in additional funding needs.

- 8 – Impacts of the Grand Prix fire will also occur in recharge basins located downstream of the Prado Dam along the Santa Ana River, a major source of drinking water supply for Orange County. Silt and turbid runoff are likely to pass through the Prado Dam outfall under storm events and continue to flow down the Santa Ana River decreasing percolation rates in the recharge basins. The OCWD estimates a reduction of 20,000 AF of recharge water. Further, the increased nutrients in the runoff may promote the growth of algae and other vegetation causing clogging in the recharge basin substrate. The extent of the clogging and impact to ongoing maintenance operations is difficult to estimate. Other BAER studies have shown nutrients carried to streams are expected to increase the growth of aquatic plants, reduce the potability of water supply and produce toxic effects. To address the increased clogging and reduced percolation rates, additional recharge basin cleaning machines developed and operated by OCWD are suggested. Although the worst suspended sediment conditions are likely to be experienced this winter and the next, sediment impacts could persist for more than five years depending on rainfall patterns.

Offsetting the salt impacts from the fire area, water runoff that reaches the Orange County Basin must also be addressed. Currently, a major desalting facility is currently under construction to remove salts from wastewater that will be recharged into the Orange County basin. This facility is currently sized to treat 70 mgd. A future expansion of this facility was expected in the future. To address the salt increases from the fire area water runoff, construction of 5 mgd of additional desalting capacity is suggested to provide low TDS water to the Orange County groundwater basin to further offset the increased salt loads caused by fire impacts.

In addition to salt and nutrients, there are also several other water quality parameters that could possibly impact watershed water supplies. These include uranium and its radiological progeny, and organics, including toxic organics and carcinogenic compounds. To offset the impacts of these constituents, additional treatment facilities will also be needed. Some of the expected organic and carcinogenic compounds may be Erosion Risk removed by the previously described salt removal facilities. However, for uranium, radon and radiological progeny removal, there are no regional facilities that have been constructed that can be expanded to offset the impacts of these constituents on the downstream water supplies. New facilities may need to be constructed depending on the results of monitoring and water quality measurements made in the storm runoff from the burn areas. Until details are understood, a request for additional funding of treatment facilities to address uranium and related compounds and organics will be deferred.

Another important concern is the high level of ash (both coarse and fine), which will enter the surface water supply system. Preliminary estimates indicate that 5,000,000 cu/yds of ash (and possibly as much as 10,000,000 cu/yds) will enter the Watershed during storm events. It should

- 9 – be anticipated that major pulses or waves of both coarse and finer ash fractions will move down through the surface water supply system.

In addition, it must also be recognized that the sustained elevated levels of ash will present an equally significant problem. These levels will persist for several years after the fire in lesser storm water runoff events. Elements of the ash will be moved directly from the burn surfaces by storm runoff and will be incorporated into storm water runoff (with the largest volumes and highest levels being associated with the FIRST major winter events). This process has already begun and field evidence of this migration has been collected. At the same time considerable quantities will be temporarily retained within the intermediate Watershed storage locations and will be released over time by less intense fluvial channel degradation processes (smaller storms), carried down into the surface water supply system and present significant challenges for intake and spreading ground facilities. The likely persistence of these elevated ash levels in the surface water flows for years after the fires, even during lesser flow events, will present significant long term control and mitigation challenges.

In the upper watershed, clay and ash could mix and be deposited in low points, including rivers, streams, and most importantly, recharge basins. There are historical and current references to the use of baked clay and wood ash to form a material similar to Portland cement. Clay- Burn Area Above Debris Basin ash slurry settling in low points in the upper watershed may form hardened impermeable deposits. Removal of these deposits will require repeated maintenance activities.

In general, the first few major storms after a fire carry a mixture of ash, fine sediment, and organic debris. A high percentage of the entrained material has a density lower than water and will float on or near the surface and therefore remain suspended in the stream flows for long distances. Thus it is likely that early flood events could carry debris into Prado Basin and beyond, potentially affecting the Orange County basin desalting facility.

Specific Damages to Water District Infrastructure

Cucamonga County, West Valley, San Bernardino Municipal and other Water Districts experienced direct damage from the fires including damage to electrical systems, chemical storage facilities, reservoirs, and access roads. Local water districts utilize the typically higher quality surface water runoff from the San Bernardino Mountain streams to improve the quality of water delivered by the State Water Project. The blended water meets water quality objectives. Because the Grand Prix and Old Fires have burned such a large percentage of the

- 10 – upper Santa Ana River Watershed, the quality of local water supplies could be severely impaired for the next several years.

For example, the West Valley Water District uses water from Lytle Creek to blend with water from Lake Silverwood, which is part of the State Water Project. It is likely that runoff from the burned area surrounding Lake Silverwood will reduce the quality of this water considerably. Furthermore, the Runoff After Fires Contains quality of natural surface water runoff from Lytle Creek Elevated Levels of: will be impaired as well. Other water districts face the · Manganese same dilemma where both their local and imported · Phosphorous sources of water are impaired by the fires. · Lead · Mercury Wildfires can also cause a significant, immediate · Nitrate change to the soil chemistry of the Watershed that could · Total Organic Carbon result in direct impacts to Lake Silverwood, a drinking · Aluminum water reservoir operated by Metropolitan Water District · Barium of Southern California. The abundant carbon left over · Cobalt from burned vegetation competes for oxygen with · Copper stable, oxidized metal compounds. During rainfall · Niobium events, these metals are easier to dissolve and can be · Zinc conveyed into mountain streams and receiving waters.

Recent research on the effects of wildfires on drinking · Uranium water quality has demonstrated that post-fire watershed runoff could contain spikes in the concentrations of manganese, phosphorous, lead, mercury, nitrate, total organic carbon, aluminum, barium, cobalt, copper, niobium, zinc, and uranium (Wildland Fire Impacts on Watershed, Geological Society of America, 2003).

2. Habitat and Endangered Species Impacts

Species, Habitat and Re-Forestation Initial Impacts

Burned Landscape

Burn severity varied across the landscape, resulting in a mosaic of fire-related disturbance. In general, south-facing slopes and watershed headwater areas had higher burn severity than north facing slopes and stream bottoms. Rocky outcrops showed little to no fire activity. High burn severity results in soil heating or deep ground char occurs; duff is completely consumed; soil structure is often destroyed; infiltration is reduced due to fire-induced water repellency; and vegetation is largely consumed by the fire, usually no leaves or needles remain on trees. Moderate burn severity results in soil heating with some char; soil structure is usually not altered; litter and duff are often deeply charred or consumed, some decrease in infiltration occurs due to fire-induced water repellency, and under-story foliage and small diameter twigs are consumed but leaves and needles on trees may remain. Low burn severity results in little to no change in runoff response.

- 11 – Front country drainages of the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains drain into the Santa Ana River. Primary Santa Ana River drainages within the Old\Grand Prix Fire area include: Plunge Creek, City Creek, Waterman Canyon, Cable Creek, Cajon Canyon, Lytle Creek and Etiwanda Canyon. Primary Mojave River drainages within the Old\Grand Prix Fire area include: West Fork Mojave River and Deep Creek. In addition, there are numerous tributaries, intermittent drainages and washes within the fire area. Primary drainages of concern to aquatic species within the fire area are: Plunge Creek, City Creek, Strawberry Creek, Lytle Creek, Cucamonga Canyon, Little Horsethief Canyon and Deep Creek. Rare aquatic-dependent species are present in these streams and post-fire changes to their habitat and populations are a concern.

The primary plant communities affected by the fire include alluvial fan scrub, riversidean sage scrub, chamise chaparral, southern mixed chaparral, sycamore alluvial woodland, alder riparian woodland, willow woodland, coast live oak riparian, canyon live oak woodland, big-cone spruce woodland, knobcone pine woodland, mixed hardwood forest, lower montane coniferous forest, upper montane coniferous forest, pinyon-juniper woodland, desert transitional chaparral, blackbrush scrub, and mojavian desert scrub.

Varying burn intensities impacted vegetation resources. Approximately 38% of the fire area was impacted by high burn intensities; 33% burned with less severe fire resulting in moderate burn intensity; and 22% burned with low intensity (reference Old/Grand Prix BAER Burn Severity Map). About 7% of the area within the fire perimeter is rock or water and did not burn. Most of the vegetation in high severity areas burned completely (above-ground), in moderate areas vegetation was partially burned, and in low severity areas many plants were singed but retained their foliage. Fire pattern in the burn area resulted in a mosaic pattern of fire intensities due to the steep topography and incised canyons.

Habitat and Species Impacts

The Old and Grand Prix fires contain habitat for sixteen federally listed threatened and endangered species and numerous Forest Service sensitive and San Bernardino National Forest watch-list species (Fig. 7). Fourteen of those species have known occurrences within the fire area (including all types of land ownership). Designated critical habitat for San Bernardino kangaroo rat and coastal California gnatcatcher also occurs within the fire perimeter.

Most of the habitat that burned is chaparral habitat, a habitat where periodic fires are an important ecological component. As such, most of the species within the fire area will experience short-term losses and impacts with long-term benefits. However, there are post-fire concerns about several of the species that are dependent on riparian or alluvial fan scrub habitats.

San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat, Santa Ana Woolly-Star, Slender-Horned Spineflower, and Coastal California Gnatcatcher

The federally-listed species that depend on alluvial fan scrub habitats (San Bernardino kangaroo rat, Santa Ana woolly-star, slender-horned spineflower, coastal California

- 12 – gnatcatcher) are at post-fire risk if flood control measures that will occur off of National Forest System lands are not properly planned and effects mitigated.

Mountain Yellow-legged Frog (Rana muscosa)

The only extant occurrence in the San Bernardino Mountain range of mountain yellow-legged frog (a federally-listed endangered species) occurs in the East Fork and main drainage of City Creek. The predicted post-fire sediment delivery and flow levels create an emergency situation for this extremely important population. As such, the BAER Team biologists, working in cooperation with U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have captured a portion of the population for safekeeping at the Los Angeles Zoo.

Moving Mountain Yellow-legged Frogs

Southwestern Arroyo Toad (Bufo microscaphus californicus)

It is unlikely that the fire burned toads since they were probably in their burrows at the time the fire occurred. Arroyo toads favor wide alluvial terraces, post-fire sediment delivery to drainages in the fire could create additional toad habitat if it is deposited in alluvial terraces accessible to toads.

The primary post-fire threats to arroyo toads in the fire area are: 1) OHV use on alluvial terraces and in areas occupied by toads, and 2) sediment deposition and scour that may not be favorable for arroyo toad survival. It is likely that the West fork Mojave River, Horsethief Canyon and Cucamonga Canyon will experience dramatic changes in stream habitat conditions due to increased rates of sediment delivery the first year following the fire. West fork Mojave River is expected to have a 118 times the normal sediment loading, Horsethief Canyon 14 times normal, and Cucamonga Canyon 61 times normal. Because not much of their watershed area burned, Deep Creek and Cajon Wash will not experience significant changes in sediment loading due to the fire. For streams occupied by arroyo toads, stream flows are expected to be approximately double the normal amount in the first year after the fire.

Approximately 0.5 miles of dozer line construction occurred in occupied arroyo toad habitat. It is possible that toads were crushed while in their burrows during suppression and/or rehabilitation of the dozer lines. No other suppression activities should have harmed arroyo toads.

Natural Vegetation Recovery/Forest Area Closures and portions of the Engineering package should result in protection of arroyo toads and their habitat by limiting vehicle use on alluvial

- 13 – terraces and in drainages where they occur. Patrolling is very important to ensure that the gates that are in place remain effective in preventing resource damage. Arroyo toads are very susceptible to disturbance and mortality from OHV use and recreation activities in occupied habitat.

Santa Ana Sucker (Catostomus santaanae)

There are currently no known occurrences of Santa Ana suckers within the Old/Grand Prix Fire area or in adjacent areas immediately up or downstream from the burn. The most recent observation of Santa Ana suckers in the Old/Grand Prix Fire area was made in 1982 in the W. Fork City Creek. The habitat there remains suitable but the occurrence is believed to be extirpated. Subsequent SBNF fisheries surveys have failed to detect Santa Ana suckers in City Creek or its tributaries, including at the 1982 site. This species is not considered present in the Old/Grand Prix Fire area. The closest population is 10 miles downstream form the fire area at Rialto Drain on the Santa Ana River. Because this species not considered present in the fire area, no impacts occurred. Suitable habitat for this species occurs in the fire area, and occupied habitat is present downstream. Several of the drainages that historically supported Santa Ana suckers were affected by the fire and flow into the Santa Ana River. It is very difficult to predict what effect post-fire higher flows and sediment delivery rates will have on downstream sucker habitat at places like Rialto Drain and Sunny Slope Creek.

It is difficult to determine if an emergency exists for Santa Ana sucker as a result of expected post-fire effects since this species occurs several miles (~10 mi) downstream Santa Ana Sucker of the fire area. It is unknown if catch basins and other water/sediment structures for the Santa Ana River will buffer post-fire effects to this species.

Santa Ana Speckled Dace (Rhinichthys osculus ssp.)

Santa Ana speckled dace, a small fish that is listed as Forest Service sensitive, inhabits five streams along the front slopes. The predicted post-fire sediment delivery and flow levels create an emergency situation for these stream populations. If these occurrences are eliminated, this species will trend towards federal listing.

Landscape Recovery

Chaparral communities within the entire Grand/Old fire perimeter are expected to recover vigorously from the established soil seed bank and re-sprouting of shrubs and plants from below ground stems, tubers and bulbs. Sage scrub vegetation types are expected to recover

- 14 – quickly from the soil seed bank, and to a lesser extent from re-sprouting shrub species. However, coastal sage that has re-burned following fire within the past 10 years is expected to have lower resilience and is at risk of type conversion to exotic annual grassland vegetation. Riparian area vegetation is expected to recover through sprouting or seed establishment without treatment. Closed cone pines (Knobcone and Coulter) are expected to regenerate from seed within the first few years after a fire (Fig. 8).

Post-fire seeding would be expected to inhibit the natural regeneration of all these communities. This information is well documented in scientific literature. Seeding of this fire is not necessary, nor did BAER team members recommend this treatment. Seeding may be warranted on highly Cucamonga Creek Downstream of Burn Area disturbed surfaces, such as road cuts, fill slopes, etc, however this seeding is expected to be implemented by the California Department of Transportation and is not proposed as a BAER treatment.

BAER treatments often result in beneficial effects to aquatic and riparian habitats by helping to stabilize soils, and provide better conditions for water infiltration and vegetation re-growth. In addition, BAER treatments on roads and trails can reduce unauthorized OHV use in sensitive habitats such as stream channels and washes.

3. Flood Control Impacts

The Watershed’s close proximity to both the ocean and the mountains at times brings heavy storms, which are problematic from a flood control standpoint. Many of the Santa Ana tributaries are parched throughout most of the year, but can quickly become raging torrents. The burned areas of the Watershed (Fig. 2) reveal exposed hillsides of rock, sand, and debris, parched chaparral, and dead trees with a high potential for severe erosion, flooding, and mudslides.

As rainfall starts to saturate the burned portion of the Watershed, intense storms can result in rapid erosion and surficial slope failures. This can lead to the development of debris flows that are rapidly moving flood events that carry a large concentration of soil, rock, and organic debris. The velocity and erosive force of debris flows could result in significant damage to water infrastructure including well, diversion structures, pipelines, and roads. It should be noted that both Los Angeles County and San Bernardino County Flood Control Districts are currently conducting an assessment of potential damage to inhabited areas of the fire-affected region.

- 15 –

In general, the overall effect of the fire causes an increase in the amount of sediment delivered by the Watershed to downstream areas. This increased volume of sediment could be 30 to 50 times the average amount and in some localized areas 100 fold increases could occur. Total delivery of additional sediment to flood control structures over the recovery period of three to five years could easily exceed 50 to 100 million cubic yards above non-fire levels. In many areas limited disposal options have resulted in the on-site stockpiling of sediment and significant increases in sediment loading will result in disposal costs that are much higher than historic levels.

Large amounts of organic debris and sediment loads are likely to lead to rapid clogging of entrance and outlet structures. This clogging could lead to localized, but potentially significant, channel overflows that may flood homes and water supply facilities. For example, the Devil’s Canyon debris basin entrance may be blocked by debris flow and debris, including organics, ash, and sediment, which will then flow into the adjacent water supply reservoir.

Increased debris flows and increased storm water run-off could lead to dramatic flood impacts to the region. Based on historic records for the region, total run-off (depending on rainfall patterns and intensities) may increase by more than 25% and peak storm flows may increase upwards to five times the normal average for a period of about five years after the fires. Although less than 10% of the Watershed burned, the burned area is responsible for approximately 30% of the region’s run-off so this means that this area represents a disproportionate source of water and will have a larger effect on flood control infrastructure than would be indicated by area based models (Figs. 9 and 10).

Estimated Peak Storm Debris Flows

10-Year Storm More than 20 sub-basins at 6,000 cubic feet per second More than 80 sub-basins at 4,500 cubic feet per second

25-Year Storm More than 25 sub-basins at 6,000 cubic feet per second More than 50 sub-basins at 5,000 cubic feet per second

These values represent upwards of 10 times the normal average flow.

FUTURE IMPACTS

While the Grand Prix, Old and Padua Fires in October and November of 2003 resulted in devastating impacts to the Santa Ana Watershed—where fires burned over 120,000 acres of wild land habitat, the exposed burn areas and expansive drought stressed forests of the San Bernardino, San Gorgonio, and San Jacinto Mountains remain at risk to severe future wild land fires. The last several years have seen significantly decreased rainfall and resultant drought conditions in these forests. This drought stress has made the forest susceptible to infestation by the Pine Bark Beetle, a serious pest of conifers. This combination of factors has resulted in

- 16 – large-scale mortality of trees in the area and the presence of an enormous source of combustible Future Fire Risk A high risk of fire remains: materials. Fuel loads in the area of Lake Arrowhead and Big Bear Lake are extraordinarily high due to forest · Less than half of the and private property management practices in these mountain areas burned urban forest areas (Fig. 8). A likely burn risk scenario · The unburned areas for next summer could include as much as 180,000 include mostly dead trees acres beyond the 120,000 acres that burned in the October and November 2003 fires. As the fire boundaries extended beyond the Watershed, basins adjacent to the Watershed will also be impacted.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

Regional Integration of Water Supply and Quality Needs

With the significant water resource impacts expected from the wildfire burn areas of October and November of 2003, implementation of many of the IWP projects will be threatened. The IWP identified projects cover a broad range of improvements including groundwater cleanup, water supply storage, storm and flood control management, water recycling, environment and habitat restoration and recreation and conservation measures. Many of the water resource projects listed in the IWP will also help correct the impacts from the burn area runoff. These include desalting and other water quality treatment projects which can remove the salts, nitrates, uranium byproducts and organics that will reach many areas downstream of the burn areas, storm and flood control projects which can help address the increased runoff expected from the burn areas, water storage projects which can increase the capacity of water recharge basin capabilities lost by silting, and environmental projects that will help restore habitat and natural treatment processes lost by the increased silt, turbidity and pH from the burn areas.

In addition to the IWP projects, an expanded water quality monitoring program is recommended. Efforts are currently underway by the California Department of Forestry to implement a water quality monitoring program to sample runoff from the burn areas. Unfortunately, the scale of the existing program will not be adequate to Erosion Rills in Little Sand Canyon fully characterize the water quality impacts expected downstream of the burn areas. A suggested water quality monitoring protocol can be found in the Appendices. The investigation of impacts to water quality from the recent wildfires requires the development of an extensive monitoring program. This program due to the projected long-term impacts to water quality from highly erodable soils and steep mountain slopes in the burned area, should initially be established for a five-year period.

- 17 – The program should be designed to fully characterize water quality from the burned areas for a broad spectrum of constituents using non-impacted areas as a baseline.

Watershed Coordination

· Coordinate with USFS BAER team, USFS, USFWS, CDFG, RWQCB, and USACOE on watershed-wide vegetation and wildlife impacts and mitigation both in short-term recovery directly related to impacts of the fire and long-term opportunities, maintenance, and monitoring of watershed hydrology, sediment loading, water quality, habitat, threatened and endangered species.

· Outreach to water districts, counties, cities, organizations and non-profit agencies in establishing watershed priorities and projects to address together.

· Potential for landslides shall be reduced by sufficient removal of dead and/or woody vegetation.

Funding Actions Needed

The overarching action needed by all watershed entities is a funding program to address the fire impacts related to the Santa Ana Integrated Watershed Program that collectively will avoid detrimental water quality damage, mitigate habitat, alleviate threatened and endangered species impacts and reduce flood control impacts associated with the Old, Grand Prix, and Padua Fires in October and November of 2003. The Santa Ana Integrated Watershed Program has over $800 million in local projects underway or in the planning process that can be utilized as a conduit for receiving funding and for addressing the impacts of the wildfires. Existing contracts with the state and numerous local agencies within the Watershed can be mobilized to allocate funding to priority water quality, habitat/vegetation/species, and flood control projects within the Santa Ana Watershed comprehensively and without Runoff Surface delay.

Table 1 (attached) summarizes recommended watershed improvements to mitigate the effects of the recent fires. These improvements are individually identified and their specific benefits are outlined in the table.

- 18 – Table 1 Recommended Improvements to Mitigate Fire Impacts

Project or Agency/ Capital Cost Ongoing Project Description Project Benefits Activity Organization ($ millions) Impact Cost ($ millions)

Groundwater Surface Water Sensitive Species silt solids debris supply supply nitrates turbidity uranium uranium organics byproducts fish species land species land potable water water potable total dissolved dissolved total well prodcution well recharge water water recharge BUNKER HILL BASIN

Desalter SBVMWD 50 2.00 A 16 mgd desalination facility is proposed at the southwest corner of Bunker Hill Basin and the lower Pressure Zone.

Silt and Debris San Bernardino Valley 6.25 22.7 Silt and Debris Removal Activities of Debris Removal Water Conservation and Recharge basins located in the Bunker District, San Bernardino Hill Basin County Flood Control District, Lytle Creek Water Conservation Association

Flood Control San Bernardino County 56 Improvements to Flood Control Facilities to Improvements Flood Control District, make perminant improvments needed to alleviate flooding impacts. Costs included for all San Bernardino County basins

Radon SBVMWD 4 0.25 With increased radon levels expected due Treatment to uranium runoff deposits, an airstripping Facility treatment facility is proposed.

Purchase of SBVMWD, Lytle Creek 5.00 Water that will not recharge basin due to Imported Water Conservation increased silt and debris loads is proposed Recharge Water Association to be replaced with increased purchases of imported recharge water. An estimated 20,000 AF per year is assumed to be lost and will need to be purchased. Avg. MWD recharge water rate $250/AF

Well Repairs San Bernardino 0.1 Repairs are needed to water production well Municipal Water District pumps and appurtenances

Pipeline San Bernardino Valley 0.1 Repairs are needed to above ground Appurtenance Municipal Water District pipeline appurtenances damaged by fire Repair such as hydrants, air valves, etc.

CHINO BASIN

Desalting Facility Chino Basin Desalting 40 1.00 A 10 mgd desalination facility expansion is Authority, IEUA proposed at the Chino Desalter to remove water contaminents that infiltrate the basin from the burn area runoff.

Silt and Debris San Bernardino Flood 1.65 Silt and Debris Removal Activities of Debris Removal Control District, Chino and Recharge basins located in the Chino Basin Water Basin Conservation District, Six Basins Watermaster

Radon IEUA 3 0.20 With increased radon levels expected due Treatment to uranium runoff deposits, an airstripping Facility treatment facility is proposed.

Purchase of IEUA 5.00 Water that will not recharge basin due to Imported increased silt and debris loads is proposed Recharge Water to be replaced with increased purchases of imported recharge water. An estimated 20,000 AF per year is assumed to be lost and will need to be purchased. Avg. MWD recharge water rate $250/AF

Reservoir Cucamonga County 0.03 Minor repairs around 5 water reservoirs is Repairs Water District proposed Table 1 Recommended Improvements to Mitigate Fire Impacts

Project or Agency/ Capital Cost Ongoing Project Description Project Benefits Activity Organization ($ millions) Impact Cost ($ millions)

Groundwater Surface Water Sensitive Species silt solids debris supply supply nitrates turbidity uranium uranium organics byproducts fish species land species land potable water water potable total dissolved dissolved total well prodcution well recharge water water recharge Pipeline Cucamonga County 0.01 Minor repairs to above ground pipeline Appurtenance Water District apprutenances is proposed along Foothill Repair Feeder and CCWD 16" Line Treatment Plant Cucamonga County 0.11 Structural and appurtenance repairs are Repairs Water District proposed about 3 water treatment plants PRADO BASIN

Silt and Debris OCWD 0.3 Silt is likely to impair the nitrate loss Removal processes of the Prado wetlands. Consequently, silt and debris removal in the existing OCWD 465 acre Prado wetlands is proposed. ORANGE COUNTY BASIN

Desalter OCWD, Orange County 20 0.60 A 5 mgd desalination facility expansion is Sanitation District proposed at the OCWD/OCSD (OCSD) Groundwater Replenishment Desalting Facility to remove water contaminent that will infitrate the Orange County Basin from upper watershed burn areas.

Silt and Debris OCWD, Orange County 0.4 Silt and debris removal activities of located Removal Public Facilities and in the Orange County recharge basins Resource Dept. located along the Santa Ana River.

Radon OCWD 3 0.15 With increased radon levels expected due Treatment to uranium runoff deposits, an airstripping Facility treatment facility is proposed. Purchase of OCWD, MWDOC 5.00 Water that will not recharge basin due to Imported increased silt and debris loads is proposed Recharge Water to be replaced with increased purchases of imported recharge water. An estimated SANTA ANA WATERSHED

Water Quality CDF, SAWPA With increased levels of water quality Monitoring contaminants, additional water quality Program monitoring is proposed working in 1.77 conjunction with CDF. Habitat SAWPA, CDF, OCWD Restoration Restoration of burned habitat (estimated 7500 acres) around the river and tributaries 15 for species recovery Wetland SAWPA, CDF, OCWD Restoration Restoration of wetlands areas (estimated 2500 acres) along the river and tributaries 5 for species and wetlands recovery Costs 202.6

Total Costs 446.7 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title

1 Santa Ana Watershed Location Map

2 Burn Severity Map

3 Surface and Groundwater Movement from Fire Zones

4 Recharge Basins and Affected Sub Watersheds

5 Surface Water Impacts

6 Groundwater Impacts

7 Sensitive Species Impacts

8 Tree Mortality and Slope

9 Estimated Peak Discharges, 10-Year Flood

10 Estimated Peak Discharges, 25-Year Flood

¹

Big Bear Lake 3€ Big Bear

7t89 San Bernardino Rancho Cucamonga g435 3€ 7s 3€ 7s ©·}| 3€ Upland 3€ 3€ Fontana Highland

45 Redlands 3f Colton3€ 3€ Yucaipa `aÄ 3€ 3€ Chino 3€ Diamond Bar `aÍ Riverside Norco 3€ Beaumont 3€ `aÄ`aÄ 3€ 3€ PRADO `aÞ 3€Banning DAM Placentia Yorba Linda Moreno Valley `aÁ3€ 3€ Anaheim 3€ Lake Corona Lake Perris 43d5 3€ Mathews Orange `aÀ3€ San Jacinto Perris `a¡ 3€ 3€ 3€ Tustin 3€ Westminster 7t89 5 Hemet g43 3€ Huntington Beach 3€ Costa Mesa 4d5 Diamond 89 3 Lake Elsinore Valley 3€ 7x Lake 3€ Elsinore Newport Beach Irvine 3€ 3€

ƒex„e2exe2‚s†i‚2 ‡e„i‚ƒrih HHWRFS WIVIV wiles psq ‚i2I

P:\projects\BAER\area_map.mxd SW-202 Legend:

Fire Boundary Lake Dam Area ¹ Rivers Burn Severity High Moderate Grand Prix Low Old Fire Rock Water Padua

¦¨§215

·|}þ30 ·|}þ210

¦¨§15

Total Burn Acres (1): ¦¨§10 Grand Prix 49,183 Old Fire 93,117 Padua 10,810 High Severity Burn Acres (2): Grand Prix 38,967 Old Fire 14,208 PaduaaÍ NA ·|}þ ` 60 Moderate Severity Burn Acres (2): Grand Prix 33,218 Old Fire 14,174 Padua NA ƒex„e2exe2‡e„i‚ƒrih Notes: Burn severity data supplied by USFS. f ‚x2ƒi†i‚s„‰ Burn area boundary from calmast.org 10/31/2003. HHRP RVV wiles 1) Total area calculated from calmast fire boundaries. psq ‚i2P 2) Severity area calculated from USFS boundaries. P:\projects\BAER\burn_severity.mxd SW-200 Legend: Fire Boundary ¹ Lake

Dam Area Old Fire Grand Prix Rivers

Padua 7t897t89 g435 7s 7s ©·}| i i i i i 43f5 `aÄ`aÄ i `aÍ 3f45 `aÍi i `aÄ`aÄ i `aÞ`aÞ `aÁ`aÁ i 4d53 3 i `aÀ`aÀ

`a¡`a¡ 7t897t89 i g435 3d45 7x897x89 43d5 i g345

ƒ ‚pegi2exh2q‚y xh‡e„i‚ wy†iwix„2p‚yw2ps‚i2yxiƒ Note: HHWRFS WIVIV 1) Burn area boundary from calmast.org 10/31/2003. wiles psq ‚i2Q

P:\projects\BAER\water_movement.mxd SW-199 Legend:

Fire Boundary 3F Recharge Basins ¹ Downstream Impacted Area 3F Sub Watersheds Cajon Canyon Cucamonga Canyon Cajon Canyon City Creek San Antonio Deer Creek Lytle Creek Devils Canyon Day Creek Devils Canyon Canyon Waterman Day Creek Canyon Deer Canyon Creek 3F City Creek Etiwanda Canyon Cucamonga San Sevaine 3F Canyon 3F Lytle Creek Etiwanda 3F 3F 3F Canyon 3F 3F 3F 3F 3F San Antonio 3F 3F 3F 3F 3F 3F 3F 3F 3F 3F 3F Santa Ana 3F3F 3F Santa Ana 3F 3F 3F 3F 3F 3F 3F 3F San Sevaine 3F 3F 3F 3F 3F3F 3F Waterman Canyon 3F 3F 3F 3F3F3F 3F 3F 3F 3F 3F 3F 3F 3F 3F 3F 3F 3F 3F3F

Burned No. Impacted Sub Watershed Acres Basins Cucamonga Canyon 9,169 9 Cajon Canyon 5,896 1 City Creek 19,157 2 Deer Creek 4,333 3 Devils Canyon 12,126 4 Day Creek Canyon 5,511 4 3FEtiwanda Canyon 3,958 10 3F Lytle Creek 19,383 6 San Antonio 6,593 6 3F Santa3F Ana 6,628 3 San Sevaine 6,115 10 Waterman Canyon 17,597 6

ƒex„e2exe2‚s†i‚2‡e„i‚ƒrih ‚igre‚qi2feƒsxƒ2exh2eppig„ih2ƒ f2‡e„i‚ƒrihƒ

Notes: HHTQ TIPIP psq ‚i2R 1) Burn area boundary from calmast.org 10/31/2003. wiles 2) Sub Watersheds calculated by Wildermuth Environmental 2002. P:\projects\BAER\volume.mxd SW-203 Legend:

Fire Boundary Impacted Lake ¹ Impacted Recharge Basins Lake Silverwood Lake Arrowhead Impacted Infrastructure Impacted Flood, Recharge, Habitat Impacted Stream Heavily Impacted Stream Downstream Impacted Area 7t89 Downstream Impacted Area 3g45 Approximately 275,000 Acres s789 s789

CCWD

3f45 SBVMWD `aÄ

`aÍ `aÄ Prado `aÞ `aÁ 3d45 `aÀ

`a¡ 7t89 3g45

5 7x89 3d4

Note: HHWRFS WIVIV ƒex„e2exe2‚s†i‚2‡e„i‚ƒrih 1) See Figure 7 for impacts to sensitive species. wiles 2) Burn area boundary from calmast.org 10/31/2003. ƒ ‚pegi2‡e„i‚2sw€eg„ƒ psq ‚i2S

P:\projects\BAER\Impact_Areas.mxd SW-194 Legend: Fire Boundary Groundwater Basin (affected area) Desalters ¹ 8 Operational Old Fire 8 Future Grand Prix

Padua

7t89 g435 7s 7s ©·}|

43f5 `aÄ 8 Chino 2 Desalter `aÍ 8Chino 1 Desalter `aÄ `aÞ Temescal Desalter 8 8 `aÁ Arlington Desalter 5 43d `aÀ `a¡ 7t89 8 45 Menifee Desalter Tustin Desalter #2 g3 8 Perris Desalter 8 7x89 43d5 8 Irvine Desalter

ƒex„e2exe2‚s†i‚22‡e„i‚ƒrih q‚y xh‡e„i‚2sw€eg„ƒ HHWRFS WIVIV wiles psq ‚i2T

P:\projects\BAER\GW_basins.mxd SW-190 Legend:

Fire Boundary Sensitive Species ARROYO CHUB Old fire ¹ DELHI SANDS FLOWER-LOVING FLY Grand Prix LEAST BELL’S VIREO SAN BERNARDINO KANGAROO RAT SANTA ANA RIVER WOOLLYSTAR Padua SANTA ANA SPECKLED DACE SANTA ANA SUCKER SLENDER-HORNED SPINEFLOWER SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW FLYCATCHER 7t89 3g45

3f45

`aÄ

`aÍ `aÄ `aÞ

`aÁ

3d45 `aÀ

Notes: ƒex„e2exe2‚s†i‚2‡e„i‚ƒrih 1) Burn area boundary from calmast.org 10/31/2003. ƒixƒs„s†i2ƒ€igsiƒ2sw€eg„ƒ 2) Habitats from Calif Dept Fish and Game Natural HHTQ TIPIP Diversity Database May 2003. wiles psq ‚i2U

P:\projects\BAER\Habitat.mxd SW-191 Legend:

Fire Boundary Tree Mortality (Percent) Old fire 5 - 20 ¹ Grand Prix 21 - 40 41 - 70 71 - 100 Padua Slope (Degrees) 15-30 31-65 Downstream Impacted Area 7t89 3g45 Burned acreage slope (degrees): 0-14.9 31,512 15 - 29.9 46,474 30 -65 39,400 Tree Mortality (Acres): Total Mortality Area 155,304 Burned Mortality Areas 12,120 3f45 Watershed Burned Mortality 3,650 `aÄ

`aÍ `aÄ `aÞ

`aÁ

3d45 `aÀ

ƒex„e2exe2‚s†i‚2‡e„i‚ƒrih

HHTQ TIPIP „‚ii2wy‚„evs„‰2exh2ƒvy€i Note: wiles 1) Burn area boundary from calmast.org 10/31/2003. psq ‚i2V

P:\projects\BAER\Slope.mxd SW-201 ESTIMATED PEAK DISCHARGES OF FIRE RELATED DEBRIS FLOWS, GRAND PRIX AND OLD FIRES, IN RESPONSE TO THE 10 YEAR 1 HOUR STORM OF 0.90 INCHES 11/12/2003

Mount Baldy Silverwood Lake 10064 # ST138 ¨¦§I15

C aj on C anyon

ST138 ¨¦§I215

Me ye r C a n y o n TS18

L ytl e Ca nyon

n o y n a k C e e r De nga C er C n mo i a w ST330 uca n T C yon

k e

re C

y it C

¨¦§I215 ¤£S30 ST330

¨¦§I15

Map 2b: Estimated Peak Discharges of Fire-Related Debris Flows in Response to 10 Year, 1 Hour Storm of 0.90 inches 0 TS38 1 - 1500 cfs ¨¦§I10 1501 - 3000 cfs 3001 - 4500 cfs 4501 - 6000 cfs FirePerimeter Figure 9 ¤£S60

Document Title: 031108_debris_flow_old_grandprix UTM ZONE 11 NAD27 Location: \projects\incident\old_fire 404THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY, Author: Sue Cannon, USGS, Chris Woodside, ESRI Miles INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS MAP MAP BE INCOMPLETE Date: 11/12/2003 OR OUT-OF-DATE. Versi on: 1.0 Status: Draft ESTIMATED PEAK DISCHARGES OF FIRE RELATED DEBRIS FLOWS, GRAND PRIX AND OLD FIRES, IN RESPONSE TO THE 25 YEAR 1 HOUR STORM OF 1.12 INCHES 11/11/2003

Mount Baldy 10064 # ST138

I15 ¨¦§ West Fork MojaveUnnamed72unnamed73 Sawpit Cyn Unnamed24 Sugarpine Spring Unnamed25 Unnamed24 Unnamed26 Unnamed23 Kimbark Cyn Unnamed21Unnamed81 Unnamed30 E. Kimbark CynAmes Cyn Unnamed29 Unnamed17Unnamed18 Unnamed13 Unnamed26 Meyer Cyn Trib2Unnamed76 Unnamed20 Unnamed15 Unnamed31 138 Unnamed29 ST Unnamed19 Unnamed83 I215 Unnamed11 ¨¦§ Waterman Cyn trib 6 unnamed73 Unnamed28 Unnamed10Unnamed81 Waterman Cyn trib 5 18 Strawberry Creek Unnamed6Deer Cyn Grapevine Cyn Unnamed32ST Cucamonga Trib Unnamed6 Badger Cyn Unnamed34Unnamed35 Day Cyn City Creek trib 5 Unnamed6 Sycamore Cyn Coldwater Cyn Cucamonga Unnamed7 Unnamed9 Unnamed2 Unnamed9 City Creek trib 6 Bull Cyn Unnamed8 Unnamed45 Unnamed4 330 Unnamed3 Unnamed9 Borea Cyn ST Demens Cyn Unnamed S1 City Creek trib 3 City Creek trib 1 Little Sand CynSand Cyn Unnamed36Unnamed45 Cook Cyn Elder Gulch ¨¦§I215 ¤£S30 ST330 ¨¦§I15 Oak Creek

Estimated Peak Discharges of Fire-Related Debris Flows I10 38 in Response to 25 Year, 1 Hour Storm of 1.12 inches ¨¦§ ST 0 1 - 1000 1001 - 2000 2001 - 3000 3001 - 4000

4001 - 5000 5001 - 6000 FirePerimeter Figure 10 ¤£S60

Document Title: 031108_debris_flow_old_grandprix UTM ZONE 11 NAD27 Location: \projects\incident\old_fire 404THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY, Author: Sue Cannon, USGS, Gerco Hoogeweg, ESRI Date: 11/08/2003 MilesINFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS MAP MAP BE INCOMPLETE OR OUT-OF-DATE. Versi on: 1.0 Status: Draft LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Title

1 P. Joseph Grindstaff Congressional Testimony, dated 9-22-03

2 Draft Water Quality Sampling Protocol

3 Data Forms and Other Impact Information

Statement of P. Joseph Grindstaff, General Manager Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority before the Committee on Resources U.S. House of Representatives

September 22, 2003

Chairman Pombo, and members of the Committee on Resources, thank you for providing me this opportunity to address the potential watershed impacts to the Santa Ana Watershed from a significant forest burn in the San Bernardino National Forest. Over the long-term, it is crucial that we take steps to protect our forests from the kind of situation we face here. I also thank you for addressing the suitability of a federal grants program, which would minimize damage impacts of fire to the area and to increase the potential for fire control, life and property protection and a reduction in habitat loss.

Background

The Santa Ana Watershed derives a majority of the water for over 5 million people from the rainfall in and around the San Bernardino, San Gorgonio and San Jacinto Mountains’ forest areas. Rainfall in these mountainous areas provides surface water flows and groundwater recharge throughout the region. Impacts to these areas will have significant impacts on the Santa Ana River and its watershed water quality. The last several years have seen significantly decreased rainfall and resultant drought conditions in these forests. This drought stress has made the forest susceptible to infestation by the Pine Bark Beetle, a serious pest of conifers. This combination of factors has resulted in large- scale mortality of trees in the area

- 1 - and the presence of an enormous source of combustible material. Fires in these areas are likely to be large and difficult to contain; the aftermath of any fire events will have extraordinary impact on the forest and the watershed.

The purpose of this summary is to document the significance of the likely damage to the forests, water quality, flood management, and related issues that require planning, monitoring and funding in the watershed. Impacts from large fires in isolated forest areas will be felt in areas far from the location of the fire and many of these costs will be borne by local government.

Fuel loads in the area of Lake Arrowhead and Big Bear Lake are extraordinarily high due to forest and private property management practices in these urban forest areas. Air and ground surveillance in January 2003, found over 171,000 total acres of forest area have significant tree mortality of which 70,000 acres are privately owned. Estimates by California Department of Forestry officials indicate over 180,000 acres are estimated to be at these levels. Mortality at these levels over such a large area and the resulting dry, standing timber will lead to high likelihood of uncontrollable fire situations in the forest above the watershed. It is now estimated that over 350,000 acres have been attacked by the beetle.

Threat

A likely burn risk scenario for this summer could include as much as 180,000 acres. This large impact to the forest would cause significant impacts to the watershed’s water quality and flood management capability. These impacts will be apparent at the site of the fire and in the communities occupying the lower parts of the watershed. The impacts of this unusually high magnitude fire are estimated below.

Estimating the water quality impacts of a large burn are difficult but some research indicates this is a dire situation if winter rains are normal or heavy. Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service EIR’s filed for controlled burn management, Forest Service research publications, Los Angeles County Flood control plans, impact history from the Heyman fire in Colorado and personal communications with Riverside Fire Lab personnel document the following impacts from ash runoff water from areas of burns:

1. A significant increase in total runoff and peak storm flows, more rapid snow melt and decreased snow pack;

- 2 -

2. Catastrophic increases in sediment and water turbidity from 30-to-50 times the normal expected debris flows with fine sediment carried far down stream;

3. Doubling or greater increases in total dissolved and suspended solids from even small burn areas;

4. Significant increases in nutrients loading, primarily nitrates and phosphorus formerly bound in soil and from prior airborne deposition in some areas where ground and surface waters already exceed Federal standards for these pollutants;

5. In cases where foundation rocks contain radionuclides, increases in Gross Alpha and Beta were observed; the headwaters of the Santa Ana River were home to a small Uranium mine and transport of uranium and its radiological progeny downstream in to near surface water is well documented;

6. Increases in organics, including toxic organics and carcinogenic compounds from partial combustion of forest materials and the transport of these compounds downstream to urban areas;

7. And, significant stress to forest species and to endangered and threatened species in the Santa Ana River and its tributaries; this would include the Federally- protected San Bernardino kangaroo rat, the threatened Santa Ana sucker fish and the Santa Ana wooly star.

Impacts

These documented impacts will be expressed following any large fire in the Santa Ana Watershed. These impacts when estimated from a likely burn scenario for the fire season of 2003 or 2004 could result in the following:

1. Total runoff is likely to increase by more than 10% and peak storm flows increases about 5 times the average to between 200,000 and 300,000 cubic feet per second. This is also likely to be exacerbated by more rapid snow melt;

2. Sediment loads carried downstream could 30 to 50 times normal taking an estimated 1.7 billion cubic yards of rock, sand, and debris into control structures and dams. The quantity of this material could take months or years to remove;

3. Long duration increases in water turbidity with fine sediment may be carried far down stream complicating groundwater recharge efforts;

4. A 2-10 fold increase in dissolved solids (TDS) or salts with increased flows could result in as much as 500,000 tons of added salt in the river and groundwater basins. Runoff water is needed for recharge or consumptive use, significant treatment requirements to remove or mitigate this TDS;

- 3 -

5. As much as 20,000 tons of nutrients nitrates and phosphorus formerly bound in soil and from prior airborne deposition released into the peak stormflows and eventually making its way into the groundwater in the first few years;

6. Significant transport of uranium and its radiological progeny downstream in surface waters and into near surface groundwater increasing the cost of radon treatment and future monitoring;

7. Increases in organics, including toxic organics and carcinogenic compounds from partial combustion of forest materials that will decrease the usability of one of this region’s primary water sources;

8. And, sedimentation of the lands used by the San Bernardino kangaroo rat and the Santa Ana woolystar and, choking turbidity reducing the useable habitat for the Santa Ana sucker fish.

These impacts are likely to be severe over five or more years depending on rainfall and storm intensity. The estimated cumulative costs to the watershed are estimated to be greater that $800 million, not including fire damage to homes and habitat.

- 4 - Funding Recommendations

In addition to these expected impacts, several funding recommendations are listed to minimize the impacts of the fire to the area and to increase the potential for fire control, life and property protection and a reduction in habitat loss:

1. A dead tree removal matching grant to help fund tree removal on private lands in communities that agree to adopt ordinances, zoning and building codes and planning policies that ensure firewise building and rebuilding. $200 million.

2. Local Forest Service and California Department of Forestry crew augmentations to increase the rate of dead tree removal. $5 million for FY 2003 and $6 million for FY 2004.

3. Management planning and outreach for impact reductions and maximal compliance with existing damage minimization measures within the forest and watershed. $1 million FY 2003 and $2 million FY 2004.

4. Pre-fire and post-fire long-term monitoring of forest health, including strategic planning for long-range sustainable forestry practices after fires. $5 million FY 2003 and $7 million FY 2004.

5. Funding for desalting and salt management efforts in the San Jacinto and Santa Ana Watersheds to reduce the impact of salt and contaminants to the watershed. $40 million, grant on $80 million project.

6. Emergency Disaster funding through FEMA to declare a drought emergency to allow the use of FEMA assistance in advance of the fire. Policy Direction Fiscal Impact Unknown.

- 5 - The following table list significant cost items:

Impact/Program Potential Sources Estimated Cost Flood Management Facility Damage and Federal $ 65,000,000 Debris Removal Recharge Basin Augmentation and Federal/State $ 20,000,000 Rehabilitation Dissolved Solids and Nutrient Removal Federal/State $ 80,000,000 Water Treatment for U and Federal $ 25,000,000 Toxics/Organics Monitoring for long-term surface and Federal $ 5,000,000 groundwater impacts Fuel Removal Matching Grants Federal/State $200,000,000 Forest Service and CDF Augmentations Federal/State $ 11,000,000 Emergency Disaster Funding Federal Unknown Planning, Management and Outreach Federal $ 3,000,000 Pre/Post Fire Monitoring Federal $ 10,000,000

Requested Action

Fund the Programs and Impacts above to minimize damage and future costs and prepare to fund actual fire costs as they occur.

- 6 - Water Quality Monitoring Protocol

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this proposal is to develop and implement a water quality monitoring program that examines the hydrological impacts of damage to forests, water quality, flood management, and related issues that require planning, monitoring and funding in the watershed. More specifically the objective of the monitoring program is to evaluate wildfire impacts to the following:

Watershed Hydrology - increase in storm runoff - increase in peak storm flow Sediment loading - increase in sediment load Water Quality - increase in nutrient and pathogen loading - increase release of metals and salts - release of radioactive and carcinogenic material

APPROACH

The investigation of impacts to water quality from the recent wildfires in the San Bernardino Mountains requires the development of an extensive monitoring program. This program due to the projected long term impacts to water quality, from highly erodable soils and steep mountain slopes in the burned area, will initially be established for a five year period. Monitoring activities, due to the intermitant nature of the streams in the region, will be performed only during the wet season (November through May). Sampling activities will include bi-monthly base line monitoring during the wet season and sampling of up to three storm events annually. This program is designed to fully characterize water quality from the burned areas for a broad spectrum of constituents using non-impacted areas as a baseline. This includes the analysis of in-stream alkalinity, oxygen levels, sediment, nutrients, metals and pathogens, as well as carcinogenic organic compounds and radioactive materials. Following a preliminary analysis of the data the number of constituents to be monitored long term will be refined. Sampling locations will be identified from a comprehensive list developed for regions of the Santa Ana River Watershed highly susceptible to wildfires by the USDA-FS Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Fire Laboratory, Riverside California. This includes twenty locations for base line water quality monitoring to encompass the various stream types and slopes. From these locations eight will be selected for storm water quality monitoring.

Sampling Equipment

The field equipment and supplies necessary for the sampling activities will include the standard field sampling equipment (to be identified at a later date) and will be provided by the subcontractor. Sample bottles and labels will be provided by the subcontracted laboratory.

Estimated Program Costs

Costs estimated for a five year water quality monitoring program (Table 1) assumed: - bi-monthly baseline stream monitoring during the wet season (November through May) for twenty monitoring locations with a field crew of four. - up to three 24hr storm events annually for eight monitoring locations with a field crew of eight. - Laboratory analysis of in-stream water quality parameters including alkalinity, oxygen levels, sediment, nutrients, metals and pathogens, as well as carcinogenic organic compounds and radioactive materials. - project administration costs for a five year program.

Annual costs for the program were estimated as $553,184 including $236,684 for storm water monitoring and $316,500 for base line monitoring.

Table 1. Water Quality Monitoring Costs Annual Annual Storm Baseline Water Annual Water Water Quality Quality Quality Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring program costs ($) ($) ($) ($) Sampling Analysis - Nutrients $ 65,280 $ 95,200 $ 160,480 $ 802,400 - Sediment $ 5,760 $ 8,400 $ 14,160 $ 70,800 - Metals $ 51,264 $ 74,760 $ 126,024 $ 630,120 - Pathogens $ 67,200 $ 98,000 $ 165,200 $ 826,000 - Other $ 32,180 $ 25,140 $ 57,320 $ 286,600 Manpower $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 30,000 $ 150,000 Administration $ 65,280 $ 95,200 $ 160,480 $ 802,400

Total costs $ 236,684 $ 316,500 $ 553,184 $ 2,765,920

11-10-03; 4:12PM;Cucamonga Water Dist ;909 476 5984 # 6

Jeff Beehler Cucamonga County Water District Robert A. DeLoach, Co: SAWPA General Manager v.

Date: November 10,2003

0 Page(s)including cover

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE~~ The documents accompanying this telecopycontain information which maybe confidential and/or privileged and are solelyfor the party named on this transmission sheet. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by telephone immediately.

Message: This is .the updated version of what was previously submitted.

10440Ashford Street * Rancho Cucamonga, CA * 91730 * (909) 987-2591 Administration Fax (909)476-8032 * Engineering Fax (909)476-7031 Finance Fax (909) 476-5965* Customer Service Fax (909) 476-5964

To: 11-10-03 4:12PM;Cucamonga Water Dist ;909 476 5964

~ ~ :2 a ~0 (J) :;:j (D 3 "C ,,-.,,-. 0.0-'-' -Q,~ 0 ~~ Gc:N- ~ 0\ I~ \J1 @ "-"'-' -!:j:-- ~'-" ~(IJ-ia 'e~N '-' -< 3'-' ~(j ~"g" ~ Z ~ () ~ ~ n~'-' () ::I CD n O. OQ 0 0 ~~n ~ 91 ~ s ~ I ~ go< n W U) 0 g 3 0 "'1 GQ)Q)1/I S S' Q,3 &os ~Q. ~ < (") ~ c Q, _. ~-(') - 'C = CD ~ cntj'l~ga 0 0 ~ ~. :!1 a"d, cn 0 ~ § .g ~ ii" '0 -= ~ g. (') - '" ~~CD 0 ~ (IJ 6 ~ ~ 1fiJ:~"1Q) ~ e. ? 'O~ ~S' ~. ~ ~. r- Co'; '< 'd ~ > ~= ~ ~ 2 I ~ C (") '0 r-) ~~e- §, (1 ~ = ".. ~(") 'it ~ ~. Q. CD ~ ~ss0 = Q) a" Q) n OQ I - 5 ~." a I ~ ~ [ CD 03 ~ '"1 Q.Cb~ -a ~0 =0 0 Q. ~, i ~ n Co 5- ." ~ 'g Cf} "t! -"0- a" ~ ::s 6' n ::I. ~ ." § g (b"' rIJ CoClQ (') X ~'"i = on = 0' -a 0 ~ tI1 0 Cb 0 "ot)O CI) ~. ~. ~ -'c1 ~ 0 0 CI! ~ .; ~"ot) ~ ;x] O'CD §. = Cb 00 0 0 -'C ('), " (") ~ , (1 8 ~ '"t) CD eI < 0 n~ '-' nI m ~ ~ a = g Q C", -< 0 2.2. g ~ ~ ~ S1- ~ n 8'0."1 ;: -- "C ~ t; 0 G 0 ~ ~ Q.. = < 6 ~ Co - n ~ 00-Cb 0 S 5- 0\ S tj'I ~ ~ a- "i: n n" a ~ '-' ~: g n= Q) 0. po 110 'it~ -Cb ~ 'es ~ ~ ~ ~ !"'" .t); c: 9,. "

;0 CD ~ aJ n" c lID:a. ~ a. 15. & a.

i~ I~ ~ ~ oM <0,~ fI'} I\.) 1.(,) ~ I~-(11 , -" j (n a ~ NI;;,n ~ ~ u:I 0 0 16 0 "0 t'") g n

C1 1-0 "U 0 rCD

I~l~1m -10-03 4:12PM;Cucamonga Water Dist 909 476 5964 6

n ~ z ).. 8 -., ~ ==- (/) ., ::j ~ ~ ., 3 - -a '- ro+,-.. I""§ (j '""" '""" ,~ ~ ~ N -~ 5: -\0 ; -.JI ~;:~ -- ~ '-" ~=O\U\ ~c~ -< ~- iog ~n ;;3 :g ~ -~ ~=---~ ~ 5" !~ ~~~ ~ , ~.". 'b-<~""' ~ a ~ CI3 :3 -II) =- N = O Q.,c:: ~ "it 8 ~. S ~ =' 3 0 ~. 5' ,0"'" ... IJQ~SQ)'~~cp ~ ~ = Q. S ~ j=:.;QQ 0 ~ ;: ~ ~ ~ ;1°C .:;. .II) -og 0 "'t I:i- :!! ~~g:::J'Q.~~ ~ 0 ~ ~. = ;0- S 0.S" ,«j~;-0 II) = n ~~~ IS oS~ 1')';- - 6 ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ r- g ~ Q.,=,-0- '< ~ o'I ~ -~ !P..()'"GGO~ ~ g ~ 0 0" =' ~~~ ~~~q~~ ~ ~ e -.~t'J C ~ ~ 000 ~8=,00 '0 g , ~C::O1G~~ ~. C ~;gl.llf);~ G') ~ 01~> ~ ~ r-. OJ .~ ~'OCa(j.-'1 ~ = ~ ] ~ ~ p n ~ ~ "d---C"~C"C 0 ~ c:: Co ::;- -< 0 II)I n ~ ~ "t) ;: . S~O ~8 :]. 0 g s. S ~ r3:. ~ go ~ 1 )( ..., -~ 0 ~- ~ I')~ OQ= G~ 8 N !}; -~ :!! I ~ -. m VI g s:.OQ~~ ~ II) :u ~ g. 8. ~ ~ a. ~ > o"~() ()Q.I') n s. = n ~~ -CfJ 0 OJ - ~ ~~ I ~ < 0 =:.;~§ ~'tj- /D ... < 'tj c:: 0 cn =o.~'< a 0 -=~ 3 -< ri' § =' ~.§ - ~ 'OC < OQ CP ., ~ .-+,Q.~0 £" 0' G .Q. ~ E!' -~ 0 ~ § ~ (»~0 -E ~ ~ g: ~-s-1 n ~.~ ~ ~ ~ Bi~ ~ri' CI3 0 II) ~~ Q.~ ~ ~ ~. ~ c CIO I') -. ! -"'t .a = Q.=,Q.~ CI3 =-. ~ ,0\ ~OQ &. 0,9 .() N 8. S' ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ OQ= -tV 9.- ~ "'t ;: '" ~ ~ I

Co II]I~ a G> ~ ~ G) G) Q) 10) ,..~ OJ -< m IS" i< -< aI ~ o' ~

I~~ ~ f£J C) .IN .- "0 ~ ~ 0 ICD -" 0 (0) !U1 .0 :.., 0 0 "'C I\) 0 "0 ~. 10 C) () CD

"U -c "'0 "'C CD CD CD :J ~ I~ 9, Co :;, I~ 13' i~ 5' co ~ ~ X) iO

l~InI~I~,~I~1m !~i~ 1'-10-03; 4: 12PM;Cucemonga Water Dist ;909 476 5964 6

(") ~ z g ~ cn ~ . 3 "C (')-- '"'" 1=(') tV 0 ~ Vol N ~ ~-- ~ C'-"'-" ~ ~"""" =-----t..) ~~ CD tf} .:< ~ ~ Z I&~ S' 0 Z tI:j 5'" ~ ~ 0 > ~. < I; JQ ~ 0 < m ~= -~ ~ ~ ~. cn ~ 'g. ~ 3 a'SU) .~ =1 = -c: ~ ~= ~ CD~g ~ :8:00 :!! -<~g -G n- 'it CDg ~G(') a'=(') '"1 () is" t (') a-'i!; ~ .,CDS'G rIJ ., ~°'"11 - a 6 0 (') ~ I~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ r- N =- - I ~. - ~ z ~ Q) I~ n" 1-' n ~ n' i-< r"\ ,~ n 0

z iA ~ Q)

0 0

~ 9: "":so ~z li:I

~;~I~1 !;jI~ , 1-, 0-03; 4: 1 2PM ; Cucemonga Water Dist 909 476 5964 #

~ ~ (') ~ Z ~ ~ a ~0 .,~ ~ ~ -< Q ;0' _. ~ 0 ., 3 "'6 ;=:: -~ 'T1~~'-"'-"~ ~ ~ ~ N 01 0-~IIIt-..),::::;- I '-"- -- '-' -< ~'-' tj _.I\)&.~~t--Z Q. ~ 0 z ~ <' ~ ~~ 0 3 ~ft-(')Q.C;'j s. ~ ~ 00 ~ t/) ~ a' !?. rJ) () J1 0 ~ g ~Q~~~ ~ 'C_. a (') ~ 8 ~ & S. g 0 =~ ~ 6 ~ g. r- _.~"rj°gOQC1 ~- 0 ~ ~ 'a ~ 2' _.~ ~ ~ =' ~ §, g ~ ~ ~ 3: '1=' G) ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ JQ 0;1 (IJ III I\) rJ) a ~~ QJ I\) I\) ~.~ s; '1=' So OQ = 0 n ~. "'C ~ ~ = 0 g.g ;:I- '-to Jj )( n 'a rJ) (') ." -~ .-. ;' g I\) n- ~ ~ {t) AI = ~. ~. ~ n ri' CO ~. n 0 = = ~ ~ -~ ~ (b -G n g 3 G Q. 0- ~. -< (") ~ ~ ~ =' - 0'=". .Q. ~ ~ ~ .;n = ~ 0 ~ 0 go ~ I\) 0 3 ri' p. S' S' (IJ ~ ~ q':I '0 ~ (') ~ G i" -..0 S' s. (11

G) G)z ~ III III ~ -<~ -< ~

N (n 0 a0 ...~ .00 .to)-" -Z 0 0) > 0 '0 0

"" "tJ It~ It~ -Z ~9: 9:>~ to to

~- 11-10-03; 4: 12PM;Cucamonga Water Olst 909 476 5964 # 6

("") ~ z 0 0 0 "'D "0 ~0 ~ ~ C/) , ., Q c ~CD -to 3 -. "C ---~ G -.~ -.~ _.'C -.S' 0 "1'-- o' =r~<~ON~cn",_- ~-n o ~ - 0 ~ QJ G"-"'CD'O"-'O""-'I»g.O"-'Q '"~ > ~ -< CD "0 go ~ > G tj ~ I» ~. > - n 0 I'D e.. 3"" 05. :ECD0 Q.~CD 'it"-~ 0~ 0CO) ~I» '"I» g.= ."1"S =r 0Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CD" 0 ""'- 3 o~=-- 0 _. tn ~ '-1 I» ;J I» \0 g. '< to ;1-"'" 0 Q -to ~ ~ ~ = ~ §:= C :!1 0'1 ~ ~ -.~ Q.g;g;'<~~}~S~~~ ,. ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 VIf! ~ --- -+ 0 - (5" ~ ,~ ~ I» ~ ;;" cn ~ = g; ~ =" S' ., -..JnOO lit '<~ .Q.Q.Q."1~~"" ~ ~ ~ ~"O~~oo 6 ~ ~ .. ~~ ~~~gcn~~~ u 0 C '"~ G~ _._~OO < ('300 ~. ~ ao ~"1 -"10 'tj(\ Fit~ OJ.0' = 8.~ Con ~ 0'" ~CO) 0 I»CO) CO) 0 g. a" '< 0. '"i)-O "1 Con '< I» ~ cn n 7-03;12:17PM;Cucamonga Water Dist 909 476 5964 # 1/ 4

Tn- JetTBeehler CucamongaCounty Water District Robert A. DeLoach, Co: SAWAPA General Manager Fax: ",'oq ~""*2..'2-

From: Jo Lynne

Date: November 7, 2003 ~

4 Page(s)including cover

CONFIDEN11ALlTYNOTICE The documentsaccompanying this telecopycontain information which may be confidential and/or privileged and are solelyfor theparty named on this transmission sheet. .(fyou are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents ofthis telecopiedinformation is strictly prohibited .(f you have receivedthis communication in error, please notify us by telephoneimmediately.

Messa2e: Here are preliminary estimates on costs. More definative information will be available on Monday.

10440Ashford Street * RanchoCucamonga, CA * 91730* (909)987-2591 Administration Fax (909)476-8032 * EngineeringFax (909)476-7031 FinanceFax (909)476-5965 * CustomerService Fax (909) 476-5964 7-03;12:17PM;Cucamonga Wa~er Dls~ 909 476 5964 Page1 of 1

Jo Lynne Russo-Pereyra --- From: Carrie Corder Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 20031:41 PM To: Jo Lynne Russo-Pereyra Cc: Todd Corbin Subject: EOC Costs

Here are the numbers:

Total Employees 58 (including Board) Total Hours 1,053.25 Total labor Costs $50,148.67

[ have attached the spreadsheet for your information. These figures are pretty close, but a few timesheets have not yet been turned in. These figures also include Management's value at 1.5x -we need to find out if the value of this time is reimbursable from FEMA.

Please let me know if you need further information @

10/28/2003 11- 7-03;12:17PM;CUCemonge we.er DIS. ;909 476 5964 # 3/ 4

'j Page1 of2

Grand Prix Fire E.O.C. EXPENSES (Logistics) WID #40947-1

Adm ti onal Purchases Quantity DescriDtion Cost ExtendedCost 2 !Respirator N95 19.97ea 39.94 (Orchard Supply) 4 Safety Goggles 1.9gea 7.96 Orchard Su ly) 10 Dust Mask (OrchardI 6.4gea 64.90 PlugsSupply) (Orchard, 2 3.48ea 6.96 Supply) 2 50' 12/3CRD- 20.97ea 41.97 Electric Cords Orchard Sup ly) 1 400KW Generator 1 OOO.OOperday 3000.00 I (JohnsonPower Total3 Days

1 !i ~~~~~~--Mask Tape (HomeI'U~-- lO.35ea 10.35 Depot)I 1 Mask Tape (Home 12.36ea Denot) 21 Respirator(Home 4.97ea 99.40 Depot) 2 SafetyGoggles 4.7gea 9.58 (Home Depot) 140 I 138.40 1 84.00

Grand Prix Fire Expenses.doc Last printed 10/28/20034:09 PM

I112.36 03;12:17PM;Cucamonga Water Dist ;909 476 5964 4

\, Page2 of2

M~ 7 Meals Food& Beverages 445.61Total Price 445.61

Reuairs

Total E.O.C. Ex eDsesfor Lo 032.48

Grand Prix Fire Expenses.doc Lastprinted 10/28/20034:09 PM Grand Prix Fire Status Report Preliminary DamageAssessment: Operations Department

Lloyd Michael Treatment Plant - (1) Conduit, wire and two security camerashave been destroyed at n/e of property (2) UPS (uninterruptible power source) to CB 16 meter damaged (3) Electric Panel for the new decant station at ponds was damaged (4) Chemical storage building roof, lighting and wiring destroyed, located at n/e end of property (5) Chemical spill tank at west end of north pond (#1) was damaged due to fire

Rover Nesbit Treatment Plant (1) No structural damage (2) Road to plant will need to be regarded due to fIre dept. cutting a fIre break. Road can not be used for chemical deliveries

Bridl!e Treatment Plant (1) Guard rail post was burned {2) 10 landscapetrees were burned (3) Pump house for SA boosters was burned, damaging Cl2 analyzer, sample pump, lighting and piping. Also damaging switch gear, meters for pumps and cIa valve controls. (4) ~ The 5A boosters,which pumpto Reservoir6, can not be utilized at this time until the electrical and switchgear havebeen replaced

Reservoir 6B (1) No Structural Damage to site

Reservoir 7B (1) No StructuralDamage to site (2) Sprinkler systemwas burnedwhen fire burnedinside fenceline

Reservoir 8B (1) No Structural Damage to reservoirs or chlorine building (2) Dump line south of reservoir was damaged by fire equipment cutting fire break .

Reservoir 6 (1) Damaged Pipe gate into property was damaged by fire dozer (2) No Structural damage to reservoir (3) Damage to chain link gate leading to reservoir possibly caused by fife dozer (4) Damage to barbed wire on chain link fence around tank caused by the fire 'f

Reservoir 5 (1) No StructuralDamage (2) Fire burnedonto propertycausing minor damageto chain link fence

16" Mainline (1) Mainline located South/westof Reservoir6 was damagedby fire equipment cutting a fire break. Mainline was originally repairedby CP Constructionand now hasa small leak at the repairedsection

Operational Status: Operational Status durin!! Emer!!encv (Power Failures) (1) A total of 8 portable back up generatorswere required for reservoir sites 4, 5, 6, 4B, 5B, 6B, 7B, & 8B (2) One of the 8 portable generatorswas a rental from Johnson Power

ODerational Status as of Tuesdav 10/28/03 (1) Only 3 sites are currently without Edison power -Reservoirs 6, 7B & 8B

Operational Notes: (1) At this point staffplans to have eachmotor that was in close proximity of the fire, removedand inspectedfor the electrical isolationdamage, evaluating motor integrity. This consistsof as manyas 9 motors (2) Damageand costevaluations have begun and are expectedto be completedby the end of the first week in November (3) As of Tuesday10/28 water in storageis nearly backto expectedlevels. It is anticipatedthat we will fully recoverby Wednesday (4) Powerto Reservoir7B & 8B are expectedto be restoredby the end of today or early Wednesday 11/10/2003 00:08 9098757284 WEST VALLEY WTR DST PAGE 01/07

Board of Directors Admini$trative Staff Alan C. Dyer Anthony W. Areiz2 ~r~"d.nl ~9(1qrRIMlln"ger-5ecretery Earl Tillman. Jr. Leon Long VICC Pre!idenl A9sTet8n1 Ge"~r,,1 Man3ger Oliver P. ~oemer Patricia A- Lundin Belty J. Gosney Tf@a&Urer.OII1~eM~(1~Qqr 855 West Base Line, PO. Box 920 Betty L. Get% Rialto, California 92377-0920 I\dmini~I~IIW Secr91ary Phone (.909) 875-1804 Fax (.90.9)875-7284 AdministratiorJ Fax (.90.9)875-1361 Engineering F A.t:XCOVER SHEET

DATE: ID- to -03 TO: ;A.'?,...G,..~~ 2)~-t"~.keJ- C 0 II.1PANY : oS .4-w P /..1 FROM: L~~ to I"')~ NO. OF PAGES: PLUS COVER SHEET

(-) PER YOUR REQUEST (~ PER OUR DISCUSSION (- ) FOR YOUR REVIEW ANDCO:MMENT (-~::J FOR YOUR rNFORMAnON ~J PLEASE CONTACT ME TO DISCUSSTHIS AS SOONAS POSSffiLE

CO.MMEN""TS-L'a.. II (..c /v I--~f Aa ye Q n -j 71 k ,.r

IF YOU HA VE ANY QUESTIONS OR THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS IN RECEIVING TillS F~"X, PLEASE CALL (909) 875-1804. THANK YOU. 11/10/2003 00:08 9098757284 WEST VALLEY WTR DST PAGE 02/07

West Valley Board of Directors Administrative Staff Wale. Dist..ict Alan G. Dyer Anthony W- Araiza President GenerBl M8!'Q\ler-ael;~lt'ry Earl Tillman, Jr- Leon Long Vice P~.ld~nl Asslalant Gel1eral Manager Beny J. Gosney Patricia A. Lundin 855 West Bass Lins, R O. Box 920 Donald D. Olinger T"'ASU~lnee Msnaper Ria/to. California 92377.0920 Dwight A Younn Betty L. Get! .~ Admlf1ISI~ttY9 Socmrnry Phone (909) 875-1804 Fax (909) 875-7284 Administration Fax (909) 875.1361 Engineering November10, 2003

S.A.W.P.A. Daniel Cozad 11615 Sterling Ave. Riverside, CA 92503

Fire Impaet Information Meeting, November5, 2003

DearDaniel,

I first want to thank SAWP A for hosting the information meeting yesterday and taking the lead roll to gather inforntation on behalf of the agenciesimpacted by the recent fire storms.

At the meeting you stated that the Forest Service B.A.E.R. Team has been investigating the impacts of the fires and are preparing a report of the damage to the Santa Ana Watershed. 1.would like to provide you information and opinion on what the District perceives as impacts to us and other water agencies that receives surface water from the ".atersheds of the Lytle and Cajon Creeks.

As I stated at the meeting, the District did not incur much damageto our facilities. Only one pump station received fire damageand it was minimal. But like you, the District is very concerned about the watershed protection and the impacts to water quality and quantity in the Lytle and Cajon watershedswith the expected rain stonns in the upcoming season.

The District owns a 10 mgd water filtration facility that treats high quality L}11e Creek (LC) surface and State Project Water (SPW), which representsabout 30% of Otlr total supply. We also treat the surface flow right for the City ofRialto. Due to the higher concerltration of Total Organic Carbons (TOC) in SPW the District blends LC with SPW at a ratio of 2: I (2LC: 1.SPW). With this blend ratio the District can meet the water quality objectives for Total Organic Carbons (TOC) which reduces the formation of disinfection by-products (DBPs) within our distribution system.

If seasonalrains start soo~ as predicted, and we have a normal or above nonnal rainfall this wil!. severely impact our ability to use the Lytle surface flow becauseof the increase in turbidity. If silts, ash and debris enter into the stTeamsand degradethe water quality the District will be unable to utilize this source of supply.

Established as a public agency in 1952 RE: 11/10/2003 00:08 9098757284 WEST VALLEY WTR DST PAGE 03/07 ..

If the District loses this high quality water from LC. we will have to rely on SPW with a higher concentration ofTOCs. We would violate water quality regulations which in turn will require the District to change our existing treatment methods, possibly changing our disinfectant process and/or enhancedcoagulation.

Another concern is the protection of the watershed. The Water Agencies, County or the Forestry Department are going to have to provide sedimentationbasins up in the Lytle Creek Watershed. Due to the loss of vegetation in the bum areasthere will be the loss of saturation and percolation for recharging the LC and the Bunker Hill Basins. Depending on the severity of the storms the surface water will Jikely run off the slopes into the creeks and out to the Santa Ana River. We would lose most of the nonnal recharge.

To make up for the potential loss of local recharge water the agencieswill have no choice but to purchase 12,000 alf of SPW for recharge for the L}11e Creek alone. This could cost 1.5 million dollars based on the cost of $125/a£ There are some recharge facilities in the L)11eand Cajon drainage but they fall short of what is needed. Funding and construction of additional spreading basins, pipelines and additional turnouts along the Foothill Feeder under operations of the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water Agency (Muni) would be needed. This impact could cost up to 3 million dollars.

The District is a member of the Lytle Creek Water Conservation Association along with the Cities of Rial to, San Bemardino and Fontana Water Company. This association (LCWCA) has the responsibility of capturing LC surface flow when available. Through agreementsthe associationmaintains 17 off stream conservationrecharge ponds within the LC watershed. Again, if we get nomJa1.rain fall this seasonthe likelihood is good mud, ash, and silt will impact theseponds. Additional maintenanceto the ponds such as cleaning, scarifying and possibly hauling the mud and debris to the locallandfi.lls will be costly. The estimated cost to maintain these rechargebasins could run as much as $250,000 over the next couple years.

Please find attached the infonnation fomJs you provided at the meeting. Inclosing I want to thank you and your Staff for all of the assistance.

Sincerely, WEST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

Leon Long AssistantGeneral Manager

LUan Attachments Nov 10 '03 11:51 P.Ol

M:WD ME7ROPOl.ffiAN WA1FR DISTRICT OF SOUTHE~CAlJFORNLA WATERQU/V.nY LABORA TORY 700~ AV&-JC.e-La Verne,Calrxnia 9flfIJ (909);B2;.5065 -Fax (900).192-5246

FAXTRANSI'rtn AL COVERSHEET

DATE.' 70: L~ 77ON: FAXNUMBER: 7B.EPHONE:

"2 ) .. FROM: 1"4 ~ 'tCtA"- .- I ~ ~Q~-&43 ) 1El.EPHONE: .- SUBJECT:--tr -, ~. .- NUMBEROF PAGES (t'dhql;OHdIE8'): IS

Notes: , ~ -&YYl- -I~ -+'M..(J- ~_--lS__~~

If youdo notrecsive all pages, please caN (009) 392-5065

~

,'1'ii

1\of1.9' MWDWater Quality Lab Fax:909-392-5246 Nov 10 '03 11:51 P.O2

SA WPA Project InformatiD.,::Form October 20:03 Firc ImpactS.:Program

@ Indicates Required Fields t. Contact Information

AgencyorOrganization i!):: K ..i~ ~w ~ ,~'.~.. ContactName~: Fi~: _L~Ab ~Last: i ?4:\..e.vLa~~~ Mailing Address i!): 00 ..R-.- . ~:a:~~ .t~lV,j{~~k~:= Zip': .q \15 0 .:,~

Phone~: l1~J -~~- .;-5Lf?j' -Ext. -= ~ Fax: 6~_) ~~~gg~

Cell Phone: L_~-- ---

II. Project Summary Information

Project Name e: \. .'* ;;f;t1,r'" Estimated Project Cost e: $ tve/\'-Jo~l

Project Description(!\: . \1:.h +0

(j .

Project LA

(Please be as specific as possible)

1.of 5

:, :~.;,,;':;; '"1,'::';l1;1;\':~,!'r;-:,~;':;'7",,;~'~;;'~':~' MW] Water Quality Lab Fax:909-392-5246 Nov 10 '03 11:52 P.O3

~:"i:..'.::;~:.

~ojectDet'ails.. ;.," .., ' Primary purposeS of project (At1east one requl:red}.(iija'"$ate which apply anddesCribt!; ..,:" ..,.

include quantities as much as possibJe): ,ior ,:,'", .,

. 0 Sediment Removal':

0 Flood Control Improvements;

0 Basin percolation Restoration:

0 Habitat Protection/Restoration (include acres, type of habitat, and sensitive/threatened! endangered species. as applicable) :

0 Toxic or radiological treatment:

0 Inorganic salt contamination:

:u..~ w~)..cJ,,1.~ Lttk~ \ ttA " ,'Vt&r \"'0 iIYlt d.,,~~~t~'lArJ;- CAp )~rY\W\l~ o..tl.~}\lMi " " '1r'ClhY\el"ftr (;IO~"::'/)" ~ a.VfJI~- ~-<.MJ.fJ-~ J~:a.RJ7,~oV\ M "":"':' ();~ ..,lOOf'r'tS /JJ\JJ.-~~.5~' {),Il,or tfl~D~q -~l"~~ ~ ',' 'I \.J~~ -f)i).;t ~, l- Ft,;;;,;" '"c/;'" ".,~ 11 ~ ~\,tL..~~,."i4A'~'~ ' ' :'. .",' ;c.. ~ "'-" ~ -IV ~..' " ,. .,i~... ~ '\< ~ 1v:1;;,;~r;i~, ~~;I, "'!:i;(? -' ",,",1!,;:,:~.::"j'~f:r~i,j~ 1~1~ Water Quality Lab Fax:909-392-5246 Nov 10 '03 11:52 P.O4

0 Water supply emergency:

0 Wetlands restoration:

. "*:5 c;:..

~oaYes ..'

Has CEQAbeen Completed @I? aYeS Actual or estimated date:

Completionpreferred ~o

.) of5

~WD'.-;~~ MWDWater Qualit~ Lab Fax:909-392-5246 Nov 10 '03 11:53 P.O5

Provide current estimated construction contract awardidate@:

IV. .Project Cost

Approximately What portion of the project fund!~gc:js expe:cled from @: - ..Fire Impacts Program $ ~~=.jB~ ~~% Local matching funds ..$- -'- % Other matching funds ..$ % Total project " $ %

If the project is included in the SAWPA Integrated Watershed Plan please indfcate which document(s} and the project number for each~: ' 0 Water Resources Component: 0 SARIEnvironmental' Line Component: and Wetlands Component: IWP Project Number:~

V. Other Is your agency/organization able to fund pre-construction work, design, CECA, etc. ~ ~Yes .." .-

ON 0 ,~ Please describe any other fund~g opportunities ava~lableto this project: ~-<.B Vv1..~ CDf\~-t"t)-v.ruSYl.J~.r\j t

.Please add any additional information about your project or any comments you have on this form:

Please attach a project map ~ & Project schedu[e

Fax or mail form to: SAWPA 11615 Sterling Avenue Aftn: Greg Duecker Riverside, CA 92503 (909) 785-7076

40f5

~ , SIX BASINS W A TERMASTER 1021 E. Miramar Avenue Claremont, CA 91711-2052 (909) 621-5568 phone (909) 625-5470 fax

November 10, 2003

Mr. Daniel Cozad Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority 11615 Sterling Avenue Riverside, CA 92503

Subject: Fire Damage Assessment -San Antonio Spreading Grounds

Dear Mr. Cozad:

In response to the request for current damages to Southern California water facilities, the Six Basins Watermaster is forwarding an estimate of damages experienced in our area. The primary spreading facilities for the Six Basins area are owned and managed by Pomona Valley Protective Association (PVPA). Many structures were destroyed along with a collection of debris and ash that has fouled the San Antonio and Thompson Creek Spreading basins.

Preliminary estimates are shown in the table below:

Table A -Fire Damage Costs to the San Antonio and Thompson Creek Spreading Grounds Item Cost Location

Bridge Reconstruction $8,100 San Antonio S. G San Antonio & Thompson Road Debris Removal $2,950 Creek S. G. Diversion Structure San Antonio S.G Reconstruction $5,400 Turn and Drop Structures San Antonio S. G. Debris CleanuD $34,500 Clean/Scarify Pits $59,400 San Antonio S. G

Clean/Scarify Channel $38,400 San Antonio S. G. Thompson Creek Grounds $2,250 Thompson Creek S.G. Repairs The Six Basins Watermaster will continue to follow up with local emergency group efforts to coordinate the repair and reconstruction of facilities as expeditiously as possible. These spreading facilities are downstream from potential sediment debris and flood flows, and will be at risk from future collection of debris and overflow due to the hampered recharge capability of the soil.

If you have any questions or need to talk to Watermaster staff, please contact me or Janet Divan at (909) 621-5568. Thank you and we look forward to resolving some of these issues and working collectively with other impacted agencies in San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles County.

Sincerely, o.S!-".---

Richard W. Hansen Chief of Watermaster Services Six Basins Watermaster

Cc: Cecil McAlister, PVPA

':ez~1 Chino Basin Watermaster Potential Needs and Impacts November 10, 2003

Introduction:

The Chino Basin Watermaster has concern about potential impacts to the Chino Ba:sin Recharge Facilities Improvement Project. The Inland Empire Utilities Agency and the Chino Basin Watermaster are currently spending upwards of $45,000,000 to improve approximately 15 recharge basins. The improvl3ments are centered around expanding the basins ability to recharge imported, storm and recycled water. This project operates by way of a four- party agreement between the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, the Chino Basin Watermaster, the Chino Basin Water Conservation District, and the San Bernardino Flood Control and Conservation District.

Potential Impacts:

The potential impacts include, but are not limited to, debris and silt being transported off the burn areas by storm flows into the flood channels and into the recharge basins. Typical remedies include, but are not limited to, removing the debris and silt with excavators and loaders. The San Bernardino Flood Control and Conservation District is compiling estimates of potential impacts on a portion of the basins in this project.

Potential Costs:

Costs estimates are dependent upon amount of material to be removed, and are rough estimates. Certain basins are flow through, while others are off-line. The off-line basins might be able to be operated to allow the first flush of debris and silt to pass by the basins.

Basin: Estimate:

Brooks Street Basin $ 30,000 College Heights Basin 40,000 Montclair Basins (4) 80,000 Seventh Street Basin 30,000 Eight Street Basin 30,000 Upland Basin 30,000

Ely Basins (3) 40,000 Etiwanda Spreading Basins 50,000 Hickory Basin 30,000 San Sevaine Basins (4) 10,000 Turner Basins (4) 60,000 Victoria Basin 30,000

Banana Basin 30,000 Declez Basin 30,000 Etiwanda Conservation Ponds 60,000 RP-3 Basin 40,000 Jurupa Basin 20,000 Wineville Basin 20,000

$ 660,000 11-5-03 Ed Brittain of Running Springs Water Company wasn't able to attend the meeting, but would like to verbally convey the following info:

Fires surrounded us... but soot -dirt and asheswill be washed into City Creek if we have a normal winter.

Also over to lesser extent areas of concern will be for Plunge Creek and Prediler (sp) Creek -probably is minimal becauseit is such a large area. (i.e., containment)

Being "forewarned" is being "forearmed",

-~ ..;,./r.ph./lb ~~~~-d~~L"~...L.:zJ.iZ¥£.~~ =1-.~~~;~~t2~)-:-~~~~~,.i.~Ql~::&2___~

1'-1 -!

/).. I, /) "I'

( I

.~ Page 1 of 3

Jeff Beehler

From: Mark Norton Sent: Monday. November 10, 2003 2:09 PM To: Jeff Beehler Subject: FW: Basin Cleaning Vehicles

Here is some additional info from OCWD on impacts. Please forward to Doug. Thanks!

From:Original Woodside, Message Greg [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 11:48 AM To: Mark Norton Cc: Grebbien, Virginia; Miller, Craig; Kennedy, John; Cress, Curtis; Conklin, Steve; Rasouli, Max Subject: RE: Basin Cleaning Vehicles

Mark, a rough estimate for the increased costs due to silt removal in the recharge basins is:

-up to $5,000,000 due to the loss of up to 20,000 acre-feet of recharge water due to decreased percolation (this is the value of the potentially lost water based on purchasing supplemental replenishment water).

-increased maintenance costs of $400,000 (based on up to 2 months of extra basin cleaning).

-2 additional BCVs at a capital cost of $2,000,000 could be deployed to mitigate the increased silt in recharge water.

For the potential impacts at the Prado Wetlands, increased silt removal could cost up to $300,000.

Greg Woodside OCWD

From: OriginalMark MessageNorton [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 10:43 AM To: Woodside, Greg

Subject: RE: Basin Cleaning Vehicles

Greg, Would you like to estimate a maintenance cost increase for increased silt removal as a placeholder? Ball park figure would be fine. Without it, I'm really only guessing. Mark

From: OriginalWoodside, Message Greg [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 10:42 AM To: Mark Norton

Cc: Miller, Craig; Conklin, Steve; Kennedy, John; Rasouli, Max Subject: RE: Basin Cleaning Vehicles

Mark,

The capital cost estimate is $1,000,000 for a shallow-basin BCV, $1,500,000 for a deep-basin

11/10/2003 Page2 of 3

BCV.

(note: deep basin is one with a water depth of greater than 20 feet)

The 0 & M cost is $200,000 per year per BCV.

We do not yet have a quantified maintenance cost increase for increased silt removal resulting from fires in the watershed.

Greg Woodside OCWD

From: OriginalMark MessageNorton [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, November 10, 20039:23 AM To: Woodside, Greg

Subject: RE: Basin Cleaning Vehicles

Greg, If possible, please send it to me before 11 am this morning. Thanks! Mark

From: OriginalWoodside, Message Greg [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 9:22 AM To: Mark Norton

Subject: RE: Basin Cleaning Vehicles

Hi Mark,

how soon do you need the info?

(I presume quickly).

We just deployed 4 new BCVs, so we will be getting a much better feel for the 0 & M in the coming weeks/months. We can give you the current estimate if you need the info quickly.

Greg

From: OriginalMark MessageNorton [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, November 10, 20038:22 AM To: Woodside, Greg

Subject: Basin Cleaning Vehicles

Greg, SAWPA is putting together a document for the California Dept of Forestry fire response team about watershed impacts today. Due to possible increased levels of silt reaching the OCWD recharge basins, SAWPA will be suggesting the purchase of additional basin cleaning vehicles to help clean the OCWD recharge basins. In the SAWPA IWRP we had an estimate of $6 million for 6 units. Is this still accurate? Any idea on the annual cost to operate and maintain each unit? Any thoughts on anticipated maintenance costs increases in general for silt removal? Let me know today if possible. Thanks!

Mark R. Norton P.E.

11/10/2003 Page3 of 3

J¥aterResource,\' Planning ,lJ1anager ,S'anta/1na Waterj'hedProjectAuthority 11615,S'terling Ave. River.\'ide,CA 92503 909-354-4221

11/10/2003 Potential fire impacts Page1 of 2

Patti Bonawitz

From: Bob Tincher [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, November 10, 200311:55 AM To: Daniel Cozad Cc: Bob Reiter; Randy Van Gelder; Raymond Brown; Sam Fuller; [email protected]; wdanskin @ usgs.gov; Mike Esquer; Steve Burroughs Subject: Potential fire impacts

Daniel,

Per the "Fire Impacts Information Meeting" held November 5,2003 at SAWPA, the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (District) is submitting the attached map and list of District facilities that may be impacted due to the recent wildfires. The District owns and operates the Foothill Pipeline (7'8" Diameter) which runs along the base of the San Bernardino Mountains. Increased runoff and sediment transplort due to the fires may cause damage to the surface features along this pipeline. Surface features along the pipeline include, but are not limited to, manholes, underground vaults, fire hydrants, cathodic protection stations, etc. Please see attached file for a complete list.

In addition to the District facilities that may be impacted, the attached map also provides the locations of San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) detention basins which the District uses for groundwater recharge by agreement with SBCFCD. Although the District does not own these facilities, the District does depend upon them for groundwater recharge. Given the potential problems with surface water quality due to the fires, these basins may playa more critical role in providing water to the local water agencies via groundwater. For this reason, these basins will likely require more maintenance than normal and should be added to the list of potential impacts.

The District has a cooperative agreement with the United States Geological Survey regarding groundwater monitoring wells which are located throughout the District's service area. In many cases, the District has paid for the construction of the wells and relies on the USGS for data collection. The atta(~hed map provides the locations of wells which may be impacted by increased runoff and sediment transport due to the recent fires and should be added to the list of potential impacts.

Thank you for spearheading this effort. Please call me directly at (909) 387-9215 if you would like to discuss this matter further.

Sincerely, Bob Bob Tincher, P .E. Manager of Engineering and Planning San Bernardino Valley MWD 909/387 -9215 909/387-9247 fax 909/226-2812, mobile

From:Original Raymond Message Brown

Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 10:15 AM

To: Bob Tincher Subject: RE: fire map

11/10/2003 -(/)u .-c~ 0 .-cn-.-cn tU' CQ)~~ Q)~~oa. .-Q) -=~-- ~UQ)O- ;>~cnc m>-Q)~ Co U .: 0- .(3 ~ u. cr: .-Q) (W) LlJ ~ 0')0

~-!Q)~ ca ~ .- =>_U- ca;>-'X > ""'0-

"0..0-- O!"OO- ~caQ)"'O c "OQ)UtU'~a:Q)-- ~"O~(9 ~~

'I,~i~ 'IV"2' (If ;~ ~

""'~~ro-,

~ ~~>; g.J!~ $CLt (J~-= ~~~ 8CL5, '" ~(/) 01 ~ .~ « .§, g., .05 ~ ~c: g' gf :::, E~ ~ -a: ~ ~ (/) 8 '5~ ~ "-.g .0~ "0~.g 2 ~ ~ cJJ~ ~ m ~ X~ "0 0. 0. o.(/) ~; "E(/)';", IVOI 0~~"iij~1V c:~~ ~-eE.~

., 0-OIO~~ .,., IV '"01 ~~OI-- '" "',"0..,2'" .,~ =., ~a:IVE""'.,.,.c:c: =0"'c:".- ~~~~a. .g1O OI>"- E =c: C:031Oo IV" ~(IJc:cn~~~ ~~- ~.~-.£1 c:~ 0.5 ~ ."iij °cn~e.- "oc: ~:)°o."-.,- "-., .9!Q.,.~ >c:~.,= .0"0 ~.nOO'":'-"'0 ~ .!9."O'" o..c:ffi.~go- ,. ~~ 8 -v. c: !!'" '" .£1~

u'~~c."O ~.!2 .,g'~~~ !8E =~~~~'5 o.~." '" ~c:= ~ 10°>0.., '"=' O~03 ~o. (/) ~~F Z"O<58 .~

"~~~"'- I; San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Foothill Pipeline Facility Locations

Stationing begins at California Department of Water Resources Devil Canyon Afterbay #1. Stationing is in feet.

STATION DEPTH ITEM ELECTROLYSIS ANODES NUMBER OF TEST STATION (#) VAULT

0+00 DWR SLIDE GATE 5+00 15' 0" DWR 72" & 24" GUARD VALVES 6+00 15' 6" DWR 72" & 24" METERS 7+00 72" AIR VENT 10+00 PULL BOX 10+03 ELECTROLYSIS TEST STATION x 12+40 13' 1" MANHOLE x 2 20+80 9' 0" MANHOLE x 2 29+25 FIRE HYDRANT DEVIL CANYONROAD 33+00 SWEETWATERDIVERSION STRUCTURE 36+61 12' 4" SWEETWATERTURNOUT GUARDD VALVE VAULT 11' a" METER VAULT 37+40 9' 3" MANHOLE x 2 40+05 18' 0" BLOWOFF VALVE VAULT 19' a " WATER CHAMBER 44+50 FIRE HYDRANT SWEETWATERCHANNEL 50+73 8' 9" MANHOLE x 2 55+11 ELECTROLYSIS TEST STATION x BEN CANYON ROAD 56+30 FIRE HYDRANT 58+43 8' 3" MANHOLE x 2 65+59 12' 9" MANHOLE x 2 67+49 23' 6" BLOWOFFVALVE VAULT 24' 9" WATER CHAMBER 70+61 8' 2" MANHOLE x 2 80+45 7' 9" MANHOLE x 2 83+93 17' 5" BLOWOFFVALVE VAULT 18' 6" WATERCHAMBER 85+30 FIRE HYDRANT FRONT LINE ROAD 88+26 7'10" MANHOLE x 2 FENCE 93+82 11' 3" MANHOLE x 2 BADGERCHANNEL 95+33 10' 8" BADGERTURNOUT GUARD VALVE VAULT 9' 0" METER VAULT 98+24 8 '11" MANHOLE x 98+66 FIRE HYDRANT 100+00 ELECTROLYSIS TEST STATION x 111+68 7' 8" MANHOLE x 2 SYCAMOREDIKE 124+00 7' 7" MANHOLE x 2 138+33 7' 8" MANHOLE x 2 NORTHPARKBLVD. 150+96 7' 4" MANHOLE x "H" STREET 164+11 6' 4" MANHOLE x 2 "F" STREET 176+86 5' 9" MANHOLE x MAYFIELDAVENUE 184+58 MAYFIELDTURNOUT GUARD VALVE VAULT 14' 1" METER VAULT 189+50 7' 3" MANHOLE x 2 ELECTRIC AVENUE 192+06 19' 7" BLOWOFF VALVE VAULT 20' 0" WATER CHAMBER 192+26 ELECTROLYSIS TEST STATION x 2 PERSHING AVENUE SEPULVEDAAVENUE LEROY STREET 204+40 8' 11" MANHOLE x 2 LUGO AVENUE 218+50 7' 2" MANHOLE x 2 SIERRA ROAD 222+30 18' 7" BLOWOFF WATERMAN AVENUE 228+35 WATERMANTURNOUT GUARD VALVE VAULT METER VAULT 7 I 1" MANHOLE 228+43 x 2

Phase 2 Pipeline Locations

STATION DEPTH ITEM ELECTROLYSIS ANODES NUMBER OF TEST STATION (#) VAULT 235+00 MICROWAVETOWOER 235+47 9' I" MANHOLE (2 10" AIR-VAC VALVES) x 2 235+075 16' 8" LINE VALVE #1 (4 10" VAC VALVES) x 2 236+27 17' 5" OLINE METER #1 x 2 236+55 7' 8" MANHOLE (20 10" AIR-VAC VALVES) x 2 249+35 15' 5" MANHOLE x 2 265+10 6' 10" MANHOLE x 2 SBCFCDROAD TO EAST TWIN CREEK 280+55 8' 7" FIRE HYDRANT (4" RELIEF VALVES) x 2 280+65 10'10" MANHOLE x 2 40TH STREET 290+70 19' 6" MANHOLE x 2 301+25 21' 6" BLOWOFF (2- 8" VALVES) x 2 301+39 9' 11" MANHOLE x ') HARRISONSTREET 302+90 18' 3" INSULATIONJOINT STRUCTURE#1 x 2 GOLDENAVENUE 310+35 10' 8" MANHOLE x 2 19' 6" BLOWOFF (2 8" VALVES) x 2 FERNDALE(SOUTH) CONEJO (NORTH) 324+05 6' 9" MANHOLE x 2 MOUNTAINAVENUE CAMELLIADRIVE 328+55 x LA HACIENDA DRIVE 333+80 x EL CAMINODRIVE DEL ROSAAVDENUE 338+00 9' 11" MANHOLE (2 6" VACUUM VALVES) x 342+00 x 344+40 x 345+40 BONDINGSTATION 349+65 17' 11" MANHOLE 27' 2" BLOWOFF (2 8" VALVES) x 2 CONCRETEFLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL FOOTHILLDRIVE CHIQUITA LANE 351+60 SOUTHERNCALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY RECTIFIER CONNECTION 351+80 x DOGWOOD IRONWOOD CHIQUITA LANE 359+50 x 363+40 SOUTDHERNCALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY RECTIFIER CONNECTION 2 363+60 4'10" MANHOLE x BONNIE STREET GOLONDRINASTREET 367+70 x 368+50 BONDING STATION x NEWBURYAVENUDE 373+40 x 373+70 BONDING STATION STERLING AVENUE 376+70 10' 8" MANHOLE x 2 382+00 x 384+80 x 390+00 6' 7" MANHOLE (2 6" VACUUM VALVES) x 2 LITTLE SAND CREEK 394+00 8' 8" MANHOLE (2 4" VACUUMVALVES) x ARDEN AVENUE 408+85 17' 9" BLOWOFF (2 8" VALVES) x 2 8' 7" MANHOLE x 2 422+95 10' 10" MANHOLE x 2 430+00 17' 9" INSULATING JOINT STRUCTUDRE*2 434+07 9' 1" MANHOLE (2 6" VACUUM VALVES) x SANDD CREEK 438+35 17' 2" PATTON TURNOUT GUARD VALVE VAULT x 2 / 16' 9" METER VAULT 438+63 12' 8" MANHOLE (2 4" VACUUM VALVES) x 2 VICTORIA AVENUE 449+65 6'11" MANHOLE x 2 449+80 16' 8" BLOWOFF (2 8" VALVES) xx 2 LYNWOODDRIVE 463+60 9' 1" MANHOLE (2 4" VACUUM VALVES) x 2 473+99 16' 11" BLOWOFF (2 8" VALVES) xx 4 7' 3" MANHOLE 484+20 9' 0" MANHOLE (2 6" DVACUUM VALVES) x 2 ORANGESTREET 494+17 8' 0" MANHOLE (1 4" VACUUM VALVES) x 2 BALDRIDGE CREEK 495+52 22' 8" BLOWOFF (2 8" VALVES) x 2 PALM AVENUE 505+40 7' 7" MANHOLE x 2 514+69 11' 0" MANHOLE (2 8" VACUUM VALVES) x LA PRAIX STREET 528+80 10' 5" MANHOLE (2 8" VACUUM VALVES) x 2 543+00 7' 0" MANHOLE x 2 547+60 LINER PLATE x ROUTE 30 549+50 LINER PLATE x 550+70 8' 7" FIRE HYDRANT (4" RELIEF VALVE) x 557+00 6'11" MANHOLE x CITY CREEK 570+50 10' 2" MANHOLE (2 4" VACUUM VALVES) x 2 571+75 14' 3" CITY CREEK TURNOUTGUARD VALVE VAULT x 2 14' 2" METER VAULT 580+55 7' 4" MANHOLE x 4 16' 7" BLOWOFF (2 8" VALVES) xx 585+00 7' 6" MANHOLE (2 10" VACUUM VALVES) x 2 585+32 17' I" LINE VALVE #2 (4 10" VACUUM VALVES) x 2 585+79 19' 6" LINE METER #2 x 2 588+70 5' 4" MANHOLE (2 6" VACUUM VALVES) x 2 CARRIAGE HILL DRIVE 594+00 9' 5" MANHOLE (2 10" VACUUM VALVES) x 2 597+40 13' 5" MANHOLE xx 23' 3" BLOWOFF (2 8"0 VALVES) 4 612+12 8' 1" MANHOLE (2 10"VACUUM VADLVES) x 2 613+15 22' 2" BLOWOFF (2 8" VALVES) x 2 614+20 7' 8" MANHOLE (2 6" VACUUM VALVES) x 2 621+00 17' I" BLOWOFF (2 8" VALVES) x 2 622+34 9' I" MANHOLE (2 6" VACUUM VALVES) x 2 CHURCHSTOREET 627+70 8' 7" FIRE HYDRANT (4" RELIEF VALVE) x 2 632+90 13' I" MANHOLE (2 6" VACUUM VALVES) x 2 BLEDSOE CREEK 635+75 12' 5" MANHOLE 21' 7" BLOWOFF (2 8" VALVES) x 4 637+20 15' 8" MANHOLE (2 6" VACUUM VALVES) x 2 650+90 LINER PLATE x ~ BASED LINE ROAD & ELDER GULCH ROAD 651+47 32' 2" BLOWOFF (2 8" VALVES) x 2 LINER PLATE ETS INSIDE BLOWOFF ? 652+39 8' 7" MANHOLE (2 6" VACUUM VALVES) x 2 CRAM ROAD 665+10 7' 10" MANHOLE x 2 W~TER STREET AND WEAVERSTREET 676+90 8' 7" FIRE HYDRANT (4" RELIEF VALVE)O x 2 677+30 7'11" MANHOLE x 2 MC LEAN ROAD 687+10 7' 11" MANHOLE x SANTA ANA CANYONROAD 700+98 14' 9" MANHOLE (1 4" VACUUMVADLVE) x 2 704+75 12' 9" MANHOLE x 2 22' I" BLOWOFF (2 8" VALVES) GREENSPOTROAD 7200+60 12' 6" MANHOLE x 2 21' 7" BLOWOFF x 2 722+40 8' 7" FIRE HYDORANT (4" RELIEF VALVE) x 2 730+50 12' 11" MANHOLE x 2 745+15 11' 11" MANHOLE x CONE CAMP ROAD 760+47 12' 6" MANHOLE x 2 775+50 13' 0" MANHOLE x 2 790+52 10' 11" MANHOLE x 2 793+90 FIRE HYDRANT x 2 GREENSPOT ROAD 805+20 16' 1" SANTA ANA LOWT.O. GUARDVALVE VAULT xxx 6 14' 7" METER VAULT 805+60 13' 8" MANHODLE (2 4" VACUUM VALVES) x 813+40 FIRE HYDRANT x 2 820+47 12' 6" MANHOLE x 2 833+90 FIRE HYDRANT x 2 834+83 12' 0" MANHOLE x 2 835+00 12' 3" TERMINAL AIR & VACUUM VALVES (3 10" VADCUUM VALVES) MAINLINE X BULKHEAD X SR12+86 NORTHFORK CONNECTION AT BIFORCATION 2 VALVES ON EAST HIGHLANDS LINE SR20+22 15' 1" SURGE CHAMBER WEST END SR22+75 13' 2" SURGE CHAMBER EASDT END Rialto in new water fix

Officials: Fire damage might affect area groundwater basin

Inland Valley Daily Bulletin - 12/2/03; By Scott VanHorne, staff writer

RIALTO - The scorched earth left by recent fires may prevent water from soaking into the ground and recharging a basin already depleted by a four-year drought, water officials said.

Concerns about the future of the Rialto-Colton groundwater basin prompted the Rialto City Council to declare a water shortage emergency at its meeting Tuesday.

"We are worried that the natural recharge will run off and go straight to the (Santa ha) River," Public Works Director Brad Baxter said before the meeting.

The city's water supplies are sufficient now, but if the basin doesn't soak up water this winter, it could affect how much providers can pump from wells next year.

The council had to make the emergency declaration so staff can apply for federal assistance if the city needs to buy water from other sources, Baxter said.

"We want to make sure we are covering our bases to protect our residents' water," he said.

Rialto declared a water shortage emergency in July because of drought and contamination. City officials encouraged residents to voluntarily curb their water usage, but did not enact any mandatory measures.

Residents should still heed the call to conserve even though reservoirs aren'tas depleted as they were in the summer, Baxter said.

Current water concerns arose because of the Grand Prix Fire that moved through Lytle Creek in late October and destroyed the brush and grass that helped water soak into the ground.

"There's no growth there to hold it back," said Leon Long, assistant general manager of the West Valley Water District. "It's just going to run off into the streams."

The silt washed from the desolate landscape could also cause problems for water suppliers. They are concerned the ash will choke the man-made catch basins that trap nuloff and allow it to soak into the ground.

"We might even have to go in there and remove (the silt) and take it to landfill," Long said.

Flood danger high, federal officials warn

INLAND: Efforts are stepped up to control the threat in canyon and foothill areas.

09:28 AM PST on Thursday, December 4, 2003

By RICHARD BROOKS / The Press-Enterprise

The disastrous Grand Prix and Old fires turned lush hillsides into barren moonscapes incapable of absorbing much rainfall and creating a dramatically increased flood risk in canyon and foothill communities, federal officials warned Wednesday.

The flood threat is expected to remain high for three to five years, the officials said at a news conference in north San Bernardino. The event's setting - little more than a stone's throw from foothills denuded in the Old Fire - was a barren strip of land where homes were demolished after repeated flooding in 1980. Those floods followed a fire that stripped nearby hills.

The officials, from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, unveiled maps of the flood zones, but county workers, residents and others already are working to ward off damage.

From Rancho Cucamonga to Highland, county crews are enlarging flood-control basins and clearing logs and debris from canyons and flood channels. They also will be installing "trash racks" - cables stretched between vertical poles - to catch boulders and other large debris before they wash downstream, clogging city drains and flooding streets.

Workers in San Bernardino and other cities have placed hay bales, sandbags and concrete traffic dividers in some potential trouble spots.

Emergency officials are urging homeowners in all threatened areas to buy flood insurance and to keep filled sandbags on hand. Sandbags are available to the public at four neighborhood parks and Western Little League Headquarters, San Bernardino City Hall officials said.

Property owners in San Bernardino, Lytle Creek and other fire-ravaged areas have been sandbagging for weeks and are stockpiling filled bags for later use. Greg Vojtko / The Press-Enterprise A pair of rockfall specialists stretch cable netting over rocky slopes above Highway 18 east of the interchange with Highway 138. Caltrans is using a variety of methods to stablize soil and control falling rocks in the aftermath of this fall's wildfires.

Danger past and present

The danger has prompted some long-time weather watchers to recall the catastrophic floods of 1938 and 1969. In both cases, survivors told of the rush and roar of the water, the crash of falling trees, and even the sight of a cow carcass bobbing downstream.

In 1980 a winter storm washed out Lytle Creek Canyon's main road - just before Pam Mobley went into labor.

She and her husband climbed into their Jeep CJ-5 and headed for the flatlands. When they came to a washout, they drove cross-country "over the boulders and across the dirt" until they found another stretch of solid pavement, Pam Mobley recalls. After about five such detours, they reached the mouth of the canyon and, eventually, a hospital in Upland.

"Sam was born five or six minutes after I got there," said Mobley, 54, a rural letter carrier and 33-year resident of Lytle Creek.

Long-range forecasts call for a warmer and drier winter than usual, but that offers no guarantee of safety to flood-prone communities, said Stan Wasowski of the National Weather Service office in San Diego. "It only takes one big rainstorm and you have all your erosion and flooding," he said. "No one can predict that (in a long-range forecast), because you'd still end up with a seasonal rainfall total of 'below normal.' "

Flooding faces every foothill community from Rancho Cucamonga to Highland if heavy rains lash the mountainsides.

"All of our protective vegetation is gone. So what you've got is bare soil - a mile high and 40 miles long," said Jim Earsom, district conservationist for the federal Natural Resources Conservation Service. "We can expect mud to come down the hills."

And an extremely dry winter wouldn't solve anything.

"If we don't get the rain, the plants aren't going to come back again. And next year, we'll be back in the same boat," said Earsom. "If we get light rain this year, and light rains next year, we could escape. The plants will slowly come back."

Any heavy rain is likely to produce flooding, but Earsom said it's difficult to predict the extent.

"If you get a local cloudburst," he said, "it could be a very localized in a particular watershed, like Lytle Creek. But if you get a Pacific storm, it could be across the whole front country, from Rancho Cucamonga to Highland." Fixing troubled highway

Already, winter rains have helped trigger rockslides along mountain roads, including a three-mile stretch of Highway 18 that has been closed since Oct. 28. Crews are installing rockslide barriers in 10 locations along the two-lane roadway. Reopening is tentatively set for Dec. 15.

If it works, the $500,000 to $750,000 project will tame a section of road called "The Narrows" that has imperiled foul-weather travelers since the highway was built more than 70 years ago, officials say.

"We called it the Rock Garden because there were so many falling rocks," said Bob White, a retired Caltrans regional maintenance superintendent. "When I became superintendent, it was my decision . . . to close that section from the (Crestline) bridge to the Cliffhanger Restaurant until a storm subsided. Then we'd come in and clean out the rocks."

Much of the rock is crumbling and all of it is on near-vertical slopes. A rockslide once trapped a 5-ton Caltrans truck, White recalls. The driver escaped, but the truck was crushed. Some of the larger rocks weigh four to five tons, he said.

White, who retired in 1986, doubts that the boulders can be controlled with steel and cable netting. It has been tried before along Highway 18's nearly vertical slopes, he said, and it hasn't worked.

"When the rock comes down, it will take the net with it," he said.

But modern rock barriers will tame the narrow stretch of highway because the devices combine strength with flexibility and because there are several designs, each tailored for a specific type of trouble spot, said Wade Hoon, a Caltrans rockfall mitigation specialist.

As Hoon spoke, a truck-mounted crane with a 193-foot-tall boom hauled a drapery of cable netting up a nearly vertical slope where it was secured with anchor bolts. The idea was to hold most rocks against the hillside, and prevent any sliding rocks from bouncing onto the highway.

Nearby, crews are building a 175-foot-long rock fence that amounts to a net of interlocking 1-foot-diameter steel rings that are suspended between industrial- strength steel posts and anchored by steel cables. Major impacts from giant rocks are supposed to be absorbed by the flexing effect of stretchable metal rings that are part of the anchor cables. "The first rock net in California went up in 1991 in Gaviota Pass, north of Santa Barbara, on Highway 101," said Hoon. "There's a series of nets. They eliminated the rockfall problem there. And everything we're doing here, we did there."

Lytle Creek prepares

But in Lytle Creek, rain-induced rockslides are expected to continue unabated. Fire blackened hillsides encircle the town and there are no major flood-control facilities upstream of Lytle Creek's 800 homes and roughly 1,200 residents. The creek separates some residential areas from Lytle Creek Road, the only paved route out of the canyon.

It's a town where emergency preparedness is a way of life - at least, for long- time canyon residents.

"We have new people moving into the canyon all the time. When you tell them, 'Get a generator. Be prepared. Carry a (packed) suitcase,' they laugh. They say, 'You old-timers . . .'," 66-year-old Ramona Merrifield lamented, recalling previous fires and floods. "The thing about us old-timers: We have generators, and we stay. Some of the new people put their houses up for sale after something like this."

Ryne Hoeppner, 42, isn't leaving Lytle Creek. Sitting at his dining room table - 20 feet from the creek bed - he flipped through photos of the 1969 flood that he witnessed as a child.

"It was just a roaring river," Hoeppner said of the usually bucolic creek. "I'm guessing it was 300 feet wide. All you could hear were boulders crushing against each other as they rolled downstream. You'd see couches floating by, fences, all kinds of things," said Hoeppner, who was 8 years old back then. "After the floods, we walked into some of the homes and we could touch the ceilings because they were so full of mud."During the Grand Prix fire, Hoeppner stayed and battled the flames. But if flood waters approach, he plans to find high ground."My advice is: Sandbag now and hope for the best," he said.

Reach Richard Brooks at (909) 806-3057 or [email protected] Defenseless

The fire-blackened hillsides are dangerously vulnerable to heavy rain

09:31 AM PST on Thursday, December 4, 2003

By JENNIFER BOWLES / The Press-Enterprise Riverisde (CA) Press-Enterprise, Thursday, December 04, 2003

The waiting game is on.

Depending on Mother Nature, the October fires may take more victims: the Inland region's pristine drinking water and endangered species that depend on its sparkling quality.

While the drought-stricken region would normally welcome any rain that comes its way, one heavy storm could spell disaster.

"The impacts could be quite severe," said Richard Atwater, general manager of the Fontana-based Inland Empire Utilities Agency, which serves 700,000 people in west San Bernardino County.

A strong storm that falls on the 40-mile swath of blackened foothills could carry ash, debris and heavy minerals into mountain-fed streams used for drinking water by 5 million people in San Bernardino, Riverside and Orange counties.

The debris that falls into the waterways could also take its toll on native wildlife, clogging the gills of two rare fish - the speckled dace and arroyo chub - and clouding creeks harboring the mountain yellow-legged frogs and southwest arroyo toads, both federally endangered species.

Sediments could travel more than 20 miles downstream in the Santa Ana River, covering the gravelly river bottom needed by the Santa Ana sucker, a threatened fish that eats algae clinging to rocks, said Dick Zembal, natural resources director for the Orange County Water District.

In an emergency move after the wildfires, biologists plucked yellow-legged frogs from City Creek for safekeeping at Los Angeles Zoo aquariums. The rest were left in the creek to weather the rainy season should the rescued amphibians not survive. So far, they are doing fine, zoo curator Michael Dee said in a telephone interview.

Besides the harmful debris, a storm that drops an inch of rain in two hours would be enough to pummel the species' habitat beyond repair and actually kill them. Most of them live in Lytle, Plunge and City creeks, which were all heavily damaged by the fires.

"It could blow them plum out of the creek," said Steve Loe, a San Bernardino National Forest biologist. "We just have to hope and pray we have gentle rains."

Regional water officials are also hoping for consistent, light rains that would bring minimal damage to the streams, allow the water to percolate into groundwater basins, and help plants regrow on the charred hillsides. While weather forecasters have called for a drier and warmer winter than normal, water officials say the risk will continue over the next three to five years.

A report compiled by the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority estimated it could cost $446 million over several years to unclog percolating ponds that allow stream water to be stored in underground basins, buy additional imported supplies and build plants to treat the additional mineral load.

Stan Lim / The Press-Enterprise Water from Lytle Creek flows downstream near hills that were charred by the devastating October wildfires. Experts worry that one heavy storm could spell disaster for such Inland streams by clouding water with debris and imperiling the lives of the creatures living within their waters.

Some water may be so cloudy it will have to be turned away and washed down the Santa Ana River to the ocean.

In all, 19 billion gallons of local water, prized for its purity and less costly than water imported from sources along the Colorado River and in Northern California, could be lost, said Joe Grindstaff, general manager of the authority, which represents the five major water districts in the watershed.

"We are going to find ways to get enough drinking water and make sure that it's clean," Grindstaff said. "It's likely to cost more than it would normally."

With the possibility of a heavy rain in the next couple months, helicopters last week dropped hay on the charred slopes around Lake Silverwood, a reservoir of Northern California water for 12 million Southern Californians. But little can be done to help the natural network of creeks in the mountains that feed underground basins in the Inland valleys and the Santa Ana River as it flows through from the mountains to the ocean.

The canyons and hillsides are so steep, officials say, that mulching treatments can't be done.

"There's really not much you can do but wait for them to recover," Grindstaff said.

In the narrow canyon that winds up Lytle Creek, the hills that slope into the creek are studded with the burnt and twisted limbs of manzanitas and other shrubs. For now, the creek is cold, gushing and clear. But even the recent light rains washed so much soot and ash into the waterway that a water agency had to turn away the debris-filled water from its treatment plant."It was almost like a slimy goo," said Anthony Araiza, general manager of Rialto-based West Valley Water District, which serves 52,000 people in central San Bernardino valley.

"It just messed everything up," Araisa said. "We've spent a week cleaning that out."

With the drought and perchlorate contamination already limiting groundwater supplies and prompting a water emergency in Rialto, the fire-scarred watershed adds insult to injury.

"It's just something else we have to deal with," Araiza said.

Reach Jennifer Bowles at 909-368-9548 or [email protected]

For Immediate Release Contact: Brian Kennedy or Nicol Andrews (202) 226-9019

Resources Field Hearing Will Study California Wildfire Recovery, Environmental Restoration "Catastrophic wildfire is one of the single greatest threats to our environment today," -- Chairman Richard W. Pombo

WASHINGTON (December 3) - Just two days after President Bush signed the Healthy Forests Restoration Act into law, House Resources Committee Chairman Richard W. Pombo (R-CA) will lead the first congressional field investigation of the widespread destruction caused by massive wildfires that consumed California in October.

The wildfires in Southern California burned over 739,000 total acres of National Forest, California State Forest, Tribal land, and private land. Alarmingly, 26 people lost their lives as a result of the fires and 3,631 homes were destroyed. There was a total loss of 4,676 structures of which 3,631 were homes, 36 were commercial structures, and 1,169 were outbuildings. Almost one third of the burned acreage, 238,680 acres, was on National Forest lands. Five large fires, the Paradise, Padua, Old, Grand Prix and Cedar fires were located on the Angeles, San Bernardino, Los Padres and Cleveland National Forests. The Forest Service has spent over $80 million to suppress these fires.

Additionally, 10 tribes in Southern California were adversely impacted by the wildfires. The San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians lost 67 of 68 homes. On the San Manuel reservation, 98 percent of the vegetation was destroyed.

***For a background briefing paper on the California fires and their aftermath, including air and water quality and rehabilitation efforts, click here.***

WHAT: Field Hearing: "Recovering from the Fires: Restoring and Protecting Communities Water, Wildlife and Forests in California"

WHEN: 11:00 a.m. on Friday, December 5, 2003

WHERE: Lake Arrowhead Resort Ballroom 27984 Highway 189 Lake Arrowhead, CA

WHO: House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo (R-CA) Rep. George Radanovich (R-CA) Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) Rep. Mary Bono (R-CA) Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) Rep. Joe Baca (D-CA) Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA)

WITNESSES: Dale Bosworth, U.S. Forest Service Chief Mike Chrisman, California Resources Secretary Jack Blackwell, Regional Forester, Pacific SW Region Anne Kinsinger, USGS Regional Biologist, Western Region Chips Barry, Denver Water Board Director Peter Brierty, County of San Bernardino Fire Marshall Thomas Bonnicksen, Ph.D., Texas A&M University Department of Forest Science Anthony Pico, Viejas Tribal Chairman Scott Stephens, UC Berkeley Assistant Professor of Fire Science P. Joseph Grindstaff, General Manager, Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov