Maderas Agenda Report to City Council 11-19-2013 on CUP 90-13M(5)G`t j OF POLY 9Y
TyF C��glNv THEa'COJ����
City of Poway
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
INITIATED BY:
SUBJECT:
November 19, 2013
APPROVED
❑
APPROVED AS AMENDED
❑
(SEE MINUTES)
DENIED
❑
REMOVED
❑
CONTINUED
Resolution No.
Honorable Mayor and Members o.the City Council
Penny Riley, City Manag
Robert J. Manis, Director of Development Services,//� " W
Steve Crosby, City EngineerSe-
Jason Martin, Senior PlannerhYl�'
Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) 90- 13M(5); Maderas Country Club LLC, Applicant/
Owner: A request to modify a previously approved CUP for
the Maderas Golf Club located at 17750 Old Coach Road, in
the Planned Community (PC) zone
Summary:
Maderas Country Club LLC, owner and operator of the existing Maderas Golf Club
( Maderas), is proposing modifications to the project's previously approved Conditional
Use Permit (CUP). The CUP has a number of requirements applicable to groundwater
production, including an existing 280 acre -feet annual limit on groundwater production
(the "cap "). The proposed modifications are based on over 12 years of monitoring data,
multiple aquifer tests, biological assessments, and groundwater mapping that has been
conducted by Maderas.
The City has engaged the services of an independent, third party consultant to review
information on the project and the proposed modifications to the CUP. The City's
consultant generally concurs with the conclusions of the Maderas consultant. However,
as a result of the consultant and City staff review, some of the CUP modifications
recommended are different from those proposed by Maderas. Staff - proposed
modifications include: 1) a reduction in the 280 acre -foot, annual cap to 173 acre -feet,
which is the historic ten -year average of actual groundwater production; 2) a
requirement that any new well established at Maderas for the purpose of groundwater
production be authorized through a modification of the CUP to be acted on by the City
Council at a Public Hearing; and 3) retaining existing CUP requirements as they relate
to the Lower Sycamore Creek neighborhood.
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Find the City Council has considered the Addendum to the Mitigated
Negative Declaration (AMND) included as Attachment I, with the original
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) included as Attachment K, and the
conditions of approval contained in Attachment A; and
1 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Maderas CUP Modification
November 19, 2013
Page 2
2. Find that the AMND supports the conclusion that only minor technical
changes/ additions are necessary and that none of the conditions
described in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines
§15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) have occurred; and
3. Adopt the proposed AMND; and
4. Approve the Resolution included as Attachment A, which contains
CUP 90- 13M(5) and the associated conditions of approval.
Background:
The Maderas project background is lengthy. A detailed chronology of the project history
and information related to groundwater use is included as Attachment B. A brief
summary is provided here. Maderas was originally approved under CUP 90 -13 in
conjunction with a 156 -lot, residential project known then as the Old Coach Golf Estates
pursuant to Resolution No. P- 90 -91. Maderas and the residential project were
constructed in the 1990s. Subsequent to construction of the golf course, Maderas
began to use groundwater without proper City approvals. In November 1999, a
Settlement Agreement was reached to resolve disputes regarding groundwater use.
The Settlement Agreement included a temporary authorization for use of groundwater in
specified amounts and subject to specified requirements contained in the agreement.
In August 2000, the City Council approved the ongoing use of groundwater under
CUP 90- 13M(2) pursuant to Resolution No. P -00 -65 and subject to a number of
requirements intended to .protect other wells and riparian habitat health. These include
requirements for groundwater level monitoring at the Old Coach Estates Test Well
( OCETW), the Lower Sycamore Creek Test Well (LSCTW), both of which are off the
project site, and monitoring shallow alluvial wells; reporting to the City; and groundwater
production shutdowns when water levels decrease to certain levels. The requirements
are outlined in more detail later in this report.
In August 2009, the water level in the OCETW declined to below 180 feet below ground
surface (bgs), which per the CUP, required groundwater production to be shut down.
The City curtailed groundwater production (i.e., select wells were shut down) while
additional evaluation was conducted and Maderas processed their request to modify the
CUP. In August 2011, all groundwater production was shut down in response to
resident concerns and because of the lengthy amount of time the CUP modification
process was taking. Also, complete shutdown was required because the water level in
the OCETW did not recover to 140 bgs after multiple, selected wells had been shut
down. Since the water level in OCETW continues to be less than 180 feet bgs, all
groundwater production at Maderas remains shut down.
In October 2009, Maderas submitted a proposal to modify the requirements of the
existing CUP based on information prepared by their hydrogeologist and biologist,
which concludes that groundwater production at Maderas does not affect groundwater
2 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Maderas CUP Modification
November 19, 2013
Page 3
in the Old Coach Estates (OCE) neighborhood or riparian health in the area. The
proposed modifications generally involve replacement of the Operational Plan and
Wetland & Riparian Habitat Monitoring Program approved under CUP 90- 13M(2),
including changes to when monitoring and reporting is required. Since the proposal
was submitted, City staff has been working with the City's hydrogeologist consultant and
Maderas to clarify and refine their proposal. In May 2012, some residents that live near
Maderas submitted a report, prepared by a professor at San Diego State University, that
alleged to "...document the issues of groundwater sustainability in general and the
sustainability of Thompson Creek aquifer... ". In October 2012, the City engaged the
services of an independent third party consultant team (consisting of a hydrogeologist,
biologist, and environmental specialist) to evaluate information that is available on the
project, including the Maderas proposal to modify the CUP.
Facts:
Maderas is located in north Poway, off Old Coach Road, in the Planned Community
(PC) zone as shown on Attachment C. Topographically, the area consists of mild to
moderately steep hillsides bisected by Sycamore and Thompson Creeks. An aerial
of the site, the creeks, and the surroundings is included as Attachment D. This exhibit
also shows the location of all existing Maderas wells (i.e., groundwater production wells
and monitoring wells) and. well names and /or numbers. The project site is 172 acres,
with approximately 88 acres that is irrigated. The site is surrounded by developed
single - family residential uses and. undeveloped open space areas. Immediately
adjacent to the site in the north and northeast are neighborhoods that were established
pursuant to the Old Coach Golf Estates project and are now known as the Heritage
neighborhoods. The Heritage neighborhoods are served by the public water system.
Beyond the Heritage neighborhoods to the east is the OCE neighborhood. The majority
of the OCE neighborhood is served by the public water system, which was brought to
the area with participation from the Old Coach Golf Estates project and with a resident -
funded assessment district. However, some properties in the OCE neighborhood
remain entirely reliant on wells for water supply. To the west is the Lower Sycamore
Creek (LSC) neighborhood. All of the LSC neighborhood is entirely reliant on wells for
water supply.
Existing CUP Requirements
The existing CUP requirements relative to groundwater use are contained in City
Council Resolution No. P -00 -65 (Section 3, Operational Plan and Wetland & Riparian
Habitat Monitoring Program) included as Attachment E. Basically, the existing CUP
requires reporting to the City on groundwater production, and the monitoring of
groundwater levels at certain groundwater production wells and at monitoring wells.
The CUP identifies water levels at the LSCTW and the OCETW that must be
maintained, and if they are not maintained, all groundwater production at Maderas is to
be shut down. The CUP also required monitoring of groundwater levels in riparian
areas and riparian health for a certain period of time. The existing CUP requirements
are outlined in more detail in the table included as Attachment F, which also outlines the
Maderas proposal along with staff - recommended changes. The existing CUP will
3 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Maderas CUP Modification
November 19, 2013
Page 4
remain in effect for all components that are not changed by this CUP modification. The
proposed Resolution for the CUP modification (Attachment A) specifies which existing
CUP requirements will be omitted and specifies the new CUP requirements.
Maderas' Proposal
The Maderas proposal to modify their CUP requirements has changed multiple times
since its original submittal to the City in 2009. Some changes have been made to clarify
and refine the proposal, and others have been made in response to input and data from
the City and its consultants. Maderas continues to acknowledge that there appears to
be a connection between their groundwater production activity and groundwater levels
in the LSC neighborhood. Accordingly, their proposal maintains the protections in the
CUP for provision of water for the LSC neighborhood.
Data and other information that is available suggests that Maderas groundwater
production activity does not affect groundwater levels in the OCE neighborhood or
riparian health in the area. Accordingly, Maderas is proposing that monitoring at
OCETW be discontinued, and is not proposing ongoing riparian health monitoring.
The Maderas proposal, which was the subject of the environmental review that was
conducted, is contained within the document titled the Maderas Golf Club Groundwater
Production and Monitoring Plan 2013 (Attachment G). This proposal includes
monitoring and reporting to substitute existing CUP monitoring and reporting
requirements. It is important to note that staff is recommending certain changes, which
are discussed in detail later in this report and also outlined in Attachment F.
Independent Third Party Consultant
The Maderas proposal is based on over 12 °years of monitoring data, multiple aquifer
tests, biological assessments, and groundwater mapping that has been conducted by
their hydrogeologist, SCS Engineers. Maderas and their hydrogeologist believe that
this information supports approval of their proposal. As discussed above, in May 2012
residents that live in the OCE neighborhood submitted a report prepared by a professor
at San Diego State University that alleged to "...document the issues of groundwater
sustainability in general and the sustainability of Thompson Creek aquifer... ". The
report is included as Attachment H. In October 2012, the City engaged the services of
an independent third party consultant from the firm of Dudek. The Dudek team consists
of a hydrogeologist, biologist, and environmental specialist, and they have evaluated
information that is available on the project, including the Maderas proposal. Dudek was
also contracted to advise the City on the appropriate environmental review procedure
discussed later in this report.
The evaluation is included in the Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological
Resource Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club (i.e., the Dudek Report).
The Dudek Report is included as Appendix A to the proposed AMND, which is included
as Attachment I, and has been made available to the public. The following is a
summary of the major concepts and findings contained in the Dudek Report:
4 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Maderas CUP Modification
November 19, 2013
Page 5
• There are two types of groundwater aquifers in the area. There is a deep,
"fractured rock" aquifer that is the source of groundwater for Maderas and other
wells in the area; and a shallow, "alluvial" aquifer that is the source of
groundwater that supports riparian habitats. Based on the information that is
available, there does not appear to be a hydraulic connection between these two
aquifers.
• Based on a review of information available on alluvial well monitoring, which was
conducted both on and offsite, Maderas groundwater production does not appear
to affect groundwater levels in the alluvial aquifer.
• Based on a review of information available on riparian health assessments that
have been conducted over the past 12 years both on and offsite, riparian health
in the area is good.
• A review of historic water level monitoring data, aquifer tests that have been
done, and structural geology in the area indicates there does not appear to
be a hydraulic connection between Maderas and the OCE neighborhood.
Maderas is located within the Sycamore Creek watershed and the OCE
neighborhood is located within the Thompson Creek watershed. This includes
an observation that groundwater levels in OCE neighborhood wells continue to
decline despite the Maderas groundwater production shutdown in August 2011.
• An aquifer test has not been conducted for Maderas Well 6, which is the closest
to the OCE neighborhood. Before groundwater production from Well 6 can
resume, an aquifer test shall be conducted to confirm there is no hydraulic
connection to the OCE neighborhood.
June Neighborhood Meeting and Resident Concerns
A Neighborhood Meeting was held on June 5, 2013, to discuss the Maderas proposal
and the Dudek Report. There were twenty -five attendees other than City staff, Maderas
representatives, and the consultants. Some attendees indicated they did not agree with
the findings of the report and expressed concerns that Maderas groundwater production
was adversely affecting wells in the area other than just in the LSC neighborhood and
riparian health in the area. A major discussion topic was the long -term sustainability of
groundwater production at Maderas and that this had not been studied. Long -term
sustainability and the other main topics of concern are summarized below.
Old Coach Estates (OCE) Neighborhood
At the meeting, residents from the OCE neighborhood expressed concerns that the
groundwater levels in their neighborhood were declining. It was explained by SCS and
Dudek hydrogeologists that Maderas groundwater production does not influence the
water levels at the OCE neighborhood wells. This conclusion is based on the following:
A pump test has been conducted and demonstrates that Maderas groundwater
production did not influence the water level at the OCETW. The test, which was
done in early March 2010 by SCS Engineers, was conducted for ten days at
Maderas Wells 8, 9, and 10. The test results are included in the Aquifer Test
5 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Maderas CUP Modification
November 19, 2013
Page 6
Report dated April 16, 2010, where the SCS hydrogeologist concludes that there
was no indication that groundwater production at Maderas Wells 8, 9 or 10
affects the OCETW, and that there is no confirmed hydraulic connectivity
between OCETW and the Maderas groundwater production wells. In April 2013,
the City's third party consultant reviewed the results of the aquifer testing and
agreed with the conclusion that there is no hydraulic connection between
Maderas Wells 8, 9, and 10 and OCETW because no drawdown was observed
at OCETW during this test.
• In August 2011, when Maderas groundwater production was shut down, the
water levels at the golf course wells and LSCTW increased (i.e., recovered),
but water levels at the OCE resident wells, belonging to Myers, Vaplon, Gill, and
Bridgewater, continued to decline. If the Myers, Vaplon, Gill, and Bridgewater
wells were in hydraulic connection with the Maderas wells and were influenced
by groundwater production at Maderas, then water levels at these wells would
have experienced some recovery as was observed at LSCTW once Maderas
stopped pumping. That no recovery was observed at the OCE wells indicates
that there is no hydraulic connection between the Maderas wells and the Myers,
Vaplon, Gill, and Bridgewater wells.
• Groundwater levels in the OCE neighborhood continue to decline since the
Maderas groundwater production shutdown in August 2011.
As explained earlier in this report groundwater production at Maderas. Well 6, which is
the closest well to the OCE neighborhood, will not occur, until an aquifer test is
conducted to confirm that it does not affect the OCE neighborhood. This stipulation is
included in the CUP conditions of approval.
The City understands that groundwater levels in the Old Coach area have been
declining for several years. The City does not have conclusive answers on why
groundwater levels in the Old Coach area are declining. It is possible that the decline
in the groundwater levels in the OCE neighborhood may be the- result of seasonal
fluctuations and lower than average rainfall and /or other influences outside of Maderas,
such as nearby agricultural uses to the south of the OCE neighborhood that utilize
groundwater.
Riparian Habitat and Sycamore Creek
Concerns have been raised about riparian habitat health in the area. Riparian habitat
is naturally occurring vegetation that generally is located along streams and creeks.
Riparian habitat relies on rain, surface water flow (when present), and primarily on
the groundwater that is stored beneath the streams and creeks in a shallow alluvial
aquifer. Sycamore Creek, and the smaller tributary Thompson Creek, bisect the
area. Thompson Creek generally flows in a southwest direction through the OCE
neighborhood, then along the southern boundary of Maderas where it then merges
with Sycamore Creek. The OCE neighborhood is upstream from. Maderas. Sycamore
Creek generally flows in a westerly direction through the Blue Sky Ecological Reserve,
6 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Maderas CUP Modification
November 19, 2013
Page 7
then generally in a northwest direction to and along the southwest boundary of
Maderas. Sycamore Creek then flows through the LSC neighborhood and on to the
San Dieguito River Park. The Blue Sky Ecological Reserve is upstream from Maderas.
The LSC neighborhood and portions of the San Dieguito River Park are downstream
from Maderas (Attachment D).
As required in the 2000 CUP approval, which allowed the use of groundwater, in 2001
Maderas began regular riparian health monitoring and reporting to the City. In 2005,
after multiple reports' indicating good riparian health, regular monitoring and reporting
was discontinued. Since that time, periodic monitoring and reporting has been
conducted, most recently in November 2012 and in October 2013.2 The November
2012 and October 2013 reports confirms that, despite the damage to natural habitat
resulting from the 2007 Witch Creek Fire, riparian habitat health in the area is good. All
reports on riparian health have been made available to the public.
As part of Dudek's review, their biologist assessed the reports on riparian health and
confirmed their adequacy. Additionally, the Dudek hydrogeologist has explained that
Maderas groundwater production does not affect riparian health because riparian
habitat relies primarily on the shallow alluvial aquifer for water supply rather than the
deep fractured rock aquifer where Maderas obtains its groundwater. Safeguard
provisions are also included in the CUP for riparian health monitoring. Additionally,
the CUP conditions of approval maintain the original CUP requirement for a
Compensation Mitigation Plan, which would involve habitat restoration and monitoring to
ensure success of the restoration, if there are unanticipated riparian habitat impacts
caused by Maderas.
Sustainability
Meeting attendees had questions about the long -term sustainability of groundwater
production at Maderas. The matter was initially analyzed in August 2000, when the City
Council approved the CUP modification that authorized ongoing groundwater
production. In conjunction with the 2000 CUP approval, the City considered the findings
of the 2000 Hydrologic Study of the Sycamore Creek Basin prepared by Don Howard
Engineers.3 This is discussed in the August 2000 Agenda Report. In the Study and the
Agenda Report it is indicated that the long -term average quantity of groundwater
available for Maderas is 323 acre -feet. The City determined in August 2000, as part of
its review and approval of the CUP modification, that a lesser amount (i.e., 280 acre -
feet) would be appropriate for the annual groundwater production cap.
1 Available at: http: / /www.poway.org/ Modules /ShowDocument.aspx ?documentid =2801 and
http: / /www.poway.org/ Modules /ShowDocument.aspx ?documentid =2799
2 Available online at: http: / /www.poway.org/ Modules /ShowDocument.aspx ?documentid =2803 and
http://www.poway.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2805
3 Available at: http: / /www.poway.org/ Modules /ShowDocument.aspx ?documentid =2789
7 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Maderas CUP Modification
November 19, 2013
Page 8
In response to continued questions and concerns on this matter, SCS Engineers have
conducted an analysis. The analysis and findings are contained in the 2013 report
entitled Sustainability of Groundwater Withdrawal at Maderas (i.e., the Sustainability
Report), which is included as Appendix B of the AMND (Attachment 1), and has been
made available to the public. The Sustainability Report examines Maderas groundwater
production, rainfall quantities, and the water levels in the LSCTW over the last 13 years.
The SCS and Dudek hydrogeologists concur that the groundwater level at LSCTW is
considered to be representative of the change in groundwater storage in the fractured
rock in the Sycamore Creek watershed. This is because the LSCTW is located within
the primary drainage of the Sycamore Creek watershed and it is downstream in the
watershed and would reflect potential impacts from groundwater production at Maderas.
In response to broadening the area of study, the hydrogeologists concur that the effect
of groundwater production diminishes with distance from the production source, so the
effect of groundwater production at Maderas will be less at distances greater than the
distance between Maderas and LSCTW.
The 2013 Sustainability Report identifies 173 acre -feet as the annual average for
Maderas groundwater production over the past ten years (i.e., not including the last two
years when groundwater production has been shut down) and concludes this level of
historic groundwater production has been sustainable. The Sustainability Report does
not, however, make any conclusion regarding groundwater production above 173 acre -
feet per year. Dudek has reviewed the Sustainability Report and concurs with the report
methodology and conclusions. The matter of potential groundwater production beyond
the historic average is discussed later in this report. Public comments received on the
Sustainability Report are addressed in the Environmental Review section of this report.
Lower Sycamore Creek (LSC) Neighborhood
As explained previously, it has been determined that groundwater production in
the Western Well Zone at Maderas influences groundwater levels in the LSC
neighborhood, which is west and down gradient of Maderas. The area is comprised
of three developed. residential properties, two previously - developed properties that lost
homes in the Witch Creek Fire and have not been rebuilt, and multiple properties owned
by the San Dieguito River Valley Regional Open Space Park, including one that is
occupied by their office. Provisions to protect properties in this area are included in
the existing CUP, and modified provisions are included in the Maderas proposal. The
initially proposed modified provisions are specified in the Western Well Zone section
of the Maderas proposal (beginning on Page 4 of Attachment G). As a result of
subsequent discussions with residential property owners after the initial submittal,
Maderas is proposing that the Western Well Zone section of their proposal be updated.
The updated Western Well Zone section as proposed by Maderas is included as
Attachment J. The residential property owners in the area have indicated cautioned
support of the updated provisions. San Dieguito River Park staff have indicated their
preference that the current provisions be maintained.
8 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Maderas CUP Modification
November 19, 2013
Page 9
October Neighborhood Meeting
A follow -up Neighborhood Meeting was held on October 2, 2013, primarily to discuss
the Sustainability Report. Approximately 20 individuals other than staff, Maderas
representatives, and consultants attended. Some attendees continued to express
concerns that Maderas groundwater production was affecting the OCE area. As
discussed earlier in this report the SCS and Dudek hydrogeologists concur that
Maderas groundwater production does not influence water levels at the OCE
neighborhood wells.
Other attendees expressed concerns about the use of the LSCTW as a measure of the
influence of Maderas groundwater production activity on the area. The hydrogeologists
concur that the groundwater level at LSCTW is considered to be representative of the
change in groundwater storage in the fractured rock aquifer in the Sycamore Creek
watershed. This is because the LSCTW is located within the primary drainage of the
Sycamore Creek watershed and it is downstream in the watershed and would reflect
potential impacts by groundwater production at Maderas. In response to broadening
the area of study, the hydrogeologists concur that the effect of groundwater production
diminishes with distance from a production source, so the effect of groundwater
production at Maderas, if any, will be less at distances greater than the distance
between Maderas and LSCTW.
It was suggested that other information should be available to analyze sustainability,
such as seepage from nearby dams, other sources for groundwater recharge, use by
other wells in the vicinity, and recharge rates for the aquifer. The Sustainability Report
is based on data obtained over the past 13 years. According to the SCS and Dudek
hydrogeologists, this is adequate to determine that groundwater production at the
historic levels (i.e., 173 acre -feet) is sustainable. In the future, if Maderas wants to
increase groundwater production above 173 acre -feet per year, they would have to
conduct a comprehensive, multi -year study that would consider the aforementioned
information.
Recommended Changes /Supplements to the Maderas Proposal
As a result of the Neighborhood Meetings, submitted correspondence, and discussions
with Dudek, staff believes changes and /or supplements should be made to the Maderas
proposal (Attachment G). The substantive changes and /or supplements are briefly
outlined below. Maderas is in concurrence with staff on some of the recommendations
and is not in concurrence on others, which are highlighted in bold.
Lower Sycamore Creek Safeguards
Provisions to protect properties in the LSC area are included in the existing CUP, and
modified provisions are included in the Maderas proposal. Given that there is a known
hydraulic connection between Maderas and this area, that some residential property
owners have cautioned support for the proposed changes, and others have indicated a
preference to maintain existing requirements, staff is recommending the existing CUP
requirements be maintained. Maderas is not in concurrence.
9 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Maderas CUP Modification
November 19, 2013
Page 10
Maximum Allowable Annual Groundwater Production
The Environmental Initial Study (EIS) completed in conjunction with CUP 90- 13M(2)
in 2000 identified 280 acre -feet per year as the maximum allowable amount of
groundwater production (i.e., the "cap ") at Maderas. As discussed earlier, the
Sustainability Report prepared for the project identifies 173 acre -feet as the historic
annual average for Maderas groundwater production and concludes this amount of
groundwater production has been sustainable. Dudek concurs with this conclusion.
However, Dudek and City staff do not believe the Sustainability Report has determined
whether or not groundwater production beyond the historic annual average of 173 acre -
feet is sustainable. Accordingly, staff is recommending that the current annual
groundwater production cap authorized by the CUP (280 acre -feet) be reduced to 173
acre -feet. This is included in the CUP conditions of approval. Maderas has agreed to
accept the reduced cap.
Maderas has indicated their intent in the future to conduct the additional analysis that
will be necessary in order to determine if more than 173 acre -feet a year is sustainable.
Maderas has also requested that any increase above 173 acre -feet, which would be
supported by the analysis, be approved through an administrative process. Staff is
recommending that any increase above the 173 acre -feet cap require a CUP
modification to be acted upon by the City Council at a future Public Hearing. Maderas
is not in concurrence.
Monthly Production Reports
The current CUP requires Maderas to submit monthly reports to the City on the amount
of groundwater production. The Maderas request for the CUP modification does not
include the submittal of monthly production reports to the City. Staff needs to know on a
monthly basis the amount of groundwater production in order to verify compliance with
the 173 acre -feet cap. This is included in the CUP conditions of approval. Maderas has
agreed to accept the requirement.
New Wells
The current CUP limits annual groundwater production, but does not address a process
to establish new wells. In the past, Maderas has established new wells without
modifying the CUP. Maderas wants to maintain the ability to establish new wells
for groundwater production in accordance with the provision of their proposed Plan,
which are incorporated in the CUP conditions of approval, without the need to modify
the CUP. It is important to note that establishing new wells does not mean that the
amount of groundwater production authorized under the CUP may be increased.
Staff is recommending that any new well established for groundwater production require
a CUP modification to be acted upon by the City Council at a future Public Hearing.
The request for a CUP modification to add a new groundwater production well shall
be accompanied by the results of an aquifer test which has been conducted pursuant to
the specifications in the Maderas proposal. Before establishing a new well for the
purpose of conducting the aquifer test, Maderas is required to notify the City. The new
well will be established solely for the purpose of conducting the aquifer test and cannot
10 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Maderas CUP Modification
November 19, 2013
Page 11
be used for groundwater production without approval of the CUP modification.
Subsequent to the aquifer test and the submittal of the CUP modification request, the
matter will be scheduled for City Council consideration at a Public Hearing. Maderas
is not in concurrence.
Attachment F is a table that summarizes the existing requirements, along with
information from the Maderas proposal and with the staff - recommended changes. The
monitoring and reporting specified in the proposed Plan, along with the staff -
recommended changes, are incorporated into the proposed Resolution as conditions of
approval. The staff - recommended changes do not result in any new or increased
environmental impacts in comparison to the amendments described in the AMND.
Fiscal Impact:
No impact. All consultant costs associated with the proposed CUP modification are
being paid by Maderas. Future consultant costs will be paid by Maderas.
Environmental .Review and Correspondence:
On August 29, 2000, in conjunction with approval of CUP 90- 13M(2), the City Council
approved a MND. The MND concluded that with mitigation the project would result in
a less than significant impact on the environment. The MND, and the EIS done
at the time, is included as Attachment K. As mitigation, the MND required
implementation of a Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP), which is included as
Exhibit A to Resolution No. P -00 -65 (Attachment E). The MMP required that monitoring
be established for biology and groundwater use. The specifics of the required
monitoring pursuant to the MMP were incorporated in the conditions of approval for the
CUP. No change is proposed to the MMP. Accordingly, pursuant to the CEQA, an
Addendum to the MND (AMND) is proposed.
Although not required by CEQA,. notice of the availability of the proposed AMND was
given to the public for a period of 20 days. The proposed AMND, which includes the
Dudek Report as Appendix A and the SCS Sustainability Report as Appendix B, is
included as Attachment I. This information has been available to the public.
As a result of the public review on the project and its associated documents, the
City received correspondence, both in support of and opposed to the project.
Correspondence is included as Attachment L, and is ordered and numbered by the
date received. In some cases the same interested party has submitted multiple
pieces of correspondence. Concerns are summarized with a staff response provided.
Responses are not provided to correspondence in support of the project.
Correspondence 1 (Sawzak)
Comment 1.a - The correspondence suggests that groundwater production at Maderas
is adversely impacting groundwater in the OCE neighborhood, and that there is not
adequate information to support the Maderas proposal.
11 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Maderas CUP Modification
November 19, 2013
Page 12
Response 1.a — As indicated in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality of the AMND
(see page 33 -35 of Attachment 1), according to the SCS hydrogeologist and the Dudek
hydrogeologist, Maderas groundwater production does not influence the water levels at
the OCE neighborhood wells. This conclusion is based on the following:
• A pump test has been conducted and demonstrates that Maderas groundwater
production did not influence the water level at the OCETW. The test, which was
done in early March 2010 by SCS Engineers, was conducted for ten days at
Maderas Wells 8, 9, and 10. The test results are included in the Aquifer Test
Report dated April 16, 2010, where the SCS hydrogeologist concludes that there
was no indication that groundwater production at Maderas Wells 8, 9, or 10
affects the OCETW, and that there is no confirmed hydraulic connectivity
between OCETW and the Maderas production wells. In April 2013, the City's
third party consultant reviewed the results of the aquifer testing and agreed with
the conclusion that there is no hydraulic connection between Maderas Wells 8,
9, and 10 and OCETW because no drawdown was observed at OCETW during
this test.
• In August 2011, when Maderas groundwater production was shut down, the
water levels at the golf course wells and LSCTW increased (i.e., recovered),
but water levels at the OCE resident wells belonging to Myers, Vaplon, Gill, and
Bridgewater continued to decline. If the Myers, Vaplon, Gill, and Bridgewater
wells were in hydraulic connection with the Maderas wells and were influenced
by pumping at Maderas, then water levels at these wells would have
experienced some recovery as was observed at LSCTW once Maderas stopped
pumping. That no recovery was observed at the OCE wells indicates that there
is no hydraulic connection between the Maderas wells and the Myers, Vaplon,
Gill, and Bridgewater wells.
• Groundwater levels in the OCE neighborhood continue to decline since the
Maderas groundwater production shutdown in August 2011.
As explained earlier in this report, groundwater production at Maderas Well 6, which is
the closest well to the OCE neighborhood, will not occur until an aquifer test is
conducted to confirm that it does not influence water levels in the OCE neighborhood.
This stipulation is included in the CUP conditions of approval. The City understands
that groundwater levels in the Old Coach area have been declining for several years.
Comment 1.b - In the correspondence it is questioned why Maderas was allowed to
establish additional wells without notifying nearby properties.
Response 1.b — The existing CUP limits the overall amount of annual groundwater
production, requires reporting and monitoring, and requires groundwater production to
be shut down under certain conditions as explained earlier in this report. The existing
CUP does not, however, have a limitation on the number of wells at the Maderas site
and does not have a requirement for providing notice when new wells are established.
12 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Maderas CUP Modification
November 19, 2013
Page 13
Permits for wells are issued by the San Diego County Department of Environmental
Health and do not involve City review or input. Chapter 8.56 of the Poway Municipal
Code (PMC) delegates this authority to the County. As discussed earlier in this report,
staff is recommending a condition of approval in the CUP that a modification to the CUP
be required for any new well that is to be used for groundwater production.
Additionally, the Maderas proposal includes requirements for 1) an aquifer test for any
new well to evaluate potential impacts on other wells and riparian habitat in the area
and 2) other specific monitoring.
Correspondence 2 ( Barkin)
There are three pieces of correspondence from Mr. Barkin, who is a resident of the LSC
neighborhood, regarding the provisions in the Maderas proposal as they pertain to the
LSC neighborhood.
Comment 2.a - The correspondence suggests modified language relating to protections
to the LSC neighborhood.
Response 2.b - Changes have been made to the language which has received the
cautioned support of Mr. Barkin. However, given that there is a known hydraulic
connection between Maderas and this area, that some residential property owners have
cautioned support for the proposed changes, and others have indicated a preference to
maintain existing requirements, staff is recommending the existing requirements be
maintained.
Correspondence 3 (Carter)
Comment 3.a - The correspondence suggests that groundwater production at Maderas
is adversely impacting groundwater in the OCE neighborhood.
Response 3.a - See Response 1.a above.
Comment 3.b - Other comments, not. specifically related to the project, pertain more to
City requirements and the associated costs and fees for connection to the public water
system that is in the vicinity of the Carter property.
Response 3.b - Staff contacted the resident to explain City requirements and the
process for connecting to the public water system. It is important to note that water
lines exist in the area and provide water supply for many properties. The resident was
given contact information for an Engineering Division staff member that could advise
them further in any effort to connect to the public water system.
Correspondence 4 (Kiang)
This correspondence, which is comprised of several pieces, was on behalf of the Blue
Sky Ecological Reserve (Blue Sky).
Comment 4.a — The correspondence suggests that groundwater production at Maderas
is impacting riparian habitat in the area, including Blue Sky.
13 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Maderas CUP Modification
November 19, 2013
Page 14
Response 4.a - In 2001, Maderas began regular riparian health monitoring and
reporting to the City. In 2005, after multiple reports indicating good riparian health,
regular monitoring and reporting was discontinued. Since that time, periodic monitoring
and reporting has been conducted, most recently in November 2012 and October 2013.
The REC Consultants' November 2012 report Maderas Golf Club Riparian Hydrology
Report, Upstream Monitoring Locations — Blue Sky Ecological Reserve and Old Coach
Way concludes that in both locations healthy riparian vegetation is present, as well as
both pooling water and /or high soil moisture within the riparian areas. In addition, the
report also concludes that there was no indication that riparian habitat health or
vegetative coverage has changed significantly since the monitoring observations
conducted between 2000 and 2004. The October 2013 report reinforces the
conclusions of the November 2012 report. All reports on riparian health have been
made available to the public. As part of Dudek's review, their biologist assessed the
reports on riparian health and confirmed their adequacy.
Additionally, the Dudek hydrogeologist has explained that Maderas groundwater
production does not influence the water level in the alluvium that supports the riparian
habitat. See Section 3.4, Biological Resources, of the AMND (page 26 of Attachment 1).
Safeguard provisions are in the CUP for riparian health monitoring if, at some point in
the future, the City believes it to. be necessary. Additionally, the CUP conditions of
approval maintain the original CUP requirement for a Compensation Mitigation Plan,
which would involve habitat restoration and monitoring to ensure success of the
restoration, if there are unanticipated riparian habitat impacts that are caused by
Maderas groundwater production.
Comment 4.b - The correspondence suggests that monitoring at a well located in the
Blue Sky continue.
Response 4.b - As indicated in 4.a above, regular monitoring, including the
groundwater level monitoring at the Blue Sky well and habitat health monitoring, was
discontinued under the existing CUP conditions because of reports indicating good
riparian health. Since it is no longer necessary or required, Maderas is not proposing to
resume monitoring of groundwater levels at the Blue Sky well, which is upstream from
Maderas. However, under the conditions of approval onsite alluvial well monitoring at
MW 2 and MW 4 will continue, and onsite habitat health monitoring could be required in
the future as determined by the City.
Comment 4.c - The correspondence suggests that groundwater production at Maderas
impacts groundwater levels in the OCE neighborhood.
Response 4.c - See Response 1.a above.
Comment 4.d - The correspondence questions the long -term sustainability of
groundwater production at Maderas.
14 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Maderas CUP Modification
November 19, 2013
Page 15
Response 4.d - In response to comments about the long -term sustainability of
groundwater production at Maderas, SCS Engineers have conducted an analysis. The
analysis and findings are contained in the September 2013 report entitled Sustainability
of Groundwater Withdrawal at Maderas (i.e., the Sustainability Report) which has been
made available to the public and is included as Appendix B to the proposed AMND.
The Sustainability Report examines groundwater production at Maderas, rainfall and
the water level measured at the LSCTW over the last 13 years. The Sustainability
Report identified 173 acre -feet as the annual average for Maderas groundwater
production over the past eleven years (not including the last two years when
groundwater production has been shut down) and concludes this groundwater
production has been sustainable. Dudek has reviewed the Sustainability Report, and
concurs with the report methodology and conclusion. The Sustainability Report did not
conclude that groundwater production at the rate of 280 acre -feet a year, which is
authorized under the existing CUP, was not sustainable, but that additional information
is needed to demonstrate that 280 acre -feet is sustainable. Accordingly, staff is
recommending that the 280 acre -feet cap be reduced to 173 acre -feet. This is included
in the CUP conditions of approval. Please also see Response 5.f for discussion of
existing water conservation measures.
Comment 4.e — The correspondence questions the reliability of past monitoring and
reporting to the City.
Response 4.e — The City Engineer is involved in the review and acceptance of reports
and other monitoring information submitted to the City, and where there have been
discrepancies in information, those have ultimately been reconciled to the satisfaction
of the City.
Comment 4.f — The correspondence suggests that the City and its consultant did not
consider the declining groundwater levels in the OCETW after the establishment of
Maderas Wells 8, 9, and 10.
Response 4.f — After the establishment of Maderas Wells 8, 9, and 10, the City became
aware of drops in the OCETW and in April 2009, the City had Maderas conduct an
aquifer test. The reason for the test was to determine if there was a hydraulic
connection between these wells and the OCETW. As indicated in Section 3.9,
Hydrology and Water Quality of the AMND (see pages 33 -35 of Attachment 1),
according to the SCS hydrogeologist and the Dudek hydrogeologist, Maderas
groundwater production does not influence the water levels at the OCE neighborhood
wells. During the test and for five days after the test, water levels in the OCETW rose.
A decline did not occur until after that. In a fractured rock aquifer, a response would
occur more immediately if there was a connection. In this case the noted decline did
not occur until five days later. Additionally, see Response 1.a above. It is important to
consider that the decline in the groundwater levels in the OCE neighborhood could be
the result of seasonal fluctuations and lower than average rainfall and /or other
influences outside of Maderas, such as other well users in the area.
15 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Maderas CUP Modification
November 19, 2013
Page 16
Comment 4.g — The correspondence suggests that Maderas only has access to 24
acre -feet of groundwater.
Response 4.g — In conjunction with the 2000 CUP approval, which authorized ongoing
groundwater production, the City considered the findings of the Hydrologic Study of the
Sycamore Creek Basin prepared by Don Howard Engineers. In the Study and the
Agenda Report on the 2000 CUP, it is indicated that the long -term average quantity of
groundwater available for Maderas is 323 acre -feet. The City determined in August
2000, as part of its review and approval of the CUP modification, that a lesser amount
(i.e., 280 acre -feet) would be appropriate for the annual groundwater production cap. In
the SCS Sustainability Report it is indicated that the historical groundwater production
at 173 acre -feet a year is sustainable.
It is believed that the 24 acre -feet indicated in this comment is based only on the
irrigated portion of the golf course. Sustainability is determined on a larger area, as
discussed in the 2013 Sustainability Report (Appendix B of Attachment 1).
Comment 4.h - The correspondence suggests that there is evidence that Maderas is
causing dried wells, dead trees, and disappearing natural springs in the Green Valley
Creek.
Response 4.h - It is assumed the author is referring to Thompson Creek, as Green
Valley Creek is located further south and is not connected to the creeks in the Maderas
area. Riparian habitat assessments, most recently in November 2012 and October
2013, have been prepared and indicate the riparian vegetation in the area is in good
health. Please see Sections 7.1.6 through 7.1.8 of the Dudek Report which addresses
this issue in greater detail and Response 4.a.
Correspondence 5 (P. Moore)
Comment 5.a - In the, correspondence it is indicated that sustainability and groundwater
recharge in the San Dieguito watershed needs to be evaluated.
Response 5.a - The San Dieguito watershed is a broad drainage area of approximately
346 square miles in west - central San Diego County. The watershed includes portions
of the cities of Del Mar, Solana Beach, Escondido, Poway, San Diego (Rancho
Bernardo), and unincorporated San Diego County, including Ramona. According to
SCS and Dudek hydrogeologists, Maderas is in the Sycamore Creek watershed, which
is a smaller sub - watershed within the San Dieguito watershed. Maderas draws its
groundwater from within the Sycamore Creek watershed area. Accordingly, SCS and
Dudek hydrogeologists believe that the evaluation should be focused on the Sycamore
Creek watershed. With regard to sustainability, see Response 4.d above.
Comment 5.b - The correspondence also suggests that groundwater production at
Maderas is adversely impacting groundwater in the area.
16 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Maderas CUP Modification
November 19, 2013
Page 17
Response 5.b - See Response 1.a and Response 4.d above.
Comment 5.c - In the correspondence it is stated that the 280 acre -feet groundwater
production cap in the existing CUP is twice that which was recommended by State and
Federal agencies on the project in 2000.
Response 5.c - It is acknowledged that State and Federal agencies made a number of
recommendations and went on record before the Public Hearing as not supporting the
approval of the 2000 CUP modification. It is important to note that at that time Maderas
was in the midst of correcting project grading violations with the City and the wildlife
agencies, which is explained in the project chronology included as Attachment B. The
2000 CUP, which was only about groundwater use and not project design changes,
was approved by the City. The approval was not formally contested by State or Federal
agencies. It is also important to note that notice of this proposed CUP modification and
the AMND was provided to applicable State and Federal agencies. City staff have had
conversations with staff from these agencies to explain the proposed modifications and
to answer questions. No communications have been received.
Comment 5.d - In the correspondence it is suggested that the monitoring sites,
monitoring triggers, and groundwater production shutdown triggers currently required in
the CUP be maintained.
Response 5.d - Maderas is proposing modifications to the existing requirements in the
CUP because they believe the modifications are supported by the data collected during
the 11 years of operation and by technical analysis that has been done. The proposal
to modify the CUP, the technical analysis, and other information that is available has
been reviewed by Dudek. Dudek agrees with the analysis and conclusions that led to
the staff - proposed modification to the CUP.
Comment 5.e - In the correspondence it is suggested that the frequency of monitoring
be increased and that the monitoring be computerized or done by a hydrologist.
Response 5.e - The methodology for monitoring is described in detail in the General
Monitoring Protocols section, and in the monitoring protocols required for each
groundwater production zone, contained in the Maderas proposal that is included as
Attachment G. Dudek has reviewed the proposal and believes it is supported by the
data and analysis. While the conditions of approval do not address the individual who
is collecting or reading the monitoring data, it is specified that the annual report be
prepared by a qualified hydrologist (Condition of Approval I in Attachment A).
Comment 5.f - In the correspondence it is suggested that Maderas devise a
conservation plan to include turf reduction, more efficient irrigation, and low water use
landscape.
Response 5.f - Staff asked Maderas about their water conservation efforts. Maderas
indicated that at 88 acres, they have one of the smallest irrigated `footprint' of any
17 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Maderas CUP Modification
November 19, 2013
Page 18
18 -hole golf course in the County and possibly Southern California. The limited use of
turf on roughs, fairways and greens means less need to water. They utilize drought
tolerant, warm season Bermuda grass, which also significantly reduces the amount of
water required. Maderas indicated that unlike most golf courses in San Diego County
that either do not use warm season grasses or overseed with cool season grasses
(every fall), they rely on careful calibrations of irrigation, mowing depths, and fertilizers
to maintain its turf in top playing condition, without annual overseeding. According to
Maderas, by not overseeding, they save millions of gallons of water and reduce fuel
needs since far less mowing occurs. Maderas also ensures that the efficiency of its
irrigation heads and watering cycles are routinely monitored. Maderas uses several
tools to track water usage, including weather station data that specifically prescribes
recommended water amounts based on the real time needs of specific plants. Maderas
has indicated that these reports are reviewed daily by their staff so irrigation
programming can be adjusted.
Comment 5.g - In the correspondence it is suggested that the golf course be
redesigned as a "links" style course as approved and identified in the Poway Subarea
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).
Response 5.g — In the mid- 1990s, during the early discussions on project design, it was
envisioned that Maderas could be a "links" type facility, although what exactly
constitutes a "links" facility is a matter of varying opinion. It is also acknowledged that
the HCP, which was adopted in 1995 and has never been amended, provides an
informational discussion which identifies Maderas as being a links style course. This
description did not, however, provide substantive control over the approval of the golf
course, which was addressed through the Conditional Use Permit. As described on
pages 4 -7 of the HCP, "Development in this planned community area [Old Coach Golf
Estates Planned Community] will be in accordance with the adopted conditions of
approval and environmental mitigation measures." Ultimately, however, the project
approval in 2000 did not include a requirement that the facility be a links style course.
The final design of the golf course, which is a conventional design, was submitted to the
City and approved. The existing golf course is consistent with what was approved.
Comment 5.h - In the correspondence.it is suggested that the City needs to give broad
public notice of this proposal both in and outside of the City.
Response 5.h - The Poway Municipal Code (PMC) identifies noticing requirements for
CUPs that involves a mailed notice to those properties within a 500 -foot radius of the
site and legal advertising in the newspaper. Beyond the notice requirements in the
PMC, the City has included a mailed notice to those that were involved in project
discussions in 2000 that are beyond a 500 -foot radius of the project site, anyone that
has expressed interest to the City on this project, the State Department of Fish and
Wildlife, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the City of San Diego. Further, all
project materials, including public notices of document availability and meeting
announcements, have been and continue to remain, posted on the City's website.
18 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Maderas CUP Modification
November 19, 2013
Page 19
Correspondence 6 (Owens)
Comment 6.a — In the correspondence it is suggested that a long -term sustainability
study for a broad area be conducted.
Response 6.a — See Response 4.d above.
Comment 6.b - In the correspondence it is suggested that the City needs to give broad
public notice of this proposal both in and outside of the City to include other cities and
the County of San Diego.
Response 6.b — See Response 5.h above
Comment 6.c — In the correspondence it is suggested that the project must comply with
State and County regulations for groundwater levels in riparian habitat areas.
Response 6.c — The State and the County of San Diego do not have regulatory
authority over the approval of, or modification to, a CUP within the City of Poway. As
this comment may be intended to address impacts to riparian habitat health, see
Response 4.a above.
Correspondence 7 (Glass)
Comment 7.a - The correspondence suggests that groundwater production at Maderas
is adversely impacting groundwater in the area.
Response 7.a - See Response 1.a and Response 4.d above
Comment 7.b — In the correspondence it is suggested that Maderas engage in water
conservation activities.
Response 7.b — See Response 5.f above.
Comment 7.c — The correspondence questions why monitoring of the Blue Sky Well
was discontinued and suggests that the project may be affecting riparian habitat health
in the area.
Response 7.c — See Response 4.a and Response 4.b above.
Correspondence 8 (T. Moore)
Comment 8.a - The correspondence suggests that the proposed CUP modification
requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a change to the
City HCP because the project was developed as a conventional golf course instead of a
"links" course.
Response 8.a - The HCP is not proposed to be changed. This project relates to
modifications to monitoring requirements for an existing golf course that has been
approved by the City Council pursuant to a CUP. There will be no changes to the MMP
19 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Maderas CUP Modification
November 19, 2013
Page 20
that was approved with the CUP in 200Q, and no new environmental impacts will occur.
An EIR is not required. Additionally see Response 5.g above.
Comment 8.b — In the correspondence it is suggested that a long -term sustainability
study for a broad area be conducted. The comment also suggests that "[t]he current
EIR does not address groundwater sustainability and recharge rates that were
developed by Dr. Victor Ponce's May 2012 Study on Thompson Creek Groundwater
Sustainability..."
Response 8.b — See Response 4.d above which described the Sustainability Study
provided for this project.
CEQA does not require a sustainability study, as suggested in the comment. Impacts
under CEQA must be caused by the project (i.e., the proposed amendments), and are
based upon a comparison to existing conditions. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15125(a),
15126.2(a); see also Watsonville Pilots Association v. City of Watsonville (2010) 183
Cal.AppAth 1059 [ "The FEIR was not required to resolve the [existing] overdraft
problem, a feat that was far beyond its scope "].)
The Ponce Report, (Attachment H) however, alleges to "...document the issues of
groundwater sustainability in general and the sustainability of Thompson Creek
aquifer.,." Furthermore, the majority of the report does not address the effects of the
proposed CUP modifications or address.the lack of a hydraulic connection between the
Sycamore Creek Watershed and the Thompson Creek Watershed (Old Coach Estates).
Section 3.5 of the Ponce Report, does not address the CUP modifications as proposed
in the AMND or the staff proposal, rather the Ponce Report states "Maderas could
theoretically increase its capture beyond the current 280 acre - feet/year limit." The
Sustainability Report did not use the theoretical recharge rates from the Ponce Report,
which were derived from nationwide information, because the Report considered the
actual historic groundwater production in order to determine sustainability. Discussion
about the Ponce Report's description of riparian health in the region is provided in the
Dudek Report, Sections 7.1.6 through 7.1.8.
Additionally, the City's hydrogeologist conducted an evaluation of the Ponce Report
and has concluded that it is not project specific, does not include an assessment
of Maderas groundwater levels or the relationship of these levels to the Old Coach
Estates groundwater levels, and that the discussions and conclusions contained in the
Ponce report.are not based on actual field data. The full evaluation is included as
Attachment M.
Comment 8.c - In the correspondence it is suggested that the City needs to give broad
public notice of this proposal both in and outside of the City.
Response 8.c —.See Response 5.h above.
20 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Maderas CUP Modification
November 19, 2013
Page 21
Comment 8.d — The correspondence suggests that the project may be affecting riparian
habitat health in the area and that the project must comply with County regulations for
riparian water levels.
Response 8.d — See Response 4.a and 6.;c above.
Comment 8.e — The correspondence suggests that water quality testing of the ground-
water needs to be conducted.
Response 8.e — The existing CUP does not include a requirement for groundwater
quality testing and Maderas is not proposing to conduct groundwater quality testing. As
indicated in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality of the AMND (see pages 34 -35
of Attachment 1), there is no evidence that Maderas has affected groundwater quality.
The comment suggests concern regarding salt water intrusion into the groundwater.
The Dudek hydrogeologist has indicated that given the distance of the site from the
ocean and that the aquifer is fractured rock, sea water intrusion is not a concern.
Surface water quality issues were addressed in the AMND. Reports on riparian habitat
health indicate good health. See response 4.a above. Surface runoff water from
Maderas is not impacting riparian areas.
Comment 8.f - The correspondence suggests that the golf course is operating in
violation of California Department of Fish and Wildlife and US Fish and Wildlife Service
(i.e., the wildlife agencies) requirements or standards.
Response 8.f — See response 5.c above. With regard to past grading violations that
were done during grading of the project over 15 years ago, Maderas continues to work
with the wildlife agencies regarding habitat restoration work that has been done in the
past.
Comment 8.g- In the correspondence it is questioned why Maderas was allowed to
establish additional wells without notifying nearby properties.
Response 8.g - See Response 1.b above.
Comment 8.h - The correspondence suggest that groundwater production at 280 acre -
feet a year is too much and is not sustainable.
Response 8.h - The 280 acre -feet cap was authorized as part of the 2000 CUP. More
detail on the 280 acre -feet is, provided below in Response 9.a. The proposed CUP
modification includes a condition of approval that limits groundwater production to 173
acre -feet a year. For additional information regarding the sustainability of groundwater
see Response 4.d above.
Comment 8.i — The correspondence suggests that monitoring at a well in Blue Sky
continue.
21 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Maderas CUP Modification
November 19, 2013
Page 22
Response 8.1 — See Response 4.b above.
Comment 8.j — The correspondence suggests that the City failed to enforce the CUP
requirement.
Response 8.j — When the City became aware of groundwater levels dropping below
certain levels, staff worked with Maderas as they processed the CUP modification.
However, this ultimately resulted in all groundwater production being shut down in
August 2011, in response to resident concerns and because of the lengthy amount of
time the CUP modification process was taking.
Correspondence 9 (San Dieguito River Valley Regional Open Space Park, a.k.a. the
San Dieguito River Park)
Comment 9.a - The correspondence requests clarification on the origin of the existing
280 acre -feet annual groundwater production cap, questions whether the cap was
evaluated in the August 2000 CUP modification, and suggests that it conflicts with a
150 acre -feet cap contained in a June 2000 Settlement Agreement.
Response 9.a - Prior to City approval of the CUP modification in August 2000, which
authorized ongoing groundwater production at Maderas, a Settlement Agreement was
executed to allow temporary groundwater production. Where the June 2000
Agreement did not include a specific numerical amount, it did specify that interim
groundwater production would not exceed one third of the total of the annual overall
water demand, which was 450 acre -feet (one third of 450 is 150). This limitation
pertained to temporary groundwater production authorized under the 2000 Agreement
until such time a hydrology study was conducted and the City Council approved
ongoing groundwater production through a CUP modification.
In August 2000, the City Council approved the CUP modification that authorized
ongoing groundwater production. In conjunction with the 2000 CUP approval, the City
considered the findings of the Hydrologic Study of the Sycamore Creek Basin prepared
by Don Howard Engineers. This is discussed in the August 2000 Agenda Report. In
the Study and the Agenda Report it is indicated that the long -term average quantity of
groundwater available for Maderas is 323 acre -feet. The City determined in August
2000, as part of its review and approval of the CUP modification, that a lesser amount
(i.e., 280 acre -feet) would be appropriate for the annual groundwater production cap.
The Maderas proposal to modify the current CUP does not propose a change to the
annual groundwater production cap of 280 acre -feet. However, as described earlier in
the response to Comment 4.d, as a result of the Sustainability Report, staff is
recommending that the annual groundwater production cap be reduced to 173 acre -
feet.
Comment 9.b - The correspondence suggests that groundwater production up to 280
acre -feet a year was not adequately supported by the 2000 CUP approval.
22 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Maderas CUP Modification
November 19, 2013
Page 23
Response 9.b — Response 9.a above explains how the 280 acre -feet cap was
established and approved. The MND approved in 2000 analyzed Maderas utilizing
up to 323 acre -feet per year, however, as discussed in the "Sustainability" discussion
of this Agenda Report, this amount was lowered to 280 acre -feet per year. The 280
acre -feet cap is the amount of groundwater production authorized in the existing
approved CUP. The proposal to modify the current .CUP submitted by Maderas does
not propose an increase to the annual groundwater production cap of 280 acre -feet.
However, as described earlier, staff is recommending that the annual groundwater
production cap be reduced to 173 acre -feet as a result of the Sustainability Report.
Comment 9.c — The correspondence suggests that groundwater production at the rate
of 280 acre -feet a year is not sustainable.
Response 9.c - See response 4.d and 9.b. above.
Comment 9.d — The correspondence suggests that the original MND for the project was
inadequate because it did not address build out of the area and that the proposed
AMND is inadequate because it does not address build out of the area.
Response 9.d — The original MND for the project was approved with the same City land
use assumptions that exist today. The original MND continues to be valid since no
change in City land use has occurred since the approval of the MND in 2000. The
MND approved in 2000, also discusses "build out of residential lots" in Section VIII.
Similar discussion was provided in the findings provided on page 3 of the August 29,
2000 Agenda Report for the MND.
The proposal to modify the current CUP submitted by Maderas included modifications
to the monitoring requirements and does not propose an increase to the annual
groundwater production cap of 280 acre -feet. However, as a result of the Sustainability
Report, staff is recommending that the annual groundwater production cap be reduced
to 173 acre -feet.
Comment 9 e — The correspondence suggests that the original approval that allowed
groundwater production was intended to be temporary until the availability, of reclaimed
water.
Response 9.e - It is acknowledged that in the Agenda Report for the 2000 CUP
modification, it was indicated that reclaimed water was expected in the area in the
future and that the original approval did include a requirement that reclaimed water be
used when it became available. The CUP approval did not characterize the approval of
groundwater production as a temporary activity and did not identify a term for
groundwater production. The conditions of approval for the use of reclaimed water
continue to be included in the conditions of approval for the CUP modification.
23 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Maderas CUP Modification
November 19, 2013
Page 24
Comment 9.f — The correspondence requests clarification on how the existing
conditions of approval, and /or mitigation measures relative to riparian habitat and
groundwater use, are changing.
Response 9.f - The Addendum provided a discussion of the proposed modifications, as
described in Sections 1.3 and 2.0. No change to the established mitigation measures
listed in the approved MMP, which is contained in City Council Resolution No. P -00 -65
as Exhibit A (Agenda Report Attachment E), is proposed. The MMP required
implementation of monitoring programs. The detailed monitoring was included in the
CUP conditions of approval, which are.contained -in Resolution No. P- 00 -65. Many
of the current monitoring and reporting requirements are proposed to be replaced with
substitution monitoring and reporting requirements that are specified in detail in
(Attachment A). A side by side comparison of existing and proposed monitoring and
reporting is provided in Attachment F. The monitoring and reporting specified in the
proposed Plan, with the staff - recommended changes, are incorporated as conditions
of approval in the proposed Resolution. See Response 4.a above for a discussion of
riparian habitat health.
Comment 9.g - The correspondence questions how many new wells will be established,
and suggests that the proposed AMND does not address the potential impacts from
new wells.
Response 9.g - The project description and the AMND for the proposed CUP
modification identifies that there could be additional wells, but does not indicate how
many because it is not known. Section 2.0 of the Project Description, Additional Wells
in the AMND (see pages 14 -15 of Attachment 1) does include provisions to evaluate the
potential for impacts of pumping from additional wells on groundwater levels at OCE,
LSC and in the alluvial aquifer, and limits total groundwater production, regardless of
the number of wells used. The AMND:evaluated the potential impacts associated with
the expected quantities of groundwater that will be extracted since the CUP regulates
the quantity of groundwater production. Section 2.0 of the Project Description,
Additional Wells in the AMND (see pages 14 -15 of Attachment 1) addresses other types
of impacts associated with installing additional wells (i.e., noise from drilling, etc.). The
project description specifies that the project will comply with adopted City requirements
pertaining to habitat removal, work outside of the bird nesting seasons, noise limits, and
waste disposal, as maybe applicable. Staff is recommending a condition of approval in
the CUP that a Council- approved modification to the CUP be required for any additional
wells to be used for groundwater production.
Comment 9.h - The correspondence suggests that the "triggers" in the CUP
modification are not explained in the AMND and their use is not justified.
Response 9.h — The project description in the AMND explains how a trigger is
established (AMND, page 13). The trigger for a given groundwater production zone will
be based on the highest consecutive ten -year average of annual groundwater
24 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Maderas CUP. Modification
November 19, 2013
Page 25
production that occurred within that zone. The average is established by consecutive
water years, but will not include water years when there was no groundwater
production, such as the 2011/12 water year. The rationale for use of a historical
average as the amount of groundwater production that may occur in an upcoming year
is that the historical average has proven to not be an impact and that continuing
groundwater production at that rate will not result in an impact. Also see Response 4.d
regarding the Sustainability Report.
Comment 9.i - The correspondence suggests that Condition of Approval J.5 from the
2000 CUP be retained.
Response 9.i — Condition of Approval J.5, which is in Attachment E, stipulates that the
City Council can direct the reduction or the shutdown of groundwater production if it
adversely impacts other well users offsite. The condition of approval is no longer
necessary since the proposed CUP modification has safeguards to protect the LSC
area. The safeguards include when the groundwater level drops to 100 feet bgs at the
LSCTW, groundwater production is shut down and guarantees water in the event that
water supply becomes inadequate to meet the needs of residents and properties, at
Maderas' expense. Additionally, the CUP modification includes monitoring and
reporting requirements that have been reviewed and accepted by the Dudek
hydrogeologist. Regardless, the City Council has the authority to amend or revoke the
CUP pursuant to the PMC and the annual review provisions that are specified in the
recommended conditions of approval for the CUP modification.
Comment 9.j - The correspondence suggests greater safeguards for protecting riparian
health, which are similar to those included in the existing conditions of approval.
Response 9.j — See Response 4.a above regarding riparian health.
Comment 9.k — The correspondence questions the rationale for modifying the
stabilization requirement for the LSCTW.
Response 9.k — Maderas has indicated that the reason the recovery level for resumed
groundwater production at Maderas Wells 4 and 5 is proposed to be changed from 60'
bgs to 90' bgs (40' over the 100' bgs threshold to 10' over the 100' bgs threshold) is that
with the benefit of 11 years of production. data, Maderas is now able to adjust the timing
_and amount of groundwater production from these two wells such that exceedance of
the 100' bgs trigger rarely, if ever, happens. With this capability, Maderas believes that
it is not necessary to have 40' of recovery and their hydrogeologist believes that 10'
recovery is sufficient. As discussed earlier in this report, staff is recommending the
existing CUP requirements as they relate to the LSC area be maintained.
Correspondence 10 (Wydra)
This correspondence is in support of the project.
25 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Maderas CUP Modification
November 19, 2013
Page 26
Correspondence 11 (Poway Center for the Performing Arts Foundation)
This correspondence is in support of the project.
Correspondence 12 (Mubarak)
Comment 12.a - The correspondence questions why the golf course is not a links style
facility.
Response 12.a — See Response 5.g above.
Comment 12.b — The correspondence urges that Maderas practice water conservation.
Response 12.b — See response 5.f above.
Comment 12.c — The correspondence urges that the requirement for use of reclaimed
water be maintained.
Response 12.c - The conditions of approval for the use of reclaimed water are included
in the conditions of approval for the CUP modification. Also see Response 9.e above.
Comment 12.d — In the correspondence it is suggested that a long -term sustainability
study for a broad area be conducted.
Response 12.d — See Response 4.d and 5.a above.
Comment 12.e — The correspondence suggests that the project may be affecting
riparian habitat health in the area.
Response 12.e — See Response 4.a above. It is additionally important to note that
some of the riparian habitat referenced in the correspondence that is located on the
author's property is adjacent to a creek that is not a tributary to Thompson Creek or
Sycamore Creek. This property is outside the Sycamore Creek and Thompson Creek
watersheds.
Correspondence 13 (Whitman)
This correspondence is in support of the project.
Correspondence 14 (P. Moore)
Comment 14.a — The correspondence suggests that the Sustainability Report does not
identify or justify an amount of sustainable groundwater production that is based on the
project site acreage and recharge.
Response 14.a — The Sustainability Report, which was prepared by a hydrogeologist,
does identify a sustainable groundwater production amount (see Response 1.a above)
and approached the issue of sustainability by analyzing historical groundwater
26 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Maderas CUP Modification
November 19, 2013
Page 27
production at Maderas and its affect on the LSCTW. The approach and the findings of
the Sustainability Report were reviewed and accepted by the Dudek hydrogeologist.
Comment 14.b — The correspondence suggests that in addition to the LSCTW, other
wells outside the LSC area need to be evaluated in the Sustainability Report and that
Maderas groundwater production affects an area broader than the LSC area.
Response 14.b - As indicated earlier in this report, the hydrogeologists concur there is
a known hydraulic connection between Maderas groundwater production and the LSC
area. The hydrogeologists concur that the groundwater level at LSCTW is considered
to be representative of the change in groundwater storage in the fractured rock in the
Sycamore Creek watershed. This is because the LSCTW is located within the primary
drainage of the Sycamore Creek watershed and it is downstream in the watershed and
would reflect potential impacts by pumping at Maderas. In response to broadening the
area of study, the effect of groundwater production diminishes with distance from a
production source, so the effect of groundwater production at Maderas will be less at
distances greater than the distance between Maderas and LSCTW.
Comment 14.c — The correspondence suggests that clarification has not been provided
for past inquiries regarding reports and data.
Response 14.c — Responses to questions were provided in writing by the City Engineer,
and the opportunity for follow -up dialogue with the City Engineer and the
hydrogeologists was available at the June and October Neighborhood Meetings.
Comment 14.d — The correspondence suggests Maderas groundwater production is
impacting riparian habitat in the area, including Blue Sky.
Response 14.d See response 4.a above.
Correspondence 15 (Kiang)
Comment 15.a — In the correspondence. it is indicated the use of the LSCTW in the
Sustainability Report as a measure of Maderas groundwater production effects on the
LSC area is irrational.
Response 15.a — See response 14.b above.
Comment 15.b — The correspondence questions why the OCETW was not used in the
Sustainability Report.
Response 15.b — As previously indicated there is no hydraulic connection between
Maderas and OCETW. See Response 1.a above.
Comment 15.c - The correspondence suggests that Maderas groundwater production
activity affects the alluvial groundwater aquifer in Blue Sky.
27 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Maderas CUP Modification
November 19, 2013
Page 28
Response 15.c — There are two types of groundwater aquifers in the area. There is a
deep, "fractured rock" aquifer that is the source of groundwater for Maderas and other
wells in the area; and a shallow, "alluvial' aquifer that is the source of groundwater that
supports riparian habitats. The hydrogeologists concur, based on the information that is
available, there does not appear to be a hydraulic connection between these two
aquifers. Additionally, see Response 4.a above.
Public Notification:
A public notice of the hearing was published in the Poway News Chieftain and mailed to
property owners located within 500 -feet of the project site and other interested parties.
Attachments:
A. Proposed Resolution
B. Maderas Golf Club Chronology
C. Location and Zoning Map
D. Aerial of Site and Surrounding with Well Locations and Creek Locations
E. Approved Resolution No. P -00 -65 for CUP 90- 13M(2)
F. Comparison of Existing Requirements with Proposal and Staff Supplement;
G. Proposed Maderas Golf Club Groundwater Production and Monitoring
2013 (This attachment does not include staff recommended changes)
H. Dr. Ponce Report
I. Proposed AMND (with Appendix A - Dudek Report, and Appendix B -
Engineers Sustainability Report)
J. Updated Western Well Zone Section (This attachment does not include
recommended changes)
K. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Initial Study from CU P
13M(2)
L. Interested Party Correspondence
M. Wiedlin Evaluation of Ponce Report
Plan
SCS
staff
90-
28 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
RESOLUTION NO. P-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90- 13M(5) AND
ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 277 - 170 -21 and 277 - 171 -34
WHEREAS, the Maderas Golf Course was originally approved under CUP 90 -13
in conjunction with an EIR for a 156 -lot, residential project known then as the Old Coach
Golf Estates, pursuant to Resolution No. P- 90 -91; and
WHEREAS, in August 2000, the City Council approved the on -going use of
groundwater under CUP 90- 13M(2) pursuant to Resolution No. P -00 -65 in conjunction
with the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a Mitigation Monitoring Program,
and conditions of approval, and
WHEREAS, In August 2009, the water level in the Old Coach Estates Test Well
(OCETW) declined to below 180 feet below ground surface (bgs), which required
groundwater production to be shut down, pursuant to the conditions contained in CUP
90- 13M(2); and
WHEREAS, Maderas Country Club LLC, the Applicant and owner /operator of the
Maderas Golf Club located at 17750 Old Coach Road, in the Planned Community (PC)
zone submitted a request to modify the existing conditions of approval, because data
suggested that their groundwater production did not affect ground water levels in Old
Coach Estates (i.e., the Thompson Creek Watershed); and
WHEREAS, CUP 90- 13M(5) is' a request to modify conditions of approval
pertaining to groundwater production, groundwater production monitoring and
reporting, and riparian habitat monitoring and reporting that were established under
CUP 90- 13(M)2, which was approved by the City Council on August 20,2000, pursuant
to Resolution No. P -00 -65 (Section 3, "Operational Plan and Wetland & Riparian Habitat
Monitoring Program "), and
WHEREAS, CUP 90- 13M(5) involves modifications to the project conditions
of approval, and no change to the Mitigation Monitoring Program in Resolution No.
P- 00 -65; and
WHEREAS, the City has considered information and hydrogeologic studies
pursuant to the request, including, but not limited to, Third -Party Review of
Hydrogeological and Biological Resource Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf
Club (May 2013) prepared by Dudek and Sustainability of Groundwater Withdrawal at
Maderas (September 2013) prepared by SCS Engineers, and
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2013, the City Council held a duly advertised
public hearing to solicit comments from the public, both pro and con, relative to this
application.
29 of 374 ATTACHMENT A November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Resolution No. P -13-
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Poway
as follows:
Section 1: The City Council hereby finds that the above recitals are true and correct
and are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
Section 2: An Environmental Initial Study (EIS) and Addendum to the Mitigated
Negative Declaration (AMND) were completed for the project. The City Council has
considered the AMND, the original Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Agenda Report,
and oral and written comments. The AMND reflects the independent judgment and
analysis of the City Council, has been completed in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and is adequate for this proposal. The AMND
supports the conclusion that only minor technical changes /additions are necessary
and that none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines §15162 calling for
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) have
occurred. The staff - recommended changes incorporated into this Resolution do not
result in any new or increased environmental impacts in comparison to the CUP
amendments described in the AMND. The City Council hereby adopts the AMND
included as Attachment I to the Agenda Report associated with this Resolution.
Section 3: The City Council finds, in accordance with Section 17.48.070 of the Poway
Municipal Code (PMC):
A. The project (i.e., the modifications in this Resolution) is consistent with and in
accord with the General Plan, Title 17 and the underlying purpose of the Zoning
Code, and the Old Coach Golf Estates Specific Plan. The golf course is an
existing use and when originally approved was found to be consistent with
the General Plan and the Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan, and
CUP 90- 13M(5) incorporates measures to ensure protection of offsite well users
in the Lower Sycamore Creek area and riparian habitat health in the area,
including a limit on annual groundwater production, and the requirement to utilize
reclaimed water when it becomes available. The modifications contained in this
Resolution do not change these previous consistency findings.
B. That the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the use will be
compatible with, and will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to,
adjacent uses, buildings, structures, or natural resources. The golf course is
existing and no expansion is proposed, and CUP 90- 13M(5) incorporates
measures to ensure protection of offsite well users in the Lower Sycamore Creek
area and riparian habitat health in the area. Conditions of approval include a limit
on annual groundwater production.
C. That the harmony in scale, bulk, coverage, and density is consistent with
adjacent uses, in that CUP 90- 13M(5) does not propose expansion of the
existing golf course.
30 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Resolution No. P -13-
Page 3
D. That there are available public facilities, services and utilities to serve the golf
course, in that the golf course is located within a developed neighborhood and
metered potable water use is available to the golf course until such time as
reclaimed water becomes available for irrigation.
E. That there will not be a harmful effect upon desirable neighborhood
characteristics, in that the golf course was approved in conjunction with a
contiguous residential development, the golf course is existing and no expansion
of the golf course is proposed, and CUP 90- 13M(5) incorporates measures to
ensure protection of offsite well users in the Lower Sycamore Creek area and
riparian habitat health in the area, including a limit on annual groundwater
production.
F. That the generation of traffic will not adversely impact the surrounding streets
and /or the City's Transportation Element, in that groundwater ,production and
monitoring will have no bearing on traffic.
G. That the site is suitable for the type and intensity of the use, in that the golf
course is existing and no expansion is proposed, and CUP 90- 13M(5)
incorporates measures to ensure protection of offsite well users in the Lower
Sycamore Creek area and riparian habitat health in the area. Conditions of
approval include a limit on annual groundwater production.
H. That there will not be significant harmful effects upon environmental quality and
natural resources, in that the golf course is existing and habitat impacts resulting
from project construction have been mitigated, and CUP 90- 13M(5) incorporates
measures to ensure riparian habitat health in the area. With the original
Mitigation Monitoring Program contained in Resolution No. P- 00 -65, which
remains in effect, there is no substantial- evidence that CUP 90- 13M(5) will have
a significant effect on the environment. Additionally, the staff - recommended
changes incorporated into this Resolution do not result in any new or increased
environmental impacts in comparison to the AMND. Studies have been provided
that indicate groundwater production at historic levels is sustainable and will not
result in environmental impacts. Conditions of approval include a limit on annual
groundwater production to the historic level.
That there are no other relevant negative impacts of the proposed use that
cannot be mitigated, in that a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation
Monitoring Program were approved in August 2000 with CUP 90- 13M(2), which
authorized the use of groundwater for the golf course, and it was determined that
with mitigation, impacts to the environment would be less than significant. No
changes to the Mitigation Monitoring Program approved with CUP 90- 13M(5)
are proposed. The proposed modifications to monitoring requirements under
CUP 90- 13M(5) will not result in any new environmental impacts.
31 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Resolution No. P -13-
Page 4
J. That the impacts, as described in Subsections A through I of this Section, and
the proposed location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed
use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not
be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity nor be contrary to the adopted General
Plan in that the golf course is existing and when it was originally approved it was
found to be consistent with the General Plan, and CUP 90- 13M(5) incorporates
measures to ensure protection of offsite well users in the Lower Sycamore Creek
area and riparian habitat health in the area. Conditions of approval include a limit
on annual groundwater production and requirements for groundwater level
monitoring.
K. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable
provisions of Title 17 of the Poway Municipal Code.
Section 4: The parties are hereby informed that the time within which judicial review
of this decision must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code, of
Civil Procedure.
Section 5: The conditions of approval and the Mitigation Monitoring Program included
in City Council Resolution No. P -00 -65 are in full force and effect, except that the
following conditions of approval in Section 3 are hereby eliminated:
Condition of Approval E;
Condition of Approval F (eliminating all subsections, 1 through 5);
Condition of Approval G;
Condition of Approval H (eliminating all subsections, 1 through 4);
Condition of Approval I (eliminating all subsections 1 through 4);
Condition of Approval J (eliminating all subsections, 1 through 5);
Condition of Approval K;
Condition of Approval L;
Condition of Approval Q
Section 6: The City Council hereby approves CUP 90- 13M(5), subject to the
following conditions:
A. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its agents,
officers, and employees from any and all claims, actions, proceedings, damages,
judgments, or costs, including attorney's fees, against the City or its agents,
officers, or employees, relating to the issuance of this permit, including, but not
limited to, any action to attack, set aside, void, challenge, or annul this
development approval and any environmental document or decision. The City
may elect to conduct its own defense, participate in its own defense, or obtain
independent legal counsel in defense of any claim related to this indemnification.
In the event of such election, applicant shall pay all of the costs related thereto,
32 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Resolution No. P -13-
Page 5
including without limitation reasonable attorney's fees and costs. In the event of
a disagreement between the City and applicant regarding litigation issues, the
City shall have the authority to control the litigation and make litigation related
decisions, including, but not limited to, settlement or other disposition of the
matter. However, the applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any
settlement unless such settlement is approved by applicant.
B. Approval of this CUP shall apply only to the subject project and shall not waive
compliance with all sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City
Ordinances in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance.
C. Within 30 days of the date of this approval, and before the issuance of any
permit: (1) the applicant shall submit in writing that all conditions of approval
have been read and understood; and (2) the property owner shall execute a
Covenant Regarding Real Property. In order for the City to prepare the
Covenant the applicant must first submit a legal description of the subject site.
D. The conditions of CUP 90- 13M(5) shall remain in effect for the life of the subject
facility, and shall run with the land and be binding upon future owners,
successors, heirs, and transferees of the current property owner.
E. CUP 90- 13M(5) shall be subject to annual review, as determined by the Director
of Development Services, for compliance with the conditions of approval and to
address concerns that may have been raised during the prior year.
F. The maximum annual groundwater production authorized through this CUP
modification shall be 173 acre -feet. Annual for purposes of this limit shall be the
water year which is from October 1 to September 31. Any increase to the annual
groundwater production limit shall require a modification to the CUP to be acted
upon by the City Council at a public hearing. In order to verify compliance with
the groundwater production limit, Maderas shall submit to the City a report each
month which specifies the prior month's groundwater production by zone. The
monthly report shall also provide a running, cumulative total of groundwater
production by zone for the year.: The monthly report shall be submitted by the
15th day of the month.
G. Each year Maderas shall submit to the City for review and approval, the
proposed groundwater production and monitoring trigger (Trigger) for the eastern
and southern groundwater production zones, pursuant to the Maderas Golf Club
Groundwater Production and Monitoring Plan 2013 (Plan) on file with the City.
The Trigger for a given zone shall be based on the highest consecutive 10 year
average of annual groundwater production that occurred within that zone in the
past. The average is established by consecutive water years, but will not include
water years when there was no groundwater production. Notification to the
City and monitoring as specified in these conditions of approval are a function of
33 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Resolution No. P -13-
Page 6
the Trigger. Groundwater production in the western zone is not subject to a
Trigger, but is subject to specific provisions identified in Conditions of Approval J
and K.
H. Prior to the use of any new well established on the Maderas Golf Club site for
groundwater production, a CUP modification shall be processed and acted upon
by the City Council at a Public Hearing that includes results of an aquifer test in
accordance with the following provisions:
1. Maderas shall notify the City of its intent to establish the well for the
purpose of conducting an aquifer test. The establishment of the well shall
be for the sole purpose of conducting the aquifer test. Use of the well for
groundwater production can only be authorized through a CUP
modification with City Council action.
2. A constant rate aquifer test with a pumping phase of ten days shall be
conducted. The aquifer test shall be per State of California's Existing
Source Capacity (Chapter 16, Article 2, §64554.) and the new well
production shall be evaluated against Lower Sycamore Creek Test Well
(LSCTW), Maderas Well 6, and alluvium monitoring wells (MW) #2 and
#4. The evaluation of Old Coach Estates Test Well (OCETW) shall be
required only if there is measurable groundwater in the test well at the
time of the aquifer test. Evaluation of private wells in Old Coach Estates
shall only be conducted if residents of Old Coach Estates allow the City or
the consulting hydrogeologist timely access to their private wells to
monitor groundwater levels in these wells and the wells are not operated
for the duration of the aquifer test, and for any additional time as required
by the City to assure the integrity of the aquifer test.
3. The aquifer test shall assess the influence between the new well and
LSCTW, Maderas Well 6, alluvium MW #2 and #4, and OCETW, (if
evaluated as part of the aquifer test). The findings of the aquifer test shall
be reviewed and presented to the City Council before a CUP modification
is approved and the new well can be used for groundwater production.
When used for groundwater production, all new wells shall be subject to
the general monitoring protocols specified in Conditions of Approval J and
K. Any new well with a demonstrated significant influence on any of the
non - pumping wells shall be assigned to the appropriate groundwater
production zone in consultation with the City and shall be subject to the
specific monitoring protocols established for the applicable groundwater
production zone as specified in these conditions of approval and in the
Plan.
4. If a new well is located within a groundwater production zone and no
influence is noted on any other well within that zone, or any other zone,
34 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Resolution No. P -13-
Page 7
the well- shall be subject to the monitoring protocols for the zone in which
the new well is located as specified in these conditions of approval and in
the Plan.
5. If a new well is not located within a groundwater production zone and no
influence is noted on any well, the new well is not subject to monitoring but
is subject to the annual reporting requirements as specified in Condition of
Approval I.
6. Well casing shall be set from land surface to the contact between the
colluvium and underlying fractured bedrock to prevent the well from
drawing groundwater from the alluvium and colluvium. The well casing
shall be designed to prevent the influence of pumping from fractured rock
on groundwater levels in the overlying alluvium and colluvium.
7. Compliance with City requirements pertaining to habitat removal, work
during protected bird species nesting seasons, noise limits, and waste
disposal, as may be applicable.
By November 15 of each year, Maderas shall provide an annual report that is
prepared by a qualified hydrologist to the, City for the preceding water year that
summarizes the following. information for all wells located on the Maderas Golf
Club site that operated at any time within the preceding water year:
1. A description of the monitoring methods used;
2. Summary tables of annual groundwater production data by individual wells
and by zones for the preceding water year;
3. Identification of the Trigger for the preceding year and the highest
consecutive 10 year annual average for the zone;
4. The highest consecutive 10 year monthly averages for the eastern and
southern zones if monitoring occurred for the preceding water year, and
the monthly averages for the preceding water year,
5. Hydrographs depicting all water levels measured at test well(s) and
operational wells subject to the monitoring requirements of this plan for the
preceding ten water years,
6. Rainfall data for the preceding ten water years,
7. Discussion, as appropriate, of any breach of specified groundwater depths
for LSCTW and Maderas production Well 6 and corresponding mitigation
steps taken.
35 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Resolution No. P -13-
Page 8
8. Biological assessment of the health of the riparian vegetation at Maderas
whenever monitoring of MW #2 and #4 has occurred within the water year
pursuant to southern zone monitoring protocols identified in this Plan.
J. Maderas shall record on a monthly basis the flow meter readings (i.e., total
gallons pumped and instantaneous pumping rate) for each well equipped with
an operating pump. Maderas shall also retrieve this groundwater production
data on a monthly basis, as well as record monthly precipitation data from the
Poway Valley Station No. 7111, and precipitation data from Maderas' onsite
weather station when operational.
K, Monitoring of groundwater depths at LSCTW, MW #2, MW #4, Maderas Well 6
and Maderas operating wells shall include the following:
1. Pressure transducers and data loggers shall be installed and maintained
at LSCTW, MW #2, MW #4, Well 6 and all operating wells located within
the golf course, except Wells 1, 3, 5, and 7.
2. Pressure .transducers and dataloggers shall be programmed to measure
and record groundwater levels once a day. If the pressure transducers
measure an absolute pressure, then a pressure transducer should be
deployed to measure barometric pressure at the same frequency as the
groundwater pressure transducers.
3. The data shall be retrieved by Maderas on a monthly basis.
4. Once every three months, groundwater levels shall also be measured
manually. Manual measurements shall be to the nearest 0.1 -foot below a
consistent reference point and recorded with the date and time.
5. Monitoring of production wells that have not operated at any time within
the preceding water year and are expected to not be used in the current
water year may be suspended and all applicable requirements of this plan
shall not apply to the non - operating well as long as the well is not in
operation. This does not apply to Well 6, as this well is included with the
set of wells instrumented with pressure transducers programmed to
measure and record water levels on a daily basis.
L. -In order to ensure that the use of groundwater by the applicant will not adversely
impact groundwater levels for other well users in the Lower Sycamore Creek
area, the applicant shall monitor the water level at the LSCTW and provide the
information in the monthly report no later than the 15th day of the month.
The monitoring shall be'conducted in accordance with Conditions of Approval J
and K. Additionally, water levels will also be measured manually. Water levels
36 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Resolution No. P -13-
Page 9
taken manually shall be measured to the nearest 0.01 -foot below a consistent
reference point and recorded with the date and time. Manual water levels shall
also be taken at the same time at the following additional wells. Should the
applicant be unable to obtain permission to test any of the wells listed below, the
City Engineer shall determine if alternative well sites should be tested.
• Maderas Wells 4 and 5
• Barkin Well (APN 272 - 150 -23)
• Tamayo Well (APN 272 - 150 -26)
• San Dieguito River Park Well
• Blum Wells (APN 272 - 150 -28)
The groundwater levels must stabilize at or above 80 -feet below ground surface
at the LSCTW. However, the groundwater elevations (water level depth) shall
not exceed 100 feet at LSCTW. If the water level specified is exceeded, the
applicant shall discontinue the use of groundwater until the water levels stabilize
at 40 -feet above the designated water level for LSCTW. Once the well has
stabilized to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, and the City Manager has
authorized resumption of groundwater use, pumping will resume at 75 percent of
the rate being pumped prior to discontinuing the use of the wells for the
remainder of the monitoring year. If the specified water level is exceeded again,
the process will be repeated.
M. The applicant shall guarantee water service to the lower Sycamore Creek area
and its residents. In the event groundwater supplies become inadequate to meet
the domestic and non - domestic water needs of the residents and properties in
that area, the applicant shall supply water to meet those needs in such quantities
and for such periods as necessary to meet those needs at the applicant's sole
cost and expense. The applicant shall also be responsible for any secondary
expenses, such as road repairs, determined by the Director of Development
Services as necessary to provide the water service. The alternatives for
supplying such water service shall include deepening wells, trucking and storing
water on site(s), or extending a temporary aboveground water line from the
Highland Ranch area or closest point. The applicant may select the alternative
and shall be responsible for all costs associated with implementing continued
and uninterrupted water service. In the event of a dispute between any resident
and the applicant over the adequacy of the water supply or the adequacy of the
remedy implemented by the applicant, the City Council shall determine which of
the above stated alternatives is to be implemented and the applicant shall comply
with the Council's determination as a condition of this Conditional Use Permit. In
the event that the City Council determines at any time that the water service to
the lower Sycamore Creek area is inadequate, it may direct that groundwater
usage by the applicant shall cease until City Council determines that the service
has become adequate. In the event such direction is not complied with by the
37 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Resolution No. P -13-
Page 10
applicant, this Conditional Use Permit may, after public hearing, be modified or
revoked by the City Council.
N. At the time of this approval, the Trigger in the southern groundwater production
zone is 57 acre -feet per water year. Monitoring of wells MW #2 and MW #4
(which is in the western zone) shall be conducted as follows:
1. Maderas shall notify the City in writing and provide all water level data
collected in the current water year whenever the cumulative groundwater
production from the southern zone, within a water year, exceeds 90% of
the southern zone's Trigger. When notifying the City, Maderas shall also
project when groundwater production will exceed 100% of the Trigger.
2. When groundwater production within a water year exceeds 100% of the
southern zone's Trigger, Maderas shall notify the City and report to the
City water levels measured at wells MW #2 and MW #4 per the monitoring
protocols of these conditions of approval and the Plan.
O. If the City Manager (through an analysis conducted by a City- approved biologist)
determines that Maderas groundwater production caused the water level in the
alluvium (as monitored at MW #2 and MW #4) to decline to a level that adversely
impacts the riparian vegetation along the portion of Sycamore Creek located
within the limits of the Maderas Golf Course, then the groundwater production
from wells within the southern zones shall be limited to no more than the highest
consecutive 10 year monthly average for each given month, for one full water
year, except as follows.
1. The City Manager may allow resumed groundwater production above the
limit specified above when the City Manager (through an analysis
conducted by a City- approved biologist) determines that the riparian
vegetation no longer shows evidence of being adversely impacted by
Maderas' groundwater production.
2. The City Manager may further restrict the groundwater production below
the limit specified above if, based on substantial evidence, the health of
the onsite riparian vegetation is expected to be dependent on further
reductions in Maderas' groundwater production.
P. Evaluation of the health of onsite riparian habitat shall be determined by
conducting studies similar to the original baseline and monitoring studies, and
shall include the following:
1. Establishing at least three permanent belt transects and six photo - station
points onsite;
38 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Resolution No. P -13-
Page 11
2. Band transects for trees — 10m wide and traversing the entire width of the
creek, including the oak /sycamore woodland on either side of creek;
3. Identification of each tree species, and assessed for general health and
drought stress;
4. Each belt transect will include 4 (10m x 10m) sample grids to assess herb
and shrub layer health; and
5. Percent cover of herb and shrub layers by species will also be assessed
using four classes (1 = 0 -25 %, 2 = 26 -50 %, 3 = 51 -75 %, 4 = 76- 100 %).
Q. If impacts to the wetland and riparian habitat have occurred, the following
mitigation and monitoring requirements shall be implemented by the applicant
prior to resumption of the groundwater use to the satisfaction of the Director of
Development Services:
1. A "Compensation Mitigation Plan" shall be prepared by the qualified
biologist retained by the applicant. This Plan shall be submitted to the
Development Services Department for review and approval. This Plan
shall identify the specific location of the impact(s), quantify the impact(s)
and recommend "compensation mitigation" in compliance with Section 7.4
of the Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (Poway HCP). .
2. A minimum five -year "Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Maintenance
Program" shall be prepared by the qualified biologist retained by the
applicant. This Program shall be submitted to the Development Services
Department for review and approval. The Program shall include
appropriate monitoring and reporting requirements, maintenance and
success criteria, and plant replacement guidelines. The Program shall be
consistent with and further the conservation objectives of the Poway HCP,
and shall ensure the successful completion of all identified mitigation
measures.
R. Monitoring well data for MW #2 and #4 shall be provided to the biologist. For
three years following the increase in groundwater production within the southern
zone, onsite surveys utilizing the methodologies specified above shall be
conducted twice a year with a single annual report prepared for the City. At the
end of three years, the monitoring frequency shall be re- evaluated based on
results of the surveys. Rainfall amounts and other environmental factors shall be
considered in relation to the survey results in order to determine the need and
frequency for continued monitoring.
Once the data has been collected, it shall be compared to original and
subsequent data to assess the health of the riparian system. These same
methods shall be used to verify that the riparian system no longer shows stress.
39 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Resolution No. P -13-
Page 12
S. At the time of preparation of this approval, the Trigger for wells in the eastern
zone is 51 acre -feet per water year.
1. Groundwater production at Maderas Wells 7, 9 and 10 is permitted
whenever the static groundwater level at Well 6 is 178 feet bgs or less,
and shall be subject to the following:
a. Wells 9 and 10 shall be monitored monthly during the peak
irrigation season of April through October.
b. Maderas shall notify the City in writing and provide all water level
data collected in the current water year whenever the cumulative
groundwater production from all wells operating within the eastern
zone, within a water year, exceeds 90% of the Trigger.
C. When notifying the City, Maderas shall also estimate when
groundwater production will exceed 100% of the Trigger.
d. Maderas shall notify the City and begin. monitoring per this plan
whenever the cumulative groundwater production from all wells
operating within the eastern zone, within a water year, exceeds
100% of the Trigger.
2. Groundwater production from Well 6 may be considered by the City
subject to the following:
a. Maderas conducts a 10 -day constant rate aquifer test per State of
California's Existing Source Capacity (Chapter 16, Article 2,
§64554) and monitors, at a minimum, water level responses at
Maderas Wells 6, 8, 9, 10, MW #2 and #4, and OCETW. This
aquifer test shall only be conducted, and the results accepted by
the City, if there is measurable groundwater in the test well at the
time of the aquifer test and all residents of Old Coach Estates allow
the City or City- approved consulting hydrogeologist timely access
to their private wells to monitor groundwater levels in their wells,
and their wells are not operated for the duration of the aquifer test
and for any additional time as required by the City to assure the
integrity of the aquifer test.
b. Maderas submits an aquifer test report to the City that summarizes
the set -up procedures and methods used during the aquifer test,
includes all water levels and pumping data before, during, and after
the pumping phase of the aquifer test, includes an evaluation of the
influence of pumping Well 6 on water levels at non - pumping wells.
C. The City approves the aquifer test report.
40 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Resolution No. P -13-
Page 13
Upon satisfaction of the above, groundwater production at Maderas Well 6 may
be permitted if the City Manager has determined that groundwater production at
Well 6 does not significantly influence the water level at OCETW and private
wells in the OCE residential community. Groundwater production 'at Maderas
Well 6, when permitted, shall be monitored monthly during the peak irrigation
season of April through October and shall be shut down for five (5) consecutive
days each month immediately prior to collecting a static groundwater elevation
(GWE) measurement. If the static groundwater level is below 178 feet bgs, then
production from Well 6 shall be discontinued until the water level rises above 178
feet bgs.
T. Maderas shall notify the City within five (5) working days of knowledge of the
exceedance whenever the water level depth in either LSCTW or Maderas Well 6
exceeds the groundwater depth levels specified in these conditions of approval.
Within 30 -days of knowledge of the exceedance an interim report shall be
submitted to the City detailing the water level depth exceedance and mitigation
steps taken. Manual monitoring conducted per the protocols specified in these
conditions of approval of the well with an exceedance will be increased to
weekly, and production decreased or suspended in wells hydrogeologically
related to the exceedance.
U. Maderas shall design and construct a water system for the transportation of
reclaimed water throughout the project in accordance with Poway's Master Plan.
Unless extended by the City Manager, said construction shall be complete within
six months of Maderas' receipt of a written notice of the availability of recycled
water.
V. Maderas shall use reclaimed water to irrigate. the golf course as soon as it
becomes available to the site to the full extent that such water is available, on a
first priority basis before raw water, groundwater, or domestic water is used to
irrigate the golf course, unless and only to the extent that the City Council in its
sole discretion expressly allows the use of raw or groundwater for such irrigation.
Prior to the use of ,reclaimed or raw water to irrigate the golf course, plans for
onsite landscape irrigation of the golf course, club house, and parking lot
landscaping shall be provided to the City. Said plans shall be submitted to the
County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health. The applicant will be
responsible for the fees in effect at that time for work by the County of San Diego
Department of Environmental Health.
W. Maderas shall fund all costs for a City -hired consulting hydrogeologist to assist
the City in ensuring compliance with the conditions of approval in this CUP for
the duration of the CUP. Within 30 days of this approval, Maderas shall submit
the initial $3,000 deposit to cover these costs. After the initial deposit, additional
funds to replenish the deposit shall be submitted as needed upon request by the
City. Maderas shall also fund all costs for a City -hired consulting biologist in the
41 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Resolution No. P -13-
Page 14
event the City determines biological consulting services are necessary pursuant
to the requirements of this CUP.
PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Poway,
State of California, this 19th day of November 2013.
Don Higginson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shelia R. Cobian, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
I, Sheila R. Cobian, City Clerk of the City of Poway, do hereby certify, under the
penalty of perjury, that the foregoing Resolution No. P -13- , was duly adopted by
the City Council at a meeting of said City Council held on the 19th day of November
2013, and that it was so adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DISQUALIFIED
Sheila R. Cobian, City Clerk
City of Poway
42 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Maderas Chronology
May 1990 - Old Coach Golf Estates Project Approved
The City Council approves a request by Environmental Development LTD, the property
owner at that time, for a subdivision map and certifies the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) for the Old Coach Golf Estates project. The project generally consisted of a
subdivision map that created 156 residential lots, open space lots, and a separate lot for
a golf course. The residential component is now known as the Old Coach Collection
and the Heritage neighborhoods, and the golf course is now known as Maderas. The
following was included regarding golf course irrigation:
• At the time of approval it was thought that reclaimed water would soon be
available to the area and reclaimed water use for golf course irrigation was
required for the project.
The preparation of a ground water hydrology analysis was also required to
determine the feasibility of interim use of ground water for golf course irrigation
until such time reclaimed water was available.
The approval stipulated that additional City Council approval is required for any
ground water use for golf course irrigation.
November 1990 - Project Changes Approved and CUP Approved
City Council approves changes to the project (relating to subdivision mapping, grading,
street design and realignment, etc.) and approves Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 90 -13
that established the golf course and clubhouse. The approval adds the following
regarding water use:
• An agreement is required for use of untreated water for golf course irrigation.
• The reclaimed water system is required to be built within 6 months of reclaimed
water being available.
November 1992 - Project Changes Approved
Project changes approved primarily relating to mapping. No changes to water use
requirements.
January 1992 - Sierra Club Settlement Agreement
The City, Environmental Development LLC and the Sierra Club enter into a Settlement
Agreement following a lawsuit that was filed by the Sierra Club over the City's approval
of the project. The agreement was specific to natural habitat impacts and did not relate
to groundwater use.
April 1996
Grading begins on the Old Coach Collection neighborhood.
January 1997 - Agreement on Irrigation Water
City enters into an agreement with Environmental Development LLC for the use of raw
water to irrigate the course with other provisions, including price of water.
43 of 374 ATTACHMENT B November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
April 1998
Grading begins on Phase 1 of the Heritage neighborhood and the golf course.
Mid -Year 1999 — Establishment of Golf Course and Unauthorized Groundwater Use
City becomes aware that some of project grading is inconsistent with the approved
project grading plans. Staff works with Sunroad to reconcile the inconsistencies.
Additionally, in July 1999, the City became aware that some residential wells in the
Lower Sycamore Creek neighborhood were experiencing problems. At that time the
golf course turf areas were being established and staff also became aware that the
developer, Sunroad, was using five wells for irrigation. Staff met with Sunroad and
learned that they were unaware of the May 1990 requirement to do the groundwater
hydrology report and that they believed they had the right to use groundwater.
August 1999 - City Council Approves Limited Groundwater Use and Assistance Plan
In response to problems with the resident wells in the Sycamore Creek neighborhood
and the unauthorized groundwater use the City Council approves the following:
• Allows Sunroad interim groundwater use until a specified date.
• Reiterates the requirement for the groundwater hydrology analysis and requires
the analysis be submitted by a specified date.
• Approves Sunroad's assistance' plan to the Sycamore Creek neighborhood for
the residents, which includes a commitment of funds for: 1) improvement of
failing wells and 2) sharing in the cost of trucking in water.
November 1999 - Settlement Agreement
The City and the property owner enter into a Settlement Agreement to resolve disputes
regarding water use restrictions. Settlement Agreement includes the following:
• Reiterates from the original approval that when reclaimed water becomes
available, Maderas is to use reclaimed water to irrigate the golf course, unless
the City Council approves otherwise.
• Reiterates from the original approval that until reclaimed water becomes
available, Maderas is to use raw or potable water to irrigate the golf course.
• Reiterates from the original approval that any groundwater use is subject to
approval by the City Council through a CUP amendment.
• Authorizes interim use of groundwater in specified amounts, and subject to
specified monitoring and reporting requirements.
• Sets a deadline to stop the interim groundwater use that had been authorized.
• Acknowledges that the preparation of the required hydrology report is underway
to assess long -term groundwater use and requires its submittal in a specified
time frame.
January 2000 - First Modification to CUP 90 -13 (CUP 90 -13M)
City Council approves specific clubhouse improvements under CUP 90 -13M. Included
in the approval are reiterations of past requirements relating to City Council approval to
use groundwater, the groundwater hydrology report, reclaimed water use, provisions of
the Settlement Agreement, etc.
44 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
March 2000 - First Addendum to the Settlement Agreement
This is the first of two addendums to the Settlement Agreement. This Addendum
extended the deadline to stop the interim ground water use and for submittal of
groundwater hydrology report. All other Settlement Agreement provisions remain in
effect.
July 2000 - Second Addendum to the Settlement Agreement
The second Addendum extended once more the deadline to stop the interim ground-
water use and the deadline for submittal of the groundwater hydrology report.
Additionally, it is acknowledged that there is a causal relationship between Maderas
groundwater use and impacts to groundwater in the Lower Sycamore Creek
neighborhood to the west of Maderas. The Addendum also includes the following:
• Decreases the amount of interim groundwater use.
• Requires Maderas to reimburse Sycamore Creek residents for costs associated
with needed improvements to wells and /or new wells.
Requires Maderas to participate with Old Coach Home Owners Association in
extending water to area to the southeast and east of Maderas.
End of July 2000 — Hydrologic Study of the Sycamore Creek Sub -Basin Submitted
August 2000 - Second Modification to CUP 90 -13 (CUP 90 -13M2)
City Council approved the long -term use of groundwater, based on the findings of the
Hydrologic Study, subject to special requirements specified in City Council Resolution
P- 00 -65, which included the following:
• Well monitoring to protect other wells and riparian habitat in the area.
• Riparian habitat monitoring.
• Specified ,well shutdowns based on groundwater elevation drops.
• Assurances to provide water to the Sycamore Creek neighborhood.
September 2004 and September 2005 — Third and Fourth Modifications to CUP 90 -13
(CUP 90 -13M3 and CUP 90 -13M4)
Amendments to allow continued use of temporary structures (not related to water use).
August 2009 - Groundwater Use Curtailed
City directs Maderas shut down wells 8, 9, and 10 because the groundwater level at
OCETW drops to below 180 bgs.
October 2009 — Fifth Modification to CUP 90 -13 (CUP 90 -13M5)
Maderas submits the proposal to modify the CUP. From October 2009 through early
2013, City staff and a City contracted hydrogeologist, work with Maderas to clarify and
refine the proposal. As a result, substantive changes are made to the proposal.
August 2011 — All Groundwater Use Shut Down
City directs that all wells be shut down because the water level at OCETW continues to
be below 180 bgs.
45 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
May 2012 — Dr. Ponce Report
Residents submit a report prepared by Dr. Ponce from SDSU entitled Thompson Creek
Groundwater Sustainability Study.
October 2012 - Independent Third Party Consultant
City Council approves the scope of work and a contract for professional services with
Dudek. The Dudek team includes a hydrogeologist, a biologist and an environmental
specialist. Dudek is engaged to evaluate the technical information that is available on
the project, including work done by the Maderas consultant and the Dr. Ponce report,
and the proposal to modify the CUP. They are also to advise the City on the
appropriate environmental review process and assist if necessary with completing
required documents.
Early 2013 - Maderas Proposal Updated
As a result of the Dudek review of the Maderas proposal and discussion with City staff,
Maderas updates the proposal to modify the CUP. The updated proposal is made
available to the public.
April 2013 - Dudek Report
Dudek completes their evaluation in a report entitled Third -Party Review of
Hydrogeological and Biological Resource Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf
Club. The report is made available to the public.
May 2013 - Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (AMND) for CUP 90 -13M2
An AMND is prepared and made available for public review and comment.
M: \planning \13 reports \CUP \CUP 90- 13M(5) Maderas \ATT B maderas chron.docx
46 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
RR -A
13.E
N
0 375 750
PC-4
DC
US
s
NX-11
os
1,500
T Feet
-A
Subjec Location:
17750 Oldl Coach Road
PC-4
CITY OF POWAY
Zoning / Location Map
Item: CUP 90- 013M(5)
47 of 374 ATTACHMENT C November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Maderas Wells and Surrounding
48 of 374 ATTACHMENT D November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
RESOLUTION NO. P -00 -65
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90 -13
AND MODIFYING CONDITION NUMBER 4 ON PAGE 5
OF RESOLUTION NO. P -00 -03
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 277 - 170 -06
WHEREAS, Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) was submitted by Sunroad
Enterprises, applicant, to modify an existing Conditional Use Permit to establish an
operational plan and riparian habitat monitoring program for the use of groundwater at the
Maderas Golf Course based on the "Hydrogeologic and Biologic Study for the Sycamore
Creek Sub - Basin" prepared by Don Howard Engineering and dated July 28, 2000. The
property is located at 17750 Old Coach Road within the Planned Community (PC) zone;
and,
WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration was mailed to -the State
Clearinghouse and published in the local newspaper for a 30 day public review period
starting on July 27, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, on August 29, 2000, the City Council held a duly advertised public
hearing to solicit comments from the public, both pro and con, relative to this application.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1: The City Council has considered the Environmental Initial Study (EIS),
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program
shown'as Exhibit A of this resolution for CUP 90- 13M(2) and public comments received on
the EIS and MND. The subject EIS and MND documentation is fully incorporated herein
by this reference. The City Council finds that the mitigation measures contained in the EIS
and Exhibit A hereof will mitigate potentially significant impacts to a level of less than
significant and hereby approves the MND and the associated Mitigation Monitoring
Program attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. A prior certified Environmental Impact
Report with mitigation measures was issued for TTM 89 -13 on November 15, 1990 and
referenced for the approval of CUP 90 -13 and TTM 89 -13R on November 27, 1990.
Section 2: The findings, in accordance with Section 17.48.070 of the Poway Municipal
Code for Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) to establish an operational plan and riparian
habitat monitoring program for the use of groundwater at the Maderas Golf Course, are
made as follows:
49 of 374 ATTACHMENT E November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Resolution No. P-00-65
Page 2
A. The project is consistent with the General Plan and the Old Coach Golf Estates
Specific Plan in that groundwater use is allowable based on the hydrology study
prepared to document the effects of groundwater use on the sub -basin and the City
Council's authorization for the amount of groundwater use.
B. That the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the use will be
compatible with, and will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to,
adjacent uses, buildings, structures, or natural resources, in that the extent of
groundwater usage will be limited to an annual amount that will not adversely affect
the well production of existing and future residential wells within the same sub -
basin.
C. That the harmony in scale, bulk, coverage, and density is consistent,with adjacent
uses because groundwater usage will be regulated to balance the irrigation needs
of the golf course with the residential well usage within the watershed.
D. That there are available public facilities, services, and utilities to serve the golf
course, and the extent of groundwater use authorized by the City Council will be in
conjunction with metered potable water use until such time as raw water and
recycled water become available for irrigation.
E. That there will not be a harmful effect upon desirable neighborhood characteristics,
in that groundwater use will be monitored so that downstream and upstream
residential wells do not experience significant drawdown.
F. That the generation of traffic will not adversely impact the surrounding streets and/or
the City's Transportation Element, in that groundwater use will have no bearing on
traffic.
G. That the site is suitable for the type and intensity of the use in that the amount of
groundwater usage is specified in this resolution to be compatible with residential
groundwater use in the vicinity.
H. That there will not be significant harmful effects upon environmental quality and
natural resources, in that groundwater use will be regulated by groundwater and
shallow riparian habitat monitoring wells so as to retain the environmental quality
of the groundwater aquifer and maintain the riparian habitat in its normal state.
I. That there are no other relevant adverse environmental impacts of the development
that cannot be mitigated. The establishment of an operational plan and riparian
habitat monitoring plan for the use of groundwater at the Maderas Golf Course will
reduce any potentially adverse environmental impacts to a less than significant
level.
50 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Resolution No. P -00 -65
Page 3
Section 3: This second modification to Conditional Use Permit 90 -13, as shown on the
application dated May 10, 2000, to establish an operational plan and wetland and riparian
habitat monitoring program for the use of groundwater at the Maderas Golf Course located
at 17750 Old Coach Road within the Planned Community zone, is hereby approved,
subject to the following conditions:
A. The conditions of approval contained in Resolution P -00 -03 shall remain in effect
except for Condition number 4 on page 5 of said resolution, which is amended as
follows:
Prior to issuance of a building permit for the 8,000 - square -foot permanent
clubhouse, a new grading permit shall be issued and progress made on
implementation of the requirements of said permit, including any required biological
mitigation and application, if necessary, to Federal, State or Regional agencies, to
the. satisfaction of the Director of Development Services. The release of any other
permits pursuant to Conditional Use Permit 90 -13 or Development Review 98 -35
shall be at the discretion of the Director of Development Services:
B. Within 30 days of the date of this approval, the applicant/property owner shall:
1. Submit in writing that all conditions of approval have been read and
understood.
2. Execute a Covenant on Real Property.
C. The use conditionally granted by this approval shall not be conducted in such a
manner as to interfere with the reasonable use and enjoyment of the surrounding
open space and residential uses.
D. This Conditional Use Permit may be subject to annual review as determined by the
Director of Development Services for compliance with the conditions of approval
and to address concerns that may have occurred during the past year.
E. The applicant shall retain a qualified biologist on a continuous basis for monitoring
of the wetland and riparian habitat for as long as groundwater is used for golf
course irrigation.
F. In order to implement the wetland and riparian habitat monitoring program, the
following shall be accomplished by the applicant within 30 days of the date of this
approval:
51 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Resolution No. P- 00 -65
Page 4
1. Shallow monitoring wells shall be installed at eight locations, adjacent to
each existing or proposed'transect as identified in the "Hydrogeologic and
Biologic Study for the Sycamore Creek Sub - Basin" prepared by Don Howard
Engineering and dated July 28, 2000, as follows or as otherwise approved
by the Director of Development Services. Any offsite wells require the
permission of the property owner prior to installation.
a. The three upstream locations shall include a location within
Thompson Creek to the east of Old Coach Road, a location within
Sycamore Creek just downstream of the Hidden Valley Ranch
property, and a location within Green Valley Creek located in the Blue
Sky Ecological Reserve.
b. The two on -site locations shall be within Sycamore Creek and along
the golf course.
C. The three downstream locations shall be offsite of the golf course and
within Sycamore Creek and within the ownership of the San Dieguito
River Park.
2. Install pressure transducers and data loggers at the on -site wetland and
riparian monitoring wells and pumping wells 2 and 4 to establish the baseline
water levels and allow monitoring of the changes over time.
3. Piezometers shall be placed at the 10 foot depth in each offsite well.
4. The habitat to be monitored shall be staked in the field by the applicant to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
5. Data from the data loggers on the eight wetland and riparian monitoring wells
shall be retrieved weekly until August 31, 2000, and monthly thereafter, and
shall be included in the report required in Subsection I of Section 3 of this
resolution below.
G. The qualified biologist retained by the applicant shall perform monthly qualitative
inspections of the habitat within the eight band transects that coincide with the
wetland and riparian habitat monitoring wells from September 1, 2000 through
October 1, 2001. The results of these inspections shall be submitted to the City in
writing for review by the City's consulting biologist. After the first year of reporting,
the Director of Development Services shall determine the appropriate reporting
interval for this information.
52 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Resolution No. P- 00 -65
Page 5
H. In addition to the monthly qualitative reports, the qualified biologist retained by the
applicant shall perform and submit to the City a written quantitative survey of the
habitat within the eight band transects that coincide with the wetland and riparian
habitat monitoring wells in September 2000, November 2000, and February 2001.
Thereafter, the quantitative report shall be conducted in May and October of every
year and submitted to the City within 30 days of completion of the survey. The data
collected shall be submitted in report form to the Director of Development Services
and shall include the following:
1. In order to evaluate the health of the wetland and riparian trees and plants
through a visual assessment, a photo inventory of the riparian habitat shall
be included in the report and provided in digital format, to the satisfaction of
the Director of Development Services. The digital photos shall be correlated
to the staked habitat in the field and a map of the riparian areas.
2. Water levels at the shallow riparian monitoring wells located at each transect
location shall be retrieved by the applicant on a weekly basis through August
31, 2000, and thereafter on a monthly basis as described in Condition J
below. This data shall be included in the monthly reports provided in written
form to the City Engineer on the 20th calendar day of every month pursuant
to Condition J.2. of Section 3 of this Resolution. This data shall also be
assessed as part of the quantitative analysis by the biologist.
3. The analysis shall include a discussion of any habitat impacts and their effect
on the Restoration Plan for the Maderas Golf Course and California
Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Agreement #5- 317 -97
dated October 1999.
4. During the monitoring year, additional information may be requested at the
discretion of the Director of Development Services.
In order to protect the riparian habitat, the applicant shall monitor the water levels
of the four on -site shallow alluvial wells (Monitoring Well 1 (MW -1), Monitoring Well
2 (MW -2), Monitoring Well 3 (MW -3), Monitoring Well 4 (MW -4)) and the Maderas
Golf Club's Wells 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, as shown on Plate 3 of Appendix D contained in
the "Hydrogeologic and Biologic Study for the Sycamore Creek Sub - Basin"
prepared by Don Howard Engineering and dated July 28, 2000, on a monthly basis.
The applicant shall comply with all of the following:
If the water levels of MW -2 or MW -4 reach 10 feet below ground surface,
groundwater use at Maderas Golf Club's Wells 2 and 5 shall cease until the
City Engineer has determined that water levels in the shallow alluvial wells
53 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Resolution No. P- 00 -65
Page 6
have stabilized at 5 feet below ground surface, and the applicant's qualified
biologist shall provide a quantitative analysis of the riparian habitat as
described in Condition H of Section 3 above, to the satisfaction of the
Director of Development Services. Resumption of groundwater use shall not
occur without the express written consent of the City Manager.
2. If the water level in MW -2 or MW-4 continues to decline to 15 feet below
ground surface, groundwater use shall cease at Maderas Golf Club Wells 1,
3 and 4 until the City Engineer has determined that water levels in the
shallow alluvial wells stabilize at 10 feet below ground surface and the
applicant's qualified biologist shall provide a quantitative analysis of the
riparian habitat as described in Condition H of Section 3 above, to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services. If the water levels in
any of the off -site wetland and riparian habitat monitoring wells decline to 10
feet or more below ground surface, the use of groundwater shall cease
immediately. The use of groundwater will be reassessed by the City
Engineer prior to resumption. Resumption shall not occur without the
express written consent of the City Manager.
3. If impacts to the wetland and riparian habitat have occurred, the following
mitigation and monitoring requirements shall be implemented by the
applicant prior to resumption of the groundwater use to the satisfaction of the
Director of Development Services:
a. A "Compensation Mitigation Plan" shall be prepared by the qualified
biologist retained by the applicant. This Plan shall be submitted to the
Development Services Department for review and approval: This
Plan shall identify the specific location of the impact(s), quantify the
impact(s) and recommend "compensation mitigation" in compliance
with Section 7.4 of the Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan
(Poway HCP).
b. A minimum five -year "Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and
Maintenance Program" shall be prepared by the qualified biologist
retained by the applicant. This Program shall be submitted to the
Development Services Department for review and approval. The
Program shall include appropriate monitoring and reporting
requirements, maintenance and success criteria, and plant
replacement guidelines. The Program shall be consistent with and
further the conservation objectives of the Poway HCP, and shall
ensure the successful completion of all identified mitigation measures.
54 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Resolution No. P -00 -65
Page 7
4. Notwithstanding water usage within the water level limits set forth above, if
the City Council determines that groundwater usage is adversely affecting
riparian habitat, groundwater.use shall cease or be reduced as directed by
the City Council. In the event such direction is not complied with by the
applicant, this Conditional Use Permit may, after public hearing, be modified
or revoked.
J. In order to ensure that the use of groundwater by the applicant will not adversely
impact groundwater levels for other well users off -site, the applicant shall measure
the static water levels at the four bedrock wells ( Maderas Wells 2 and 4, lower
Sycamore Creek test well, and Old Coach Estates test well) and the four on -site
shallow alluvial wells (Monitoring Well 1 (MW -1), Monitoring Well 2 (MW -2),
Monitoring Well 3 (MW -3), Monitoring Well 4 (MW -4)) as shown on Plate 3 of
Appendix D contained in the "Hydrogeologic and Biologic Study for the Sycamore
Creek Sub - Basin" prepared by Don Howard Engineering and dated July 28, 2000,
and provide additional data as follows:
1. Precipitation Data - Collect monthly precipitation data from the Poway Valley
Station No. 7111, and precipitation and temperature data from Maderas' on-
site weather station when operational. This information shall be included in
the monthly groundwater report referenced below.
2. Groundwater Levels shall be monitored as follows:
a. Pressure transducers and data loggers shall be installed at the four
bedrock wells and four shallow alluvial wells.
b. Data loggers shall record water levels a minimum of every two hours
at each of the wells.
C. The data shall be retrieved by the applicant on a weekly basis through
August 31, 2000, and thereafter on a monthly basis. Monthly reports
shall be provided in written form to the City Engineer on the 20th
calendar day of every month.
d. During the retrieval of data, water levels will also be measured
manually. Water levels taken manually shall be measured to the
nearest 0.01 -foot below a consistent reference point and recorded
with the date and time. Manual water levels shall also be taken at the
same time at the following additional wells. Should the applicant be
unable to obtain permission to test any of the wells listed below, the
City Engineer shall determine if alternative well sites should be tested.
55 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
• Maderas Wells 1, 3, 5 and 6
• Malone Well
• Myers Well
• Tremble Wells (2)
• Sawzak Wells (3), if possible
Resolution No. P -00 -65
Page 8
• Barkin Well
• Tamayo Well
• San Dieguito River Park Well
• Blum Wells (3), if possible
3. Production - Record, on a weekly basis, the flow meter readings for each of
the five Maderas wells equipped with pumps as shown on Plate 3 of
Appendix D contained in the "Hydrogeologic and Biologic Study for the
Sycamore Creek Sub - Basin" prepared by Don Howard Engineering and
dated July 28, 2000. The data shall be retrieved by the applicant on a
weekly basis through August 31, 2000, and thereafter on a monthly basis.
Monthly reports shall be provided in written form to the City Engineer on the
20th calendar day of every month.
4. Pumping - The groundwater levels must stabilize at or above 80 feet below
ground surface at the lower Sycamore Creek test well, and at or above 120
feet below ground surface for the Old Coach Estates test well. However, the
groundwater elevations (water level depth) shall not exceed 180 feet below
ground surface for Old Coach Estates test well and 100 feet at lower
Sycamore Creek test well. If the water levels specified are exceeded, the
applicant shall discontinue the use of groundwater until the water levels
stabilize at 40 feet above the designated water level for each test well. Once
the wells have stabilized to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, and the City
Manager has authorized resumption of groundwater use, pumping will
resume at 75 percent of the rate being pumped prior to discontinuing the use
of the wells for the remainder of the monitoring year. If the specified water
level is exceeded again, the process will be repeated.
5. Notwithstanding water usage within the water level limits set forth above, if
the City Council determines that groundwater usage is adversely affecting
groundwater use by other well users off -site, groundwater use shall cease
or be reduced as directed by the City Council. In the event such direction is
not complied with by the applicant, this Conditional Use Permit may after
public hearing be modified or revoked.
K. Within 45 days of the end of each monitoring year (October 1 through September
30), a summary report analyzing all of the data collected during the year, from both
the wetland and riparian monitoring wells and the groundwater monitoring wells with
an updated groundwater balance analysis, shall be prepared to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
56 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Resolution No. P -00 -65
Page 9
L. All expenses and fees for the consultant and staff time shall be borne by the
applicant. The cost of the review of the data for both the riparian monitoring and
monitoring for off -site well users is estimated to be $15,000 (to be on deposit) over
the initial five year period with the deposit adjusted for inflation after five years.
Additional funds necessary for the work are subject to the approval of the Director
of Development Services and the applicant. This fee does not include any unusual
study that may be required due to impacts of groundwater use and related impacts
to the riparian trees and understory.
M. Production shall be distributed as evenly as possible through the year to avoid peak
drawdown.
N. The applicant shall guarantee water service to the lower Sycamore Creek area and
its residents. In the event groundwater supplies become inadequate to meet the
domestic and non - domestic water needs of the residents and properties in that
area, the applicant shall supply water to meet those needs in such quantities and
for such periods as necessary to meet those needs at the applicant's sole cost and
expense. The applicant shall also be responsible for any secondary expenses such
as road repairs, determined by the Director of Development Services as necessary
to provide the water service. The alternatives for supplying such water service shall
include deepening wells, trucking and storing water on site(s), or extending a
temporary aboveground water line from the Highland Ranch area or closest point.
The applicant may select the alternative and shall be responsible for all costs
associated with implementing continued and uninterrupted water service. In the
event of a dispute between any resident and the applicant over the adequacy of the
water supply or the adequacy of the remedy implemented by the applicant, the City
Council shall determine which of the above stated alternatives is to be implemented
and the applicant shall comply with the Council's determination as a condition of this
conditional use permit. In the event that the City Council determines at,any time
that the water service to the lower Sycamore Creek area is inadequate, it may direct
that groundwater usage by the applicant shall cease until City Council determines
that the service has become adequate. In the event such direction is not complied
with by the applicant, this Conditional Use Permit may, after public hearing, be
modified or revoked by the City Council.
O. The applicant will stop using potable (domestic) City water immediately in the event
of a fire in the Old Coach area.
P. The applicant shall design and construct a water system for the transportation of
recycled (reclaimed) water throughout the project in accordance with Poway's
Master Plan. Said construction shall be complete within six months of availability
of recycled water. The City Council will evaluate and approve the amounts of future
groundwater usage in conjunction with recycled, raw and potable water.
57 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Resolution No. P -00 -65
Page 10
Q. The applicant shall use recycled (reclaimed) water to irrigate the golf course as
soon as it becomes available to .the site to the full extent that such water is
available, on a first priority basis before raw water, groundwater, or domestic water
is used to irrigate the golf course. Prior to the use of recycled or raw water to
irrigate the golf course, plans for on -site landscape irrigation of the golf course, club
house, and parking lot landscaping shall be provided to the City. Said plans will be
submitted to the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health. The
applicant will be responsible for the following fees for work by the County of San
Diego Department of Environmental Health:
a. Site Plan Check $200.00 avg. cost*
b. Shut Down Test ** $320.00 avg. cost*
c. Title 22 Inspection $ 80.00 avg. cost*
* based on full cost recovery; actual fee amount may vary
** shut down test is required at initial installation and at least every
four (4) years on sites with both recycled and potable water.
Section 4: The approval of Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) shall expire on February 28,
2001 at 5:00 p.m. unless, prior,to that time, the applicant has fully implemented the
groundwater monitoring programs pursuant to this approval.
APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Poway, State of
California, this 29th day of August 2000.
Michael P.
ATTEST:
4Lorde Peoples, City C erk
Mayor
58 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Resolution No. P- 00 -65
Page 11
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO }
I, Lori Anne Peoples, City Clerk of the City of Poway, do hereby certify under
penalty of perjury that the foregoing Resolution No. P- 00 -65 was duly adopted by the
City Council at a meeting of said City Council held on the 29th day of August 2000 and that
it was so adopted by the following vote:
AYES: EMERY, GOLDBY, HIGGINSON, REXFORD, CAFAGNA
NOES: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
L. n"V� �-s wajat-��
Lori Anne Peoples, City dleik
City of Poway
59 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Resolution No. P- 00 -65
Page 12
EXHIBIT A
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90 -13 M(2)
MADERAS GOLF COURSE GROUNDWATER USE
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a Mitigation Monitoring Program
pursuant to California Public Resources Code, Section 21081.6). The following Mitigation
Monitoring Program identifies the environmental impact and mitigation measures identified in the
environmental document reviewed and approved by the City of Poway City Council and the party
responsible for implementation of the mitigation measures.
TOPIC MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
1. Biology a. A riparian habitat monitoring
program shall be
implemented to ensure the
health of the riparian habitat
along Sycamore Creek.
b. If impacts to riparian habitat
occur, the applicant shall
have a Compensation
Mitigation Plan prepared by
a qualified biologist and
implemented with a
minimum five -year
monitoring program.
c. A new grading permit shall
be obtained and progress
made on implementation of
the requirements of said
permit, including any
required biological mitigation
and application, if
necessary, to Federal, State
or Regional agencies, to the
satisfaction of the Director of
Development Services.
2. Hydrology a. The applicant shall
and Water implement a long -term
Quality groundwater monitoring
program to ensure the use
of groundwater by the golf
course will not adversely
impact off -site well users.
TIMING
a. Within 30 days of the
date of the approval
b. As necessary
Prior to issuance of a
building permit for the
8,000 square foot
permanent clubhouse
a. Within 30 days of the
date of the approval
RESPONSIBILITY
a. Applicant
b. Applicant
c. Applicant
The release of any
other permits
pursuant to
Conditional Use
Permit 90 -13 or
Development
Review 98 -35 shall
be at the discretion
of the Director of
Development
Services.
a. Applicant
60 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
TOPIC MITIGATION
MEASURE(S)
b. Water service shall be
guaranteed to the lower
Sycamore Creek area and
its residents. In the event
groundwater supplies
become inadequate to
meet the domestic and
non - domestic water needs
of the residents and
properties in the area,
water shall be supplied to
meet those needs in such
quantities and for such
periods as necessary to
meet those needs.
c. Recycled (reclaimed) water
shall be used to irrigate the
golf course as soon as it
becomes available to the
site to the full extent that
such water is available, on
a first priority basis before
raw water, groundwater or
domestic water is used to
irrigate the golf course.
Plans to design and
construct a water system
for the recycled water shall
be in accordance with the
City of Poway Water
Master Plan.
N:\ CITY \PLANNING \OQREPORT\CUP9013M.RS4
Resolution No. P- 00 -65
Page 13
TIMING
b. Ongoing
c. Upon availability of
reclaimed water.
RESPONSIBILITY
b. Applicant
c. Applicant
61 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Summary Comparison of Existing CUP Requirements
And Proposed Modifications
Topic
Annual
Groundwater
Production Cap
New Wells
Biological/
Riparian Habitat
Existing
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
280 acre -feet.
No limit on wells, provided that
all other CUP requirements are
satisfied, including production
cap.
Biological consultant to be
retained for monitoring riparian
health onsite and at offsite
locations.
Groundwater level monitoring
required at wells, including eight
monitoring wells (3 upstream
from site, 3 downstream from
site, 2 onsite).
Riparian health monitoring to be
qualitative and quantitative, and
pursuant to specific and detailed
protocols identified in the CUP.
For MW 2 and 4 if water level
falls below 10 feet bgs,
production Wells 2 and 5 to be
shut down until water level
stabilizes at 5 feet bgs and
riparian evaluation conducted.
The ability to resume production
at the discretion of the City
Manager.
If water level does not respond
to the shutdown and continues
decline to below 15 bgs, Wells
3 and 4 shutdown until water
level stabilizes at 10 feet and
riparian habitat evaluation
conducted. The ability to
Proposed CUP Modifications
( Maderas proposal with staff
recommended changes
incorporated as noted)
173 acre -feet. Any increase requires
a CUP modification and City Council
action at a public hearing (staff
recommended).
Prior to the use of any new well for
groundwater production, the following
is required: an aquifer test and a CUP
modification with City Council action
at a public hearing (staff
recommended).
Establishes a Trigger, based on the
annual average groundwater
production from the prior 10 years,
which prompts notification to the City
and monitoring.
Notification to the City when
groundwater production exceeds 90%
of Trigger.
When groundwater production
exceeds 100% of Trigger, monitoring,
pursuant to the Plan, of water levels in
MW 2 and 4 to be reported to the City.
City approved biologist to assess
onsite riparian habitat if deemed
necessary by the City.
If biological assessment indicates an
impact to onsite riparian habitat,
groundwater production in southern
zone to be limited for one year, unless
otherwise authorized by the City and
as provided for in the Plan.
If the City authorizes continued
ground water production beyond the
Trigger, Maderas is required to
1, conduct assessments twice a year
and report annually for 3 years.
After 3 years, City to determine need
for further monitoring.
62 of 374 ATTACHMENT F November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
63 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
resume production at the
Compensation Mitigation Plan as
discretion of City Manager.
specified in the Mitigation Monitoring
Plan (Resolution P- 00 -65) still
Monitoring of groundwater levels
applicable (i.e., no change proposed).
in riparian areas and riparian
health for duration to be
determined by the City. After
five years of monitoring
indicating no impacts on the
riparian health in the area, the
City allowed the regular
monitoring to be discontinued.
Compensation Mitigation Plan in
the event that there are riparian
habitat impacts.
Monitoring and
Submit annual report.
Submit annual report.
Reporting
Submit monthly reports on
Submit monthly groundwater
groundwater levels and
production reports to the City (staff
production to the City. Reports
recommended).
to include precipitation and
temperature data.
Groundwater levels to be monitored
when exceeding the Trigger, per the
Groundwater levels to be
Plan.
monitored per specific and
detailed protocols in the CUP.
Groundwater
For OCETW, when the
OCETW is no longer used as a
Production
groundwater level drops to180
monitoring well.
Shutdown and
feet bgs groundwater production
Associated
shutdown.
Monitoring, and
Other
Shutdown until water level
For the Eastern Production Zone,
Requirements
stabilizes to 140 bgs. When
monitoring of groundwater level is
stabilized, groundwater
required when annual groundwater
production can resume at
production exceeds a Trigger.
reduced rate per CUP.
Groundwater production allowed at
Maderas wells 7, 9, and 10 if
groundwater level at Maderas Well 6
is 178 feet bgs or less subject to
provisions in the Plan
Maderas Well 6 not used for
groundwater production without an
aquifer test and subject to provisions
in the Plan
For LSCTW, when the
No Change (staff recommendation)
groundwater level drops to 100
feet bgs groundwater production
shutdown.
63 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
64 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
When below 100 bgs,
groundwater production shut
down until water level stabilizes
to 60 bgs. When stabilized
groundwater production can
resume at reduced rate per
CUP.
Water Assurance
Guarantees water in the event
No Change (staff recommendation)
to Lower
that water supply becomes
Sycamore Creek
inadequate to meet the needs of
Neighborhood
residents and properties, at
Maderas' expense.
Reclaimed Water
Provide reclaimed water system
Language Updated, No Substantive
onsite.
Change
Use reclaimed water when it's
available.
64 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Maderas Golf Club
Groundwater Production and Monitoring Plan
2013
Maderas Country Club LLC, (Maderas) owner and operator of the Maderas Golf Club, is
proposing modifications to the project's previously approved Conditional Use Permit
(CUP). The modifications are based on over 12 years of monitoring data, multiple
aquifer tests, biological assessments and groundwater mapping all of which `were
prepared at the City's direction. The proposed modifications primarily relate to
groundwater production, groundwater production monitoring and reporting, and riparian
vegetation monitoring and reporting. No change to the maximum allowable
groundwater production established by the existing CUP at 280 acre feet per year is
proposed. The proposed plan is outlined as follows.
Groundwater Production Zones
Three groundwater production zones have been identified within the Maderas Golf Club
site based on known and possible hydro - geologic influences on the surrounding area.
The zones generally comprise the south, east, and west areas of the site. An area in
the northern portion of the site does not currently contain any wells and is not included
in a groundwater production zone. The zones and the locations of the existing on -site
wells, are depicted in Figure 1.
The plan identifies monitoring and reporting protocols and specifies when they are
required. The plan establishes the amount of annual groundwater production that can
occur within the eastern and southern zones before notifying the City and conducting
certain types of monitoring. The amount is referred to as the groundwater production
and monitoring trigger (Trigger). The plan also identifies the monitoring and reporting
protocols to be followed when the Trigger is exceeded in these zones. The Trigger for
each zone is determined before the start of the water year (October 1 — September 31)
and is based on historic groundwater production within the given zone.
Each year Maderas will submit to the City for review and approval, the proposed Trigger
for the eastern and southern zones. The Trigger for a given zone will be based the
highest consecutive 10 year average of annual groundwater production that occurred
within that zone in the past. The average is established by consecutive water years, but
will not include water years when there was no groundwater production, such as the
2011/12 water year. Notification to the City and monitoring specified in this plan are a
function of the Triggers.
Groundwater production in the western zone is not subject to a Trigger, but is subject to
specific provisions identified later in this plan.
65 of 374 ATTACHMENT G November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
New Wells
Any new groundwater production well constructed on the;Maderas Golf Club site under
this plan will meet the following provisions:
• A constant rate aquifer test with a pumping phase of 10 days, will be conducted.
The aquifer test will be per State of California's Existing Source Capacity
(Chapter 16, Article 2, §64554.) and the new well production will be evaluated
against Lower Sycamore Creek Test Well (LSCTW), Maderas Well 6, and
alluvium monitoring wells (MW) #2 and #4. The evaluation of Old Coach Estates
Test Well (OCETW) will be required only if there is measurable groundwater in
the test well at the time of the aquifer test and all residents of Old Coach Estates
allow the City or the consulting hydro - geologist Jimely access to their private
wells to monitor groundwater levels in these wells and the wells are not operated
for the duration of the aquifer test and for any additional time as required by the
City to assure the integrity of the aquifer test.
• The test will assess the influence between the new well and LSCTW, Maderas
Well 6, alluvium monitoring well (MW) #2 and #4,1and OCETW, (if evaluated as
part of the aquifer test). The findings of the aquifer test will be reviewed and
approved by the City Manager before the new well,.becomes operational. If there
is a demonstrated influence between the new well and other wells the City
Manager may, at the Manager's sole discretion, require Maderas to process an
amendment to the CUP. Upon establishment, all new wells will be subject to the
general monitoring protocols of this Plan. Any new well with a demonstrated
significant influence on any of the non - pumping wells will be assigned to the
appropriate groundwater production zone in consultation with the City and will be
subject to the specific monitoring protocols established for the applicable
groundwater production zone as identified in this plan.
• If a new well is located within a groundwater production zone and no influence is
noted on any other well within that zone or any other zone, the well will be
subject to the monitoring protocols of this plan for the zone in which the new well
is located.
• If a new well is not located within a groundwater production zone and no
influence is noted on any well, the new well is not subject to monitoring but is
subject to the annual reporting requirements of this plan.
• Well casing will be set from land surface to the contact between the colluvium
and underlying fractured bedrock to prevent the well from drawing groundwater
from the alluvium and colluvium. The well casing shall be designed to prevent
the influence of pumping from fractured rock on groundwater levels in the
overlying alluvium and colluvium.
• Compliance with adopted City requirements pertaining to habitat removal, work
during protected bird species nesting seasons, noise limits, and waste disposal,
as may be applicable.
The boundaries of groundwater production zones identified in this plan are approximate
and the assignment of new wells to zones is a function of the well's influence on
surrounding areas as determined by the aquifer test.
2
66 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item #.3.1
f.
Annual Report to the City
By November 15 of each year, Maderas will provide an annual report to the City for the
preceding water year that summarizes the following information for all wells located on
the Maderas Golf Club site that operated at any time within the preceding water year:
• A description of the monitoring methods used;
• Summary tables of annual groundwater production data by individual wells and
by zones for the preceding water year;
• Identification of the Trigger for the preceding year and the highest consecutive 10
year annual average for the zone;
• The highest consecutive 10 year monthly averages for the eastern and southern
zones if monitoring occurred for the preceding water year, and the monthly
averages for the preceding water year,
• Hydrographs depicting all water levels measured at test well(s) and operational
wells subject to the monitoring requirements of this plan for the preceding ten
water years,
• Rainfall data for the preceding ten water years,
• Discussion, as appropriate, of any breach of specified groundwater depths for
LSCTW and Maderas production well 6 and corresponding mitigation steps
taken.
• Biological assessment of the health of the riparian vegetation at Maderas
whenever monitoring of MW #2 and #4 has occurred within the water year
pursuant to southern zone monitoring protocols identified in this Plan.
General Monitoring Protocols
Maderas will record on a monthly basis the flow meter readings (i.e. total gallons
pumped and instantaneous pumping rate) for each well equipped with an operating
pump. Maderas will also retrieve this groundwater production data on a monthly basis
as well as record monthly precipitation data from the Poway Valley Station No. 7111,
and precipitation data from Maderas' onsite weather station when operational.
Monitoring of groundwater depths at LSCTW, MW #2, MW #4, Maderas Well 6 and
Maderas operating wells will include the following:
• Pressure transducers and data loggers will be installed and maintained at
LSCTW, MW #2, MW #4, Well 6 and all operating wells located within. the golf
course, except Wells 1, 3, 5, and 7.
• Pressure transducers and dataloggers will be programmed to measure and
record groundwater levels once a day. If the pressure transducers measure an
absolute pressure, then a pressure transducer should be deployed to measure
barometric pressure at the same frequency as the groundwater pressure
transducers.
• The data will be retrieved by Maderas on a monthly basis.
• Once every three months, groundwater levels will also be measured manually.
Manual measurements will be to the nearest 0.1 foot below a consistent
reference point and recorded with the date and time.
3
67 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
• Monitoring of production wells that have not operated at any time within the
preceding water year and are expected to not be used in the current water year
may be suspended and all applicable requirements of this plan shall not apply to
the non - operating well as long as the well is not ,in operation. This does not
apply to Well 6 as this well is included with the set of wells instrumented with
pressure transducers programmed to measure and record water levels on a daily
basis.
Western Well Zone
Based on data demonstrating significant influence between Maderas Wells 4 and 5 in
the western zone and LSCTW, monitoring groundwater depths in LSCTW is required
independent of the amount of groundwater production from Maderas Wells 4 and 5 and
any other operating well that the City determines influences LSCTW. Therefore,
determining a Trigger is not required for the western well zone.
Groundwater production at Maderas Golf Club will not be conducted in a manner which
adversely impacts groundwater production for Assessor Parcel No. (APN) 272- 150 -24
(San Dieguito Joint Powers Authority headquarters) and the five parcels in the lower
Sycamore Creek neighborhood that are or could be developed with a single family
detached dwelling unit and where the property is also dependent on groundwater as the
only source of potable water. These parcels include APN 272 - 150 -20, APN 272 -150-
28, APN 272 - 150 -36, APN 272 - 150 -26, and APN 272 - 150 -23.
Maderas will measure the static groundwater level at LSCTW and will adjust
groundwater production as follows:
• The groundwater depth at LSCTW should not exceed 100 feet bgs pursuant to
the monitoring protocols of this plan.
• If the water level depth exceeds 100 feet bgs anytime from January 1 through
September 30 the applicant shall discontinue pumping groundwater from
Maderas Wells 4 and 5 and any other operational production well which the City
has determined to influence LSCTW, for 15 days or until the water level rises to
at least 90 feet bgs, whichever is longer.
• If within 30 days of resumed pumping the water level depth at LSCTW exceeds
100 feet bgs, applicant shall discontinue pumping for 30 additional days or until
the water level rises to 90 feet bgs, whichever is longer.
• If the water level depth exceeds 100 feet bgs anytime from October 1 through
December 31, the applicant shall discontinue pumping groundwater from
Maderas Wells 4 & 5 and any other operational well which the City has
determined significantly influences LSCTW, for 30 days or until the water level
rises to 80 feet bgs, whichever is longer.
If the groundwater level in the lower Sycamore Creek neighborhood falls to a level
where groundwater supplies become inadequate to meet the reasonable domestic and
non - domestic water needs of the residents and properties in that area, Maderas will
guarantee water service to the parcels listed above for as long as Maderas: 1) operates
4
68 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
wells in the western zone at any time within the water year or any other well for which a
connection to LSCTW has been established by the City and 2) the City has not provided
permanent potable water service to this area. In the event groundwater supplies
become inadequate to meet the reasonable domestic and non - domestic water needs of
the residents and properties in that area, Maderas will supply water to meet those
needs in such quantities and for such periods as necessary to meet those needs at
Maderas' sole cost and expense. Maderas will also be responsible for any secondary
expenses such as road repairs, determined by the Director of Development Services as
necessary to provide the water service. Alternatives for supplying such water service
include deepening wells; trucking and storing water on site(s), or extending a temporary
aboveground water line from the Highland Ranch area or closest point. Maderas may
select the alternative and shall be responsible for all costs including permitting and
environmental review associated with implementing continued and uninterrupted water
service. In the event of a dispute between any resident and Maderas over the adequacy
of the water supply or the adequacy of the remedy implemented by the Maderas, the
City Council shall determine which of the above stated alternatives is to be implemented
and Maderas will comply with the City Council's determination.
Maderas will be responsible for the groundwater monitoring requirements and the
pumping restrictions of this plan and the CUP, as they apply to parcels in the lower
Sycamore Creek neighborhood as long as no new well becomes operational as a result
of a requirement/desire to provide water to accommodate a change in use, e.g. a
change from single family residential to multi - family residential or to a non - residential
use, or those parcels referenced above have secured an alternative potable water
supply.
Southern Well Zone
At the time of preparation of this plan, the Trigger in the southern groundwater
production zone is 57 acre -feet per water year. Monitoring of wells MW #2 and MW #4
(which is in the western zone) will be conducted as follows:
• Maderas will notify the City in writing and provide all water level data collected in
the current water year whenever the cumulative groundwater production from the
southern zone, within a water year, exceeds 90% of the southern zone's Trigger.
When notifying the City, Maderas will also project when groundwater production
will exceed 100% of the Trigger.
• When groundwater production within a water year exceeds .100% of the southern
zone's Trigger, Maderas will notify the City and report to the City water levels
measured at wells MW #2 and MW #4 per the monitoring protocols of this plan.
If the City Manager (through an analysis conducted by a City- approved biologist)
determines that Maderas groundwater production caused the water level in the alluvium
(as monitored at MW #2 and MW #4) to decline to a level that adversely impacts the
riparian vegetation along the portion of Sycamore Creek located within the limits of the
Maderas Golf Course, then the groundwater production from wells within the southern
5
69 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
zones will be limited to no more than the highest consecutive 10 year monthly average
for each given month, for one full water year, except as follows.
• The City Manager may allow resumed groundwater production above the limit
specified above when the City Manager (through an analysis conducted by a
City- approved biologist) determines that the riparian vegetation no longer shows
evidence of being adversely impacted by Maderas' groundwater production.
• The City Manager may further restrict the groundwater production below the limit
specified above if, based on substantial evidence, the health of the on -site.
riparian vegetation is expected to be dependent on further reductions in Maderas'
groundwater production.
Evaluation of the health of on -site riparian habitat will be determined by conducting
studies similar to the original baseline and monitoring studies and will include the
following:
• Establishing at least three permanent belt transects and six photo- station points
onsite;
• Band transects for trees— 10m wide and traversing the entire width of the creek
including the oak/sycamore woodland on either side of creek,
• Identification of each tree species and assessed for general health and drought
stress;
• Each belt transect will include 4 (10m x 10m) sample grids to assess herb and
shrub layer health;
• Percent cover of herb and shrub layers by species will also be assessed using
four classes .(1= 0 -25 %, 2= 26 -50 %, 3= 51 -75 %, 4= 76- 100 %).
Monitoring well data for MW #2 and #4 shall be provided to the biologist. For three
years following the increase in groundwater production, onsite surveys utilizing the
methodologies specified above shall be conducted twice a year with a single annual
report prepared for the City. At the end of three years, the monitoring frequency shall be
re- evaluated based on results of the surveys. Rainfall amounts and other environmental
factors shall be considered in relation to the survey results in order to determine the
need and frequency for continued monitoring.
Once the data has been collected, it will be compared to original and subsequent data
to assess the health of the riparian system. These same methods will be used to verify
that the riparian system no longer shows stress.
Eastern Well Zone
At the time of preparation of this plan, the Trigger for wells in the eastern zone is 51
acre -feet per water year.
Wells 7, 9, and 10
Groundwater production at Maderas Wells 7, 9, and 10 is permitted whenever the static
groundwater level at Well 6 is 178 feet bgs or less and is subject to the following:
6
70 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
• Wells 9, and 10 will be monitored monthly during the peak irrigation season of
April through October.
• Maderas will notify the City in writing and provide all water level data collected in
the current water year whenever the cumulative groundwater production from all
wells operating within the eastern zone, within a water year, exceeds 90% of the
Trigger.
• When notifying the City, Maderas will also estimate when groundwater
production will exceed 100% of the Trigger.
• Maderas will notify the City and begin monitoring per this plan whenever the
cumulative groundwater production from all wells operating within the eastern
zone, within a water year, exceeds 100% of the Trigger.
Well 6
Groundwater production from Well 6 will be considered by the City subject to the
following:
• Maderas conducts a 10 -day constant rate aquifer test per State of California's
Existing Source Capacity (Chapter 16, Article 2, §64554.) and monitors, at a
minimum, water level responses at Maderas Wells 6, 8, 9, 10, MW #2 and #4,
and OCETW. This aquifer test will only be conducted and the results accepted by
the City if there is measurable groundwater in the test well at the time of the
aquifer test and all residents of Old Coach Estates allow the City or City
approved consulting hydro- geologist timely access to their private wells to
monitor groundwater levels in their wells and their wells are not operated for the
duration of the aquifer test and for any additional time as required by the City to
assure the integrity of the aquifer test.
• Maderas submits an aquifer test report to the City that summarizes the set -up
procedures and methods used during the aquifer test, includes all water levels
and pumping data before, during, and after the pumping phase of the aquifer
test, includes an evaluation of the influence of pumping Well 6 on water levels at
non - pumping wells.
• The City approves the aquifer test report.
Upon satisfaction of the above, groundwater production at Maderas Well 6 is permitted
if the City Manager has determined that Groundwater production at Well 6 does not
significantly influence the water level at OCETW and private wells in the OCE
residential community.
Groundwater production at Maderas Well 6, when permitted, will be monitored monthly
during the peak irrigation season of April through October and will be shut down for 5
consecutive days each month immediately prior to collecting a static groundwater
elevation (GWE) measurement.
If the static groundwater level is below 178 feet bgs, then production from Well 6 will be
discontinued until the water level rises above 178 feet bgs.
7
71 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Other Notification to the City
Maderas will notify the City within five (5) working days of knowledge of the exceedance
whenever the water level depth in either LSCTW or Maderas Well 6 exceeds the
groundwater depth levels specified in this plan. Within 30 -days of knowledge of the
exceedance an interim report will be submitted to the City detailing the water level depth
exceedance and mitigation steps taken. Manual monitoring conducted per the protocols
specified in this plan of the well with an exceedance will be increased to weekly, and
production decreased or suspended in wells hydrogeologically related to the
exceedance.
Reclaimed Water
Maderas will design and construct a water system for the transportation of reclaimed
water throughout the project in accordance with Poway's Master Plan. Unless extended
by the City Manager, said construction shall be complete within six months of Maderas'
receipt of a written notice of the availability of recycled water.
Maderas will use reclaimed water to irrigate the golf course as soon as it becomes
available to the site to the full extent that such water- is available, on a first priority basis
before raw water, groundwater, or domestic water is used to irrigate the golf course
unless and only to the extent that the City Council in its sole discretion expressly allows
the use of raw or groundwater for such irrigation. Prior to the use of reclaimed or raw
water to irrigate the golf course, plans for on -site landscape irrigation of the golf course,
club house, and parking lot landscaping shall be provided to the City. Said plans will be
submitted to the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health. The
applicant will be responsible for the fees in effect at that time for work by the County of
San Diego Department of Environmental Health.
72 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
[Introduction] [Surface Waterl [Groundwater] [Evapotranspiration] [Ecohydrology] [Salinity]
[Socioeconomic aspects] [Sustainable yield] [Conclusions[ [Recommendations] [Acknowledgements[
[Enduotesl [References[
Thompson Creek, Poway, California
THOMPSON CREEK GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY STUDY
Victor M. Ponce
07 May 2012
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The groundwater resources of Thompson Creek, in Poway, Califomia, are limited and not readily
replenishable. Existing hand -dug wells indicate that the water table was higher, i.e., much closer to the
surface, prior to the extensive groundwater development of the past 15 to 20 years. Significantly, a spring in
Lower Thompson Creek, documented by USGS in the 1980s, is no longer there. Aquifer depletion amounts
to as much as 280 feet in certain areas. This amount is large compared with four classic textbook examples
of groundwater depletion, which range from 150 to 300 feet.
Over the past 12 years, the average capture -to- recharge percentage in Thompson Creek and vicinity has
been 109 %. To provide a measure of comparison, the average capture-to- recharge percentage in the
continental United States is about 8.7 %. Capture of 100% or more of the recharge, with the intent to make
maximum use of the available groundwater, has been widely discredited.
The obsolescence of the concept of "safe yield" has cast serious doubts into the practice of using
groundwater to support turf irrigation at Maderas Golf Club and other areas. Expert scientific opinion now
recommends the determination of a sustainable yield, interpreted as a reasoned, suitable fraction of the
recharge. Therefore, the use of groundwater for extensive turf irrigation should be discouraged, or else
reduced to an amount consistent with current practices of groundwater sustainability.
All groundwater originates in rainfall; therefore, the documented depletion at Thompson Creek must be
because pumping is exceeding replenishment. Since Maderas Golf Club is pumping close to 70% of the
73 of 374 ATTACHMENT H November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
total volume, it follows that they must account for about two- thirds of the groundwater depletion in the basin.
Capturing an average value of 109% of the gross annual recharge is clearly not sustainable.
1. INTRODUCTION
ISurface Water] [Groundwater] [Evapotranspiration] [Ecobydrology] [Salinity]
[Socioeconomic aspects] [Sustainable yield] [Conclusions] (Recommendations] [Acknowledgements]
[Endnotes] (References] • [Top]
1.1 Overall setting
Thompson Creek is located within the city of Poway, in San Diego County, California. Thompson Creek is a
tributary of Sycamore Creek, itself a tributary of the San Dieguito river. The Thompson Creek watershed is
home to rural communities, among them, Old Coach Estates. Thompson Creek and environs are also home
to Maderas Golf Club, a 160 -acre facility that opened in the year 1999. Maderas is a large user of water,
including groundwater.
A groundwater sustainability study seeks to assess the extent of groundwater depletion by pumping and
capture, and to determine the steps that must be taken to correct the imbalance. In these times of intense
competition for water resources, particularly in Southern California, groundwater depletion is a pervasive
problem, in much need of attention by local government agencies.
The communities of Thompson Creek, particularly Old Coach Estates, depend on groundwater for their
livelihood. Half of the households in Old Coach Estates (12 out of 24) depend exclusively on groundwater.
Maderas Golf Club is the largest single user of groundwater in the basin. The use of groundwater by
Maderas amounts to about 70% of all the groundwater being pumped in Thompson Creek and environs
(Section 3.5). The competition between Maderas and its Old Coach neighbors for the local groundwater
resources has been going on for the past 15 years.
At the request of the City of Poway, a hydrological study of the Sycamore Creek subbasin was funded by
Maderas and carried out by Howard Engineering in the year 2000. This study recommended the setting of a
preliminary and temporary limit of 309 acre - feet/year for production of groundwater from the subbasin
(Don Howard Engineering, 2000). Of this amount, the Howard study recommended that 256 acre -feet be
alloted to Maderas Golf Club and 53 acre -feet to the homeowners. The number of households considered in
the Howard study was approximately 60, amounting to an average of 0.88 acre -feet per household.
Groundwater production at the Maderas well field in the 12 -year period from 2000 to 2011 has ranged from
85 acre -feet in 2006 to 206 acre -feet in 2010 (SCS Engineers, 2010; 2012). The average annual pumping
during this period has been 164 acre -feet. Maderas has been authorized by the City of Poway through a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to pump up to 280 acre- feet/year.1
Since the year 2000 and, more recently, since the year 2009, concerns by Old Coach neighbors have arisen
regarding the possibility of groundwater depletion in the Thompson Creek watershed. In response to
escalated concern from local residents over the level of water in their wells, the City of Poway directed
Maderas to cease the use of all groundwater as of August 18, 2011.2 At the same time, the City of Poway
acknowledged that Maderas would process an amendment to the CUP to modify or eliminate the
74 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
conditions relating to limitations on pumping.
In October of 2011, prompted by the prospect of more groundwater depletion, the Old Coach Estates
neighbors organized to support this study of groundwater sustainability. Groundwater sustainability refers to
the assessment of groundwater depletion, its probable causes, and the steps that are necessary to reverse
the perceived negative trend.
This report documents the issues of groundwater sustainability in general and the sustainability of the
Thompson Creek aquifer in particular. The objective is to evaluate whether current practices and amounts of
groundwater pumping can be sustained over time.3 A second objective is to determine a level of use
commensurate with local and regional hydrological and ecohydrologica] conditions and related
socioeconomic factors.
1.2 The choice of surface water vs groundwater
The problem confronting Thompson Creek stakeholders has to do with the choice of surface water vs
groundwater. Surface water is expensive because it must be transported over long distances. In San Diego
County, about 80% of the supplied surface water originates in the Colorado river basin and Northern
California (San Diego County Water Authority). Groundwater is cheaper because it lies just below the
ground, at relatively close range. Naturally, this leads to intense competition for the local groundwater
resources, while there is less demand for surface water.
Two important properties distinguish surface water from groundwater. First, surface water is renewable,
while groundwater is not renewable in the short term. Second, the qualities of surface water and
groundwater differ in one important respect: natural surface waters tend to be fresh, while natural
groundwaters tend to grade from fresh to saline, the salinity content increasing with depth and age (Freeze
and Cherry, 1979).
In the Thompson Creek watershed, both Maderas and its neighbors prefer to use groundwater because of its
lower cost. Some neighbors are using renewable energy (solar or wind) to pump their wells; therefore, their
monthly electric bill is minimal, if not zero. It is clear that Maderas prefers to use groundwater, even though
the terms of the City of Poway "s Conditional Use Permit (CUP) issued in the year 2000 clearly stipulate that
groundwater should be used only as the last resort, after three types of surface water (reclaimed, untreated,
and potable).
The groundwater resource is limited. Too much groundwater pumping will end up depleting the aquifer.
Replenishment may take a long time, usually longer than most people are willing to wait. A limit must be
imposed on groundwater pumping to avoid: (a) the deepening of wells, (b) the increased cost associated with
deeper pumping using conventional energy, and (c) the increased risk of salt pollution of the land and
neighboring surface waters as a result of deeper groundwater mining (Alley, 2003). The remaining sections
of this report (Sections 2 to 10) endeavor to explain and clarify the hydrological and socioeconomic issues
regarding the controversy.
2. SURFACE WATER
IGroundwaterl I Evapotranspiration I ]Ecohydrology] [Salinity] ISocioeconomic aspects] [Sustainable yield]
IConclusionsl [Recommendations] [Acknowledgements] [Endnotes] ]References] • ITop] ]Introduction]
75 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
2.1 Drainage areas
Thompson Creek is one of three major tributaries of Sycamore Creek (see Fig. 2.1). The other tributaries are
Warren Canyon Creek and Green Valley Creek. Lake Poway is in Warren Canyon; Lake Ramona is in Green
Valley. Warren Canyon Creek and Green Valley Creek join to form Sycamore Creek. Downstream of this
confluence, Sycamore Creek is joined by Thompson Creek, and it continues downstream to join the San
Dieguito River at the upstream end of Lake Hodges.
TC1
TCZ TCo
Lake U
Hodges CI
TC4 cnPson Creek
Ci��
C-1 TC3 GVo
iv e"
e
�a,A t GV1
cns Lake Ramona
GV2
Lake Poway
y C�
Canyon Creek VdCd
Fig. 2.1 Sycamore Creek basin topology.
Thompson Creek has four tributaries, from upstream to downstream (Fig. 2.1). Sycamore Creek proper lies
immediately west of Thompson Creek, and has three tributaries, from upstream to downstream (Fig. 2.1)
The total drainage area of the Sycamore Creek watershed is 8,236 acres. Of this total acreage, 1,885 acres
correspond to the Thompson Creek watershed. The four major Sycamore Creek contributing watersheds are
summarized in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Sycamore Creek contributing drainage areas
Subwatershed
Area
(acres)
[1] Warren Canyon Creek
1733
76 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
L[2] Green Valley Creek I
2561
[3] Thompson Creek
1885
[4] Sycamore Creek
2057
[ 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 ] Total drainage area
8236
Maderas Golf Club and the communities of Old Coach Estates and The Heritage lie within the Thompson
Creek and Sycamore Creek watersheds. Old Coach Estates consists of twenty -four (24) single - family homes
comprised mostly within subwatersheds TC1 and TC2 of Thompson Creek. The Heritage consists of about
seventy (70) single - family homes mostly in subwatershed TC4. A few other single - family homes are also
contained within Thompson Creek and nearby Sycamore Creek areas.
Maderas Golf Club comprises about 160 acres within subwatersheds TC4 of Thompson Creek and SC2 of
Sycamore Creek (Fig. 2.1). Thompson Creek runs through the Maderas property near its downstream end,
from east to west. The property area of Maderas Golf Club includes 88 acres of warm- season Bermuda
grass used as turf (SCS Engineers, 2010).4
2.2 Mean annual precipitation
An assessment of mean annual precipitation is necessary to perform a water balance, required for a study of
groundwater sustainability. Precipitation records are available for the Poway Valley Station for a total of 55
years.s This record is shown in Fig. 2.2. Annual precipitation varied from a minimum of 4.36 inches for water
year 2007 to a maximum of 27.62 inches for water year 1998. The mean annual precipitation for the entire
period of record is 12.48 inches.
30
2S
20
if
6
0
Precipitation &$ In Poway. California, for water yews 1957 -2011
N N � V W iwB R k A R A W W m li � 91 C6 4N1 fi N � N A W wi
Fig. 2.2 Annual precipitation in Poway, California, 1957 -2011.
Poway Valley Station is located about 5 miles south of Thompson Creek. To complement the station
analysis, mean annual precipitation at the site was estimated regionally at the intersection of Thompson
77 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Creek with Old Coach Road, at Lat. 330 02' 04" and Long. 1170 01' 22 ". The precipitation map prepared by
the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, shown in Fig. 2.3(a), was used for this purpose.
The geographical detail for San Diego County is shown in Fig. 2.3(b). The mean annual precipitation at the
given location is P = 13.5 in. Given the above analyses, mean annual precipitation applicable to the
Thompson Creek basin is taken as to be 13 inches.
rxnc.u- iinix�r
Hi.' a O:- •.. zz
Vim" 0,.. X« �w
fin O. t.• �.0 �r
Fire and Resource Assessment Program
Fig. 2.3(a) Mean annual precipitation in California
2.3 Water balance relations
Fig. 2.3(b) Mean annual precipitation
in San Diego County
A review of water balance relations is essential for the understanding of groundwater sustainability. All
groundwater originates from percolation of surface water. Therefore, a complete analysis must consider both
surface water and groundwater. Precipitation, the source of all moisture in the hydrological cycle, follows two
distinct paths:
Return to the atmosphere as:
1.
Evaporation
2.
Evapotranspiration
Return to the ocean as:
3.
Direct runoff
4.
Baseflow
5.
Deep percolation.
Evaporation occurs in the absence of plants; conversely, evapotranspiration occurs in the presence and for
the benefit of plants. Direct runoff contributes directly to the surface waters; baseflow passes through the
groundwater reservoirs before joining the surface waters. Deep percolation flows directly into the ocean,
bypassing the surface waters altogether.
78 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
A water balance separates annual precipitation into the five components mentioned above. The actual
percentages vary with basin scale and local climatological, geomorphological, hydrological, geohydrological,
and ecohydrological conditions. The sum of direct runoff and baseflow is referred to as streamflow. For
peripheral continental regions, i.e., those draining directly into the ocean, a global hydrological balance
indicates that streamflow is about 39% of precipitation (L'vovich, 1979). In turn, baseflow is about 30% of
total runoff, i.e., baseflow is 0.3 X 39% = 12% of precipitation (World Water Balance, 1978). Thus, direct
runoff is: 39 - 12 = 27% of precipitation. A global balance indicates that deep percolation is about 2% of
precipitation (World Water Balance, 1978). Thus, the sum of evaporation and evapotranspiration is:
100 - 39 - 2 = 59% . These values are shown graphically in Fig. 2.4.
Evaporation
and evapotranspiration
59% Deep
percolation
'W_ --2%
Baseflow
Direct runoff 12%
27%
5treaOo�
3`1 °jo
Fig. 2.4 Global components of the water balance.
The values shown [in Fig. 2.4] are global average values. In general, a semiarid /arid region such as San
Diego County has higher values of evaporation and evapotranspiration, while having correspondingly lower
values of direct runoff, baseflow, and deep percolation. In and regions, direct runoff is substantially reduced
and baseflow may be reduced to zero. Conversely, subhumid and humid regions have lower values of
evaporation and evapotranspiration, and higher values of direct runoff, baseflow, and deep percolation.
2.4 Groundwater recharge
Characteristically missing from this holistic view of the hydrological cycle is the concept of groundwater
recharge. Within a control volume, groundwater recharge is the inflow of groundwater originating in
precipitation from local and regional sources.s A related concept is that of groundwater discharge, i.e., the
outflow of groundwater within the control volume. Strictly speaking, under equilibrium conditions, net
groundwater recharge is zero, that is, recharge is equal to discharge (Theis 1940). Under natural
conditions, mean annual recharge from all sources must balance mean annual discharge through all paths.
A groundwater reservoir is a leaky, porous, natural geologic container. Recharge consists of two parts (Fig.
2.5):
1. The fraction of precipitation that percolates vertically through the soil and reaches the water table, i.e.,
79 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
local natural recharge (LNR).
2. The recharge which originates in groundwater flow entering the control volume from upgradient
sources, i.e., regional natural recharge (RNR).
Discharge consists of:
1. The fraction of natural discharge (ND) that exfiltrates as baseflow (BF) to join the surface waters.
2. The fraction of natural discharge (ND) that converts to evaporation and evapotranspiration (ET).
3. Deep percolation (DP), which avoids the surface waters altogether.
1P
ET a
-1109111M \ ET
I_NR
-4b- _ iBF
RNR ND
BF
4Ut7 E7
BF
ND ET
ND
Ocean
Fig. 2.5 Geometric model of a groundwater reservoir.
Calculations of groundwater recharge are routinely performed with the aim of assessing the potential for
aquifer exploitation. The accuracy of these calculations invariably hinges upon a crucial assumption: the size
of the groundwater basin (Bredehoeft, 1997). All groundwaters are eventually connected in their relentless
movement toward the nearest ocean; therefore, the actual size of the groundwater basin is not limited. The
surface water basin may not be a reliable indicator of the extent of the groundwater resource. Nevertheless,
from a practical standpoint, typical hydrogeological studies refer to the areal size of a groundwater basin as
reflecting the areal size of the overlying surface water basin.
The Thompson Creek drainage area is 1,885 acres. Including in the control volume the portion of Sycamore
Creek lying downstream of the confluence with Thompson Creek (808 acres), the drainage area amounts to
2,893 acres. For comparison, the Don Howard hydrological study considered a sub -basin that included all
Thompson Creek plus a sizable percentage (45 %) of Sycamore Creek, amounting to a total of 2,804 acres,
80 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
(Don Howard Engineering, 2000).$ These values are summarized in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3 Comparison of size of the groundwater basin
Sub -basin Area
(acres)
1 Thompson Creek
1,885
2, Thompson Creek plus portion of Sycamore Creek
2,693
downstream of Thompson Creek
3. Thompson Creek plus 45% of Sycamore Creek
2,804
(Don Howard Engineering, 2000)
Notwithstanding the fact that net groundwater recharge is effectively zero, a common practice in
hydrogeology is to equate the calculated recharge to the "safe yield" of a groundwater reservoir. This
practice has been referred to as the "water budget myth" (Bredehoeft, 1997). Normally, the recharge
becomes discharge, unless it is captured by pumping. Within a control volume, capture comes from locally
increased recharge and locally decreased discharge and, in the case of depletion, from losses of storage
(Theis. 1940; Ponce, 2007).
While net recharge is effectively zero, a long- standing practice has been to evaluate aquifer recharge to use
as a basis for groundwater exploitation (Don Howard Engineering, 2000). Values of aquifer recharge (or
groundwater recharge) vary widely, being lower for and regions and higher for humid regions. Actual values
of recharge usually exceed baseflow, because a certain amount of recharge must eventually return to the
atmosphere as the evapotranspiration of riparian and wetland ecosystems. An average global value of
recharge is estimated at approximately 20% of precipitation, to include:
12% baseflow,
6% evapotranspiration of riparian and wetland ecosystems, and
2% deep percolation (BF, ET, and DP in Fig. 2.5, respectively).
In practice, actual values of evaporation and evapotranspiration, direct runoff, baseflow, deep percolation
and, consequently, recharge, are likely to vary with local and regional climatological, geomorphological, and
geohydrological conditions. Baseflow and recharge decrease with mean annual precipitation, in both
absolute and relative terms. Therefore, lower values of baseflow and recharge are to be expected in semiarid
and and regions.
2.5 Thompson Creek water balance
All groundwaters are eventually connected; therefore, the choice of the size of a groundwater basin for
purposes of recharge calculations is largely arbitrary (Bredehoeft. 1997). The more intensive and deeper the
pumping, the greater the contributing area. For purposes of this study, the contributing area is chosen as
Thompson Creek and the downstream portion of Sycamore Creek, beginning at its confluence with
Thompson Creek, amounting to 2,693 acres. The mean annual precipitation is estimated at 13 inches, i.e.,
1.08 feet (Section 2.2).
Groundwater recharge is usually expressed as a percentage of precipitation. An average global value of
81 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
recharge is 20 %, applicable to the middle of the climatic spectrum, with 33 inches of precipitation (Ponce et
al. 2000). In semiarid San Diego County, with approximately 10 to 15 inches of precipitation, the recharge
percentage is, in all probability, much smaller.
For instance, Scanlon et al. (2006) have performed a global synthesis of groundwater recharge in semiarid
and arid regions, using approximately 140 study areas, including the U.S. Southwest. They report values of
recharge varying between 0.1% and 5.0% of mean annual precipitation. These values notwithstanding, Don
Howard Engineering (2000) performed a calculation of groundwater recharge in their Sycamore Creek sub -
basin, considering a contributing area of 2,804 acres and 14.81 in (1.23 ft) of mean annual precipitation. The
mean annual recharge calculated by Howard is 323.5 acre -feet, which amounts to 9.4% of mean annual
precipitation, as shown here:
Recharge -to- precipitation percentage = 100 x [ 323.5 acre -feet / (2,804 acres x 1.23 feet) ] = 9.4 %.
While the Scanlon et al. (2006) data is compelling due to the large number of study areas, the semiarid
[Mediterranean] ecosystem of Thompson Creek may actually have a somewhat higher recharge -to-
precipitation percentage. This is due to the rainy season being out of phase with the summer season, when
evapotranspiration is at its peak.
For the present analysis, three values of recharge -to- precipitation percentage are initially considered, for
purposes of comparison:
1. 5.0 %, the upper limit of the Scanlon et al. (2006) data;
2. 7.2 %, an average of the upper limit of the Scanlon et al. (2006) data and Howard's data; and
3. 9.4 %, the value calculated by Howard (Don Howard Engineering, 2000).
The contributing area is 2,693 acres (Table 2.3) and the mean annual precipitation is 13 inches.
The calculated mean annual recharge under the 5.0% assumption is:
2,693 acres x (5.0/100) x (13/12) = 146 acre -feet.
The calculated mean annual recharge under the 7.2% assumption is:
2,693 acres x (7.2/100) x (13/12) = 210 acre -feet.
The calculated mean annual recharge under the 9.4% assumption is:
2,693 acres x (9.4/100) x (13/12) = 274 acre -feet.
Groundwater capture in the basin is shared between Maderas Golf Club, Heritage Estates, Old Coach
Estates, and a few other homes. The number of households using groundwater is estimated to be about 60.9
The individual household well use is estimated to be approximately 1 acre - feet/year on the average (Don
Howard Engineering, 2000). This amounts to 60 acre- feet/year.
Maderas Golf Club has been authorized to use 150 acre- feet/year; the maximum allowed is 280 acre -
feet/year. In the past 12 years (2000- 2011), Maderas has pumped an average of 164 acre- feet/year (SCS
Engineers, 2010; 2012). Thus, the total groundwater capture averages: 60 + 164 = 224 acre- feet/year.
The average capture -to- recharge percentage is:
82 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
For the 5.0% recharge: (224/146) X 100 = 153 %.
For the 7.2% recharge: (224/210) x 100 = 107 %.
For the 9.4% recharge: (224/274) x 100 = 82 %.
These values are summarized in Table 2.4.
Table 2.4 Capture -to- recharge percentage in the Thompson Creek area
Recharge -to- precipitation
Mean annual recharge
Capture -to- recharge
M
(acre -feet)
(%)
5.0
146
153
7.2
210
107
9.4
274
82
2.6 Thompson Creek capture -to- recharge
The overriding question is what value of capture, in percentage of recharge, is appropriate for sustainability
(Section 8). The answer is by no means straightforward. Use of 100% or more of the recharge has been
widely discredited (Sophocleous, 1997; Bredehoeft, 1997; Alley et at. 1999; Maimone 2004). Capture of the
entire recharge encroaches upon established rights in the short term (local water table depletion) and long
term (decreases in evaporative losses downstream, and eventually, flow reversals from neighboring basins),
see, for example, Prudic and Herman (1996).
United States Groundwater Data
To provide a national measure of comparison, the average capture -to- recharge percentage
for the continental United States is calculated here. The pumpage of fresh groundwater in
the United States has been estimated as 77,500 million gallons per day (Solley et al.,
1998). Moreover, the natural recharge to the Nation's groundwater systems has been
estimated at more than 1 billion acre -feet per year. The latter amounts to 892,000 million
gallons per day (Nace, 1960). Thus, the average capture -to- recharge percentage in the
United States is approximately 8.7% (Alley et al., 1999).
The surface area of the entire United States is 3,794,100 square miles and the mean
annual precipitation is 30.21 inches. Therefore, the volume of mean annual precipitation is:
P = 3,794,100 square miles x 640 acres /square mile x (30.21/12) ft = 6.113 billion acre -
feet. Thus, the spatially averaged recharge -to- precipitation percentage in the United States
is: = (1.000/6.113) x 100 = 16.36 %.
For Thompson Creek, with a Mediterranean climate and mean annual precipitation of 13 inches, the actual
recharge -to- precipitation percentage may be higher than the upper limit of the Scanlon (2006) data (5 %). An
83 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
estimate is obtained by a proportional relation from the U.S. data: (13/30.21) X 16.36% = 7.04 %.
Thus, the recharge is: 2,693 acres X (7.04/100) X (13/12) = 205 acre -feet.
The capture -to- recharge percentage is: (224/205) x 100 = 109 %.
This calculation shows that the amount of groundwater capture at Thompson Creek and environs in the past
twelve years [2000 -2011 ] has been higher than the gross recharge. The comparison of groundwater use
between the continental United States and Thompson Creek is summarized in Table 2.5.
Table 2.5 Comparison of groundwater use in Thompson Creek and the United States
for recharge -to- precipitation estimate of 7.04%
Mean annual Recharge -to- Capture -to- Capture -to-
Basin precipitation precipitation recharge precipitation
(inches) ( %) (%) (%)
Continental 30.21 16.36 87 1.4
United States
Thompson
Creek
13.0
7.04
109
7.7
Maderas has been authorized to pump up to a maximum of 280 acre- feeUyear. Table 2.6 shows the
Thompson Creek capture -to- recharge percentage if Maderas accomplishes the pumping of this amount of
groundwater. Thus, the capture -to- recharge percentage for Thompson Creek varies from 109% for the 2000-
2011 historical record, to 166% for the currently allowed maximum.
Table 2.6 Comparison of capture -to- recharge percentages in Thompson Creek
for recharge -to- precipitation estimate of 7.04%
Maderas Total volume
Capture -to- recharge
Description Volume (Maderas plus households)
(%)
(acre - feet/year) (acre- feet/year)
Historical average for
164 224 109
the period 2000 -2011
Maximum allowed
280
IF
340
166
3. GROUNDWATER
I Evapotranspiration I [Ecobydrologyl ISalinityl [Socioeconomic aspects) (Sustainable yield]
[Conciusionsl [ Recommendations I (Acknowledgements] [Endnotes[ [References] • [Top]
[introduction/ [Surface Water]
3.1 Geohydrology
Thompson Creek is underlain by the Peninsular Range Batholith, which straddles the mountains of Central
Southern California. At Thompson Creek, this Cretaceous geologic formation features granitic rock of two
84 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
types (U. S. Geological Survey, 1999): 10
1. To the north and northwest, Green Valley tonalite, characterized as medium - grained gray tonalite, with
minor granodiorite, gabbro, and other basic igneous rocks.11
2. To the south and southeast, Woodson Mountain granodiorite, characterized as coarse - grained light -
colored granodiorite with some finer- grained granodiorites and minor tonalite.
The rocks are extensively fractured, due primarily to batholith cooling (Segall et al., 1990). The fractured rock
aquifer is heterogeneous and anisotropic, i.e., its physical properties vary with location and direction. This
means that the groundwater flow will often not be in the same direction as the hydraulic gradient. In principle,
the flow direction in fractured rock aquifers can differ from the direction of the prevailing hydraulic gradient by
up to 900 (Love et al, 2001). Where there is a strong preferred orientation of fractures, the drawdown cone
can be distorted from the concentric shape normally observed in alluvial aquifers. Therefore, the preferred
flow path in a fractured rock aquifer defies conventional geohydrological characterization.
S Geological Survey
Fig. 3.1 Geologic map of the vicinity of Thompson Creek and Sycamore Creek.
3.2 Flow in a fractured rock aquifer
Flow in a fractured rock aquifer is quite distinct from that of an alluvial aquifer. The volume of water in storage
is likely to range from 1/100 to 111000 of a comparable alluvial aquifer. Furthermore, a fractured rock aquifer
is essentially anisotropic, i.e., its properties vary with direction, Thus, aquifer connectivity is a major issue in a
fractured rock aquifer. Furthermore, fractured rock aquifers tend to be dominated by advection, while
diffusion is generally the predominant mechanism in alluvial aquifers.12
85 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Advection is a first -order process, governed by the advective term in the differential equation of fluid motion;
diffusion is a second -order process, governed by the diffusive term.13 Flow in porous media is primarily
governed by diffusion, and this is generally the case for typical alluvial aquifers. However, flow in fractured
rock aquifers is primarily governed by advection.
In fluid mechanics, as well as in groundwater flow, the difference between advection and diffusion is largely
one of scale. In practice, an advection- dominated groundwater flow will feature large changes in
geohydrological properties, including flow rates and directions, within short distances. The opposite, small
changes over long distances, prevails in diffusion - dominated flows.
In general, an advection- dominated process is much faster than its diffusion - dominated counterpart, and the
flow path and pumping rates are much less predictable. In practice, fractured rock aquifers will deplete faster,
and recharge faster, than their alluvial counterparts. Lack of hydraulic connection between two neighboring
wells could be common in fractured rock aquifers.
3.3 Storage in a fractured rock aquifer
Storage in a fractured rock aquifer occurs primarily in the fractures. Although the rock matrix has significant
porosity, its permeability is commonly so low that flow in the matrix is small relative to the flow in the fracture
networks. When test or production wells in these fractured materials are sampled, the samples represent
water flowing in the fracture system rather than water present in the rock matrix (Freeze and Cherry, 1979).
The storage capacity of a fractured rock aquifer depends on the extent of fractures, being considerably less
than the storage capacity of alluvial aquifers of comparable size. The storage coefficient for the Thompson
Creek fractured rock was measured by Don Howard Engineering at S = 0.0003 (Don Howard Engineering,
2000). Howard assumed a thickness of 850 ft of bedrock, and proceeded to calculate a basinwide storage
capacity of 866 acre -feet, of which the great majority (82 %) corresponded to the fractured rock aquifer, with
the remainder accounted for by patches of alluvium (S = 0.30) and decomposed rock (S = 0.03)_
Assuming that capture came from storage only, this finding means that the capture of 866 acre -feet on an
average - rainfall year would lower the average depth to the water table by about 850 feet. However, capture
typically also comes from increased recharge and decreased discharge (Ponce, 2007). The relative
contributions of storage, recharge, and discharge may not be readily ascertained in a fractured rock aquifer.
3.4 Groundwater capture in Thompson Creek
Groundwater capture has occurred in Thompson Creek and environs since the beginning of contemporary
settlement, c. 1900. The presence of an old, relatively shallow hand -dug well, which is currently out of
commission, attests to the fact that the early settlers used groundwater to satisfy their needs.14 Thus, prior to
extensive groundwater development in the 1990s, the depth to the water table in some places may have
been less than 20 ft.
The community of Old Coach Estates owes its name to the old stagecoach station that existed near the
intersection of Thompson Creek with Sycamore Creek. The stagecoach ceased operation in 1912.15 The
stagecoach station foundation survived until the 1990s, when it finally gave way to urban development.16
The earliest contemporary well in the present -day Old Coach Estates dates back to 1973, when the well on
the Bithell property was drilled to a depth of 250 ft. There are currently about 60 wells in Thompson Creek
and environs, using a total of about 60 acre- feet/year. In addition, Maderas Golf Club operates ten (10)
production wells, with a combined annual capture fluctuating widely (Fig. 3.2). Between the water years 2000
86 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
to 2011, the average capture by Maderas wells was 164 acre- feet/year (SCS Engineers, 2010; 2012).
Maderas groundwater capture is summarized in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Groundwater capture by Maderas Golf Club
Time period Capture
(acre- feet/year)
Authorized by Conditional Use Permit (CUP) IF
150
12 -year period 2000 -2011
164
-IF Maximum allowed by the CUP
280
Google Earth
Fig. 3.2 Location of Maderas wells and OCETW well.
The Old Coach Estates Test Well [OCETW]
The Old Coach Estates Test Well [OCET1Aj is used by the City of Poway as a way of
monitoring the groundwater depletion in the basin, in order to regulate the amount of
pumping, if necessary. The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) stipulates that if the water level
87 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
drops below 180 feet from ground surface, all pumping by Maderas should stop until the
water level is restored to 40 feet above the threshold (i.e., to 140 feet).' Yet on October 12,
2009, on the advice of a consultant, the City of Poway allowed pumping by Maderas to
continue even though the OCETW had not yet restored to the 140 feet level.17
On August 11, 2011, acting on the recent escalated concern from residents over the level
of water in their wells, the City of Poway directed Maderas to cease the use of all
groundwater by August 18, 2011. 18
On March 6, 2012, Maderas reported the water level at OCETW at 227 feet below ground
surface, well below the 140 feet level at which pumping can be restored. The OCETW
measurement by Maderas is compared with measurements performed by Gill and Vaplon,
Old Coach Estates homeowners (See Section 7), who report the well to be dry, for the
most part, at the present time [April 2012]. The original depth of the well, dating back to
1975, was about 244 feet.19
3.5 Sustainable yield
In the period 2000 -2011 Maderas Golf Club has captured an average of 164 acre - feet/year of groundwater.
The existing households in Thompson Creek and vicinity are estimated to use a combined volume of about
60 acre- feet/year. Thus, groundwater capture in the basin in the 12 -year period has been about (164 + 60) _
224 acre - feet/year on the average. in addition, Maderas has placed on the record its intention to request an
amendment to the CUP to modify or eliminate the conditions relating to limitations on pumping.3
In this situation, Maderas could theoretically increase its capture beyond the current 280 acre - feet/year limit.
The total water consumption by Maderas is 450 acre- feet/year, with a portion of it satisfied by precipitation.
On an average year, it is likely that about 22% of the consumptive use is satisfied by precipitation.20
Therefore, if the limitations on pumping are removed, Maderas could capture groundwater as needed, up to
an amount equal to:
(1 - 0.22) X 450 acre - feet/year = 351 acre -ft
in an average year.
The recharge to groundwater is estimated to be 205 acre- feet/year, based on an estimated recharge -to-
precipitation percentage of 7.04% (Section 2.5). Capture of the entire recharge, or more, with the intent to
make maximum use of the available groundwater, has been widely discredited (Bredehoeft, 1997).
Alley et al. (1999) have argued convincingly that the concept of safe yield is outdated, and that it must now
be replaced by the concept of sustainable yield. Sustainable yield has almost nothing to do with recharge;
therefore, a sustainable socioeconomic yield must be based on the concept of sharing a limited natural
resource held in common. Maimone (2004) has stated that sustainable yield is indeed a moving target, to be
determined after a judicious evaluation of all factors, including hydrological, geohydrological, ecohydrological,
and socioeconomic. In practice, this means that the amount of groundwater capture that Maderas can
accomplish is limited by the effect that this capture may have on its neighbors' wells.
Barring the use of 100% of the recharge, the determination of a sustainable yield must be approached with
88 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
caution. In the present case, the appropriate capture -to- recharge percentage must be based on a judicious
evaluation of the long -term effect of a given value on the neighbors' wells. Table 3.2 provides a framework
for analysis.
Table 3.2 Groundwater yield as a function of capture -to- recharge percentage
in Thompson Creek, for recharge of 205 acre - feet/year
Capture -to- recharge
M
Groundwater yield
(acre - feet/year)
10
21
20
41
30
62
The persistent lowering of the water table at Thompson Creek and vicinity has shown that capture is being
accomplished largely at the expense of aquifer depletion. Current data shows that the total groundwater
capture will supply the equivalent of about 224 households (Table 2.6). To put these figures in the proper
perspective, it is observed that in 1976, during initial development of the area, the County of San Diego had
estimated that there were enough groundwater resources to support only 35 homes, and that any substantial
increase would cause serious problems resulting from excessive groundwater extraction.21
4. EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
[Ecohydrology] [Salinity] [Socioeconomic aspectsl [Sustainable yieldl [Conclusions] [Recommendations]
IEndnotes[ [References] • [Top] [Introduction[ [Surface Water] [Groundwater]
4.1 Evapotranspiration
The water needs of an artificial turf ecosystem such as that being used in Thompson Creek and environs [by
Maderas and others] are compared with those of the region's natural ecosystem, that is, the chaparral. The
analysis focuses on evapotranspiration.
Potential vs actual evapotranspiration
Evapotranspiration (ET) is the amount of water consumed by an ecosystem, expressed in
inches per month, and summed up through the year to obtain an annual value. Potential
evapotranspiration (PET) is the amount that would be consumed under the assumption of
an ample supply of water at all times. Actual evapotranspiration (AET) is the amount that
would take place when water is limiting, that is, when there is not enough water to satisfy all
the needs of the plants. Reference crop evapotranspiration (ETo) is the potential
evapotranspiration of an extended surface of 8 -15 mm tall green grass cover of uniform
height, actively growing, completely shading the ground, and not short of water. The
relation between potential evapotranspiration and actual evapotranspiration characterizes
the water balance in ecosystems (Ponce, 1989).
89 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
In humid regions, potential evapotranspiration is usually satisfied and, therefore, actual evapotranspiration is
the same as potential evapotranspiration. Conversely, in and regions, potential evapotranspiration is not
satisfied and, thus, actual evapotranspiration is always less than potential evapotranspiration. Irrigation
strives to meet the requirements of potential evapotranspiration in an environment where water is limiting.
Thus, irrigation amounts to a subsidy, that is, the provision of an additional amount of water to fill in the gap
between actual and potential evapotranspiration.
With reference to Thompson Canyon, the natural condition is the actual evapotranspiration of the chaparral
ecosystem; the artificial condition is the potential evapotranspiration of the warm - season Bermuda grass
used as turf. The ratio of artificial PET to natural AET is an indication of the artificial water demand, that is, of
the extent to which the artificial ecosystem is affecting the groundwater sustainability of the region.
4.2 Evapotranspiration of the natural ecosystem
The Mediterranean ecosystem, characterized by chaparral, is prevalent in Southern California. The potential
evapotranspiration of the chaparral is 35 inches (Hibbert. 1979). Yet, the chaparral is conditioned to survive
and get by with a much lesser amount of water. In Thompson Creek, mean annual runoff is estimated at 1
inch, i.e., 8% of rainfall.22
Q= 0.08xP= 0.08X13 =1 inch.
Mean annual actual evapotranspiration is equal to mean annual precipitation minus mean annual runoff:
AET= P - Q = 13 - 1 = 12 inches.
Note that in Thompson Creek, AET (12 inches) is only about a third of PET (35 inches).
4.3 Evapotranspiration of the artificial ecosystem
The potential evapotranspiration of the artificial ecosystem is based on the reference crop. The reference -
crop potential evapotranspiration ET, for San Diego County was obtained from "Reference
Evapotranspiration Zones" of the California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) (California
Department of Water Resources, 2010). in this study, San Diego County is labeled as Zone 16, with monthly
ETo as shown in Table 4.1. Annual ETo is equal to 62.5 inches.
The turf being used in Thompson Canyon by Maderas is warm- season Bermuda grass. The crop coefficients
KC for this type of grass are shown in Table 4.1 (University of Arizona, 2000).
The potential evapotranspiration is calculated as:
ETC = KC X ETC
Values of ETC are shown in Table 4.1. Annual ETC is equal to 54.2 inches. Figure 4.1 shows a plot of the ETC
and ETC values of Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Monthly ETo for San Diego County and ETC for warm- season Bermuda grass
90 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
HIJan
11
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul 11
Aug
S
t
LNo
LDe c
Annual
ETo
(in)
1.55
2.52
4.03
5.70
7.75
8.70
9.30
8.37
6.30
4.34
2.40
1.55
62.5
K�
0.86
0.82
0.83
0.86
0.83
0.81
0.89
0.92
0.87
0.91
0.95
0.90
ETC
(in)
133
2.07
3.34
4.90
6.43
7.05
8.28
7.70
5.48
3.95
228
1.40
54.2
to
9
z3
f
C
Monthly ET. for San Diego County and ET, for warm - season Bermuda grass
Apr MW Jun Jul Aug _rmv orl Nev Oec
Month
Fig. 4.1 Monthly ET. for San Diego County and ETA for warm- season Bermuda grass.
•ETr�
■ETr
In summary, the annual ETC for Bermuda grass is 54.2 in (PET), while the annual actual evapotranspiration
(AET) for the chaparral ecosystem is 12 inches. Thus, the ratio of potential evapotranspiration of the artificial
ecosystem to actual evapotranspiration of the natural ecosystem is: 54.2 / 12 = 4.5. Thus, irrigated turf uses
four - and -one -half times more water than Nature has made available for the surrounding [nonriparian] areas
(Fig. 4.2).
91 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
A
a 5
w
S
m
f
W
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr MW Jun Jul Aug _rmv orl Nev Oec
Month
Fig. 4.1 Monthly ET. for San Diego County and ETA for warm- season Bermuda grass.
•ETr�
■ETr
In summary, the annual ETC for Bermuda grass is 54.2 in (PET), while the annual actual evapotranspiration
(AET) for the chaparral ecosystem is 12 inches. Thus, the ratio of potential evapotranspiration of the artificial
ecosystem to actual evapotranspiration of the natural ecosystem is: 54.2 / 12 = 4.5. Thus, irrigated turf uses
four - and -one -half times more water than Nature has made available for the surrounding [nonriparian] areas
(Fig. 4.2).
91 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
iV.ta' 1�
t: F'
Chaparral ecosystem
Fig. 4.2 Relative evapotranspiration of chaparral ecosystem and irrigated turf.
5.ECOHYDROLOGY
ISalinityl [Socioeconomic aspectsl [Sustainable yield[ lConclusionsl [Recommendations] [Acknowledgements[
[Endnotes] [References] • ITopl [Introductioni (Surface Waterl [Groundwaterl [Eva potranspi ration I
5.1 Riparian ecosystem health
Riparian ecosystems23 are ecosystems sustained by vadose -zone moisture24 and groundwater in the
immediate vicinity of creeks and streams. In its quest to get to the nearest ocean by taking the path of least
resistance, groundwater flows toward surface depressions created by surface water. There, it is typically
shallow enough to be within reach of the roots of riparian ecosystems.
Depletion of groundwater threatens the health of riparian ecosystems. Typically, groundwater pumping
deepens the water table in the vicinity (Theis, 1940). Depending on the amount of capture and on the local
geomorphology, pumping may depress the water table in an adjacent riparian zone, reducing the
ecosystem's ability to tap groundwater. In this case, the riparian communities become first, water - stressed
and, eventually, if the condition persists for a sufficiently long time, they decline and eventually die.
There are many examples of the demise of riparian vegetation as a direct consequence of groundwater
depletion. One recent case study, that of Sawyer Spring and Ash Creek, in Southwestern Utah, is described
below.
11 11
THE CASE OF SAWYER SPRING AND ASH CREEK
Sawyer Spring and Ash Creek are located near New Harmony, in Southwestern Utah.
These streams drain a shallow alluvia[ aquifer and the fractured bedrock aquifer of the Pine
92 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Valley Mountains to the west, which peak at 10,350 ft. In 1997, a nearby well was pumped
at the rate of 1,700 gpm, for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Drawdown from this capture
eliminated the surface flow in Sawyer Spring and greatly diminished that of Ash Creek.
Riparian vegetation along Sawyer Spring and Ash Creek were adversely affected by the
lowering of the water table. Many trees either died or were substantially impaired in their
normal growth and development (Fig. 5.1). In October 2007, pumping was stopped by
mutual agreement in order to observe changes in groundwater levels and corresponding
spring flow. Baseflow has since recovered in Sawyer Spring and Ash Creek (Ponce and
Player, 2008).
Fig. 5.1 Dead riparian trees in the vicinity of Ash Creek (May 2008).
A classic example of groundwater depletion and its effect on riparian ecosystems is that of the Santa Cruz
River, in south - central Arizona. Groundwater pumping to support the city of Tucson and vicinity has resulted
in water table drops of several hundred feet, coupled with significant losses of riparian vegetation (Webb et
al., 2007).
Figure 5.2 shows two views of the same reach of the Santa Cruz River at Martinez Hill, south of Tucson
(Webb and Leaky, 2006). The left photo, dated 1942, shows well established stands of mesquite and
cottonwood trees along the river banks, indicating that sufficient moisture to support vegetation existed in the
soil at that time. The photo to the right, taken in 1989, shows that the riparian trees have disappeared. Data
from two nearby wells indicates that the water table had declined more than 100 feet due to pumping. The
roots of mesquite on the flood plain of the Santa Cruz River have been known to reach depths of 50 to 60 feet
(Meinzer, 1927).
93 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
1942
Robert H Webb, U S Geological Survey
Fig. 5.2 Two snapshots of the same reach of the Santa Cruz river at Martinez Hill, south of Tucson, Arizona.
Note the huge rock near the center foreground appearing in both photos.
The Sawyer Spring /Ash Creek experience and the Martinez Hill paired photographs shown above are but
two examples that demonstrate the relation between groundwater depletion and loss of riparian ecosystems.
Groundwater depletion can also threaten other wetland ecosystems. The case of the Ojos Negros valley, in
Baja California, Mexico, is a good example of the effects of groundwater depletion (Ojos Negros Research
Group, 2003).
5.2 Riparian health in Lower Thompson Creek
Riparian vegetation health in Lower Thompson Creek may have already been compromised. The geologic
map of Thompson Creek and vicinity shows the existence of an alluvial /colluvial aquifer of limited transverse
extent underlying the creek and superimposed on the regional fractured rock aquifer (Fig. 3.1). The aquifer,
shown as light yellow in color, is labeled Qycsa, depicting younger (Holocene) colluvial and stream deposits
of silty sand with clay and gravel.25 Figure 3.1 shows that the same type of aquifer underlies Sycamore
Creek. Since Thompson Creek is a tributary of Sycamore Creek (Fig. 2.1), the Thompson Creek aquifer
flows into the Sycamore Creek aquifer.
While the same type of aquifer underlies both Thompson and Sycamore Creeks, their riparian health appears
to be at variance. Figure 5.3 shows a side -to -side comparison of a current aerial view and the geologic map
of Thompson and Sycamore Creeks and vicinity, at the same scale. These figures show that while Sycamore
Creek appears sufficiently healthy, the same is not true for Lower Thompson Creek. Thompson Creek's
riparian vegetation appears somewhat healthy to the east, but not near its confluence with Sycamore Creek.
The combined effect of urban development, wildland fire, and groundwater depletion may be surmised.
94 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Google Earthen U S Geological Survey
Fig. 5.3 Comparative aerial view and geologic map of the confluence of Thompson Creek with Sycamore Creek.
Note that the geologic map of Thompson Creek (Fig_ 5.3) has a clearly labeled Spring near the Myers
property (Fig. 5.4). This is clear proof that prior to 1990, there was a spring in the vicinity. Robert Myers
himself recalls that in the spring of 1980, in the wake of three wet years [1978- 1980], his well operated under
flowing artesian conditions for three to four months.26, 27 Jeanen Monteleone, a long -time Old Coach Estates
resident and neighbor of Myers, recalls that back in the 1980s there used to be plenty of tadpoles in the area,
a sure indication of standing water.28 At present [April 2012], there is no evidence that the spring is there.
Therefore, the question is: "What happened to the spring ?"
'J S Geological Survey
Fig. 5.4 Spring location in Thompson Creek..
5.3 Riparian health in Upper Thompson Creek
The riparian health in Upper Thompson Creek may have already been compromised by groundwater
depletion. The situation is particularly acute in the Kassel property, which is the farthest upstream household
in Thompson Creek. According to Paul Kassel, between June 2010 and April 2012, he lost about one tree
per month.29 Overall, he has had to remove fourteen (14) dead trees, and trees are continuing to die on his
property (as of April 2012). He now uses the cut wood to heat his house: for the past two years, he has not
needed to buy any additional wood. Concurrently, Kassel reports poor water quality in his well (Section 7.1).
The water has a burnt orange color, even though he has three filter systems.
A similar situation is reported by Tom Moore, whose property is located immediately downstream of
Kassel's.30 Moore reports the loss of seven (7) trees in the four -month period of June to September 2011.
Ten (10) cords of cut wood originating in the recent tree die -off were produced. 31 Most of it is still piled up on
the premises (Fig. 5.5). Additionally, the Moores report that Thompson Creek, which runs through their
property (see Top figure), used to have a lot more water and moisture, but that in the past 15 years it has
dried up considerably. This behavior is consistent with loss of baseflow due to groundwater depletion.
Detailed ecohydrological studies are needed to confirm that the tree die -off at the Kassel and Moore
properties is due to groundwater depletion. In the meantime, the riparian resources at Upper Thompson
Creek continue to be compromised.
95 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Mouse over to see alternate photo -- Click on top to see both photos
Fig. 5.5 One of several cut wood piles on the Moore property (photo taken April 15, 2010).
6. SALINITY
[Socioeconomic aspects] ]Sustainable yield] [Conclusions] [Recommendations] [Acknowledgements]
lEndnotesl [References] • ITopl [Introduction] (Surface Waterl [Groundwater] [ Evapotranspiration I
[Ecohydrology)
6.1 Quality of groundwaters
All waters of the Earth contain a certain amount of dissolved solids. Water has an intrinsic tendency to pick up
solids as it flows over rocks and soils from headwaters to oceans. This is due to its extremely high dielectric
constant, a property that compels it to dissolve solids that originate in the rocks and soils.32 In addition, the
solubility of salts in water, particularly that of sodium chloride, is extremely high.33 Thus, water not only picks
up salt ions naturally, but it also has a tendency not to part with them. Once the sodium chloride salts are
dissolved, it is extremely hard for them to precipitate out of the solution.
Generally, the quality of groundwaters differs from that of surface waters. Surface waters recyie every eleven
(11) days on the average (L'vovich, 1979). Even when surface waters are retained in continental locations,
naturally or artificially, for up to a year or more, the natural water quality remains substantially unchanged.
Unlike surface waters, groundwaters have a wide range of ages, varying from days to years to centuries to
millennia (Fig. 6.1). The global replacement of all groundwater has been estimated at 5,000 years (L'vovich,
1979). For depths within 2,000 m of the Earth's surface, groundwater is replaced every 1,400 years (World
Water Balance, 1978). Drainage conditions deteriorate with increasing depth, the movement of water slows
down, and the salinity concentration increases (Chebotarev, 1955). The deeper the groundwater, the older
96 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
and saltier it is likely to be (f=reeze and Cherry, 1979).
Unconfined
agwter
Contining Tbed
Confined
aquifer
Centuries
Confining bed '-- - --
-~
— -- --
Conti ed
— aquifer
-- — - - - - - -' —
Millennia
Fig. 6.1 Age of groundwaters.
The quality of groundwater is measured by its salinity. The salinity concentration varies with the specific
surface area of the soil and rock materials, the solubility of the minerals, pH, pE, and contact time (Walton,
1970). Other factors being equal, the salinity concentration is highest where the movement of groundwater
is slowest. A typical groundwater geochemistry in the upper crust of the lithosphere is composed of the
following anionic sequence (Chebotarev, 1955): 35
1. Bicarbonate waters at shallow depths,
2. Sulfate waters at intermediate depths, and
3. Chloride waters at great depths.
97 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
r
0
c
a cl
n
TORO atrN144f
�►
r A C
~rEN C
M %ST R Y ed`�of
O�
Es ale
R
C g
/yOG
+p s o
r o o y ;N
Z
�-= o � ♦0 0 - n � f �� �� YJ
n r
{A Mb U R ha w h:+E
YFO EXC__
?
ONES
Fig. 6.2 Cycle of metamorphism of groundwater quality (Chebotarev, 1955).35
Generally, as the groundwater becomes deeper and older, the dominant cations change from calcium and
magnesium to sodium, and the concentrations increase accordingly.36 Thus, the deeper the groundwater
pumping and the greater the capture, the greater the problem of solids disposal (Alley. 2003). The situation is
aggravated in and regions, where the soils are relatively unweathered and naturally have a store of salts.
Irrigation with groundwater brings water with varying amounts of salt to the surface. Once there, the salts
eventually find their way to shallow groundwaters and neighboring surface waters (Pillsbury. 1981). Table 6.1
shows the amount of salt generated by three typical levels of groundwater capture and salt concentration in
the irrigation water.
Table 6.1 Salts requiring disposal (lbs)
Salt concentration in the irrigation water (mg /liter)
Groundwater
capture 300 600
(acre -feet) L JL_
POUNDS OF SALT
1200
98 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
1
10
816
8,158
1,632
16,316
3,264
32,632
E__1
81,579
163,158
326,316
6.2 Irrigation and salts
Irrigation requires salt disposal. How much salt will depend on the quality of the irrigation waters, but some
salt will always need to be dealt with (van Schilfgaarde, 1990). Evapotranspiration amounts to a consumptive
use of water; thus, the salts brought in with the irrigation water are left behind in the soil profile. A sustainable
irrigation operation must seek to remain in salt balance, i.e., within an appropriate time span, the operation
must remove the salts that are brought in with the irrigation water (Pillsbury, 1981).
In and and semiarid regions, additional salts are produced locally by the weathering and bioturbation of
geologically young soils.37 The locally generated salts could amount to a substantial fraction of the total salts
to be drained, depending on the salt content of the irrigation water and the amount of leaching required to
keep the soil in salt balance.38 Significantly, low -salt irrigation waters leach proportionately more salt than
high -salt waters, and high leaching volumes produce more salt than low leaching volumes; thus, local salts
are always leached in geologically young soils (Rhoades et al., 1974). Moreover, the removal of salts by
leaching and drainage creates a problem of disposal (American Society of Civil Engineers, 1990).
How can the salt -laden irrigation waters be disposed of properly? The solution to this problem in all cases
and to the satisfaction of all stakeholders remains elusive. The problem can be mitigated in locations in close
proximity to the ocean, as in the case of the Santa Ana River Interceptor, in Orange County (Santa Ana
Watershed Project Authority, 2010), and the Calleguas Regional Salinity Management Pipeline, in Ventura
County ( Calleguas Municipal Water District, 2009). In other instances, a suitable repository for the
agricultural wastewaters may be found far from surface or groundwater sources, as in the case of the Salton
Sea, in Imperial and Riverside counties (Ponce, 2005).
In some instances, the solution to the problem of salt disposal has been to store the salts in evaporation
ponds. For example, several of these ponds have been implemented in Tulare Lake Basin, in the southern
Central Valley (Fig. 6.3). As argued by Pillsbury (1981), this "solution" is counterproductive in the long run. A
soil known to be impermeable to fresh water, when situated below an evaporation pond, will gradually
become more permeable and the saline wastewaters will eventually reach the water table, contaminating the
aquifer with unwanted salts.
99 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
6.3 The need for drainage
4= �
Fig. 6.3 South evaporation pond, Tulare Lake Basin, California.
Irrigation in and and semiarid regions always degrades water quality downstream. Without proper
management, the land becomes salinized. With or without proper management, drainage waters from
irrigated lands carry salt that requires disposal. Thus, on -site drainage creates a problem of off -site disposal.
On -site drainage requires the application of a leaching requirement to the soil, over and above the
requirements of potential evapotranspiration. The leaching requirement is a function of the following
properties (Hoffman and van Genuchten, 1983):
1. The salinity of the irrigation water, and
2. The salt tolerance of the crop.
The salinity of irrigation water varies typically in the range 0.5 -2.0 dS /m.39 The salt tolerance of herbaceous
crops varies in the range 1.5 -7.5 dS /m (American Society of Civil Engineers, 1990). The leaching
requirement must be applied for the system to be able to drain its salts. Depending on the local
geohydrology, it may take many decades, or just a season or two, before the need for drainage becomes
evident (van Schilfgaarde, 1990).
6.4 Thompson Creek salinity
In Thompson Creek, including Maderas Golf Club, the irrigation water may be assumed to have a salinity
concentration of 1 dS /m, which is roughly equivalent to 600 mg /liter.40 The salt tolerance of Bermuda grass
is 6.9 dS /m, a relatively high value (Mass and Hoffman, 1977). For these conditions, the leaching
requirement is about 0.03, i.e., 3% of the applied water needs to drain to maintain the turf in optimum
condition.
100 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
A permanent irrigation enterprise requires the sacrifice of a certain value elsewhere (van Schilfgaarde, 1990).
All surface and subsurface runoff leaving Thompson Creek and vicinity flows into Sycamore Creek. In turn,
Sycamore Creek flows into the San Dieguito River at Lake Hodges (Fig. 6.4).
Fig. 6.4 Sycamore Creek near its mouth at Lake Hodges, California.
At 600 mg /liter of estimated dissolved salt concentration in the irrigation water, the consumption of 100 ac -ft
produces 163,158 Ibs of salts, i.e., 81.6 tons (Table 6.1). Of the 450 acre -feet of water consumption by
Maderas, about 78 %, i.e., 351 acre -feet in an average year, is imported water plus groundwater; the
remainder is satisfied by local precipitation.20 Thus, the 351 acre - feet/year of imported water plus
groundwater produces a total of 286 tons of salt. Note that this estimate specifically does not include the
locally generated salt, which in relatively unweathered soils could be a substantial fraction of the total salts
removed with the drainage waters.38
7. SOCIOECONOMIC ASPECTS
ISustainable yield] lConclusionsl [Recommendationsl (Acknowledgements] [Endnotesl [References)
ITop) Itntroductionj [Surface Water] [Groundwater] [EvapotranspirationI [Ecohydrologyl [Salinity)
7.1 Old Coach Estates
The community of Old Coach Estates (OCE) is located wholly within Thompson Creek. There are twenty -four
(24) homeowners in OCE, listed in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1 Old Coach Estates: Well deepening, well depth, and static level data
[Click here to show Table 7.1].
101 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
11
a
a
de
-D
a
a
_0
_0
a
'0
"0
'a
_0
'00 '0
O
O
O
O
O
Q
O
O
@
@
O
3
LL
CD
O
C7
CD
0
Z
O
C7
O
O
"
CD
CD
O
o
c
Q)
o
m
L �
ay
yV_
6
Eon
°,
d
d
a
d
¢
d
Q
Q
3 ~' ^
N
N
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
N
N
Z
Z
Z
Z
r
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
E �? m
n
n
>U
�
N
ao n
n
n
o
O n
O M
m
O
LO
J
C)
V
N
@
�+
a0
N
m m
N N
O
N
M
M
0)
N
'N
r
3
M
O>
N
V In
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
ui
Q
Q
@ �`
Q
Q
Q
7
Q
C
L O
0
O
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
N
O
O
Z
Z
0
Z
Z
Z
N
Z
C O
O .--
O
O
c0
Qo
O
0
0)
—
O
_
N
O
O O
O
N
O
O
N
Cl
A
N
N N
N
N
N
D
(D
r
d
ar
�
«
N
L
.
C)
O
O
W
V
_
= d
N
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
D)
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
O
ap
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
n
(D
Z
Z
Z
Z
m
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
M
6)
O
O
m
} W
V
d
3
N
r
N
N
0
O
co
N
Cl
O
O
N
Q
C>
no
i
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
N
Q
Q
Q
Q
n
<O
OM
Z
Z
Z
Oo
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Mo
Z
Z
Z
Z
0
M
0
v
0
n
6
.a
0
0
0
m
m
rn
cli
N
N
�
�
O
}�
N
N
N
N
a)
@
IM
C
w
C
N
O
O
0
N
O
N
O
LO
O
O
G
CO
aJ
04
C
3:
C
C
uJ
W
LO
<D
V
�O
C
O
O
O
2
O
O
O
C\l
O
0
O
O
O
m
oc)
.2
7
N
O
0 c0
V)
O
0
0
N
O
0
N
0
N
0O
O
N
M
0 O
Z
Z
N
—
M
LO
m
CD
0
p
N O
r
N
X
0
O
N 0
O
W
O
O
D
O
O N
Q
O N
M
O
N
0
N
p
W
d)
MINOV
H�UNN
D0-0'
-0
Q
@
a
O
O
O
N
e
Z
Z
Z
]ZO
Z
1c,
Z
i
W
to
to
w
w
N
N
N
N
N
cn
N
N
N
N
In
In
N
N
rn
N
N
N
O
M
a)
a)
a)
@
N
N
@
@
m
@
@
a)
@
a)
N
N
@
N
a)
@
N
N
N
Z
d
N
N
@
@
N
N
7
@
N
N
@
O
C
N
N
r
E;
N
N
N
Y
00
0)
::�
Cl)
cn
C
°-
o
3
m
m
co
�_
N
m
m
c
3
2
Y
Q
-0
W
rn
a
E
a)
ey
O
Y
>
J
rn
d
@
0)
w
e
o
@
Q
Ea
U
a�
c
-o
>
c
ao
'D
o
_0
y
>
-0.o
m
@
c
a
C
"O
(7
a
C
>
m
U
@
@
@
C
C
C
L
�
C
@
O
@
@
@
Z
N
@
@
a
C
"O
C
c
W
@
@
U
N
[7
@
M
o
:
c
m
m
cco
Q
m
0
@
o
E
Z
o
a
a)
E
a3i
-'
D
~
=
Q
m0
Z
EE]HEIEEEEEFIEEEIEHEEE]IflHHLiEEIL
of
4 November
19.
2013
Item
#
3
/
co
)
;
\
\ < CD
\ ) \
\ /
\ \ /
!- ■
k) )
0
(t §a} /#o
f{ Ec
*§A
22 2 \§ /r)
2 CD 0 LL
/ E
■� ;°;f§
■ §�$! ƒi \-
{k
/ \k) \� \E
EO
/(\( {�c
K))R.2 /
2k /)gf §2722 \§
02!7{[2 - ; ;aJ
f X E 0:2 §. 16
ki;§f!k!E( ƒE}
)3§ \ \)!@\\\\�
/ /22$0
\ \ { e
®�)w
t
}
November 19, 2013 Item # 31
For the present purpose, the homeowners are classified into three categories:
A. Those who do not have a connection to city water and are, therefore, dependent on groundwater:
Twelve (12) homeowners [yellow background].
B. Those who use both groundwater and city water; groundwater is used for landscaping and city water
for domestic use: Eleven (11) homeowners [light green background].
C. Those who are using only city water: One (1) homeowner [light blue background].
Therefore, 12 out of 24 homeowners are exclusively dependent on groundwater for their livelihood. As
shown in Column 5 of Table 7.1, 9 out of 24 homeowners have had to deepen their wells over the years, at
significant cost to them.41 Other OCE homeowners have drilled deep wells from the start, apparently to
reduce the risk of the well drying up. The deeper wells reach down as deep as 1000 to 1200 feet. For
example, Jim and Ginger Kennedy have two wells at 1000 -feet depth each. At 1200 -feet depth, Tom and Lori
Carter's well is the deepest well at Old Coach Estates.
Fig. 7.1 Old Coach residents measuring a well on March 3, 2012.
Table 7 1 shows that there is a dearth of data concerning static levels in OCE wells. There are records of
static level measurements for nine (9) wells. Still, these measurements clearly show the intensity of
groundwater depletion. Maximum depletion depths in the Myers, Gill, and Vaplon wells, which have the
longest and most reliable record, average 275 feet, with a maximum value of 280 feet. 42
The complexity of the flow patterns in a fractured rock aquifer such as Thompson Creek defies conventional
geohydrologicai characterization.43 Barring more data, the conclusion is that the aquifer has been depleted
to a maximum of 280 feet, to judge by the three measured wells with the longest records. Table 7.2
compares this amount with four (4) classic textbook examples of groundwater depletion. It is readily seen
that Thompson Creek, at 280 feet, rates high compared to the examples shown in this table.
104 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Table 7.2 Case studies of
groundwater depletion
in the United States
and
other countries.
Location
Maximum
depletion (feet)
Reference
Evaluation of Groundwater
Borrego Valley, California
150
Conditions in Borrego Valley
(2010)
High Plains aquifer, U.S. (Texas,
> 150
U.S. Geological Survey
Kansas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska)
Circular 1186 (1999)
Ojos Negros Valley, Baja
165
Ojos Negros Research Group
California, Mexico
(2003)
Las Vegas, Nevada
300
U.S Geological Survey
Circular 1182 (last modified 2005)
Comparison with the Central Valley, California
Groundwater depletion remains a pervasive malady in California. To illustrate this point,
the rate of depletion in the Central Valley, the largest agricultural region in the state, may
be examined. This rate has been recently documented by Famiglietti et al. (2011). The
average rate of depletion for the 6.5 -year period from October 2003 to March 2010 has
been measured at 31 mm /yr, i.e., a total of 201.5 mm, or 0.66 feet for the 6.5 -year period.
For the sake of comparison, an extrapolation to a most recent 30 -year period would result
in a depletion in the Central Valley of 0.66 X (30/6.5) = 3 feet. While there are large
differences in scale between Thompson Creek and the Central Valley, the comparison
underscores the intensity of groundwater depletion at Thompson Creek.
Table 7 1, Column 10 shows that the water quality in the majority of the OCE wells is good, judging from
homeowners' perceptions. The exception are the wells on the Kassel and Wier properties (Numbers 4 and
5). The water quality of these two wells is judged by the homeowners to be poor.
7.2 Optimum depletion level
Pumping at Thompson Creek and vicinity over the past 12 years has amounted to 224 acre -feet per year,
including all users (Table 2.6). Pumping amounts to capture; capture causes loss of storage, increased
recharge, and decreased discharge. Loss of storage produces aquifer depletion, i.e., the lowering of the
water table below historic, pre - development levels. Maximum depletion depth in Thompson Creek has been
measured at 280 ft. This value is large compared to several classic case studies of groundwater depletion
(Table 7.2).
Given the perceived societal trend to use groundwater for economic reasons, the optimum depletion level
cannot be readily determined solely on hydrogeological grounds. Ideally, groundwater may be pumped as
much as needed, subject to the socioeconomic limitation: If local stakeholders are negatively affected, and
105 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
serious concerns are expressed regarding groundwater depletion, the amount of capture would have to be
reduced until the subject concerns are substantially mitigated. In the case of the Thompson Creek aquifer, it
is clear that:
1. There is intense competition for the groundwater resource;
2. A significant number of OCE homeowners (stakeholders) have been adversely affected in the past
15 to 20 years; see Table 7 1, Column 5; and
3. A group of stakeholders have gone on record to express their concern regarding the depletion of the
groundwater resource.
Significantly, in the past two years, in response to heightened concern, some OCE homeowners have taken
upon themselves the task of performing weekly measurements of static level in several wells, in an attempt
to monitor and further document the depletion." Eventual corrective measures would have to include a fresh
assessment of sustainable yield. The following section (Section 8) reviews principles and practices of
sustainable groundwater utilization.
8. SUSTAINABLE YIELD
[Conclusions] lRecommendationsl lAcknowledgements] [Endnotes] lReferencesl • ITopJ
I Introduction I ISurface Water) lGroundwaterl lEvapotranspiratiool [Ecohydrology] lSalinityl (Socioeconomic aspectsl
8.1 Safe yield of groundwater
The concept of safe yield has evolved over the past one - hundred years of groundwater development. Lee
(1915) defined safe yield as the limit to the quantity of water which can be withdrawn regularly and
permanently without dangerous depletion of the storage reserve. He noted that water permanently extracted
from an underground reservoir reduces by an equal quantity the volume of water passing from the basin by
way of natural channels, i.e., the natural discharge. To illustrate the existence of this natural discharge, Lee
observed that heavy pumping would commonly result in the drying up of springs and wetlands. Thus, he
distinguished between a theoretical safe yield, equal to the natural recharge, and a practical safe yield, a
lower value which takes into account the need to maintain a residual discharge. According to Lee, the
residual discharge must be ascertained and deducted from the theoretical safe yield in order to obtain the
practical safe yield.
Theis (1940), a pioneer in the field of geohydrology, recognized that some groundwater is always mined.?
This conclusion follows directly from the average life of groundwater at less than 2,000 m depth, estimated at
1,400 years (World Water Balance, 1978). Invariably, some of the mining will come from aquifer storage;
thus, depletion is inherent to groundwater capture. What is at stake is not whether depletion is taking place,
but how much depletion is socially and economically acceptable (Alley et al, 1999).
The source of water derived from wells, by C. V. Theis (1940)
"All groundwater of economic importance is in process of movement through a porous rock
stratum from a place of intake or recharge to a place of disposal. Velocities of a few tens or
106 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
a few hundreds of feet a year are probably those most commonly met with in aquifers not
affected by wells. This movement has been going on through a part of geologic time. It is
evident that on the average the rate of discharge from the aquifer [during recent geologic
time] has been equal to the rate of input; therefore, pristine aquifers are in a state of
dynamic equilibrium... Discharge by wells is thus a new discharge superimposed upon a
previously stable system, and must be balanced by an increase in the recharge of the
aquifer, or by a decrease in [the old] natural discharge, or by a loss of storage in the
aquifer, or by a combination of these..." (Page 277).
"All water discharged by wells is balanced by a loss of water somewhere. This loss is
always to some extent and in many cases largely from storage in the aquifer. Some
groundwater is always mined. ...The amount of water removed from any area is
proportional to the drawdown, which in turn is proportional to the rate of pumping.
Therefore, too great a concentration of pumping in any area is to be discouraged and
a uniform areal distribution of development over an area where the water is shallow should
be encouraged..." (Page 280).
Kazmann (1956) argued that the concept of safe yield, when taken independently of considerations of
regional hydrology, is a fallacious one, because it cannot be reconciled with the legal doctrine of
appropriation. All water coming from the ground must be replaced by water coming from the land surface in
order for a perennial groundwater supply to be obtained, When all surface runoff in the area overlying an
aquifer has been appropriated, a perennial supply cannot be obtained from the ground without encroaching
on established rights.
Prudic and Herman (1996) showed the evolving nature of capture with long -term groundwater development.
Using the aquifer of Paradise Valley, in Humboldt County, Nevada, as an example, they found that pumping
48% of the recharge for 300 years produced first (1) losses in aquifer storage; then (2) reduction in
evapotranspiration; subsequently, (3) decreases in flow discharge; and eventually, (4) sizable downstream
flow reversal, i.e., increases in recharge coming from the neighboring downstream basin. A summary of
Prudic and Herman's findings is shown in Table 8.1.
Table 8.1 The evolving nature of capture ( %) *
Sources of capture,
Time (years)
at the end of
the indicated time period
1.5 25 100 300
1. Loss of aquifer storage
52.8
25.3
15.4
6.0
2. Reduction in evapotranspiration
?7.2
74.5
X2.9
88.3
3. Decreased flow discharge
4. Downstream flow reversal
,. .. 11 11
107 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
All sources II 100 II 100 II 100 II 100
* Prudic and Herman (1996).
Bredehoeft (1997) called into question the practice of equating "safe yield" with recharge. Echoing Theis
(1940), he stated that this practice fails to take into account the existence of natural discharge. He advocates
a new sustainable groundwater development paradigm, one that would focus not on the recharge, but
rather on the extent of permissible capture of the natural discharge.
Sophocleous (2000) reckoned that "safe yield" ignores the fact that, over the long term, under natural or
equilibrium conditions, natural recharge is balanced by discharge from the aquifer by evapotranspiration, or
by discharge into streams, springs, or seeps. Consequently, if pumping equals recharge, eventually streams,
marshes and springs dry up. Continued pumping in excess of recharge may eventually deplete the aquifer.
Based on the unintended consequences of the safe -yield approach, Sophocleous argued in favor of retiring
the concept of safe yield.
It has now become clear that the practice of capturing 100% of the recharge is untenable. This fact has been
demonstrated again and again in both theory and practice. A significant amount of capture in one location,
resembling the entire gross recharge, will eventually encroach upon other established rights.
8.2 Sustainable yield
Sustainable yield follows the concept of sustainable development, which emerged in the 1980s. Sustainable
development is that which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). Implicit
within this definition is the realization that natural resources could be exploited in an unsustainable fashion,
i.e., in a way that future generations will find it increasingly difficult to avail themselves of similar quantities of
the same resources, thus, the intergenerational ethical dilemma.
Sustainability refers to renewable natural resources; therefore, sustainability implies renewability.
Groundwater is neither completely renewable nor completely nonrenewable; therefore, the question is how
much groundwater pumping is sustainable. In principle, sustainable yield is that which is in agreement with
sustainable development. This definition is clear; however, its practical application requires the
understanding of complex interdisciplinary relationships, which have been examined only recently.
Alley et al. (1999) defined groundwater sustainability as the development and use of groundwater in a
manner that can be maintained for an indefinite time without causing unacceptable environmental, economic,
or social consequences. The definition of "unacceptable" is largely subjective, depending on the individual
situation. For instance, what may be established as an acceptable rate of groundwater withdrawal with
respect to changes in groundwater level may reduce the availability of surface water, locally or regionally, to
an unacceptable level. According to Alley et al. (1999), the term safe yield should be used with respect to
specific effects of pumping, such as water level declines or reduced streamflow. Thus, safe yield is the
maximum pumpage for which the consequences are considered acceptable.
Loucks (2000) observed that the assessment of groundwater sustainability must involve professionals from
other disciplines. Sustainable yield has almost nothing to do with hydrogeological recharge ( Bredehoeft,
1997). Sustainability studies require a balance of the entire hydrological system, not just of the aquifer.
Sustainability implies a basic change in focus from groundwater as an exploitable human resource (the
"basin yield" view) to groundwater as a vital part of the complex interrelated processes governing ecosystem
108 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
health and flow system stability (National Research Council, 2000).
Maimone (2004) reasoned that if sustainable yield must be all- inclusive, the idea that there exists a single,
correct number representing sustainable yield must be repealed. Instead, he proposed a working definition
based on the following components:
1. Understand the local, subregional, and regional effects, and interactions thereof.
2. Develop a comprehensive conceptual water budget, including surface water and ground water, and
identify consumptive vs non - consumptive use.
3. Understand the boundaries and rate of replenishment of the system.
4. Understand human water needs and their changing nature.
5. Consider the temporal aspects of yield, including droughts and floods.
6. Consider the effects of new technology and changes in societal perceptions.
7. Work with stakeholders to understand tradeoffs and develop consensus.
8. Recognize the interdisciplinary nature of the impacts of groundwater utilization.
Seward et al. (2006) found serious problems with the simplistic assumption that sustainable yield should
equal recharge. In many cases, sustainable yield will be considerably less than average annual recharge.
Natural recharge does not determine sustainable yield; rather, the latter is determined by the amount of
capture that it is permissible to abstract without causing undesirable or unacceptable consequences.
8.3 Sustainable socioeconomic yield
The repeal of the concept of safe yield and the advent of sustainable yield has forced a reassessment of the
practice of groundwater hydrology. Studies now encompass the related sciences of surface -water hydrology,
baseflow hydrology, ecohydrology, and related economic and social aspects, to include all areas that are
affected in both the short and long term by groundwater utilization. A working compromise may be to
establish a sustainable socieoeconomic yield as a judicious percentage of recharge, even though there is no
physical relation between them. This percentage would have to consider all aspects: physical, chemical,
biological, and socioeconomic, and would have to be established by consensus.
On a global annual basis, deep percolation and recharge are about 2% and 20% of precipitation,
respectively. Therefore, deep percolation is 10% of recharge (World Water Balance, 1978; ! 'vovich, 1979).
Since deep percolation is, for all practical purposes, lost to terrestrial ecosystems, all the deep percolation
could be captured without encroachment on the natural discharge, i.e., on local or regional stakeholders.
Thus, a base working value for sustainable yield could be taken as 10% of gross recharge. Higher values
would require sufficient proof that there are no adverse effects on the natural discharge, or that the
associated groundwater depletion is acceptable to local stakeholders.
8.4 Tragedy of the Commons
A commons is a natural resource used jointly by many individuals. The tragedy is that, in the absence of
regulation, there is a tendency for the commons to be overexploited by some, resulting in its eventual ruin
(Hardin, 1968). Groundwater is a good example of a commons; groundwater depletion is a good example of
the tragedy.
109 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
In an unregulated commons, each individual may seek to maximimize his /her own gain by unilaterally
increasing his /her use of the common resource. While the benefits typically accrue directy to the individual,
the costs are invariably distributed among all users of the commons. In the case of groundwater, the
benefit to the individual user could be one additional acre -foot of water consumption, while the costs, both
tangible and intangible, are bome by all users sharing the commons. Thus, the benefit/cost ratio of the
individual's action turns out to be extremely high.
The Tragedy of the Commons is not limited to groundwater. Many other resource pools, at all scales, local,
regional, and global, are subject to the predicament. Regionally, overgrazing of the range gave Hardin the
inspiration to formulate his principle. Yet groundwater depletion remains a showcase for the tragedy. History
tells us that under conditions of surface -water scarcity, human societies have pursued groundwater
development as if there were no connection between the two.
Groundwater differs from surface water in three important respects:
1. There is a lot more groundwater than surface water.
2. While surface water replenishes readily, groundwater does not.
3. Pristine surface -water quality is generally socially acceptable and tends to be more or less constant in
time, while pristine groundwater quality decreases with depth and age.
Estimates of groundwater volumes vis -.1-vis surface water volumes are one hundred times more or higher
(Ponce, 2006). Thus, one may be tempted to assume that for lack of sufficient surface water, individuals and
societies alike could turn to the groundwater. The practice turns into an illusion when it is realized that while
surface water replenishes every eleven (11) days on the average, groundwater does not replenish as quickly
(L'vovich, 1979). Some groundwaters may take centuries, and even millennia, to replenish. Thus, the
possibility exists for depletion in the short term, typically spanning up to a human lifetime. Depletion means
unsustainability.
More importantly, the deeper the groundwater, the older it is, and, consequently, the higher its content of
dissolved solids, among them, notably, bicarbonate, sulfate, and sodium anions. Therefore, pumping deep
groundwater with the intent to use it consumptively, such as in irrigation, may result in the unintended
consequence of bringing to the surface large quantities of salt, which would have to be disposed of properly
(Alley, 2003). Otherwise, accumulations of salt on the surface and subsurface will eventually bring about
deserts where they did not exist before (Sophocleous, 2000). This is clearly an unsustainable path, one that
societies need to shun at all costs.
In summary, excessive capture of groundwater by pumping, particularly from the deeper strata, may
eventually produce desertification, not so much because of the lack of water, but because of the excess of
salts. Societies that seek to remain sustainable must address these issues with great caution.
9. CONCLUSIONS
[Recommendations) lAcknowledgementsl [Endnotesl [References] • [Top) [Introduction)
[Surface Waterl [Groundwater) [Evapotranspiration[ [Ecohydrologyl [Salinityl
ISocioeconomic aspects] ISustainable yieldl
9.1 Conclusions
110 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
The following conclusions are derived from this study:
1. Precipitation in the study area averages 13 inches per year. The minimum annual precipitation in the
55 -yr period of record (1957 -2011) is 4.36 inches for water year 2007; the maximum is 27.62 inches for
water year 1998.
2. All groundwaters are eventually connected; therefore, the actual size of a groundwater basin for
purposes of recharge calculations is largely arbitrary. The contributing area considered in this study
consists of Thompson Creek and the downstream portion of Sycamore Creek, beginning at its
confluence with Thompson Creek, amounting to 2693 acres.
3. Recharge varies as a function of the applicable recharge -to- precipitation percentage, which for and and
semiarid regions is normally in the range 0.1 -5.0 %, according to global studies (Scanlon et at, 2006).
However, the Don Howard Engineering (2000) calculation estimates a recharge -to- precipitation
percentage of 9.4 %. A 7.04% recharge -to- precipitation percentage is assumed (Section 2.5).
4. The calculated mean annual recharge for Thompson Creek and vicinity is 205 acre -feet.
5. Over the past 12 years (2000- 2011), the average groundwater capture in Thompson Creek and vicinity
has been 224 acre -feet, including all users.
6. Over the past 12 years (2000 - 2011), the average capture -to- recharge percentage in Thompson Creek
and vicinity has been 109 %. To provide a measure of comparison, the average capture -to- recharge
percentage in the continental United States is 8.7 %.
7. Capture of 100% of the recharge or more, with the intent to make maximum use of the available
groundwater, has been widely discredited. This practice encroaches upon established rights, by loss of
storage, increased recharge, and decreased recharge.
8. A base working value for sustainable capture -to- recharge percentage may be initially taken as 10 %, a
value which resembles the national average (8.7 %). Higher values would require that the associated
groundwater depletion be acceptable to local stakeholders.
9. A spring near the Myers property in Old Coach Estates, documented by the U.S. Geological Survey in
its 1990 geologic map of Thompson Creek and environs, is currently (2012) no longer there.
Groundwater depletion may be presumed to be the most probable cause of the spring's demise.
10. In the past two years, the loss of 21 trees has been reported by Kassel and Moore, two homeowners in
Upper Thompson Creek. Trees are continuing to die on the Kassel property with no apparent reason.
11. The ratio of potential evapotranspiration of the turf ecosystem to actual evapotranspiration of the
chaparral ecosystem is 4.5. This means that the artificial ecosystem uses four - and - one -half times more
water than the natural ecosystem.
12. The total groundwater capture by Maderas and its neighbors amounts to about 224 household
equivalents. Yet in 1976, during initial development of the area, the County of San Diego estimated that
there were enough groundwater resources to support only 35 homes.
13. About 70% of the total groundwater capture is currently being used consumed for irrigation of the
Maderas turf. Every iota of solids associated with irrigation waters will eventually find its way
111 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
downstream, flowing into Lake Hodges and polluting the regional surface waters with additional
quantities of salt.
14. At 600 milligrams per liter of estimated dissolved salt concentration in the irrigation water, the 351 acre -
feet of mean annual imported surface water plus groundwater used by Maderas turf produces more
than 286 tons of salt per year. This figure does not include the locally generated salt, which, in relatively
unweathered soils, could be a substantial fraction of the total salts removed with the drainage waters.
15. One half of the Old Coach Estates homeowners (12 out of 24) are exclusively dependent on
groundwater for their livelihood. Some cannot connect to city water; others will not, due to the expense.
16. More than one third of the Old Coach Estates homeowners (9 out of 24) have had to deepen their wells
over the years, at significant cost to them. Other homeowners have purposely drilled deep wells from
the start to reduce the risk of the well drying up. The deeper wells reach down to 1200 feet.
17. As reported by Maderas, in March 2012 the water level at the Old Coach Estates Test Well ( OCETW)
was 227 feet below ground surface, which is 87 feet below the 140 feet at which pumping can be
restored.' However, measurements of OCETW by local homeowners indicate that the well may be
actually dry. The fact that the well has been dry since June 2011 has been confirmed by the most
recent annual hydrogeology report (SCS Engineers, 2012).
18. In the past 30 years, the Thompson Creek aquifer has been depleted to a maximum of 280 feet, to
judge by the three measured wells with the longest and most reliable records. This depletion amount is
large compared with four (4) classic textbook examples of groundwater depletion, which range from
150 to 300 feet.
9.2 Concluding remarks
Both Maderas Golf Club and its Old Coach neighbors prefer to use groundwater in lieu of surface water,
simply because it is less costly. Yet the groundwater resources of Thompson Creek and environs are limited
and not readily replenishable. Existing hand -dug wells indicate that the water table at Thompson Creek was
higher, i.e., much closer to the surface, prior to extensive groundwater development. In the past 30 years,
aquifer depletion at Thompson Creek and environs amounts to up to 280 feet in certain areas.
How can the optimum amount of depletion be determined? From a societal perspective, this amount cannot
be ascertained solely on hydrogeological grounds. Historically, depletion typically increases with groundwater
development until a limit is reached where the amount becomes a socioeconomic and political issue. It is
clearly shown that this is generally the case across the land. Alley et al (1999) put it succinctly: "We define
groundwater sustainability as development and use of groundwater in a manner that can be maintained for
an indefinite time without causing unacceptable environmental, economic, or social consequences."
All groundwater originates in rainfall; therefore, the documented depletion at Thompson Creek must be
due to pumping exceeding replenishment. Since Maderas is pumping close to 70% of the total, it follows that
Maderas must be responsible for about two- thirds of the groundwater depletion in the basin.
For the past twelve (12) years, the average groundwater pumping at Thompson Creek and vicinity has been
224 acre -feet, which amounts to about 109% of the gross annual recharge. Given the current understanding
of groundwater sustainability, this percentage is clearly not sustainable.
112 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
10. RECOMMENDATIONS
lAcknowledgements] (Endnotesl lReferencesl • [Top[ [Introduction) (Surface Waterl
[Groundwaterl [EvapotranspirationI [Ecohydrologyl ISalinityl ISocioeconomic aspects ISustainable yield]
lConclusionsl
10.1 Recommendations
The following recommendations are offered based on the findings of this study:
1. The obsolescence of the concept of "safe yield," interpreted as 100% of the gross annual
recharge, has cast serious doubt onto the practice of using groundwater to support turf irrigation
at Maderas Golf Club and other areas of Thompson Creek and environs. Over the past twelve
years, Maderas has been pumping an average of 164 acre -feet per year, which represents more
than 70% of the groundwater capture.
2. Expert scientific opinion now recommends the determination of a sustainable yield, interpreted
as a reasoned fraction of the recharge. A suitable working value of sustainable yield must reach
beyond hydrogeology, to encompass hydrological, ecohydrological, and socioeconomic aspects.
3. The Thompson Creek homeowners have been pumping about 30% of the current capture. If
sustainable yield is reasonably interpreted as about 30% of the gross recharge, it is seen that
not much groundwater is left for others to pump. Thus, the use of large quantities of groundwater
for extensive turf irrigation should be discouraged, or else reduced to an amount which is more
in line with current practices of groundwater sustainability.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
[Endnotes] [References] • [Top] [introduction] (Surface Water] [Groundwaterl [Evapotranspiration]
[Ecohydrology] [Salinityl ]Socioeconomic aspects] (Sustainable yield) lConclusionsl [Recommendationsl
This study was made possible through the support of a group of Old Coach Estates residents. Jerry Gil[ and
Frank Vaplon graciously shared their static level measurements for seven (7) Thompson Creek wells. Other
Old Coach Estates residents shared data and other information during personal interviews conducted during
the month of March 2012. Information from Maderas Golf Club and The Heritage was not readily available at
the time of this writing, and was obtained mostly through third parties. Therefore, the author cannot
guarantee its accuracy.
This report was peer- reviewed by four colleagues with recognized expertise in the fields of hydrology,
geohydrology, and ecohydrology. Their names have been withheld by request.
ENDNOTES
113 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
[References) • ITopl Ilntroductionl (Surface Water] IGroundwaterl [Evapotranspiration) IEcohydrologyl
ISalinityl ISocioeconomic aspects] [Sustainable yield[ [Conclusions[ [Recommendations) (Acknowledgements]
I Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 90- 13M(2) approved on August 29, 2000 by the Poway City Council established an operational
plan for the use of groundwater by the Maderas Golf Course. Conditions of the CUP approval required the creation and monitoring
of two test wells - -one in the Lower Sycamore Canyon (LSTW) and the other in the Old Coad Estates (OCETW) neighborhood.
Groundwater threshold levels were established for each test well. In accordance with the CUP, if the water level drops below the
designated thresholds (100 feet in the LSTW and 180 feet in the OCETW), all use of groundwater is to cease until the water level
in the test wells restores to 40 feet above the threshold levels (Letter by Penny Riley, Poway City Manager, to Tom Story, of
Sunroad Enterprises, dated August 11, 2011).
2 In response to escalated concern from local residents over the level of water in their wells, the City of Poway directed Maderas to
cease the use of all groundwater as of August 18, 2011 (Letter by Penny Riley, Poway City Manager, to Tom Story, of Sunroad
Enterprise, dated August 11, 2011).
3 Concerned Old Coach homeowners are particularly troubled by the following statement in the August 11, 2011 letter from Penny
Riley, Poway City Manager, to Tom Story, of Sunroad Enterprises: "This letter also contemplated that Sunroad would process an
amendment to the CUP to modify or eliminate the conditions relating to limitations on pumping." (Bolding is the author's).
4 Letter from William O'Brien, General Manager, Maderas Golf Club, to Pam D. Moore, dated May 23, 2011.
6 The Poway Valley NWS Station CA047111 is located at Latitude 3211 57' N and Longitude 1170 04' W. The value for water year
1995, missing from the record, was taken from the Howard Engineering report (Don Howard Engineering, 2000).
6 In fluid mechanics, a control volume is a mathematical abstraction employed in the process of creating mathematical models of
physical processes. In a fixed frame of reference, a control volume is a volume in space through which discharges and velocities
flow (Wikipedia).
7 Charles Vernon Theis (1900- 1987), a renowned American civil engineer and hydrogeologist, pioneered the development of
mathematical expressions to determine the characteristics of an aquifer and predict how water levels in the aquifer change during
pumping.
6 The Don Howard Engineering hydrological study, in its Chapter 2 "Hydrogeologic Study," section entitled "Groundwater Recharge
and Storage," states the following (page 2 -14): "Groundwater recharge and storage are calculated for a local drainage area that
underlies Maderas Golf Club and the lower Sycamore Creek homes, and extends east along Thompson Creek into Old Coach
Estates. The drainage area boundaries used for these analyses are presented in Plate 2. The recharge area measures 2,804
acres, including the 205 -acre Maderas Club" (sic).
9 The number of Heritage households that are using groundwater was not readily available at the time of this writing. Therefore, the
number used in this report for the total household use (60) is an approximation, based on the best information available. Thus, its
accuracy cannot be guaranteed.
70 The Cretaceous is a geologic period and system ranging from circa 145.5 to 65.5 millions of years ago (Wikipedia).
11 Tonalites and granodiontes are similar in mineral composition. A tonalite is a plutonic (intrusive) rock where the percentage of
plagioclase feldspar, relative to the combined content of alkali and plagioclase feldspars, is greater than 90; in a granodiorite, the
percentage varies between 65 and 90 (American Geological Institute, 1997).
12 Advection is the transport mechanism of a conservative substance or property by a fluid, due to the fluid's bulk motion. Diffusion
describes the spreading of particles from regions or higher concentration to regions of lower concentration (Wikipedia).
13 The terms consist of constant or variable coefficients and partial differential terms; for instance, the advective term [u ah /ax], in
which u is the advective velocity; likewise, the diffusive term [v ah2iax21, in which v is the diffusivity coefficient.
14 The existing handdug well at the Owens property [Justin and Jessica Owens] at 18201 Old Coach Road is 4 feet diameter and
18 feet deep (Jessica Owens, personal communication, 03 March, 2012).
1s Pam Moore, personal communication on March 10, 2012.
16 What remained of the old stagecoach station was demolished in the 1990s during the original development of what eventually
became the Maderas Golf Club (as told by Jeanen Monteleone, on 03 March 2012).
17 Letter by Robert Manis, Director of Development Services, City of Poway, to Tom Story, of Sunroad Enterprises, dated October
12, 2009
114 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
18 Letter by Penny Riley, Poway City Manager, to Tom Story, of Sunroad Enterprises, dated August 11, 2011
19 Frank Vaplon, personal communication on April 17, 2012.
20 With 13 inches of mean annual precipitation, 1 inch of mean annual runoff, and 54.2 inches of turf potential evapotranspiration:
[(13 - 1)/54.2] x 100 = 22% of the Maderas consumptive use is satisfied by precipitation.
21 Letter from Randall L. Hudburt, Director (Acting) of Environmental Planning, to Gil West, Environmental Analysis Division,
Interdepartmental correspondence, County of San Diego, California, dated August 25, 1976 (courtesy of Ms Jeanen Monteleone).
22 The California Water Atlas indicates that mean annual runoff at Thompson Creek is about 0.8 inches, which amounts to 6% of
precipitation. Yet U.S. Geological Survey measurements in San Mateo Creek, a watershed in northern San Diego County, for
example, indicate that mean annual runoff in inland basins may be higher; in the case of San Mateo Creek, close to 15% (Luis
Parra, personal communication).
23 The word "riparian" is derived from the Latin upa, meaning river bank. Riparian is also the proper nomenclature for one of the
fifteen terrestrial biomes of the Earth.
24 The vadose zone is the portion of Earth between the land surface and the top of the phreatic zone, i.e., the position at which the
groundwater is at atmospheric pressure.
25 The Holocene is a geologic epoch which began at the end of the Pleistocene (11,700 years ago) and continues to the present
time.
28 Robert Myers, personal interview conducted on March 3, 2012.
27 A flowing artesian well is a well where the water level reaches the ground surface if the natural water pressure is high enough.
28 Jeanen Monteleone, personal communication, on April 24, 2012.
29 Paul Kassel, personal interview conducted on March 17, 2012.
30 Tom Moore, personal interview conducted on April 15, 2012.
31 A cord is the amount of wood that, when "ranked and well stowed" (arranged so pieces are aligned, parallel, touching and
compact), occupies a volume of 128 cubic feet. This corresponds to a well stacked woodpile 4 feet wide, 4 feet high, and 8 feet
long; or any other arrangement of linear measurements that yields the same volume (Wikipedia).
32 Every material has a dielectric constant k. This constant has a minimum value of 1. Vacuum has k = 1; water has k = 80. The
larger the value of k, the greater the electric charge that can be stored or conducted. Thus, water is a universal solvent for ionic
substances.
33 The solubility of a solute such as sodium chloride in a solvent such as water is measured as the saturation concentration of the
solution, that is, the concentration at which the addition of more solute does not increase the concentration of the solution. The
solubility of sodium chloride in water at 25 °C is 360 g of NaCI per 1000 g of H2O, the highest among known solvents.
14 pH is the hydrogen [properly, hydronium ion] concentration in a solution. pE is the redox potential, which measures the electron
concentration in a solution.
35 The cycle of metamorphism, with depth and age, of groundwater geochemistry in the upper crust of the litosphere is referred to
as the Chebotarev sequence (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). Chebotarev (1955) examined the data from 3364 bores collected
practically from all continents and carried out 9719 chemical analyses of groundwaters.
38 Bicarbonate waters may contain up to 3.8% salinity, sulfate waters up to 1.9 %, and chloride waters up to 35.4% (Chebotarev,
1955). By comparison, good potable water has 0.03% salinity.
37 Bioturbation is the physical rearrangement of the soil profile by soil life. Burrowing animals and insects, and plant root systems
create passageways for air and water movement, changing soil morphology.
38 Precise measurements in two California soils showed salt increases of 3 to 5 meq /liter attributable solely to weathering. This
amounts to approximately 180 to 300 mg /liter (Rhoades et al., 1968).
39 A dS /m [deciSiemens per meter] is a measure of the electrical conductivity of water. 1 dS /m is approximately equal to 640
mg /liter (Salinity Management Guide, 2007).
115 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
40 No salinity data is currently available for Thompson Creek or Maderas. The values shown are best estimates. For reference
purposes, Mr. Paul Kassel, an Old Coach resident, had his well water tested on February 18, 2012. The dissolved solids
concentration was 588.62 milligrams /liter (equivalent to parts per million) (Paul Kassel, personnal comunication, March 17, 2012).
41 For example, in 2006, Tom Carter paid about $20,000 to deepen his well from 900 to 1200 feet. In 2010, Frank Vaplon paid
about $20,000 to redrill his well and deepen it from 280 to 610 feet.
42 The 280 -feet maximum depletion measurement, based on the three wells with the longest and most reliable record, may not be
the deepest groundwater level at Thompson Creek. Paul Kassel reports that he is currently [April 16, 2012] having trouble pumping
water from his well, even though the pump is located at a depth of 650 feet from the surface. Two pumps burned out within a
week.
43 In a fractured rock aquifer, detailed groundwater flow orientations cannot be constructed from the water table contours due to
the highly anisotropic nature of the geological medium (see, for instance, page 12 in Love et al 2001).
44 Jerry Gill and Frank Vaplon have measured the static water level in up to seven (7) wells in Old Coach Estates since January 1,
2011. The measurements have received tacit approval from Matt Wiedlin, a hydrologist retained by the City of Poway.
REFERENCES
[Top[ [Introductiou[ [Surface Water] [Groundwater[ [Evapotranspiration[ [Ecobydrology]
[Salinity] [Socioeconomic aspects[ [Sustainable yield] [Conclusions[ [Recommendations[ [Acknowledgements[
[Endnotes]
American Geological Institute. 1997. Glossary of Geology. Julia A. Jackson, editor, Alexandria, Virginia.
Alley, W. M., T. E. Reilly, and. O. E. Franke. 1999. Sustamability of groundwater resources U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1186,
Denver, Colorado, 79 p.
Alley, W. M. 2003. Desalination of Ground Water Earth Science Perspectives Fact Sheet 075 -03, U.S. Geological Survey,
Denver, Colorado.
American Society of Civil Engineers. 1990. Agricultural salinity assessement and management. Manuals and Reports on
Engineering Practice No. 71, New York.
Bredehoeft, J. 1997. Safe yield and the water budget myth. Editorial, Ground Water, Vol. 35, No. 6, November - December, 929,
California Department of Water Resources. 2010. Reference Evapotranspiration Zones California Irrigation Management
Information System (CIMIS).
Calleguas Municipal Water District. 2009. Project brochures. Ventura County, California.
Chebotarev, I. I. 1955. Metamorphism of natural waters in the crust of weathering. Geochima et Cosmochimica Acta, 8, 22-48,
137 -170, 198 -212.
Don Howard Engineering. 2000. Hydrologic and biologic study of the Sycamore Creek sub - basin. July 28, 2000.
Famiglietti, J.S., M. Lo, S. L. Ho, J. Bethune, K. J. Anderson, T. Y. Syed, C. S. Swenson, C. R. De Linage, and M. Rodell. 2011.
Satellites measure recent rates of groundwater depletion in California's Central Valley. Geophysical Resean;h Letters, Vol. 38,
L03403, doi:10.1029/2010GL046442.
Freeze, R. A., and J. A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice -Hall, New Jersey,
Hardin, G. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons Science, Vol. 162, 1143 -1148.
Hibbert, A.R. 1979. Managing vegetation to increase flow in the Colorado River Basin USDA Forest Service General Technical
Report RM -66, 27 p.
Hoffman, G. J., and M. Th. van Genuchten. 1983. Water management for salinity control. Chapter 2C in Limitations to efficient
water use in crop production, H. Taylor et al., eds., American Society of Agronomy, 73 -85.
Kazmann, R. G. 1956. "Safe yield" in ground water development: Reality or illusion? Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage
116 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 82, No. iR3, November, Paper 1103.
Lee, C. H. 1915. The determination of safe yield of underground reservoirs of the closed -basin type. Transactions, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. LXXVIII, Paper No. 1315, 148 -218.
Loucks, D. P. 2000. Sustainable water resources management. Water International, Vol. 25, No. 1, 3 -10.
Love, A. J., P. G. Cook, G. A. Harrington, and C. T. Simmons. 2001. Groundwater flow in the Clare Valley Department of Water
Resources, Government of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
L'vovich, M. I. 1979. World water resources and their future. Translation of the original Russian edition (1974), American
Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C.
Mass, E. V., and G. J. Hoffman. 1977. Crop salt tolerance: Current assessment. Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division,
ASCE, Vol. 103, No. IR2, 115 -134.
Meinzer, O. E. 1927. Plants as indicators of ground water. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper No. 577.
Maimone, M. 2004. Defining and managing sustainable yield Ground Water, Vol. 42, No.6, November - December, 809 -814.
Pillsbury, A. F. 1981. The salinity of rivers. Scientific American, Vol. 245, No. 1, July.
Nace, R. L.. 1960. Water management, agriculture, and groundwater supplies. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 415, Washington,
D.C., 12 p.
National Research Council. 2000. Investigating groundwater systems on regional and national scales. Committee on USGS Water
Resources Research, Water Science and Technology Board, Washington, D.C.
Ojos Negros Research Group, 2003. Sustainable management of water in the Ojos Negros valley, Baja California, Mexico. San
Diego State University, Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy (SCERP).
Pavelko, M. T., D. B. Wood, y R J. Laczniak. 2005. Las Vegas, Nevada: Gambling with water in the desert. In Part I, U S
Geological Survey Circular 1182, por D. Galloway et al., 49 -64.
Ponce, V. M. 1989. Engineering Hydrology: Principles and Practices. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Ponce, V. M., R. P. Pandey, and S. Ercan. 2000. Characterization of drought across climatic spectrum ASCE Journal of
Hydrologic Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 2, April.
Ponce, V. M. 2005. The Salton Sea An assessment. June.
Ponce, V. M. 2006. Groundwater utilization and sustainability. March.
Ponce, V. M. 2007. Sustainable yield of groundwater. May.
Ponce, V. M., and G. F. Player. 2008. Some facts about Sawyer Spring and Ash Creek surface- water /groundwater interactions.
Pillsbury, A. F. 1981. The salinity of rivers Scientific American, Vol. 245, No.1, July, 54 -65.
Prudic, D. E., and M. E. Herman. 1996. Ground -water flow and simulated effects of development in Paradise Valley, a basin
tributary to the Humboldt River, in Humboldt County, Nevada. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1409 -F.
Rhoades, J. D., D. B. Krueger, and M. J. Reed, 1968. The effect of soil- mineral weathering on the sodium hazard of irrigation
waters. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings, Vol. 32, 643 -647.
Rhoades, J. D., J. D. Oster, R. D. Ingvalson, J. M. Tucker, and M. Clark. 1974. Minimizing the salt burdens of irrigation drainage
waters. Journal of Environmental Quality, Vol. 3, No. 4, 311 -316.
Salinity Management Guide. 2008. Learn about salinity and water quality, in Salinity Management Guide.
Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority. 2010. Inland Empire Brine Line.
Scanlon, B. R., K. E. Keese, A. L. Flint, L. E. Flint, C. B. Gaye, W. M. Edmunds, and I. Simmers. 2006. Global synthesis of
groundwater recharge in semiarid and arid regions. Hydrological Processes, 20, 3335 -3370.
SCS Engineers. 2010. Annual groundwater monitoring report: October 2009 through September 2010. November 17, 2010,
117 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Project No. 01203535.17
SCS Engineers. 2012. Annual groundwater monitoring report: October 2010 through September 2011. March 16, 2012, Project
No. 01203535.17
Segall, P., E. H McKee, S. J. Martel, and B D. Turrin. 1990. Late Cretaceous age of fractures in the Sierra Nevada batholith,
California. Geology, Vol. 18, 1248 -1251.
Seward, P., Y. Xu, and L. Brendock. 2006. Sustainable groundwater use, the capture principle; and adaptive management. Water
SA, Vol. 32, No. 4, October, 473 -482.
Solley, W. B., R. R. Pierce, and H. A. Perlman. 1998. Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995 U.S Geological Survey
Circular 1200, Denver, Colorado, 71 p.
Sophocleous, M. 1997. Managing water resources systems: Why "safe yield" is not sustainable. Editorial, Ground Water, Vol. 35,
No. 4, July- August, 561.
Sophocleous, M. 2000. From safe yield to sustainable development of water resources - The Kansas experience. Journal of
Hydrology, Vol. 235, 27-43.
Theis, C V. 1940. The source of water derived from wells: Essential factors controlling the response of an aquifer to development.
Civil Engineering, Vol 10, No. 5, May, 277 -280.
University of Arizona. 2000. Converting reference evapotranspiration into turf water use. Turf Irrigation Management Series, No. 2,
AZ1195.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1999. Geologic map of the Escondido 7.5' quadrangle, San Diego County, California.
van Schilfgaarde, J. 1990. "Irrigated agriculture: Is it sustainable?" Chapter 28 in ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering
Practice 71, 584 -594.
Walton, W. C. 1970. Groundwater resource evaluation. McGraw -Hill, New York.
Webb, R. H., and S. A. Leake, 2006. Ground -water surface -water interactions and long -term change in riverine riparian vegetation
in the southwestern United States. Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 320, 302 -323.
Webb, R. H., S. A. Leake, and R. M. Turner. 2007. The ribbon of green: Change in riparian vegetation in the Southestern United
States. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.
World Commission on Environment and Development (The Brundtland Commission). 1987. Our Common Future. The United
Nations, New York.
World Water Balance and Water Resources of the Earth. 1978. U.S.S.R. Committee for the International Hydrological Decade,
UNESCO, Paris, France.
t4'�_ About the author
Dr. Victor M. Ponce has taught hydrology at San Diego State University since
1980. He has close to forty years of experience in the water resources field. His
extensive record of research and practice may be viewed at ponce.sdsu.edu
thompson.sdsu.edu 11rint file 120507
118 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90- 13M(2) FOR THE
MADERAS GOLF COURSE GROUNDWATER USE
Prepared for.
City of Poway
P.O. Box 789
Poway, California 92074
Contact: Jason Martin
Prepared by:
DUDEK
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
Contacts: Steven Stewart and Sarah Lozano
MAY 2013
119 of 374 ATTACHMENT I November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Printed on 30% post- consumer recycled material.
120 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page No.
ACRONYM AND ABBREVIATIONS LIST ............... ............................... .............................III
1.0
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ ..............................1
1.1
Project Location ....................................................................... ...............................
1
1.2
Background .............................................................................. ...............................
1
1.3
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance .............. ...............................
11
2.0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................... .............................13
3.0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ....................... .............................23
3.1
Aesthetics ................................................................................. .............................23
3.2
Agriculture and Forestry Resources ....................................... ...............................
24
3.3
Air Quality ............................................................................. ...............................
25
3.4
Biological Resources ............................................................. ...............................
25
3.5
Cultural Resources ................................................................. ...............................
27
3.6
Geology and Soils .................................................................. ...............................
28
3.7
Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................... ...............................
29
3.8
Hazards and Hazardous Materials ......................................... ...............................
31
3.9
Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................ ...............................
32
3.10
Land Use and Planning .......................................................... ...............................
35
3.11
Mineral Resources ................................................................. ...............................
35
3.12
Noise ...................................................................................... ...............................
36
3.13
Population and Housing ......................................................... ...............................
37
3.14
Public Services ....................................................................... ...............................
37
3.15
Recreation .............................................................................. ...............................
38
3.16
Transportation and Circulation .............................................. ...............................
38
3.17
Utilities and Service Systems ................................................. ...............................
39
4.0
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND CONCLUSION ....................41
5.0
REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL ...................................... .............................43
6.0
REFERENCES .................................................................................... .............................45
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013 i
121 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page No.
APPENDIX
A Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource Monitoring
Information for the Maderas Golf Club
FIGURES
1 Regional Map ......................................................................................... ..............................5
2 Site Plan ................................................................................................. ..............................7
3 Maderas Groundwater Zones ................................................................. ..............................9
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013
122 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
ACRONYM AND ABBREVIATIONS LIST
APN
Assessor's Parcel Number
bgs
Below ground surface
City
City of Poway
CUP
Conditional Use Permit
GHG
greenhouse gas
GWE
groundwater elevation
IPCC
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
LSCTW
Lower Sycamore Creek Test Well
Maderas
Maderas Country Club LLC
MMP
Mitigation Monitoring Program
MND
Mitigated Negative Declaration
MW
monitoring well
OCE
Old Coach Estates
OCETW
Old Coach Estates Test Well
WMO
World Meteorological Organization
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater
May 2013
123 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013
iv
124 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Maderas Country Club LLC (Maderas), owner and operator of the Maderas Golf Club, is
proposing modifications to the conditions of approval contained in the previously approved
Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The proposed modifications primarily relate to groundwater
monitoring and reporting, and riparian vegetation monitoring and reporting, and are based on 12
years of hydrological and biological data. No change to the 280 - acre - feet - per -year maximum
allowable groundwater extraction established by the existing CUP is proposed.
1.1 Project Location
The Maderas Golf Club is located in the City of Poway, California (see Figures 1 and 2).
Surrounding land uses include Sycamore Creek to the south and southwest, open space to the
northwest, and residential development to the north and east.
1.2 Background
In November 1990, the City of Poway (City) approved the subdivision of approximately 708 acres of
vacant land in the Old Coach Valley for the development of 156 single- family homes, a golf course,
and associated clubhouse. This included the approval of CUP 90 -13, which was issued to allow the
development of the golf course. The golf course is now a part of the Maderas Golf Club. CUP 90 -13
included two conditions regarding water supply to the golf course: (1) the primary source of water is
to be recycled water when it becomes available, and (2) further study and City Council approval are
required before groundwater may be used to supplement the golf course's water demands.
Maderas began pumping groundwater in 1998 (REC 2004). Residents in the lower Sycamore
Creek area experienced significant drawdown at their wells in July 1999 (City of Poway 2000).
In August 1999, the City directed Maderas to complete a hydrology study and consider switching
to potable water. At this time, Maderas also began metering groundwater production at the golf
course. The City authorized the limited use (maximum of 50% of total water demand) of
groundwater production for irrigation purposes. In June 2000, the City established a limit to
groundwater use of 150 acre -feet per year, which was one -third of its total water demand of 450
acre -feet per year for landscape irrigation.
In August 2000, Maderas requested a modification to CUP 90 -13 to allow the continued use of
groundwater at the golf course. The modified CUP (CUP 90- 13M(2)) included, as conditions of
approval, an operational plan and groundwater monitoring program based on the findings of a
hydrogeological and biological investigation conducted by Don Howard Engineers in July 2000. An
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013
125 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)l and Mitigation Monitoring Program
(MMPf were approved to address concerns of the City and neighboring residents regarding the
potential impacts of groundwater production at the golf course on residential supply wells and riparian
habitat along Sycamore Creek.
Mitigation measures identified in the MMP, pursuant to the MND were established to limit
potentially adverse environmental impacts to a less - than- significant level. The mitigation
measures required a monitoring program that was incorporated as conditions of approval in CUP
90- 13M(2). In general, the conditions of approval in the CUP limited the groundwater usage at
the golf course so as not to adversely affect the production of existing and future residential wells
within the same sub - basin, ensured that groundwater use will be monitored so that downstream
and upstream residential wells do not experience significant drawdown, and provide that
"groundwater use will be regulated by groundwater and shallow riparian habitat monitoring
wells so as to retain the environmental quality of the groundwater aquifer and maintain riparian
habitat in its normal state (Resolution No.P- 00 -65)."
Certain monitoring thresholds were established to regulate groundwater production at the golf
course. Two shallow monitor wells (MW -2 and MW -4) were installed in the alluvium adjacent to
Sycamore Creek to monitor the potential effects of groundwater production on riparian habitat
(Figure 2). The monitoring program mandated that if the water levels at either shallow monitor
well declined below 10 feet below ground surface (bgs), then pumping at two production wells
would be restricted and only allowed to resume under certain conditions. (Resolution No. P- 00 -65,
Section 3(I)(1). The monitoring program also dictated that a test well located in the Old Coach
Estates (OCE) residential community, identified as the Old Coach Estates Test Well ( OCETW),
was to be monitored for potential impacts to water levels in the neighborhood (Figure 2).
(Resolution No. P- 00 -65, Section3Q)) If the water level at OCETW declined below 180 feet bgs,
then pumping would cease and only resume under certain conditions. Finally, the program dictated
that a test well located in the lower Sycamore Creek residential area, identified as the Lower
Sycamore Creek Test Well ( LSCTW), was to be monitored for potential impacts to water levels in
that residential area (Figure 2). If the water level at LSCTW declined below 100 feet bgs, then
groundwater production at the golf course would cease and only resume under certain conditions.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration is included in the City Council Agenda Packet from August 29, 2000, Item 4,
available online at: http: / /docs. poway. org/ weblink8 /0 /doc /12367/Pagel.aspx (see electronic page 178). The
detailed description of the adopted mitigation measures are included in the MND.
2 The Mitigation Monitoring Program/Conditions of Approval/Wetland and Riparian Habitat and Groundwater
Monitoring Program were included in Resolution No. P -00 -65 (August 29, 2000) which is available online at:
http://www.poway.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=3080
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013 2
126 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
Groundwater pumping limits were triggered in 2009 when the groundwater level at OCETW
dropped below 180 feet bgs. Maderas was therefore required to limit pumping by fall 2009.
However, after a continued decrease in groundwater levels in the OCE area, and in accordance
with the mitigation monitoring requirements of CUP 90- 13M(2), all extraction wells at the golf
course were shutdown in August 2011. Maderas has purchased raw and potable water since
August 2011 to meet the water demands of the golf course. Water levels in the vicinity of the
OCETW have continued to generally decline even though groundwater pumping at Maderas
stopped in August 2011. Data collected as part of the monitoring program over the past 12 years
suggest that groundwater use at Maderas is not adversely affecting riparian health, or ground
water availability for other properties in the OCE neighborhood. Accordingly, Maderas is
proposing to update the conditions of approval /monitoring program.
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013 3
127 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013
128 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90-13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277-170-061
Torn
11Z
P a c i f i c
0 c e a v
S 1, Is
DUDEK
11,
AM
R.Arllb
Project Site
I
, , I
M E X I C O
FIGURE 1
Regional Map
-. e FnY MA40 fortheMaderasGoV Cv-,- - md-str Ux Cl-
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013 5
129 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013
130 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
C
O L
w d
R �
e4 �
V �
d d
Q Y
N L
Z M
W d 2
Q Z M
0-0—
y O
R 01
� w
L
d
c m
LL y
t0
C
O
C
O
U
a
U
3
U
L'
U
U'
131 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
.,
0
Y m
L M
dd
pr
d 0
N W
z c�
W a) M
oz
M
rn«
Y C
0
d
�a
c y
N
D
�a
c
0
v
c
0
U
z
a
F�
W
a
a
z
0
F
z
W
F
7
132 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
Supply Well (typical) with well name indicated
C�
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013 g
133 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013
10
134 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
1.3 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
This addendum was prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000) and the CEQA
Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.), Section 15164. "Addendum to an EIR or Negative
Declaration of the CEQA Guidelines" states that "the lead agency or a responsible agency shall
prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary
but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent
EIR have occurred."
The City approved the MND, MMP, and CUP (90- 13M(2)) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use with City Council Resolution P -00 -65 on August 29, 2000. As
demonstrated in this addendum, the scope of the proposed modifications to the conditions of
approval in the CUP and the monitoring program are consistent with the concept presented in
the MND and MMP for the project as approved in 2000. The project addressed in the MND
involved a request to modify an existing, approved CUP to establish an operational plan for
the use of groundwater at the Maderas Golf Club, the establishment of a riparian habitat
monitoring program, and for compliance with prior conditions from City Council Resolution
00 -03 in order to rectify unauthorized grading, preservation of habitat on the periphery and
within the golf course, and encroachments into the riparian corridor along Sycamore Creek.
The project addressed in this addendum is a proposal to modify the conditions of approval in
the CUP and modify the monitoring program. No change to the MMP is proposed
(Resolution No. P- 00 -65, Exhibit A). The modifications proposed in this Project are based on
the expertise of the City's staff /consultants and conclusions drawn from the Third -Party
Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource Monitoring Information for the
Maderas Golf Club prepared by Dudek in April 2013 and amended in May 2013, and
included as Appendix A to this addendum.
The proposed modifications to the monitoring program clarify standard operating practices for
the well use and installment to access the groundwater at the site, and incorporate prior
conditions of approval from City Council Resolution P- 00 -65. As stated previously, the proposed
modifications to the monitoring program are based on the analysis of the groundwater
monitoring data of the past 12 years that indicates that groundwater extraction at the golf course
does not affect nearby riparian habitat or groundwater levels at the OCE residential community
located east of the golf course. No change to the maximum allowable groundwater production
established by the existing CUP at 280 acre -feet per year (i.e. the "cap ") is proposed.
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013 11
135 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (A►PN 277 - 170 -06)
Several references were relied upon during preparation of this Addendum. The August 2000
Environmental Initial Study, Environmental Checklist Form and Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the Maderas Golf Club was the initial CEQA document prepared to address the environmental
impacts of the original Conditional Use Permit amendment. All conclusions discussed therein were
summarized and formed the basis of comparison throughout the Addendum. The San Diego
County Important Farmland Maps were also utilized to address agricultural resources, the
December 2004 Maderas Golf Club 2004 Biological Report for Sycamore and Thompson Creeks
Report (prepared by REC Consultants, Inc.) to address biological resource issues and the Third -
Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource Monitoring Information for the
Maderas Golf Club (prepared by Dudek in April 2013 and amended in May 2013) to address
biological and hydrological/hydrogeological resources. The Dudek - prepared Third Party Review
Report utilized several documents supplied by the City which consisted of applicant -
prepared/commissioned monitoring reports and expert- prepared technical reports. A complete list
of all documents reviewed and documents cited in the Dudek - prepared Third Party Review Report
are disclosed in Chapters 5 and 10 of the report, respectively.
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013 12
136 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
As stated in Section 1.0, Maderas, owner and operator of the Maderas Golf Club, is proposing
modifications to the conditions of approval contained in the previously approved CUP and the
monitoring program as required by the mitigation measures in the MMP. The modifications are
based on over 12 years of monitoring data, multiple aquifer tests, biological assessments, and
groundwater mapping, all of which were prepared at the City's direction. The proposal primarily
relates to groundwater production monitoring and reporting, and riparian vegetation monitoring
and reporting. No change to the maximum allowable groundwater production established by the
existing CUP at 280 acre -feet per year is proposed. The proposed modifications to the
monitoring program are outlined in the Maderas Groundwater Use and Monitoring Plan
described below.
Groundwater Production Zones
Three groundwater production zones have been identified within the Maderas Golf Club site
based on known and possible hydrogeologic influences on the surrounding area. The zones
generally comprise the south, east, and west areas of the site. An area in the northwestern
portion of the site does not currently contain any wells and is not included in a groundwater
production zone. The zones and the locations of the existing on -site wells are depicted in
Figure 3, Maderas Groundwater Zones.
The monitoring plan identifies monitoring and reporting protocols and specifies when they
are required. The plan establishes the amount of annual groundwater production that can
occur within the eastern and southern zones before notifying the City (additional details are
provided below for each zone). The amount is referred to as the groundwater production and
monitoring trigger (Trigger). The plan also identifies the monitoring and reporting protocols
to be followed when the Trigger is exceeded in these zones. The Trigger for each zone is
determined before the start of the water year (October 1— September 31) and is based on
historic groundwater production within the given zone.
Each year, Maderas will submit the proposed Trigger for the eastern and southern zones to the
City for review and approval. The Trigger for a given zone will be based on the highest
consecutive 10 -year average of annual groundwater production that occurred within that zone in
the past. The average is established by consecutive water years, but will not include water years
when there was no groundwater production, such as the 2011 -2012 water years. Notification to
the City and monitoring specified in the plan are a function of the triggers.
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013 13
137 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
Groundwater production for all wells in the western zone is not subject to a Trigger, but is
subject to specific provisions identified later in the monitoring plan.
Additional Wells
Any additional groundwater production wells constructed on the Maderas Golf Club site under
this plan will meet the following standard provisions:
• A constant rate aquifer test with a pumping phase of 10 days will be conducted. The
aquifer test will be per State of California's Existing Source Capacity (Chapter 16,
Article 2, Section 64554.) and the new well production will be evaluated against
LSCTW, Maderas Well 6, and alluvium monitoring wells MW -2 and MW -4. The
evaluation of OCETW will be required only if there is measurable groundwater in the test
well at the time of the aquifer test and all residents of OCE allow the City or the
consulting hydro - geologist timely access to their private wells to monitor groundwater
levels in these wells and the wells are not operated for the duration of the aquifer test and
for any additional time as required by the City to assure the integrity of the aquifer test.
• The test will assess the influence between the new well and LSCTW, Maderas Well 6,
alluvium MW -2 and MW -4, and OCETW (if evaluated as part of the aquifer test). The
findings of the aquifer test will be reviewed and approved by the City Manager before the
new well becomes operational. If there is a demonstrated influence between the new well
and other wells, the City Manager may, at the Manager's sole discretion, require Maderas
to apply for an amendment to the CUP. Upon establishment, all new wells will be subject
to the general monitoring protocols of this plan. Any new well with a demonstrated
influence on any of the non - pumping wells will be assigned to the appropriate
groundwater production zone in consultation with the City and will be subject to the
specific monitoring protocols established for the applicable groundwater production zone
as identified in this plan.
• If a new well is located within a groundwater production zone and no influence is noted
on any other well within that zone or any other zone, the well will be subject to the
monitoring protocols of this plan for the zone in which the new well is located.
s No Additional Wells are proposed at the time of this Addendum. Additional Wells would also be subject to the
City's well permit requirements contained in the Poway Municipal Code (codified in Chapter 8.56 at the time of
this Addendum).
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013 14
138 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
• If a new well is not located within a groundwater production zone and no influence is noted
on any well, the new well is not subject to monitoring but is subject to the annual reporting
requirements of this plan and the 280 acre -feet cap for the entire Maderas Golf Course.
• Well casing will be set from land surface to the contact between the colluvium and
underlying fractured bedrock to prevent the well from drawing groundwater from the
alluvium and colluvium. The well casing shall be designed to prevent the influence of
pumping from fractured rock on groundwater levels in the overlying alluvium and colluvium.
• The applicant must ensure compliance with adopted City requirements pertaining to
habitat removal, work during protected bird nesting seasons, noise limits, and waste
disposal, as applicable.
The boundaries of groundwater production zones identified in this plan are approximate and the
assignment of new wells to zones is a function of the well's influence on surrounding areas as
determined by the aquifer test.
Annual Report to the City
By November 15 of each year, Maderas will provide an annual report to the City for the
preceding water year that summarizes the following information for all wells located on the
Maderas Golf Club site that operated at any time within the preceding water year:
• A description of the monitoring methods used;
• Summary tables of annual groundwater production data by individual wells and by zones
for the preceding water year;
• Identification of the Trigger for the preceding year and the highest consecutive 10 -year
annual average for the zone as identified in the requirements for the individual well zones
described below;
• The highest consecutive 10 -year monthly averages for the eastern and southern zones if
monitoring occurred for the preceding water year, and the monthly averages for the
preceding water year;
• Hydrographs depicting all water levels measured at test well(s) and operational wells
subject to the monitoring requirements of this plan for the preceding 10 water years;
• Rainfall data for the preceding 10 water years;
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013 15
139 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
• Discussion, as appropriate, of any breach of specified groundwater depths for LSCTW
and Maderas production Well 6 and corresponding mitigation steps taken; and
• Biological assessment of the health of the riparian vegetation at Maderas whenever
monitoring of MW -2 and MW -4 has occurred within the water year pursuant to southern
zone monitoring protocols identified in this plan.
General Monitoring Protocols
Maderas will record on a monthly basis the flow -meter readings (i.e., total gallons pumped and
instantaneous pumping rate) for each well equipped with an operating pump. Maderas will also
retrieve this groundwater production data on a monthly basis as well as record monthly
precipitation data from the Poway Valley Station No. 7111, and precipitation data from Maderas'
on -site weather station when operational.
Monitoring of groundwater depths at LSCTW, MW -2, MW -4, Maderas Well 6, and Maderas
operating wells will include the following:
• Pressure transducers and data loggers will be installed and maintained at LSCTW, MW-
2, MW -4, Well 6, and all operating wells located within the golf course, except Wells 1,
3, 5, and 7.
® Pressure transducers and data loggers will be programmed to measure and record
groundwater levels once a day. If the pressure transducers measure an absolute pressure,
then a pressure transducer should be deployed to measure barometric pressure at the same
frequency as the groundwater pressure transducers.
• The data will be retrieved by Maderas on a monthly basis.
• Once every 3 months, groundwater levels will also be measured manually. Manual
measurements will be to the nearest 0.1 foot below a consistent reference point and
recorded with the date and time.
• Monitoring of production wells that have not operated at any time within the preceding
water year and are expected to not be used in the current water year may be suspended
and all applicable requirements of this plan shall not apply to the non - operating well as
long as the well is not in operation. This does not apply to Well 6 as this well is included
with the set of wells instrumented with pressure transducers programmed to measure and
record water levels on a daily basis.
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013 16
140 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
Western Well Zone
Based on data demonstrating significant influence between Maderas Wells 4 and 5 in the western
zone and LSCTW, monitoring groundwater depths in LSCTW is required independent of the
amount of groundwater production from Maderas Production Wells 4 and 5 and any other
operating well that the City determines influences LSCTW. Therefore, determining a Trigger is
not required for the western well zone.
Groundwater production at Maderas Golf Club will not be conducted in a manner that adversely
impacts groundwater production for Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 272 - 150 -24 (San Dieguito
Joint Powers Authority headquarters) and the five parcels in the lower Sycamore Creek
neighborhood that are or could be developed with a single- family detached dwelling unit and
where the property is also dependent on groundwater as the only source of potable water. These
parcels include APN 272 - 150 -20, APN 272 - 150 -28, APN 272 - 150 -36, APN 272 - 150 -26, and
APN 272 - 150 -23.
Maderas will measure the static groundwater level at LSCTW and will adjust groundwater
production at Production Wells 4 and 5 as follows:
® The groundwater depth at LSCTW should not exceed 100 feet bgs pursuant to the
monitoring protocols of this plan.
• If the water level depth exceeds 100 feet bgs anytime from January 1 through
September 30, the applicant shall discontinue pumping groundwater from Maderas
Wells 4 and 5 and any other operational production well that the City has determined
to influence LSCTW, for 15 days or until the water level rises to at least 90 feet bgs,
whichever is longer.
• If within 30 days of resumed pumping the water level depth at LSCTW exceeds 100 feet
bgs, the applicant shall discontinue pumping for 30 additional days or until the water
level rises to 90 feet bgs, whichever is longer.
• If the water level depth exceeds 100 feet bgs anytime from October 1 through December
31, the applicant shall discontinue pumping groundwater from Maderas Wells 4 and 5
and any other operational well that the City has determined significantly influences
LSCTW, for 30 days or until the water level rises to 80 feet bgs, whichever is longer.
If the groundwater level in the lower Sycamore Creek neighborhood falls to a level where
groundwater supplies become inadequate to meet the reasonable domestic and non - domestic
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013 17
141 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
water needs of the residents and properties in that area, Maderas will guarantee water service to
the parcels listed above for as long as : (1) Maderas operates wells in the western zone at any
time within the water year or any other well for which a connection to LSCTW has been
established by the City, and (2) the City has not provided permanent potable water service to this
area. In the event groundwater supplies become inadequate to meet the reasonable domestic and
non - domestic water needs of the residents and properties in that area, Maderas will supply water
to meet those needs in such quantities and for such periods as necessary to meet those needs at
Maderas' sole cost and expense. Maderas will also be responsible for any secondary expenses,
such as road repairs, that are determined by the Director of Development Services as necessary
to provide the water service. Alternatives for .supplying such water service include deepening
wells, trucking and storing water on site(s), or extending a temporary aboveground water line
from the Highland Ranch area or closest point. Maderas may select the alternative and shall be
responsible for all costs including permitting and environmental review associated with
implementing continued and uninterrupted water service. In the event of a dispute between any
resident and Maderas over the adequacy of the water supply or the adequacy of the remedy
implemented by Maderas, the City Council shall determine which of the above stated alternatives
is to be implemented and Maderas will comply with the City Council's determination.
Maderas will be responsible for the groundwater monitoring requirements and the pumping
restrictions of this plan and the CUP, as they apply to parcels in the lower Sycamore Creek
neighborhood as long as no new well becomes operational as a result of a requirement/desire to
provide water to accommodate a change in use (e.g., a change from single- family residential to
multifamily residential or to a non - residential use, or those parcels referenced above have
secured an alternative potable water supply).
Southern Well Zone
At the time of preparation of this plan, the Trigger in the southern groundwater production zone
is 61 acre -feet per water year. Monitoring of wells MW -2 and MW -4 (which is in the western
zone) will be conducted as follows:
o Maderas will notify the City in writing and provide all water level data collected in
the current water year whenever the cumulative groundwater production from the
southern zone, within a water year, exceeds 90% of the southern zone's Trigger.
When notifying the City, Maderas will also project when groundwater production will
exceed 100% of the Trigger.
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013 18
142 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
• When groundwater production within a water year exceeds 100% of the southern zone's
Trigger, Maderas will notify and report to the City water levels measured at wells MW -2
and MW -4 per the monitoring protocols of this plan.
If the City Manager (through an analysis conducted by a City- approved biologist) determines
that Maderas groundwater production caused the water level in the alluvium (as monitored at
MW -2 and MW -4) to decline to a level that adversely impacts the riparian vegetation along the
portion of Sycamore Creek located within the limits of the Maderas Golf Course, then the
groundwater production from wells within the southern zones will be limited to no more than the
highest consecutive 10 -year monthly average for each given month, for one full water year,
except as follows.
• The City Manager may allow resumed groundwater production above the limit specified
above when the City Manager (through an analysis conducted by a City- approved
biologist) determines that the riparian vegetation no longer shows evidence of being
adversely impacted by Maderas' groundwater production.
• The City Manager may further restrict the groundwater production below the limit
specified above if, based on substantial evidence, the health of the on -site riparian
vegetation is expected to be dependent on further reductions in Maderas' groundwater
production.
Evaluation of the health of on -site riparian habitat will be determined by conducting studies
similar to the original baseline and monitoring studies associated with CUP 90- 13M(2) and will
include the following:
• Establishing at least three permanent belt transects and six photo - station points on site;
• Band transects for trees 10 meters wide and traversing the entire width of the creek
including the oak/sycamore woodland on either side of creek;
• Identification of each tree species and assess for general health and drought stress;
• Each belt transect will include four (10 meter x 10 meter) sample grids to assess herb and
shrub layer health; and
• Percent cover of herb and shrub layers by species will also be assessed using four classes
(1= 0 -25 %, 2= 26 -50 %, 3= 51 -75 %, 4= 76- 100 %).
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013 19
143 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
Monitoring well data for MW -2 and MW -4 shall be provided to the biologist. For 3 years
following the increase in groundwater .production, on -site surveys utilizing the methodologies
specified above shall be conducted twice a year with a single annual report prepared for the City.
At the end of 3 years, the monitoring frequency shall be re- evaluated based on results of the
surveys. Rainfall amounts and other environmental factors shall be considered in relation to the
survey results in order to determine the need and frequency for continued monitoring.
Once the data has been collected, it will be compared to original and subsequent data to assess
the health of the riparian system. These same methods will be used to verify that the riparian
system no longer shows stress.
Eastern Well Zone
At the time of preparation of this plan, the Trigger for all wells in the eastern zone is 51 acre -feet
per water year.
Wells 7, 9, and 10
Groundwater production at Maderas Wells 7, 9, and 10 is permitted whenever the static
groundwater level at Well 6 is 178 feet bgs or less and is subject to the following:
• The groundwater elevations for Wells 9 and 10 will be monitored monthly during the
peak irrigation season of April through October.
• Maderas will notify the City in writing and provide all water level data collected in the
current water year whenever the cumulative groundwater production from all wells
operating within the eastern zone, within a water year, exceeds 90% of the Trigger.
• When notifying the City, Maderas will also estimate when groundwater production will
exceed 100% of the Trigger.
® Maderas will notify the City and begin monitoring per this plan whenever the cumulative
groundwater production from all wells operating within the eastern zone, within a water
year, exceeds 100% of the Trigger.
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013 20
144 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13MI(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
Well 6
Groundwater production from Well 6 will be considered by the City subject to the following:
• Maderas conducts a 10 -day constant rate aquifer test per State of California's Existing
Source Capacity (Chapter 16, Article 2, Section 64554.) and monitors, at a minimum,
water level responses at Maderas Wells 6, 8, 9, 10, MW 2 and 4, and OCETW. This
aquifer test will only be conducted and the results accepted by the City if there is
measurable groundwater in the test well at the time of the aquifer test and all residents of
OCE allow the City or City- approved consulting hydro - geologist timely access to their
private wells to monitor groundwater levels in their wells and their wells are not operated
for the duration of the aquifer test and for any additional time as required by the City to
assure the integrity of the aquifer test.
• Maderas submits an aquifer test report to the City that summarizes the set -up procedures
and methods used during the aquifer test; includes all water levels and pumping data
before, during, and after the pumping phase of the aquifer test; and includes an evaluation
of the influence of pumping Well 6 on water levels at non - pumping wells.
• The City approves the aquifer test report.
Upon satisfaction of the above, groundwater production at Maderas Well 6 is permitted if the City
Manager has determined that groundwater production at Well 6 does not influence the water level
at OCETW and private wells in the OCE residential community. Groundwater production at
Maderas Well 6, when permitted, will be monitored monthly for groundwater elevation per the
protocols specified in this plan and, during the peak irrigation season of April through October,
will be shut down for 5 consecutive days each month immediately prior to collecting a static
groundwater elevation (GWE) measurement. If the static groundwater level is below 178 feet bgs,
then production from Well 6 will be discontinued until the water level rises above 178 feet bgs.
Other Notification to the City
Maderas will notify the City within 5 working days of knowledge of the exceedance whenever the
water level depth in either LSCTW or Maderas Well 6 exceeds the groundwater depth levels
specified in this plan. Within 30 days of knowledge of the exceedance, an interim report will be
submitted to the City detailing the water level depth exceedance and mitigation steps taken. Manual
monitoring of the well with an exceedance will be increased to weekly, per the protocols specified in
this plan, and production decreased or suspended in those wells known to have caused the
exceedance.
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013 21
145 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277- 170 -06)
Reclaimed Water
Maderas will design and construct a water system for the transportation of reclaimed water
throughout the project in accordance with Poway's Master Plan. Unless extended by the City
Manager, construction shall be completed within 6 months of Maderas' receipt of a written
notice of the availability of recycled water.
Maderas will use reclaimed water to irrigate the golf course as soon as it becomes available to
the site to the full extent that such water is available, on a first- priority basis before raw water,
groundwater, or domestic water is used to irrigate the golf course unless and only to the extent
that the City Council in its sole discretion expressly allows the use of raw or groundwater for
such irrigation. Prior to the use of reclaimed water to irrigate the golf course, plans for on -site
landscape irrigation of the golf course, club house, and parking lot landscaping shall be provided
to the City. Said plans will be submitted to the County of San Diego Department of
Environmental Health. The applicant will be responsible for the fees in effect at that time for
work by the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health.
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013 22
146 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
3.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
As previously indicated, the City approved the MND, MMP, and CUP (90- 13M(2)) for the
Maderas Golf Course groundwater use on August 29, 2000. The MND and MMP were
completed to address concerns by the City and neighboring residents of the potential impacts of
groundwater production at the golf course on residential supply wells and riparian habitat along
Sycamore Creek.
The focus of this addendum to the MND is to evaluate the potential for changes in the impacts as a
result of the modified monitoring program, as described above. This evaluation includes a
determination as to whether the proposed modifications to the monitoring program would result in
any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in a previously identified significant impact.
The project site, which is a developed 18 hole golf course and club house, is located in a
moderate hillside area surrounded on all sides by undeveloped relatively steep hillsides, and
developed large lot, single family residential uses. Sycamore and Thompson Creeks are in the
southern portion of the site.
The topical areas identified in the CEQA Environmental Checklist were used as guidance for
this addendum.
3.1 Aesthetics
Would the project:
A. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
B. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
D. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis or Circumstances. The 2000 MND found that
impacts to aesthetics associated with CUP 90- 13M(2) would be less than significant. The proposed
modifications to the monitoring program relate to groundwater well activities and groundwater use,
which is chiefly related to subsurface activities that are not visible. The proposed changes to the
monitoring program would not result in new impacts or an increase in visual impacts on or off the
site under thresholds A though D from what was originally considered in the MND.
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013 23
147 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN.277- 170 -06)
3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Would the project:
A. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use?
B. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
C. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning, of forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code
Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code Section 5110[g])?
D. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use?
E. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non - forest use?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis or Circumstances. As described previously
and shown in Figure 2, the project site is a golf course that is surrounded by residential uses and
open space. The open space property to the northwest of the golf course is part of the Heritage
Ranch Estates development. The project site and surrounding properties are not identified as
Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance on the San Diego
County Important Farmland Map (California Department of Conservation 2013). Additionally,
the project site and surrounding properties are not zoned as forest lands or designated as
timberland. The 2000 MND found that impacts associated with CUP 90- 13M(2) to agricultural
and forest resources were less than significant. Since the 2000 MND was approved, the CEQA
checklist has been modified to include questions C and D above. However, consistent with the
findings in the MND, the proposed modifications to the monitoring program would not result in
the conversion or loss of agricultural or forest resources. Therefore, with the proposed
modifications to the monitoring program, the project would not result in any new impacts to
agriculture or forest resources under thresholds A through E, and impacts would remain as
addressed in the MND.
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013 24
148 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
3.3 Air Quality
Would the project:
A. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
B. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds
for ozone precursors)?
D. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
E. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis or Circumstances. The 2000 MND found no
impacts to air quality associated with CUP 90- 13M(2) . Since the 2000 MND was approved, the
CEQA checklist has been modified to include question E above. However, the use of
groundwater for irrigation at the golf course would not create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people. Additionally, consistent with the findings of the 2000 MND, the
proposed modifications to the monitoring program would utilize the same energy, extraction, and
conveyance systems as previously planned; therefore, would not result in any new air quality
impacts under thresholds A -E and impacts would remain as addressed in the MND.
3.4 Biological Resources
Would the project:
A. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special- status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS?
B. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS?
C. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013 25
149 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
D. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
E. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
F. Conflict with provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis or Circumstances. The 2000 MND
concluded that impacts to biological resources would be less than significant with
implementation of mitigation measures, which required that the applicant prepare and implement
a riparian habitat monitoring program. Since approval of the CUP, these mitigation measures
have been implemented and the data collected under the monitoring program was used to
confirm there were no impacts from groundwater use by the Maderas Golf Course on nearby
riparian habitats.
A third -party review of the existing monitoring plan data, Third -Party Review of
Hydrogeological and Biological Resource Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club,
was prepared by Dudek in April 2013 and amended in May 2013, and is included as Appendix A
to this addendum. The Third -Party Review looked at available data from 2000 -2012, which
indicated that water was always present and available to the riparian area through free flow,
pools, or soil moisture. This water availability was poorly correlated to well pumping activities
and strongly correlated to precipitation (Dudek Third Party Review, Figures 9, 15, and 16).
Further, as described in the Third -Party Review, there are two groundwater aquifers within the
project site and in its vicinity. There is a deeper fractured rock aquifer that Maderas extracts
groundwater from for irrigation purposes and a shallow alluvial aquifer that sustains the riparian
habitat. These two aquifers are not hydraulically connected in that groundwater withdrawals from the
deeper fractured rock do not influence water levels in the shallow alluvial aquifer. The shallow
alluvial aquifer is supported by precipitation as was observed throughout the 2000 -2012 monitoring
period. Given that the project would extract groundwater from the deeper fractured rock aquifer, the
project would not affect the shallow alluvial aquifer that supports the riparian habitat.
Irrigation runoff to Sycamore Creek over the past 12 years, which included groundwater from
Maderas, does not appear to have adversely impacted the riparian habitat along Sycamore Creek.
The riparian habitat has been characterized as consistent, healthy, and thriving since 2001 (REC
2004). No habitat shift (i.e., change in habitat) was observed in Sycamore Creek during the
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013 26
150 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
period of biological monitoring. Habitat shift is more likely to be caused if the amount of water
available to the riparian habitat decreases (i.e., declining water level) than by changes in salinity.
Changes in the amount of water available to plants can result in changes to plant species
composition as quickly as one growing season. Habitat shift due to increases in salinity are fairly
gradual, if at all (depends on how salt - tolerant the riparian habitat is), because any build -up in
soil salinity should be partially or wholly offset by rainfall and subsequent stream flow.
That no habitat shift has been observed indicates that salinity is not an issue for the riparian habitat in
Sycamore Creek and that water levels have not declined to levels that adversely affected the riparian
habitat (i.e., pumping by Maderas has not influenced the water level in the alluvium).
As stated previously, the 2000 MND concluded that impacts to biological resources would be less
than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. The proposal would entail
modifications to the monitoring program, but would not change the maximum allowable
groundwater production established by the existing CUP (280 acre -feet per year) nor would the
modifications affect the alluvial water table that is utilized by nearby riparian habitat. For the
reasons discussed above, the proposed modifications to the monitoring program would not result in
any new or more severe impacts to biological resources under thresholds A -F, and impacts would
remain as addressed in the MND.
3.5 Cultural Resources
Would the project:
A. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined
in Section 15064.5?
B. Cause a substantial adverse changed in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
D. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis or Circumstances. The 2000 MND found no
impacts to cultural resources associated with CUP 90- 13M(2) . Consistent with the findings of
the 2000 MND, the proposed modification to the monitoring program would not result in
impacts to cultural resources as the project would revise a groundwater and biological
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013 27
151 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
monitoring plan for an existing golf course. Therefore, the proposed modifications to the
monitoring program would not result in any new impacts to cultural resources under thresholds
A -D, and impacts would remain as addressed in the MND.
3.6 Geology and Soils
Would the project:
A. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issues by the State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
II. Strong seismic ground shaking?
III. Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction?
IV. Landslides?
B. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
D. Be located on expansive soils as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life and property?
E. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis or Circumstances. The 2000 MND found
that impacts related to geology and soils associated with CUP 90- 13M(2) were less than
significant. Consistent with the findings of the 2000 MND, impacts related to geology and soils
from the proposed modifications to the monitoring program would remain less than significant,
as the proposal would revise a groundwater and biological monitoring plan for an existing golf
course where the groundwater is extracted from fractured rock aquifers 125 to 1,000 feet below
the surface (Dudek Third Party Review). Therefore, the proposed modifications to the
monitoring program would not result in any new or more severe impacts related to geology and
soils under thresholds A -E, and impacts would remain as addressed in the MND.
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013 28
152 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 1,3M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
A. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
B. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Though the CEQA checklist did not include the above - listed greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
questions at the time that the City approved the MND in August 2000, global climate change is
not considered a changed circumstance and there is no "new information of substantial
importance" available now that was not known and could not have been known with exercise
of reasonable diligence in August 2000 when the City certified the MND. Various entities had
extensively studied and regulated GHG emissions before August 2000. These actions included
enactment of the National Climate Program Act, 92 Stat. 601 (1978) and the Global Climate
Protection Act, 101 Stat. 1407 (1987), as well as President Carter's request to the National
Academy of Sciences' National Research Council to investigate the subject. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a 1988 creation of the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP), issued three assessment reports in 1990, 1995, and 2001 evaluating the state of global
research on climate change and its effects (a fourth assessment report was later issued in 2007).
The IPCC Third Assessment Report issued in 2001 concluded that it was "likely" (expressed as
a 66 -90% chance) that "[m]ost of the observed warming over [the] last 50 years [was] likely
due to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activities." The IPCC led to
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992 and the Kyoto Protocol
in 1997. In addition, a group of 19 private organizations filed a rule - making petition in 1999
asking the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate GHG emissions from new motor
vehicles under the Clean Air Act.
While global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative environmental impact, there
currently is no agreed -upon methodology to adequately identify, under CEQA, when project -
level GHG emissions contribute considerably to this cumulative impact.
Since, based on previous discussions regarding the project as a whole, the project has not
substantially changed, and there have not been substantial changes in circumstances such that new
or more severe environmental impacts require major revisions to the MND, the issue is simply
whether GHG emissions constitute "new information" under the Subsequent EIR Regulations.
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013 29
153 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (A►PN 277 - 170 -06)
GHG emissions and global climate change is not "new information" since these effects have
been generally known prior to the adoption of the original MND. Therefore, for this project, this
would not be considered new information under Public Resources Code Section 21166 for which
an analysis of climate change is required because the project was previously approved and would
not allow for any new development or uses beyond that previously authorized. Though previous
analysis did not calculate the project's expected GHG emissions, the emissions would be
consistent with the originally approved project description since the maximum amount of water
to be used at the golf course from the groundwater is not proposed to change, and is, therefore,
not considered to be new, more severe, or new information.
As a point of information, GHG emissions that would be associated with the project are
byproducts of electrical generation to supply the electricity to transport, treat, and distribute
water. Much of southern California's water supply is imported from northern California via
the State Water Project or from the Colorado River via the Colorado River Aqueduct. Both
of these water delivery systems require extensive electricity to pump, store, and treat water
prior to delivery to southern California customers. In the case of the Maderas Golf Club, the
City of Poway purchases raw water from the San Diego County Water Authority, which
imports its water from the Colorado River. Raw water is then sold to Maderas and pumped
directly to the golf course. Groundwater pumping also requires electricity and therefore it
generates indirect GHG emissions associated with electrical generation. Comparatively,
however, the amount of electricity and associated GHG emissions required to operate the
Maderas groundwater pumps would be less than that required to transport raw water
hundreds of miles from the Colorado River.
After approval of the Conditional Use Permit in 2000, Maderas was authorized to pump
groundwater, which has resulted in GHG emissions from electrical generation. When the
Maderas groundwater pumps were turned off in 2011, Maderas switched its irrigation source to
imported raw water purchased from the City of Poway. Should the Maderas Golf Club resume
the use of groundwater as proposed, the amount of GHG emissions attributable to the Maderas
Golf Club irrigation operation would be less than present conditions.
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013 30
154 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
A. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
B. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
D. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
E. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
F. For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
G. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
H. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis or Circumstances. The 2000 MND found
that CUP 90- 13M(2) would not result in impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. The
proposed modifications to the monitoring program relates to groundwater well activities and
groundwater use. The proposed modifications to the monitoring program would not result, under
thresholds A -H, in new or increased impacts on or off the site related to hazards and hazardous
materials from what was originally considered in the MND.
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP .
May 2013 31
155 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
A. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
B. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would
drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site?
D. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off -site?
E. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
F. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
G. Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
H. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
I. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
J. Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis or Circumstances. The 2000 MND
concluded that hydrology and water quality impacts would be less than significant with
implementation of mitigation measures, which required the preparation of and implementation of
a monitoring program. Since approval of the CUP, mitigation measures have been implemented
and the data collected under the monitoring program was used to confirm there were no impacts
of groundwater use by the Maderas Golf Course on nearby groundwater wells. The project
would consist of modifications to the monitoring program.
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013 32
156 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 131(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
A third -party review of the existing monitoring data, titled Third -Party Review of
Hydrogeological and Biological Resource Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club,
(prepared by Dudek in April 2013 and amended in May 2013, and included as Appendix A to
this addendum), made the following findings that show that the proposed modifications to the
monitoring program won't substantially deplete groundwater resources or substantially interfere
with groundwater recharge:
1. There is no hydraulic connection between the existing Maderas wells and the OCE area
wells. This conclusion is supported by the following:
a. A review of structural geology indicated that fractures are predominantly vertical or
dip steeply and, given the distance of approximately 1,700 feet from Maderas to the
OCETW and the relatively shallow depth of OCETW, there is no known hydraulic
connection between Maderas and OCETW in the fractured rock;
b. Water level monitoring at OCETW indicated that 12 years of pumping at Maderas
had no influence on the water level at OCETW;
c. Aquifer testing at Maderas Wells 4, 8, 9, and 10 indicated that pumping at these wells
did not influence the water level at OCETW; and
d. Pumping at Maderas did not affect the Myers or Tremble residential wells or the
OCETW in the OCE area (the only wells for which data was available).
e. Water levels at the Maderas wells and at LSCTW increased (i.e., recovered) after
pumping stopped in August 2011; however, the water levels at monitored OCE wells
did not respond to the cessation of pumping and continued to decline, further indicating
that the OCE wells are not in a hydraulic connection with the Maderas wells.
2. Pumping at Maderas did not influence the water levels in on -site or nearby alluvial
systems. Specifically:
a. The water levels at the alluvial wells MW -2 and MW -4 adjacent to Sycamore Creek
were not affected by golf club pumping. Instead, water level fluctuations at these
wells were influenced by rainfall and stream flow in Sycamore Creek.
b. Pumping at Maderas did not influence the water levels at off -site alluvial
monitoring wells.
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013 33
157 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
Maderas exceeded the annual cap of 280 acre -feet of groundwater during the 2000 -2001. water
year when the golf course turf was initially planted. Since then, groundwater use has been well
below the cap, averaging approximately 170 acre -feet per year. The annual cap will not change
and the modifications to the monitoring program will continue to require that groundwater use
not exceed the cap. Additionally, the proposed modification to the monitoring program- will
establish additional Trigger amounts for some of the individual well zones. These Triggers set
the maximum amount of groundwater production that can be used within the eastern and
southern zones annually before Maderas will be required to notify the City and begin conducting
additional, more stringent monitoring. The Triggers will be determined annually by the City
before the start of the water year (October 1— September 31) based on the highest consecutive 10-
year average of annual groundwater production within each zone as described for the southern
and eastern zones in Section 2.0 of this Addendum. Application of the Triggers will ensure that
groundwater levels will be carefully monitored and production limited when groundwater levels
are found to be below allowable limits at specified wells or when the water level in the alluvium
(as monitored at MW -2 and MW -4) has declined to a level that would cause adverse impacts to
riparian vegetation along Sycamore Creek.
It should also be noted that no part of the proposed modification to the monitoring program
would alter the existing golf course layout such that the amount of pervious golf course surfaces
would change. Alteration of pervious surfaces can result in a change in groundwater recharge.
However, because no part of the project would allow the alteration or redesign of the golf course,
impacts to surface -based recharge would not change.
Additionally, the project would not result in an increase or decrease in total water irrigation use
(groundwater, raw water, or potable water) at the site but rather lays out revised conditions by
which the golf course can utilize the groundwater resources that have been historically utilized
for golf course irrigation. The total amount of water used at the site for irrigation purposes would
not change as a result of the project, and therefore, the project would not result in an increase in
area runoff from the site.
The proposed modifications to the monitoring program wouldn't introduce a new source of
groundwater or potable water; therefore, the proposed modifications to the monitoring program
would not cause changes in the chemical content, including salinity levels, or quality of the water
being utilized at the site. Further, as indicated in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, historic use
of groundwater by Maderas hasn't resulted in impacts to Sycamore Creek riparian habitat or
water quality. For a discussion of the effects of salinity on riparian resources, see Section 3.4,
Biological Resources.
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013 34
158 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
For the reasons discussed above, the proposed modifications to the monitoring program
would not result in any new or more severe impacts to hydrology and water quality under
thresholds A-J, and impacts would remain as addressed in the MND, less than significant
with mitigation implemented.
3.10 Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
A. Physically divide an established community?
B. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding of
mitigating an environmental effect?
C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis or Circumstances. The 2000 MND found that
impacts related to land use and planning associated with CUP 90- 13M(2) were less than
significant with mitigation implemented. Consistent with the findings of the 2000 MND, the
proposed modifications to the monitoring program would not result in new or increased impacts to
land use and planning. The proposed modifications to the monitoring program are based on 12
years of hydrological and biological data. No change to the maximum allowable groundwater
production of 280 acre -feet per year is proposed. The golf course is developed and no physical
modifications to the golf course are proposed. Therefore, the proposed modifications to the
monitoring program would not result in any new impacts to land use and planning under thresholds
A -C, and impacts would remain as addressed in the MND.
3.11 Mineral Resources
Would the project:
A. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
B. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013 35
159 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277- 170 -06)
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis or Circumstances. The 2000 MND found no
impacts to mineral resources associated with CUP 90- 13M(2) . Consistent with the findings of
the 2000 MND, the proposed modifications to the monitoring program would not result in
impacts to mineral resources, as the proposed modification to the monitoring program would not
alter the existing use of the site and would not preclude any future mineral extraction from
occurring on or nearby the project site. Therefore, the proposed modifications to the monitoring
program would not result in any new impacts to mineral resources under threshold A or B, and
impacts would remain as addressed in the MND.
3.12 Noise
Would the project:
A. Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
B. Expose persons to or generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne
noise levels?
C. Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
D. Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
E. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such plan has not been
adopted, within 2 miles of a private or public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
F. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis or Circumstances. The 2000 MND found no
impacts related to noise associated with CUP 90- 13M(2). Consistent with the findings of the
2000 MND, the proposed modifications to the monitoring program would not result in
previously unidentified noise impacts. Therefore, the proposed modifications to the monitoring
program would not result in any new impacts related to noise under thresholds A -F, and impacts
would remain as addressed in the MND.
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013 36
160 of 374 November 19,2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
3.13 Population and Housing
Would the project:
A. Induce substantial growth in an area directly (for example, by proposed new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
B. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
C. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis or Circumstances. The 2000 MND found
that CUP 90- 13M(2) would not result in impacts to population and housing. Consistent with
the findings of the 2000 MND, the proposed modifications to the monitoring program would
not generate or encourage population growth or displace housing or people. Therefore, the
proposed modifications to the monitoring program would not result in impacts to population
and housing under thresholds A -C, and impacts would remain as addressed in the MND.
3.14 Public Services
Would the project:
A. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks?
e. Other public facilities?
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013 37
161 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis or Circumstances. The 2000 MND found
that impacts associated with CUP 90- 13M(2) related to public services were less than significant.
Consistent with the findings of the 2000 MND, the proposed modifications to the monitoring
program would not result in new or more severe impacts to public services as it would not cause
an increase in population or development that would require additional public services.
Therefore, the proposed modifications to the monitoring program would not result in any new or
more severe impacts related to public services under threshold A, and impacts would remain as
addressed in the MND.
3.16 Recreation
Would the project:
A. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated? Which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
B. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis or Circumstances. The 2000 MND found no
impacts to recreation resources associated with CUP 90- 13M(2) . Consistent with the findings of
the 2000 MND, the proposed modifications to the monitoring program would not result in
physical impacts associated with recreation resources, as the proposed modifications to the
monitoring program would not affect local or regional population levels, which could result in an
increased demand for recreational facilities or services. Therefore, the proposed modifications to
the monitoring program would not result in any new impacts to recreation resources under
thresholds A -B, and impacts would remain as addressed in the MND.
3.16 Transportation and Circulation
Would the project:
A. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes
of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets,
highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths and mass transit?
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013 38
162 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
B. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited
to level of service standards and travel demand measures or other standards established
by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that result in substantial safety risks?
D. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
E. Result in inadequate emergency access?
F. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis or Circumstances. The 2000 MND found
that CUP 90- 13M(2) would not result in impacts to transportation or circulation. Since the 2000
MND was approved, the CEQA checklist questions A and B under transportation and circulation
have been modified to determine whether a project conflicts with an applicable plan, ordinance,
or policy establishing or measuring the performance of the local circulation system or with an
applicable congestion management program. The proposed modifications to the monitoring
program would not result in an increase in population or employees at the site and would
therefore not generate additional traffic on area roadways. Additionally, the proposed
modifications to the monitoring program would not occur on area roadways, and would therefore
not impact traffic patterns. Therefore, the proposed modifications to the monitoring program
would not result in any additional traffic impacts under thresholds A -F beyond what was
addressed in the MND.
3.17 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
A. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
B. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013 39
163 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13MI(2) for the Mladeras Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
C. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant
environmental effects?
D. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
E. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments?
F. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's
solid waste disposal needs?
G. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis or Circumstances. The 2000 MND found
that CUP 90- 13M(2) would not result in impacts to utilities and service systems. Consistent with
the findings of the 2000 MND,_the proposed modifications to the monitoring program would not
result in impacts to utilities and service systems, as the proposed modifications to the monitoring
program would not result in an increase in population or development that would need to be
served by additional utilities or service systems. Therefore, the proposed modifications to the
monitoring program would not result in any new impacts to utilities and service systems under
thresholds A -G, and impacts would remain as addressed in the MND.
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013
40
164 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
4.0 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND CONCLUSION
Mandatory Findings of Significance
A. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to I drop below self -
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
B. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the
disadvantage of long -term environmental goals?
C. Does the project have possible environmental effects that are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable? ( "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects
of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
D. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis or Circumstances. As discussed previously,
the 2000 MND concluded that CUP 90- 13M(2) would result in less - than - significant impacts with
implementation of mitigation measures contained in the MMP. These mitigation measures
required a groundwater and riparian habitat monitoring and reporting program to ensure that
groundwater use would not affect other groundwater basin users or nearby riparian habitat that
may be dependent on groundwater resources. As indicated in the Third -Party Review (Appendix
A) and summarized in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, riparian habitats on site and nearby the
golf course are utilizing shallow alluvial groundwater resources while the golf course irrigation
supply has utilized deep water resources. The last 12 years of data collected in accordance with
the mitigation and monitoring plan required in the 2000 MND indicates that there is no hydraulic
connection between the shallow alluvial groundwater and the deep fractured rock groundwater.
Due to the lack of connection, it was determined that a-modiffcation to the frequency and nature
of biological resource monitoring was appropriate, and previously identified environmental
impacts would remain as reported in the 2000 MND. The Third -Party Review (Appendix A)
confirms that the continued use of groundwater in the quantity and manner previously conducted
by the golf course will not have a long -term detriment to the overall resource nor result in a
cumulative impact when combined with the pumping that is occurring within the areas
surrounding the golf course.
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013 41
165 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
Maderas exceeded the annual cap of 280 acre -feet of groundwater during the 2000 -2001 water
year when the golf course turf was initially planted. Since then, groundwater use has been well
below the cap, averaging approximately 170 acre -feet per year. The annual cap will not change
and the modifications to the monitoring program will continue to require that groundwater use
not exceed the cap. Additionally, the proposed modification to the monitoring program will
establish additional Trigger amounts for some of the individual well zones. These Triggers set
the maximum amount of groundwater production that can be used within the eastern and
southern zones annually before Maderas will be required to notify the City and begin conducting
additional, more stringent monitoring. The Triggers will be determined annually by the City
before the start of the water year (October 1— September 3 1 ) based on the highest consecutive 10-
year average of annual groundwater production within each zone as described for the southern
and eastern zones in Section 2.0 of this Addendum. Application of the Triggers will ensure that
groundwater levels will be carefully monitored and production limited when groundwater levels
are found to be below allowable limits at specified wells or when the water level in the alluvium
(as monitored at MW -2 and MW -4) has declined to a level that would cause adverse impacts to
riparian vegetation along Sycamore Creek.
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013 42
166 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
5.0 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL
The following persons contributed to the preparation of this addendum.
City of Poway
Dudek
Jason Martin Senior Planner
Bob Manis Director of Development Services
Steve Crosby, PE City Engineer
Steve Stuart, PE
Hydrogeologist
Sarah Lozano, AICP
Environmental Planner
Emily Lyons, MSEL
Environmental Planner
Brock Ortega
Biologist
Lesley Terry
GIS Analyst
Becky Golden - Harrell
Editor
Devin Doyon
Word Processor
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013
43
167 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013
44
168 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2) for the Maderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (APN 277 - 170 -06)
6.0 REFERENCES
California Department of Conservation. 2013. San Diego County Important Farmland 2010
Sheet 1 of 2. March 2013.
City of Poway. 2000. Environmental Initial Study, Environmental Checklist Form, and Mitigated
Negative Declaration: City of Poway. August 29, 2000.
Dudek. 2013. Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource Monitoring
Information for the Maderas Golf Club. April 2013 and amended May 2013.
REC (REC Consultants Inc.). 2004. Maderas Golf Club 2004 Biological Report for Sycamore
and Thompson Creek. Prepared for Sunroad Enterprises. San Diego, California: REC
Consultants Inc. December 2004.
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013
45
169 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ADDENDUM
Final Litigated Negative Declaration
Conditional Use Permit 90- 131(2) for the Laderas Golf Course
Groundwater Use (A►PN 277 - 170 -06)
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Addendum to the Final MND for the Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use CUP
May 2013
46
170 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
K Z , k
Third Party Review of Hydrogeological and
Biological Resource Monitoring Information for
the Maderas Golf Club
171 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
172 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
173 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Intentionally Left Blank
174 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of I- lydrogeological and Biological
Resource Monitoring Information for the Mladeras Golf Club
Prepared for.
City of Poway
13325 Civic Center Drive
Poway, California 92074
Contact. Jason Martin
Prepared by.
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
Contact: Steven Stuart, PE C79764
(UPDATED MAY 2013)
175 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Printed on 30% post- consumer recycled material.
176 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Pane No.
1.0 EXECUTIVE SU UdARY ................................................................. ..............................1
2.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ ..............................5
3.0 PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY ............................................................. ..............................7
4.0 BACKGROUND .................................................................................. ..............................9
5.0 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................. .............................11
5.1
Review of Existing Documents ............................................. ...............................
11
5.2
Recent Water Level Data ....................................................... ...............................
13
5.3
Recent Precipitation Data ...................................................... ...............................
13
5.3.1 Cumulative Departure from Mean - Monthly Rainfall ...............................
14
6.0 HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT ........................................ .............................15
6.1
Pumping Effects at Old Coach Estates .................................. ...............................
15
6.1.1 Water Levels .............................................................. ...............................
16
6.1.1.1 Pre -1998 Groundwater Production .............. ...............................
16
6.1.1.2 Groundwater Production from 1998 -2011 . ...............................
17
6.1.1.3 After Well Field Shutdown ............... :........................................
20
6.1.2 Aquifer Testing at Maderas Golf Club ...................... ...............................
21
6.1.2.1 Aquifer Test at Well 4 ................................. ...............................
21
6.1.2.2 Aquifer Tests at Wells 8, 9, and 10 ............. ...............................
22
6.1.3 Structural Geology ..................................................... ...............................
23
6.1.4 Conclusions on Pumping Effects at Old Coach Estates ............................
24
6.2
Potential for Groundwater Flow from Maderas to Old Coach Estates ................
25
6.3
Pumping Effects on Riparian Habitat .................................... ...............................
25
6.3.1 On -Site Nested Wells MW -1 and MW- 2 ................... ...............................
26
6.3.1.1 Vertical Hydraulic Gradient ........................ ...............................
26
6.3.2 On -Site Nested Wells MW -3 and MW- 4 ................... ...............................
27
6.3.3 Off -Site Monitor Wells .............................................. ............................... 28
6.4 Recharge and Sustainable Groundwater ................................ ............................... 28
6.4.1 Watershed Boundaries ............................................... ............................... 28
6.4.2 Groundwater Storage Capacity .................................. ............................... 29
6.4.3 Recharge .................................................................... ............................... 30
6.4.4 Sustainable Yield ....................................................... ............................... 31
6.5 Potential Issues with Salinity ................................................. ............................... 32
6.6 Conclusions of Hydrogeological Assessment ........................ ............................... 34
7522
O U D E K i April 2013
177 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section
Page No.
7.0 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT ......................................................... .............................37
7.1 Synopsis ................................................................................. ...............................
37
7.1.1
July 2000 Hydrologic Study of the Sycamore Creek Sub - Basin ..............
37
7.1.2
January 2002 — Maderas Golf Club 2001 Annual Biological Report for
Sycamore and Thompson Creeks ............................... ...............................
38
7.1.3
December 2004 — Maderas Golf Club 2004 Annual Biological Report for
Sycamore and Thompson Creeks ............................... ...............................
38
7.1.4
December 2009 — Maderas Golf Club CUP Groundwater Monitoring
Program Letter from REC Consultants to Tom Story of Sunroad
Enterprises.................................................................. ...............................
39
7.1.5
January 2012 — Maderas Golf Club Riparian Hydrology Report .............
39
7.1.6
May 2012 Thompson Creek Groundwater Sustainability Study ..............
40
7.1.7
November 2012 — Maderas Golf Club Riparian Hydrology Report,
Upstream Monitoring Locations — Blue Sky Ecological Reserve and Old
CoachWay ................................................................. ...............................
40
7.1.8
Summary .................................................................... ...............................
40
7.2 Requirements
to Support Riparian Vegetation ...................... ...............................
41
7.2.1
Rooting Depths of Riparian Trees and Emergent Wetlands .....................
41
7.2.2
Critical Threats to Major Riparian Vegetation .......... ...............................
42
7.3 Discussion .............................................................................. ...............................
43
7.3.1
Previous Studies ......................................................... ...............................
43
7.3.2
Supporting Data ......................................................... ...............................
43
7.3.3
Conclusion ................................................................. ...............................
44
8.0 EVALUATION OF RESTRUCTURED GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION AND
MONITORING PLAN ....................................................................... .............................45
9.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................... .............................47
10.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................... .............................49
11.0 PREPARERS ....................................................................................... .............................53
Fe, t j ;0, I i�
7522
ii April 2013
178 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of-Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
;11411 0'=[
Page No.
1
Regional Map ........................................................................................ .............................55
2
Vicinity Map /Watershed Map — Topo .................................................. .............................57
3
Vicinity Map /Watershed Map — Aerial ................................................. .............................59
4
Site Map — Hydro .................................................................................. .............................61
5
Monthly Precipitation and Cumulative Departure from Mean - Monthly Rainfall .............63
6
Water Levels at OCETW, LSCTW, Bridgewater, Gill, Myers and Vaplon
Wells vs. Cumulative Departure from Mean - Monthly Rainfall .......... .............................65
7
Water Levels at OCETW, Bridgewater, Gill, Myers and Vaplon Wells vs.
Maderas Groundwater Production ....................................................... .............................67
8
Water Levels at Maderas, LSCTW, and OCE Residents After Maderas
Stopped Pumping August 2011 ........................................................... .............................69
9
Water Level at MW -2 vs. Monthly Rainfall ......................................... .............................71
10
Water Level at MW -2 vs. Pumping at Maderas Well 2 ........................ .............................73
11
Water Level at MW -2 vs. Maderas Pumping ....................................... .............................75
12
Water Levels at Maderas Well 2 and MW -2 vs. Monthly Rainfall ...... .............................77
13
Pumping Effects on Water Levels at MW- 1 ......................................... .............................79
14
Water Levels at MW -1 and MW -2 After July 2010 ............................. .............................81
15
Water Level at MW -4 vs. Monthly Rainfall ......................................... .............................83
16
Water Level at MW -4 vs. Monthly Production at Maderas Well ......... .............................85
17
Water Level at MW -4 vs. Monthly Production at Maderas ...............................................87
18
Water Level at MW -3 and MW- 4 ......................................................... .............................89
DUDEK
7522
iii April 2013
179 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
DUDEQ(
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
7522
iv April 2013
180 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Dudek conducted a third -party review of previously prepared hydrogeological and biological
resource technical reports related to groundwater use at the Maderas Golf Club (Maderas)
located in the City of Poway (City), California. Groundwater production at Maderas is
currently regulated by Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 90- 13M(2), which includes an
operational plan and monitoring program to minimize potential impacts to groundwater
levels at adjacent residential wells and riparian habitat. Maderas Country Club LLC, owner
of Maderas, has requested modifications to the CUP because Maderas believes that data
collected over the past 12 years indicated that groundwater extraction at the golf course does
not affect nearby riparian habitat or groundwater levels at the Old Coach Estates (OCE)
residential community located east of the golf course.
The purpose of our review was to 1) assess whether pumping at Maderas had an effect on
nearby riparian habitat and water levels in the OCE residential community, 2) evaluate the
potential for groundwater flow from Maderas to OCE, 3) evaluate potential salinity issues,
and 4) evaluate whether the proposed modifications to the operational plan and groundwater
monitoring program in CUP 90- 13M(2) would be effective in monitoring and preventing
groundwater pumping at Maderas from adversely impacting nearby riparian habitat and
groundwater production by adjacent communities.
The following is a summary of our conclusions based on our review of the existing
hydrogeological and biological resource technical reports and data related to groundwater
use at Maderas.
1. There is no hydraulic connection between existing Maderas wells and OCE Test Well
( OCETW) based on the following:
a. Water level monitoring at OCETW indicated that 12 years of pumping at Maderas
had no influence on the water level at OCETW;
b. Aquifer testing at Maderas Wells 4, 8, 9 and 10 indicated that pumping at these wells
did not influence the water level at OCETW; and
c. A review of structural geology indicated that fractures are predominantly vertical or
dip steeply and, given the distance of approximately 1,700 feet from Maderas to
OCETW and the relatively shallow depth of OCETW, there does not appear to be a
hydraulic connection between Maderas and OCETW in the fractured rock.
DU EK
7522
April 2013
181 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of I- lydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
2. There is no hydraulic connection between Maderas Well 4 and OCETW and wells
belonging to OCE residents Myers and Tremble (these were the only OCE wells
monitored during this aquifer test) because pumping at Well 4 did not influence the water
levels at these OCE wells.
3. There is no hydraulic connection between Maderas Wells 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 (these were
the only Maderas wells that were pumping before Maderas stopped pumping) and the
Bridgewater, Gill, Myers, and Vaplon wells (these were the closest OCE wells to
Maderas that were monitored during this time) based on water level trends after Maderas
stopped pumping in August 2011. The water levels at the Maderas wells increased (i.e.,
recovered) after pumping stopped, but the water levels at the aforementioned OCE wells
continued to decline for approximately 3 months after pumping stopped.
4. Pumping at Maderas did not influence the water levels at the alluvial wells MW -2 and
MW -4 adjacent to Sycamore Creek. Water level fluctuations at these wells were
influenced by rainfall and stream flow in Sycamore Creek.
5. Pumping at Maderas did not influence the water levels at off -site alluvial monitoring wells.
6. Biological studies conducted between 2000 and 2012 indicated that the riparian habitat is
sustaining itself and thriving. Water is present, and the habitat is recovering from the
severe Witch Creek Fire in late 2007.
7. The presence of water and soil moisture during the late summer /fall months, combined
with observed continued plant growth, indicates that pumping groundwater from the
fracture rock is not affecting the shallow water table, and therefore, is not affecting the
riparian vegetation.
8. Maderas Well 6 is in the Thompson Creek watershed (located .near the outlet of the
watershed) and is influenced by recharge in the watershed. The Bridgewater, Gill, Myers
and Vaplon Wells are also in the Thompson Creek Watershed. Well 6, however, is not
hydraulically connected with the Bridgewater, Gill, Myers, and Vaplon wells in the OCE
neighborhood based on water level trends observed after Maderas stopped pumping in
August 2011.
9. Maderas Well 6 is offline and will remain so until an aquifer test is conducted at that well
and the results show that Well 6 does not significantly influence the water levels at
OCETW and private wells in the OCE residential community.
10. Despite higher water levels at Maderas compared to OCE, there is no groundwater flow
from Maderas to OCE because there is no hydraulic connection between the two areas.
7522
D U D E K 2 April 2013
182 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third - Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
11. Pumping at Maderas will not create salinity issues for OCE groundwater users
because the two areas are not hydraulically connected and irrigation water applied at
the golf course is contained on the golf course or runs off to Sycamore Creek
downstream of OCE.
12. The thriving and consistent riparian habitat observed during biological monitoring of
Sycamore Creek suggests that runoff from Maderas is not adversely impacting the
riparian habitat.
13. Groundwater extraction up to the maximum allowed 280 acre -feet per year at
Maderas will not adversely affect water levels at OCE and the riparian habitat
because there is no hydraulic connection between the fractured rock wells that
Maderas operates and the OCE residential wells and the overlying shallow alluvial
groundwater in the Sycamore Creek corridor.
14. The proposed Groundwater Production and Monitoring Plan includes monitoring and
operational protocols for Maderas that are adequate in protecting the groundwater
resources for the riparian habitat along Sycamore Creek within the limits of Maderas,
and the groundwater resources available to the Lower Sycamore Creek and Old Coach
Estates residents.
15. An Addendum to the 2000 MND can be prepared to comply with the requirements of .
CEQA because there will be no new or no impacts that weren't previously disclosed in
the 2000 MND.
7522
3 April 2013
183 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of I-lydroge ®logical and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4 XI 911 1a=
7522
April 2013
184 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Flydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
2.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the findings of Dudek's third -party review of the previously prepared
hydrogeological and biological resource technical reports and data related to groundwater use
at Maderas located in the City of Poway (City), California (Figure 1). Groundwater use at
Maderas is currently regulated by Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 90- 13M(2), which was
approved by the City in August 2000 and included an operational plan and monitoring program
to minimize potential impacts to groundwater levels at adjacent residential production wells
and riparian habitat. Maderas Country Club LLC, owner of Maderas, has requested a series of
modifications to the CUP. Their request is based on their belief that 12 years of
hydrogeological and biological data has indicated that groundwater extraction at the golf
course does not affect nearby riparian habitat or groundwater levels at the Old Coach Estates
(OCE) residential community located east of the golf course.
7522
D U D E K 5 April 2013
185 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
7522
April 2013
186 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring. Information for the Maderas Golf Club
3.0 PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY
The purpose of Dudek's work is the following: 1) Perform a third -party review of existing
hydrogeological and biological investigations to assess whether the conclusions that pumping
at Maderas had no effect on nearby riparian habitat and water levels in the OCE residential
community were sound; and 2) Evaluate whether the proposed modifications to the
operational plan and groundwater monitoring program in CUP 90- 13M(2) would be effective
in monitoring and preventing effects to nearby riparian habitat and groundwater production
by adjacent communities.
7522
7 April 2013
187 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third - Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
F01,11 1111-1114 1 „
7522
April 2013
188 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of I• iydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
4.0 BACKGROUND
In November 1990, the City approved the subdivision of approximately 708 acres of vacant land
in the Old Coach Valley for the development of 156 single - family homes, a golf course, and
associated clubhouse (Figures 2 and 3). This included the approval of Conditional Use Permit
90 -13 (CUP 90 -13), which was issued to allow the development of the golf course. The golf
course is now a part of the Maderas Golf Club. CUP 90 -13 included two conditions regarding
water supply to the golf course: 1) the primary source of water is to be recycled water when it
becomes available; and 2) further study and City Council approval are required before
groundwater may be used to supplement the golf course's water demands.
Maderas began pumping groundwater in 1998 (REC 2004). Residents in the lower Sycamore
Creek area experienced significant drawdown at their wells in July 1999 (City of Poway 2000).
In August 1999, the City directed Maderas to complete a hydrology study and consider switching
to potable water. This was also the time when Maderas began metering groundwater production
at the golf course. The City authorized the limited use (maximum of 50% of total water demand)
of groundwater production for irrigation purposes. In June 2000, the City established a limitation
to groundwater use at 150 acre -feet per year, which was one -third of its total water demand of
450 acre -feet per year for landscape irrigation.
In August 2000, Maderas requested a modification to CUP 90 -13 to allow the continued use of
groundwater at the golf course. The modified CUP (CUP 90- 13M(2)) included an operational
plan and groundwater monitoring program based on the findings of a hydrogeological and
biological investigation conducted .by Don Howard Engineers in July 2000. An Environmental
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were completed to address concerns by
the City and neighboring residents of the potential impacts of groundwater production at the golf
course on residential supply wells and riparian habitat along Sycamore Creek.
Mitigation measures identified in the MND were established to limit potentially adverse
environmental impacts to a less - than - significant level. The mitigation measures were
incorporated in CUP 90- 13M(2). In general, the mitigation measures limited the groundwater
usage at the golf course so as not to "adversely affect the production of existing and future
residential wells;" ensured "that groundwater use will be monitored so that downstream and
upstream residential wells do not experience significant drawdown;" and stipulated that
"groundwater use will be regulated by groundwater and shallow riparian habitat monitoring
wells so as to retain the environmental quality of the groundwater aquifer and maintain riparian
habitat in its normal state" (City of Poway 2000).
7522
D U D E K 9 April 2013
189 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of I- lydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
Certain monitoring thresholds were established to regulate groundwater production at the golf
course. Two shallow monitor wells were installed in the alluvium adjacent to Sycamore Creek to
monitor the potential effects of groundwater production on riparian habitat (Figure 4). The
monitoring program mandated that if the water levels at either well declined below 10 feet below
ground surface (bgs), then pumping at two production wells would be restricted and only
allowed to resume under certain conditions. The program also dictated that a test well located in
the OCE residential community, identified as the OCE Test Well ( OCETW), was to be
monitored for potential impacts to water levels in the neighborhood (Figure 4). If the water level
at OCETW declined below 180 feet bgs, then pumping would cease and only resume under
certain conditions. Finally, the program dictated that a test well located in the lower Sycamore
Creek residential area, identified as the Lower Sycamore Creek Test Well ( LSCTW), was to be
monitored for potential impacts to water levels in that residential area (Figure 4). If the water
level at LSCTW declined below 100 feet bgs, then groundwater production at the golf course
would cease and only resume under certain conditions.
Groundwater pumping limits were triggered in 2009 when the groundwater level at OCETW
dropped below 180 feet bgs. Maderas was therefore required to limit pumping by fall 2009.
However, after a continued decrease in groundwater levels in the OCE area, and in accordance
with the mitigation monitoring requirements of CUP 90- 13M(2), all extraction wells at the golf
course were shutdown in August 2011. Maderas has purchased raw water since August 2011 to
meet the water demands of the golf course.
Water levels at the OCETW have continued to decline even though groundwater pumping at
Maderas stopped in August 2011. Further, all monitoring stations managed and maintained by
Maderas in accordance with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program spelled out in the
2000 MND and addressed in CUP 90- 13M(2) have indicated that groundwater pumping at the
golf course has not affected the water level at OCETW nor the health of nearby riparian habitats
associated with Thompson and Sycamore Creeks. Based on these conditions, Maderas has
requested modifications to CUP 90- 13M(2) to allow the continued use of groundwater under a
restructured monitoring program.
7522
DU DE K 10 April 2013
190 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
5.0 METHODOLOGY
The City requested that Dudek review several studies performed by SCS Engineers, Matt
Wiedlin & Associates, Don Howard Engineers, REC Consultants, and Dr. Victor Ponce of San
Diego State University. Additionally, Dudek received recent groundwater level data from Matt
Wiedlin & Associates and obtained recent precipitation data from a weather station used in
earlier reports. The water level and precipitation data were used to evaluate recent trends in water
levels observed at Maderas and OCE residential community.
5.1 Review of Existing Documents
The following is a list of documents obtained from the City of Poway that were reviewed by
Dudek to assess the potential impacts of groundwater production by the Maderas Golf Club on
neighboring groundwater wells and riparian habitat along Sycamore Creek and Thompson Creek.
These documents are available at the City of Poway for public review.
1. Hydrologic Study of the Sycamore Creek Sub - Basin, prepared by Don Howard Engineers
of Covina, California, dated July 28, 2000.
2. Environmental Initial Study, Environmental Checklist Form, and Mitigated Negative
Declaration prepared for the City of Poway and the Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2),
Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Use, APN 277 - 170 -06, August 29, 2000.
3. Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 90- 13M(2), Sunroad
Enterprises, Applicant, prepared by the City of Poway on August 29, 2000.
4. Maderas Golf Club 2001 Annual Biological Report for Sycamore and Thompson Creeks.
Prepared by REC Consultants Inc., January 2002.
5. Maderas Golf Club 2004 Annual Biological Report for Sycamore and Thompson Creek,
prepared by REC Consultants Inc. of San Diego, California, December 2004.
6. Groundwater Levels at Lower Sycamore Creek Test Well and Maderas Golf Club's
Well Field, letter report prepared by Matt Wiedlin for the City of Poway, dated
November 11, 2008.
7. Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report October 2008 through September 2009
Maderas Golf Course, prepared by SCS Engineers for Sunroad Enterprises, dated
November 10, 2009.
8. Maderas Golf Club CUP Groundwater Monitoring Program, letter from REC
Consultants to Tom Story of Sunroad Enterprises, dated December 16, 2009.
7522
D:U D . E K 11 April 2013
191 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
9. Aquifer Test Report Maderas Golf Club, prepared by SCS Engineers for the City of
Poway, dated April 16, 2010.
10. Revised Hydrogeological Assessment Report Maderas Golf Club, prepared by SCS
Engineers for Sunroad Enterprises, dated July 7, 2010.
11. Maderas Data Sharing with Old Coach Estates Residents, slide presentation prepared by
SCS Engineers on May 11, 2011.
12. Maderas Golf Club Riparian Hydrology Report, prepared by REC Consultants of San
Diego, California, for Sunroad Enterprises, dated January 2012.
13. Groundwater Elevation Assessment Maderas Golf Club, prepared by SCS Engineers for
the City of Poway, dated March 5, 2012.
14. Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report October 2010 through September 2011
Maderas Golf Course, prepared by SCS Engineers for Sunroad Enterprises, dated
March 16, 2012.
15. Summary of Hydrogeologic Information Pertaining to Groundwater Conditions in the
Vicinity of the Maderas Golf Club and the Old Coach Estates Community, letter report
prepared by Matt Wiedlin & Associates Inc. of San Diego, California, dated March 26, 2012.
16. Follow Up to Wiedlin & Associates, Inc. March 26, 2012, Letter Regarding Maderas and
Old Coach Estates Groundwater Conditions, letter by Matt Wiedlin & Associates Inc. of
San Diego, California, dated May 3, 2012.
17. Thompson Creek Groundwater Sustainability Study, Poway, California, prepared by
Victor M. Ponce, dated May 7, 2012.
18. Review of Thompson Creek Sustainability Study, May 7, 2012, Poway, California, letter
prepared by Matt Wiedlin & Associates Inc. of San Diego, California, fo' the City of
Poway, dated June 26, 2012.
19. Review /Comment of Thompson Creek Groundwater Sustainability Study, dated May 7,
2012 (Study), prepared by SCS Engineers for Sunroad Enterprises, dated July 17, 2012.
20. Review of Thompson Creek Groundwater Sustainability Study, Poway, California,
Prepared by Dr. V.M. Ponce, prepared by REC Consultants Inc. of San Diego,
California, for Sunroad Enterprises, dated July 24, 2012.
21. Maderas Golf Club Riparian Hydrology Report,
Blue Sky Ecological Reserve and Old Coach Wa y
November 16, 2012.
FBI, W111-41- N115
12
Upstream Monitoring Locations,
. 'Prepared by REC Consultants.
7522
April 2013
192 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
22. Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report October 2011 through September 2012
Maderas Golf Course, prepared by SCS Engineers for Sunroad Enterprises, dated
December 3, 2012.
5.2 Recent Water Level Data
Dudek received water level data for the Maderas production wells, the alluvial monitor wells, the
LSCTW, and wells located in the OCE community from Matt Wiedlin & Associates and from
OCE residents. The data included water levels measured through October 2012.
5.3 Recent Precipitation Data
Dudek obtained precipitation data for the Poway Valley Station No. 7111 from the National
Climatic Data Center website operated and maintained by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The precipitation data ranged from January 1956 —
September 30, 2012, and was arranged by water year. A water year starts on October 1 and
ends on September 30. Poway Valley Station No. 7111 is located about 1 mile south of
Maderas Golf Club at an elevation of 648 feet. Ground surface elevations at the Maderas Golf
Club range "from approximately 460 feet long the southern boundary to 690 feet at the
northern boundary" (Howard 2000).
Howard (2000) reported an average annual rainfall of 14.81 inches between the 1968 -1969 and
1998 -1999 water years. SCS (2012a) reported an "average annual rainfall of approximately 12.5
inches" based on "rainfall history from 1956 -2002, from the Poway Valley Station No. 1117
operated by the NOAA and located approximately 1 mile south of Maderas."
The NOAA data gives an average annual rainfall between the 1968 -1969 and 1998 -1999 water
years at 13.83 inches, which is approximately 1 inch less than the average value presented by
Howard for the same period. The precipitation record provided by NOAA is not complete for
1987, 1990, 1994, and 1995, and the rainfall totals for those years fall short of the totals given by
Howard, particularly for the 1994 -1995 water year. Howard reported a total of 26.03 inches of
rainfall; whereas, the limited data given by NOAA for that water year (there are 7 months of no
data) was 0.58 inches. The 1994 -1995 water year was an El Nino year, so it appears that the
majority of rainfall in that year was not recorded at the Poway Valley Station. Using the NOAA
data and Howard data to complete the dataset from 1956 -2012, the average annual rainfall at the
Poway Valley Station is 13.01 inches.
7522
[).0 D E K 13 April 2013
193 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
5.3.1 Cumulative Departure from Mean - Monthly Rainfall
To assess the potential effects of climate on regional groundwater levels in the Sycamore
Creek and Thompson Creek watersheds, the cumulative departure of monthly rainfall from the
mean - monthly (CDMM) rainfall was calculated from the 1968 -1969 water year to the 2011-
2012 water year. In that period, the mean - monthly rainfall ranged from a mean of 0.02 inches
for July to a mean of 2.87 inches for February.
The CDMM rainfall was calculated by starting with the monthly rainfall recorded in October
1968 (0.11 inches) and comparing it to the mean - monthly October rainfall of 0.55 inches, which
gave a deficit of -0.44 inches. Subsequent calculations from November 1968— September 2012
are shown in Figure 5.
Increasing trends in the CDMM rainfall data indicated a period of more - than - normal monthly
rainfall. These were typically seen during the El Nino water years 1976 -1977, 1981 -1982,
1991 -1992, 1996 -1997, 2003 -2004, and 2009 -2010. Decreasing trends in the CDMM rainfall
data indicated periods of lower - than - normal rainfall. The general declining trend in the CDMM
rainfall after the strong El Nino year of 1996 -1997 exhibited an overall condition of drought
from late 1997 to the El Nino year of 2009 -2010.
7522
D U D E K 14 April 2013
194 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
6.0 HY®ROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
The primary purpose of the hydrogeological assessment was to review the hydrogeological
studies associated with this project in order to:
1. Assess whether groundwater production by Maderas is affecting the groundwater wells in
the OCE neighborhood.
2. Evaluate the potential for groundwater flow from Maderas to the OCE area.
3. Assess whether the use of groundwater by Maderas is affecting the riparian habitat in
Thompson Creek located in the OCE neighborhood and the section of Sycamore Creek
that traverses through the golf course, and address potential effects of pumping from
fractured rock on the overlying alluvium adjacent to Thompson and Sycamore Creeks.
4. Assess the estimated quantity of groundwater recharge to the basin and the sustainable
quantity of groundwater available for pumping.
5. Evaluate potential issues with increased salinity in the groundwater basin.
6.1 Pumping Effects at Old Coach Estates
Groundwater production at existing wells operated by Maderas did not influence the water level
at OCETW. Therefore, the water level decline at that well to below the CUP threshold of 180
feet bgs in 2009 is not a result of pumping at Maderas. This conclusion was based on site -
specific information that included water level data collected at OCETW since October 1995;
metered groundwater production at Maderas since August 1999; a review of structural geology
analyses that characterized fault orientations and the depths that wells intercepted major water
bearing fractures; a review of aquifer testing at Maderas Wells 4, 8, 9, and 10 that included water
level observations at OCETW; and rainfall trends from 1956— September 2012.
An assessment of the effect of Maderas pumping on water levels at OCE resident wells (other
than OCETW) is limited given that 1) no information on residential pumping was provided; 2)
limited information was provided on the depths of the OCE wells and where these wells
intercepted major fractures or fracture zones; and 3) no water level data exists before April 2009
for the OCE residential wells. However, water level data for all Maderas wells plus four OCE
resident wells (Bridgewater, Gill, Myers, and Vaplon) collected after Maderas stopped pumping
in August 2011 indicated no hydraulic connection between Maderas and these four OCE wells.
Additionally, a 5 -day constant rate aquifer test at Maderas Well 4 in 2000 indicated no hydraulic
connection between Well 4 and wells belonging to OCE residents Myers and Tremble. "There
was minor water level recovery throughout the, aquifer test in the Old Coach Estates wells,"
7522
D U DE K 15 April 2013
195 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
which indicated no hydraulic connection between Maderas Well 4 and the Myers and Tremble
wells (Howard 2000).
The following sections provide more details supporting the conclusion that pumping at Maderas
did not influence the water level at OCETW and wells belonging to OCE residents Bridgewater,
Gill, Myers, Tremble and Vaplon.
6.1.1 Water Levels
6.1.1.1 Pre -1998 Groundwater Production
The only well with water level data recorded before Maderas pumped groundwater (pre -1998)
was OCETW (Figure 6). The water level at OCETW fluctuated between 384 feet above the
National Vertical Datum of 1988 (feet NAVD88) and 541 feet NAVD88 from October 1995 —
June 1998. The average water level during this period was 443 feet NAVD88. Wiedlin (2012)
noted that "groundwater levels at OCETW exhibited extensive seasonal fluctuations in the mid -
1990s prior to the development of Maderas." The County of San Diego stated that "due to the
low storage capacity (of fractured rock), recharge to fractured rock aquifers can cause relatively
fast rises to the water table, which conversely can have relatively fast declines to the water table
in years without significant recharge. In some areas of the County with particularly low storage,
the static groundwater levels have risen or declined in excess of 100 feet in particularly rainy
seasons or dry seasons, respectively" (County of San Diego 2007). This is very characteristic of
the fractured rock at Maderas and OCE. For example, the water level at OCETW rose
approximately 130 feet when 18.7 inches of rainfall fell in early 1998, which was 10.8 inches
more than the monthly averages for January, February, and March combined.
The correlation between the water level measured at OCETW and rainfall was +52 %. The
correlation is a quantifiable measure of the relationship between two variables, which in this
instance is the water level at OCETW and rainfall. If the correlation between the water level at
OCETW and rainfall was +100 %, then there would be a perfect direct relationship between
water level and rainfall where an increase in the water level would correspond directly with
rainfall. A correlation of -100% would indicate a perfect inverse relationship where a water level
decline would correspond with rainfall. If the correlation was 0 %, then there would be no
relationship between water level and rainfall.
The positive correlation of +52% between the water level measured at OCETW and rainfall
indicated that a rising water level at the well typically corresponded with rainfall, and a falling
water level typically corresponded with less- than - normal rainfall (Figure 6). Since the correlation
between the OCETW water level and rainfall was not +100 %, other variables that may influence
7522
D U D E K 16 April 2013
196 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
the water level at OCETW include leakage of stream flow from Thompson Creek and local
pumping by OCE residents. The water level at OCETW reflected seasonal fluctuations typically
derived from groundwater recharge and reduced pumping during wet seasons (e.g., rising water
levels) to no recharge and increased pumping during dry seasons (e.g., declining water levels).
Prior to pumping at Maderas, the water level at OCETW did fall approximately 55 -384 feet
NAVD88 in October 1996 (the lowest level measured prior to September 2009), which was 37
feet below the CUP threshold of 180 feet bgs (CUP threshold elevation equal to 421 feet
NAVD88). This low water level occurred during the dry season of the 1995 -1996 water year
when 0.89 inches of rainfall was recorded, which was slightly above normal for those months
(Figure 6). The decline in water level may have been due to reduced groundwater recharge.
6.1.1.2 Groundwater Production from 1998 -2011
The groundwater level at OCETW fluctuated between 409 feet NAVD88 and 572.5 feet
NAVD88 from 1998 -2009 when Maderas pumped groundwater. The average water level at
OCETW during this period was 508 feet NAVD88, which was 60 feet higher than the average
water level of 448 feet NAVD88 before pumping at Maderas. This higher average water level at
OCETW occurred over a period when the CDMM showed a general declining trend that
indicated lower - than - normal rainfall (Figure 6).
Wiedlin (2012) noted "in approximately December 1999 and around the time Maderas opened, a
city water line was brought into the OCE area. At approximately the same time as the water line
installation, seasonal groundwater level fluctuations at OCETW decreased relative to the
fluctuations observed in the mid- to late 1990s." The correlation between the water level at
OCETW and rainfall from 2000 (after the water line was installed) to 2009 was +13 %, which
was comparable to the correlation ( +1 I%) between groundwater production at Maderas and the
water level at OCETW. The lower correlations between rainfall and water level (and rainfall and
pumping) relative to the pre - pumping period indicated that there was little to no correlation
between the'water level at OCETW and rainfall or pumping at Maderas. The lower correlations
may be attributed to the use of imported water by OCE residents to supplant groundwater
production and additional recharge by imported water.
The water level at OCETW fell to 409 feet NAVD88 (12 feet below the CUP threshold) in
September 1999. This was the only time the water level fell below the CUP threshold before
2009. Maderas, which began metering its groundwater production in August 1999 but started
pumping sometime in 1998, produced 58.9 acre -feet in August 1999, which was the second
highest volume of water produced in 1 month, and 42.6 acre -feet in September 1999 (Figure 7).
There is no production data before August 1999, so the total volume of groundwater produced by
7522
D U D. E K 17 April 2013
197 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
Maderas in the 1998 -1999 water year is unknown. The amount of rainfall in the 1998 -1999
water year was 10.1 inches (compared to 27.6 inches in the previous water year), which was
approximately 3 inches below the mean annual rainfall of 13 inches.
Maderas produced 246 acre -feet in the 1999 -2000 water year (October 1— September 30), which
included 67.1 acre -feet (the most produced in 1 month) in August 2000 (Figure 7). The water
level at OCETW in August 2000 was measured at 481.5 feet NAVD88, which was 60 feet above
the CUP threshold. The amount of rainfall in the 1999 -2000 water year was 8.3 inches, which
was 4.7 inches below the mean annual rainfall of 13 inches. The water level at OCETW did not
fall below the CUP threshold during this water year despite Maderas producing the most water
ever metered in 1 month and a markedly lower - than - normal amount of rainfall.
Maderas produced 292 acre -feet in the subsequent 2000 -2001 water year, which had a total
of 10.6 inches of rainfall (comparable to the 1998 -1999 water year total). The lowest water
level measured at OCETW during the 2000 -2001 water year was 474 feet NAVD88, which
was 53 feet higher than the CUP threshold (Figure 7). The water level at OCETW did not fall
below the CUP threshold during this water year despite Maderas producing the most water
ever metered in a water year and a continuing trend of lower- than - normal rainfall since the
1997 -1998 water year.
After the 2000 -2001 water year, there was a general declining trend in groundwater production
to the lowest outputs of 106 acre -feet in the 2005 -2006 water year and 116 acre -feet in the
2006 -2007 water year (Figure 7). The water level at OCETW averaged approximately 500 feet
NAVD88 from October 2001— September 2007. Rainfall between the 2001 -2002 and 2006 -2007
water years ranged from 4.09 inches (2006 -2007) to 16.57 inches (2004- 2005). As a result of the
16.57 inches of rainfall in the 2004 -2005 water year, the water level at OCETW increased 75
feet as the Thompson Creek watershed (for which OCETW is in) received a marked increase in
groundwater recharge.
Maderas increased groundwater production to 165 acre -feet in the 2007 -2008 water year, which
followed the 4.09 inches of rainfall in the 2006 -2007 water year. Well 8 came online in July
2008. The water level at OCETW ranged between 512 and 538 feet NAVD88. Rainfall in the
2007 -2008 water year was 11.44 inches.
Maderas pumped 191 acre -feet in the 2008 -2009 water year. The amount of rainfall in the 2008-
2009 water year was 8.7 inches, which was 4.3 inches below normal. Well 9 came online in
April 2009, and Well 10 came online in May 2009.
pp p 7522
D U D E K 18 April 2013
198 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third - Party Review of I- Iydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
The water level at OCETW dropped 155 feet from 522 feet NAVD88 on April 24, 2009, to
below 367 feet NAVD88 (the well was dry) on September 17, 2009. The water level at the Gill
well, located approximately 1,200 feet east of Maderas and 640 feet southwest of OCETW,
declined 183 feet from 513.8 feet NAVD88 on April 27, 2009 (first water level measurement at
OCE other than OCETW), to 331 feet NAVD88 on November 28, 2009 (Figure 7).
The marked water level decline at OCETW in 2009 occurred when Maderas pumped
groundwater near its average annual rate of 181 acre -feet and rainfall, even though less -than-
normal, was not the lowest amount in the previous 10 years. The decline was uncharacteristic for
this well given the water level trends, rainfall, and groundwater production at Maderas in the
previous 10 years. Consequently, the City requested that Maderas evaluate the possible
influences of pumping at Maderas Wells 9 and 10 on water levels at OCETW. Wells 9 and 10
comprised 33% of the total production at Maderas from April— August 2009. At the time of their
startup, these wells were not tested, and their influence on water levels at other wells was
unknown. These wells, along with Well 8, were tested in March 2010 to evaluate their potential
influence on water levels at OCETW. The aquifer test results indicated that pumping at Maderas
Wells 8, 9 and 10 did not influence the water level at OCETW; hence, there is no hydraulic
connection between these Maderas wells and OCETW.
Maderas stopped pumping on August 15, 2009, but then resumed pumping Wells 1, 2, 3, 5, 6,
and 7 on October 9, 2009 (Wiedlin 2012). Wells 8, 9, and 10 remained offline. OCETW
remained dry into late December 2009. The water level at the Gill well reached its lowest level
on November 28, 2009, indicating that water levels at these two wells continued to decline after
pumping ceased at Maderas Wells 8, 9, and 10 in August. This corroborated the results of the
aquifer test that indicated no hydraulic connection between Wells 8, 9 and 10 and OCETW and
further indicated no hydraulic connection between the Gill well and Maderas Wells 8, 9 and 10.
The water level at the Gill well rose 90 feet from November 2009 —April 2010, and the OCETW
went from dry to having a water level at 522 feet NAVD88, or 157 feet higher than the bottom of
the well (Figure 7). These water level rises occurred during the 2009 -2010 wet season
(November 2009 —April 2010) that had 12.66 inches of precipitation. Water levels fell in the
subsequent dry season (0.13 inches of rainfall from May through September 2010) and then rose
again during the 2010 -2011 wet season that had 18 inches of rainfall. These water level
fluctuations were characteristic of seasonal fluctuations in fractured rock with low storage as was
observed at OCETW prior to pumping at Maderas.
7522
D U DE K 19 April 2013
199 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
6.1.1.3 After Well Field Shutdown
Water levels measured at all Maderas wells and at the Bridgewater, Gill, Myers, and Vaplon
wells showed declining trends a couple of months before Maderas stopped pumping on August
18, 2011 (Figure 8). After pumping stopped, the water levels at all Maderas wells plus LSCTW
increased (i.e., recovered) while the water levels at the Bridgewater, Gill, Myers, and Vaplon
wells continued to decline. OCETW remained dry. If the Bridgewater, Gill, Myers, and Vaplon
wells were in hydraulic connection with the Maderas wells and were influenced by pumping at
Maderas, then water levels at these wells would have experienced some recovery as was
observed at LSCTW once Maderas stopped pumping. That no recovery was observed at the OCE
wells indicates that there is no hydraulic connection between the Maderas wells and the
Bridgewater, Gill, Myers, and Vaplon wells.
Water levels at the Bridgewater, Gill, Myers, and Vaplon wells increased following the 4.1
inches of rainfall in November 2011, which was 2.7 inches more than normal. Water level
increases were also observed at the Maderas wells and at LSCTW following the relatively
wet November, which indicated an increase in groundwater recharge due to rainfall in the
region (Figure 8).
The water levels at Bridgewater, Gill, Myers, and Vaplon declined approximately 75 feet from
April— September 2012 when no pumping occurred at Maderas and a total of 0.19 inches of
rainfall was measured from May— September. Water level declines of 50 -70 feet at the - Maderas
wells and approximately 40 feet at LSCTW were also observed from April— September 2012
(Figure 8). The water level declines at these wells reflected a regional decline in recharge due to
lack of rainfall during the 2012 dry season. The declines of 40-75 feet in the water levels
reflected the low storage capacity of fractured bedrock.
Maderas Well 6 is the only Maderas well in the Thompson Creek watershed (Figure 2). It is
located near the outlet of the watershed and, therefore, is influenced by recharge (or lack thereof)
from infiltrating rainfall in the watershed and leakage of subsequent runoff from Thompson
Creek. This was evident from November 2011 —April 2012 when Maderas Well 6 had a similar
water level trend as the Bridgewater, Gill, Myers, and Vaplon wells (Figure 8). Water levels at
these wells declined when 2.8 inches of rainfall fell in the area, which is about 4.5 inches below
the normal rainfall amount of 7.4 inches for those months. The water levels at the other Maderas
wells in the Sycamore Creek watershed did not decline during this time.
The correlations between water levels measured at Maderas Well 6 and the Bridgewater, Gill,
Myers, and Vaplon wells from November 2011 —April 2012 ranged from +76% to +84 %, which
indicated that the water levels measured at these wells trended together. These correlations,
p p 7522
D :U DE K 20 April 2013
200 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
however, do not indicate that Well 6 is hydraulically connected with the Bridgewater, Gill,
Myers, and Vaplon wells. The declining water level trends observed at the OCE wells after Well
6 was turned off in August 2011 indicated no hydraulic connection between these wells. Instead,
these correlations indicate that the water levels at these wells respond to basin -wide recharge (or
lack thereof) in the Thompson Creek watershed.
There was no correlation between the Maderas wells in the Sycamore Creek watershed and the
OCE wells in the Thompson Creek watershed. The correlations between water levels measured
at Maderas Wells 8 and 9 (the closest wells in the Sycamore Creek watershed to the OCE wells)
and the Bridgewater, Gill, Myers, and Vaplon wells from November 2011 to April 2012 ranged
from 0 -28 %, which indicated no correlation or an inverse relationship with water levels between
these wells. The same inverse relationship could be implied between the other Maderas wells and
the Bridgewater, Gill, Myers, and Vaplon wells based on water level trends similar to Wells 8
and 9 during this period.
6.1.2 Aquifer Testing at Maderas Golf Club
Aquifer testing at Maderas Wells 4, 8, 9, and 10 indicated that there was no hydraulic connection
between these wells and OCETW. The aquifer test at Maderas Well 4 included water level
monitoring at the Myers and Tremble wells in the OCE residential community. This aquifer test
indicated that there was no hydraulic connection between Well 4 and the Myers and Tremble
wells in OCE.
6.1.2.1 Aquifer Test at Well 4
Howard (2000) conducted a constant rate aquifer test at Well 4 from March 26 —March 31, 2000,
at an average rate of 145 gallons per minute (gpm). Water levels were monitored at Maderas
Wells l through 6, four wells in the Lower Sycamore Creek neighborhood, and three wells in the
OCE community, including OCETW. No drawdown was observed at OCETW during this test.
Residential well owners did not pump their wells before, during, and after the 5 -day aquifer test.
Drawdown at Well 4 was 288 feet at the end of the test. Drawdowns of 7 feet and 14 feet were
observed at Maderas Wells 2 and 3, respectively. Howard (2000) estimated a storage coefficient
of 0.03% for the fractured rock using the drawdowns at Wells 2 and 3. Howard also reported that
the storage coefficient for the fractured rock was three orders of magnitude less than typical
values associated with alluvium and two orders of magnitude less than typical values for
weathered, decomposed bedrock.
p p 7522
D U D E K 21 April 2013
201 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
No drawdown was observed at Maderas Well 6 (2,200 feet from Well 4), the Myers well (3,600
feet from Well 4), Tremble Well (4,200 feet from Well 4), and OCETW (4,000 feet from Well 4)
in the OCE community. These were the only OCE wells monitored during this aquifer test.
Maderas Well 4 was drilled to 800 feet bgs. Howard (2000) identified major fracture zones at
545 feet bgs and 670 feet bgs. Based on the distance between Maderas Well 4 and OCETW, the
nature of fracture orientations with steep to vertical dipping, and no drawdown observed during
this aquifer test, there appears to be no hydraulic connection between Well 4 and OCETW.
Drawdown was observed at all four wells in the Lower Sycamore Creek neighborhood. The most
drawdown was measured at LSCTW, which was 4,100 feet from Well 4. The pumping phase of
this aquifer test was 5 days. The results of this aquifer test demonstrated the anisotropic nature
and limited hydraulic connectivity of fractured rock in that drawdown was observed at LSCTW
(4,100 feet from Well 4) and not at Maderas Well 6 (2,200 feet from Well 4).
6.1.2.2 Aquifer Tests at Wells 8, 9, and 10
SCS Engineers (2010a) conducted a 10 -day constant rate aquifer test by pumping Wells 8, 9, and
10 in March 2010. This aquifer test was requested by the City following the marked decline of
the water level at OCETW in April 2009. The purpose of the aquifer test was to evaluate the
possible hydraulic connection between Maderas Wells 8, 9, and 10 and OCETW. There is no
hydraulic connection between Maderas Wells 8, 9 and 10 and OCETW because no drawdown
was observed at OCETW during this test.
The initial pumping rates for the 10 -day constant rate aquifer test were 90 gpm (Well 8), 133
gpm (Well 9), and 128 gpm (Well 10). Drawdown at Well 8 at the end of the pumping phase was
575 feet with the water level at a near constant level. Drawdown at Wells 9 and 10 were 180 feet
and 310 feet, respectively, with water levels still trending down at the time pumping was
stopped. The final pumping rates at the time pumping stopped were 48 gpm (Well 8), 113 gpm
(Well 9), and 93 gpm (Well 10).
Well 6 was influenced by pumping at Wells 8, 9, and 10 as the water level fell approximately
2 feet during the pumping phase and then recovered approximately 1.5 feet after pumping
stopped. Well 6 was identified to be in the Thompson Creek watershed. However, there is no
hydraulic connection between Well 6 and the Bridgewater, Gill, Myers, and Vaplon wells, so
drawdown at Well 6 caused by pumping at Wells 8, 9 and 10 will not induce water level
declines at these OCE wells.
7522
D U D E K 22 April 2013
202 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third - Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
The water level at OCETW was not influenced by pumping at Wells 8, 9, and 10. Instead, the
water level at OCETW increased approximately 7 feet during the 10 -day pumping phase and 5
days into the recovery phase of the test. After the fifth day of recovery, the groundwater level
declined 15 feet over the next 10 days. SCS (2010a) noted that "residents of the Old Coach
Estates area have reported that groundwater supply wells had recently been constructed in the
area. With known and likely groundwater usage by others in the Old Coach Estates area,
including possible agricultural usage, it is highly likely that the OCETW is being affected by
other groundwater users in the vicinity." The declining water level 5 days after pumping stopped
at wells 8, 9, and 10 (no other Maderas wells pumped during the pumping and recovery phases
of the aquifer test) indicated the possibility that other influences outside Maderas affected the
water level at OCETW.
6.1.3 Structural Geology
OCETW was completed to 248 feet bgs and is located approximately 1,800 feet east of Maderas
Well 6 (closest well to OCE). No details of its construction or where it intercepted major
fractures were provided. The Maderas production wells were completed 566 -1030 feet bgs with
major fracture zones identified at 360 -655 feet bgs (Howard 2000; SCS Engineers 2010a). Land
surface at OCETW is approximately 100 feet higher than at Maderas. Maderas Well 6 was
drilled to 800 feet bgs.
SCS (2010b) noted from downhole video logs of the borings for Maderas Wells 9 and 10 that
major fractures intercepted by the borings dipped 45 degrees or more. Howard (2000) identified
the deepest major water bearing fractured at 58 -590 feet bgs for Well 6. No information was
given on the angle (i.e., dip) of this fracture. However, assuming a 45 degree angle at a depth of
590 feet bgs and projecting eastward, the fracture would intercept land surface at approximately
600 feet east of Well 6, which would not intercept OCETW as that well is still 1,200 feet away.
An analysis of structural geology by Howard (2000) indicated that the "occurrence of steep to
vertically inclined fractures is apparent in the borehole logs available for Maderas and off -site
wells. The driller's logs indicate only 2 -3 fractures are intercepted in wells ranging from 125-
1 ,000 feet deep. The prevalence of steeply inclined fractures is supported by the occurrence of
only a few fractures being intersected by each vertical well."
A review of aerial photographs by SCS (2010b) identified lineaments oriented predominantly
northwest, with some east —west lineaments and a few northeast lineaments. SCS (2010b) also
mapped surficial joints and fractures and identified fracture orientations to the northeast and
northwest that were inclined vertically or dipped steeply. SCS (2010b) stated that "significant
fractures and groundwater production was noted in the lower portion of each well" after
7522
D U D E K 23 April 2013
203 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of I- lydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
reviewing video logs of the borings drilled for Maderas Wells 9 and 10. "Both (video) logs were
stopped at very large, open fractures with significant breakout of the rock within the fracture
zone surrounding the boring. The Well 9 log was terminated at a depth of approximately 547 feet
where the camera encountered an obstruction. The Well 10 log was terminated at a depth of
approximately 472 feet in a very large, open fracture showing significant breakout of the rock
surrounding the boring" (SCS Engineers 2010b).
The 10 -day constant rate aquifer test conducted at Maderas Wells 8, 9, and 10 resulted in
drawdown at Well 6 (SCS Engineers 2010a). SCS mapped north —south oriented lineaments
between Wells 9 and 10 and Well 6. The drawdown observed at Well 6 when pumping Wells 9
and 10 indicated that there was a hydraulic connection between these wells, which was most
likely due to fractures oriented in the north —south direction. The aquifer test did not demonstrate
a hydraulic connection between Wells 8, 9, and 10 and OCETW.
It appears that there is no hydraulic connection between the Maderas wells and OCETW based
on the analyses of structural geology presented by Howard and SCS and their findings that
fractures are predominantly vertical or dip steeply, a distance of approximately 1,800 feet from
Maderas to OCETW, and the relatively shallow depth of OCETW.
6.1.4 Conclusions on Pumping Effects at Old Coach Estates
Pumping at Maderas does not influence the water levels at wells in Old Coach Estates. This
conclusion was based on water level data collected at OCETW and other OCE wells that showed
no response to pumping at Maderas since 1998, no response to aquifer tests conducted at Wells
4, 8, 9 and 10, and no response at the Bridgewater, Gill, Myers, and Vaplon wells when Maderas
stopped pumping in August 2011. Additionally, a review of structural geology beneath Maderas
indicated no hydraulic connection between deep, major water bearing fracture zones at Maderas
and OCE.
Maderas Well 6 is in the Thompson Creek watershed; however, pumping at this well did not
influence the water level at OCETW and, conversely, water levels at the Bridgewater, Gill,
Myers, and Vaplon wells did not recover when Maderas stopped pumping Well 6 in August
2011. That the water levels at these OCE wells did not respond to pumping (or shutdown) at
Well 6 indicated no hydraulic connection between these wells. Well 6 is offline and will remain
so under the restructured groundwater production and monitoring plan proposed for the modified
CUP. If Maderas wants to bring the well online, then Maderas is required to conduct an aquifer
test at the well to confirm that pumping does not significantly influence the water level at
OCETW and other OCE resident wells. This requirement is in place because no aquifer test has
been conducted at Well 6 that included water level monitoring at OCE wells.
7522
D- ll DE K 24 April 2013
204 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
6.2 Potential for Groundwater Flow from Maderas to Old
Coach Estates
Water levels measured at Maderas Wells 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 since pumping stopped in August
2011 have been higher than water levels measured at the Bridgewater, Gill, Myers, and Vaplon
wells (Figure 8). The higher water levels (i.e., hydraulic heads) at the Maderas wells indicate the
potential for groundwater to flow from Maderas to OCE, but no groundwater flows to OCE
because there is no hydraulic connection between Maderas and OCE. This conclusion was based
on the results of aquifer tests conducted at Wells 4, 8, 9 and 10, an analysis of structural geology
that identified steeply inclined fractures, and water level trends observed after Maderas stopped
pumping in August 2011.
The water level measured at a well represents the hydraulic head of the aquifer system at that
location. The hydraulic head is a measure of the pressure and elevation potentials in
groundwater. Therefore, there is a potential for groundwater to flow from a point of higher
hydraulic head to a point of lower hydraulic head. In a fractured rock system, groundwater will
flow from a point of higher hydraulic head to a point of lower hydraulic head if the fractures are
hydraulically connected. Because there is no hydraulic connection between the Maderas wells
and the Bridgewater, Gill, Myers, and Vaplon wells, there is no groundwater flow from Maderas
to OCE despite the higher hydraulic heads measured at Maderas.
6.3 Pumping Effects on Riparian Habitat
Pumping at Maderas does not influence the water levels at shallow alluvial wells MW -2 and
MW -4. The water levels at these wells reflected seasonal fluctuations induced by rainfall and,
possibly, stream flow in Sycamore Creek (no stream flow data exists for Sycamore Creek and
Thompson Creek because these two drainages are not gaged). Higher correlations were found for
the water levels measured at these wells with rainfall than with pumping at Maderas.
Groundwater produced by Maderas is used for irrigation purposes, and its usage reflects seasonal
demands based on climatic conditions (i.e., higher production during summer months when
water demands are greater).
Dudek received water level data for wells MW -1, MW -2, MW -3, and MW -4 from Matt Wiedlin
and reviewed the water level hydrographs presented in reports prepared by Wiedlin and SCS
Engineers. The water level datasets for wells MW -1 and MW -2 extended from September 30,
2000 — October 8, 2012. The water level datasets for wells MW -3 and MW -4 extended from April
19, 2000 — October 8, 2012. No data for well MW -3 exists after September 2006 because the well
was destroyed in the 2007 wildfire (noted in data files obtained from Wiedlin). Water levels were
reported as depths -to -water in feet bgs.
7522
D U D E K 25 April 2013
205 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
6.3.1 On -Site Nested Wells MWA and MW -2
Wells MW -I and MW -2 were installed as nested monitoring wells located approximately 30 feet
west of Maderas Well 2 (Howard 2000). Well MW -1, the deeper of the two wells, was screened
from 39 -49 feet bgs in weathered tonalite. Well MW -2 was screened from 6.5 -26.5 feet bgs in
alluvium. These wells were installed on April 6, 2000.
A hydrograph comparing the water level measured at well MW -2 to monthly precipitation from
2000 -2012 showed peak water levels occurring in January and February and the lowest water
levels occurring in September and October. The correlation between water level and monthly
rainfall was +43% (Figure 9). In comparison, the correlation between water level and monthly
pumping at Well 2 (the closest well to MW -2) was +18% (Figure 10). In comparison to pumping
by the whole well field, the correlation between water level and monthly pumping by Maderas
was +29% (Figure 11). The fluctuating water level at well MW -2 appeared to be influenced more
by seasonal precipitation than monthly production at Maderas, which itself is regulated by
seasonal water demands. If pumping did influence the water level at well MW -2, then a negative
correlation (i.e., an inverse relationship) between pumping and the water level would be expected
where an increase in pumping would lead to a decrease in the water level.
The annular seal for Well 2 was set at 20 feet bgs. The rest of the well was not cased below 20
feet bgs and exists as an open borehole to the bottom depth of 750 feet bgs (Howard 2000).
Presumably, then, the open borehole is in communication with the bottom 7 feet of alluvium and
the underlying weathered tonalite based on the lithology characterized at wells MW -1 and MW -2
(Howard 2000). The difference in elevation between the static water levels measured at Maderas
Well 2 and alluvial well MW -2 is approximately 5 -7 feet. The water level at Well 2 drops more
than 385 feet when the well pumps (Figure 12). If there was a hydraulic connection between
Well 2 and the alluvial well MW -2, then a rapid and marked decline in the water level at MW -2
may be expected as was observed at Well 2. Instead, no such decline was observed at well MW-
2. However, a rapid and marked decline in water level was observed at well MW -1 in 2006
(Figure 13). No water level data for Well 2 in 2006 was reviewed (it may not exist), but the rapid
and marked decline in the water level observed intermittently at MW -1 in 2006 was most likely
the result of intermittent pumping at Well 2.
6.3.1.1 Vertical Hydraulic Gradient
A hydrograph of groundwater levels measured at wells MW -1 and MW -2 from January 2011 —
July 2012 indicated an average upward vertical hydraulic gradient of 0.055 feet/foot from the
weathered tonalite to the alluvium (Figure 14). This followed the high rainfall amounts in
October (4.05 inches) and December (8.96 inches) 2010 that led to marked increases in
7522
D U DE K 26 April 2013
206 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
groundwater recharge to where a higher hydraulic head (i.e., water level) was measured in the
weathered tonalite at well MW -1 than in the alluvium at well MW -2. This indicated the potential
for this reach of Sycamore Creek near the location of these nested wells to be a gaining stream at
a time when Maderas Well 2 produced 12.6 acre -feet of water in the first 7 months of 2011.
Historically, however, a lower hydraulic head was measured in the weathered tonalite, and
groundwater typically flowed down from the alluvium to the weathered tonalite.
In July 2012, the vertical hydraulic gradient reversed direction and groundwater flowed down
from the alluvium to the weathered tonalite, as it historically has in the past. The downward
gradient may be the result of no rainfall and reduced stream flow in Sycamore Creek since April
2012 as the water table naturally declined because of less recharge to groundwater. This reach of
Sycamore Creek potentially transitioned from a gaining stream to a losing stream despite no
production from the Maderas well field. The relationship between the water levels measured at
wells MW -1 and MW -2 to precipitation and pumping at Maderas indicated that the shallow
water table in the alluvium of the Sycamore Creek was influenced by climatic conditions (e.g.,
infiltrating rainfall and stream flow) and not by pumping at the Maderas production wells.
6.3.2 On -Site Nested Wells MW -3 and MW-4
Wells MW -3 and MW -4 were installed as nested monitoring wells approximately 70 feet south
of Maderas Well 4. Well MW -3, the deeper of the two wells, was screened from 36-41 feet bgs
in weathered tonalite. Well MW -4 was screened from 11 -26 feet bgs in alluvium. These wells
were installed on April 11, 2000 (Howard 2000).
A hydrograph comparing the water level measured at well MW -4 to monthly precipitation from
2000 -2012 shows peak water levels occurring in January and February and the lowest water
levels occurring in September and October. The correlation between water level and monthly
rainfall was +59% (Figure 15). In comparison, the correlation between water level and monthly
pumping at Maderas Well 4 (the closest well to MW -4) was +4 %, which indicated no correlation
between the water level at MW -4 and pumping at Well 4 (Figure 16). In comparison to the whole
well field, the correlation between water level and total monthly pumping by Maderas was +24%
(Figure 17). The fluctuating water level at well MW -2 appears to be influenced more by seasonal
precipitation than by monthly production at Maderas.
The annular seal for Well 4 was set at 70 feet bgs. The rest of the well was not cased below 70
feet bgs and exists as an open borehole to the bottom depth of 800 feet bgs (Howard 2000). The
annular seal for Well 4 extends 30 feet below the bottom of well MW -3. Pumping at Well 4 did
not induce rapid and marked declines in the water levels at wells MW -3 and MW -4 (Figure 18).
The water levels at these two wells tracked together ( +99.7% correlation) and fluctuated in
7522
D U D E K 27 April 2013
207 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
response to precipitation. Water levels between these two wells indicated an upward vertical
hydraulic gradient with groundwater moving from the weathered tonalite to the alluvium (Figure
18). The reach of Sycamore Creek near these wells may be a gaining stream.
Wells MW -3 and MW -4 were not influenced by pumping at Maderas. It appears that the deeper
setting of the annular seal for Well 4 to 70 feet bgs has isolated this well from influencing the
water levels at wells MW -3 and MW -4.
6.3.3 Off -Site Monitor Wells
Six off -site monitor wells were installed in March 2001 (REC 2004). These wells were typically
completed 11 -14 feet bgs in "unconsolidated alluvial deposits" (REC 2004). The wells were
installed in approximately the same locations as the biological monitoring transects established
perpendicular to and across Sycamore Creek or Thompson Creek. REC (2004) reported water
level measurements at these wells for October 2001, October 2002, November 2003, and
November 2004. REC reported that "water levels in all wells exhibit a general trend of dropping
during the drier years, and rising during the wetter year."
REC (2004) concluded that the water level changes "correspond with the amounts of rainfall
received in the county during the consecutive years and do not seem to be directly related to
draw down from the golf course." Water levels dropped 0.25 -0.83 feet at all wells (except
Sycamore Creek Downstream No. 3 where it remained the same and Thompson Creek Upstream
which was dry) from October 2001 —October 2002 when only 5 inches of rainfall were measured
in the 2001 -2002 water year. This was 38% of the normal annual rainfall of 13 inches. Water
levels increased 0.08 -1.67 feet from October 2002 November 2004 when rainfall totaled 1438
inches in the 2002 -2003 water year and 8.49 inches in the 2003 -2004 water year.
Groundwater production from Maderas, which included production from Wells 2 through 6 from
October 2001 — November 2004, declined from 242 acre -feet in the 2001 -2002 water year to 134
acre -feet in the 2003 -2004 water year. The increasing trends in water levels measured at the off -
site monitor wells may reflect recharge to the alluvial deposits by rainfall more so than decreased
groundwater production at Maderas. The decrease in groundwater production by Maderas from
2001 -2004 may be a result of increased rainfall in the 2002 -2003 and 2003 -2004 water years.
6.4 Recharge and Sustainable Groundwater
6.4.1 Watershed Boundaries
Howard (2000) reported a watershed boundary that encompassed Maderas, the Lower Sycamore
Creek community and the Thompson Creek watershed. The area of this watershed, called the
7522
D:U D E K 28 April 2013
208 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
Sycamore Creek watershed, was 2,804 acres. SCS (2012a) reported a potential watershed area of
8,110 acres, which included the Thompson Creek watershed (1,420 acres), the Sycamore Creek
watershed that included all runoff to Lake Ramona, and the Lake Poway watershed. This
watershed delineation was apparently provided by Wiedlin and the City of Poway. Ponce (2012)
reported a total drainage area of 8,236 acres for the Sycamore Creek watershed, which included
1,885 acres for the Thompson Creek watershed. The SCS watershed boundary terminated
downstream of the Lower Sycamore Creek community; Ponce extended his watershed boundary
to the confluence of Sycamore Creek and San Dieguito River.
Dudek mapped an area of 1,690 acres for' the Thompson Creek watershed, which was
approximately the average of the SCS (1,420 acres) and Ponce (1,885 acres) estimates. This
watershed terminated just upstream of the confluence of Thompson Creek and Sycamore Creek
and Maderas Wells 1 and 2. Maderas Well 6 is in the Thompson Creek watershed. The
remaining Maderas wells are located in the Sycamore Creek watershed. The larger watershed
boundary delineated for the Sycamore Creek watershed by SCS and Ponce is valid and must be
considered when estimating the amount of water available for recharge to the fractured rock
system beneath Maderas. Stream flow measurements collected upstream of Maderas in both
Sycamore Creek and Thompson Creek, and in Sycamore Creek at Maderas and downstream of
Maderas (which are not available) would enhance our understanding and estimation of the
volume of water available to recharge the underlying fractured rock.
6.4.2 Groundwater Storage Capacity
Howard (2000) estimated a groundwater storage capacity of 866 acre -feet based on the results of .
a 5 -day aquifer test at Maderas Well 4 and published data regarding storage values for alluvium
and weathered granite. Howard estimated a storage coefficient of 0.03% for the fractured rock,
which is markedly lower than the estimated storage coefficients of 30% and 3% for the overlying
alluvium and weathered bedrock, respectively (Howard 2000). Dudek concurs with Howard's
method of estimating the groundwater storage capacity of the basin, which included using site -
specific data (e.g., coefficient of storage for the fractured rock) derived from aquifer testing at
Well 4. Howard was the only source that quantified the storage capacity of the watershed.
The County of San Diego notes in its Guidelines for Determining Significance for Groundwater
Resources that "fractured rock aquifers typically have much less storage capacity than aquifers
comprised of unconsolidated sediments (i.e., alluvium). As a result, pumping from wells
completed in fractured rock typically produces a greater decline in water levels than a similar
pumping rate for wells completed in sediments" (County of San Diego 2007). Hence, the marked
declines in water levels (e.g., >500 feet at Well 8) at Maderas wells when they pump is due to the
low storage capacity of the fractured rock.
7522
D U D E K 29 April 2013
209 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
6.4.3 Recharge
Howard (2000) provided an estimate of groundwater recharge for the Sycamore Creek watershed
by quantifying the parameters that factor into a water budget analysis. Ponce (2012) estimated
recharge to the Thompson Creek watershed and a portion of Sycamore Creek watershed based on
an average recharge -to- precipitation ratio related to a national average. SCS (2012b) conducted a
water balance for the Thompson Creek watershed and a portion of the Sycamore Creek
watershed to estimate the amount of water available for irrigation purposes at Maderas. SCS did
not attempt to quantify recharge to the underlying fractured rock.
Recharge estimates by Howard and Ponce included the Thompson Creek watershed and the area
comprising Maderas, which is mostly in the Sycamore Creek watershed. Recharge should be
estimated for the Thompson Creek watershed separately from the Sycamore Creek watershed
based on the hydraulic disconnect between Maderas and OCE. The OCE wells (and potentially
Maderas Well 6) draw water from fractured rock that receives recharge in the Thompson Creek
watershed. The other Maderas wells draw water from fractured rock that receives recharge in the
Sycamore Creek watershed, which includes drainages from the upstream Lake Ramona and Lake
Poway watersheds, and from runoff and underflow from the Thompson Creek watershed. The
recharge estimates provided by Howard and Ponce may overestimate the recharge to the
Thompson Creek watershed and the groundwater available for pumping by the OCE residents. A
review of their estimates is provided below.
Howard (2000) estimated an average annual recharge to the Sycamore Creek watershed
groundwater basin at 442 acre -feet. This estimate was based on precipitation data collected at the
Poway Valley Station No. 7111 from 1969 -1999, potential evapotranspiration rates from a
California Irrigation Management Information System located in Escondido, estimated runoff
based on stream flow gaging for Guejito Creek, soil moisture capacities for the soil types
mapped in the watershed by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, and monthly irrigation rates
applied at Maderas. The estimated average annual recharge of 442 acre -feet is a rough estimate
considering that no. actual stream flow was measured for Sycamore Creek and Thompson Creek
and that potential evapotranspiration overestimates actual evapotranspiration (i.e., the actual
losses due to evapotranspiration).
Howard used historical stream flow data measured at the stream flow gaging station for the
Guejito Creek watershed to estimate runoff from the Sycamore Creek watershed. The average
annual outflow for the Guejito Creek watershed was 2,090 acre -feet. The Guejito Creek
watershed is 14,400 acres, or 5.1 times greater than the 2,804 -acre watershed for Sycamore
Creek. Therefore, based on similar "topographic relief, elevations, soil types, geology and degree
of urbanization for both watersheds," the estimated average annual outflow for the Sycamore
E 7522
E
D U D K 30 April 2013
210 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
Creek watershed was 397 acre -feet, or 19% of 2,090 acre -feet (Howard 2000). However, the
highest elevation in the Guejito Creek watershed is approximately 2,000 feet higher than the
highest point (Starvation Mountain) in the Thompson Creek watershed, and, consequently, the
annual rainfall for Guejito Creek averages about 8 inches more than the Thompson Creek
watershed (County of San Diego 2012). Howard may be overestimating the amount of runoff
from the Thompson Creek watershed by simply basing it on size against the Guejito Creek
watershed. The installation and monitoring of stream flow gaging stations in Thompson Creek
will provide actual data for calculating the volume of water leaving the Thompson Creek
watershed as runoff.
Ponce (2012) estimated an average annual recharge to the Sycamore Creek watershed
groundwater basin at 205 acre -feet. This estimate was based on a recharge -to- precipitation
ratio averaged over the United States and a watershed area of 2,693 acres that included
Thompson Creek watershed (1,885 acres) and a "portion of Sycamore Creek lying
downstream of the confluence with Thompson Creek (808 acres)." No other site - specific data
was used to derive this estimate.
A water budget analysis of the Thompson Creek watershed should include the area of the
watershed that contributes runoff to Thompson Creek, at least one gaging station located at the
terminus of Thompson Creek to measure runoff, and vegetation mapping to identify native
species and their associated rates of actual evapotranspiration to calculate recharge to
groundwater. The results of this analysis may then be used to estimate a sustainable yield for the
Thompson Creek watershed and the OCE residents that draw groundwater from it.
A water budget analysis of the Sycamore Creek watershed should include the area(s) that
contribute runoff to Sycamore Creek with gaging stations located upstream and downstream of
Maderas to measure the quantity of surface water entering the golf course versus the quantity
leaving, to conduct vegetation mapping to identify areas with native species and turf grasses on
the golf course to calculate actual evapotranspiration, and to measure the quantity of irrigation
water applied at the golf course to calculate recharge to groundwater underneath Maderas.
6.4.4 Sustainable Yield
Howard (2000) estimated a long -term average annual production rate of 323 acre -feet for
Maderas. This estimate was based on a watershed area (Thompson Creek watershed, Maderas
and the lower Sycamore Creek area) that underestimated the quantity of groundwater potentially
available to Maderas from the Lake Ramona and Lake Poway watersheds upstream of the golf
course. It was also based on the water demand of 27.75 acre -feet per year by OCE residents in
2000. Like recharge, estimates of sustainable yield should be calculated separately for the
7522
1 U D:E K 31 April 2013
211 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of I- lydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
Thompson Creek watershed and for the Sycamore Creek watershed based on the apparent
hydraulic disconnect between the two watersheds.
6.5 Potential Issues with Salinity
There is limited water quality information available to assess the potential issues of salinity in
groundwater beneath Maderas and OCE. However, pumping at Maderas will not increase the
salinity of groundwater at OCE because the two areas are not hydraulically connected and the
water applied for irrigation will either be contained on the golf course or will run off to
Sycamore Creek downstream of OCE.
Irrigation runoff to Sycamore Creek over the past 12 years, which included groundwater from
Maderas, does not appear to have adversely impacted the riparian habitat along Sycamore Creek.
The riparian habitat has been characterized as consistent, healthy and thriving by REC since
2001 (REC 2012). No habitat shift (i.e., change in habitat) was observed in Sycamore Creek in
the period of biological monitoring. Habitat shift is more likely to be caused if the amount of
water available to the riparian habitat decreases (i.e., declining water level) than by changes in
salinity. Changes in the amount of water available to plants can result in plant species
composition changes as quickly as one growing season. Habitat shift due to increases in salinity
are fairly gradual, if at all (depends on how salt tolerant the riparian habitat is), because any
build -up in soil salinity should be partially or wholly offset by rainfall and subsequent stream
flow.
That no habitat shift has been observed indicates that salinity is not an issue for the riparian
habitat in Sycamore Creek and that water levels have not declined to levels that adversely
affected the riparian habitat (i.e., pumping by Maderas has not influenced the water level in
the alluvium). The following is a review of potential salinity issues discussed by Ponce and
SCS Engineers.
Ponce (2012) stated that no salinity data is currently available for Thompson Creek or Maderas,
but did use a total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration of 588.62 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to
estimate the "salt concentration in the irrigation water" at Maderas. The TDS concentration he
used came from well water tested at the Kassel property in February 2012, "which is the farthest
upstream household in Thompson Creek" (Ponce 2012). The Kassel property is located "1 mile
northeast of OCETW" (SCS Engineers 2012c). Adjacent to the Kassel property is the Weir
property, both of which had well water that Ponce characterized as "poor." Upstream of these
two properties in the Thompson Creek watershed is an approximate 60 -acre avocado grove.
Applied irrigation and runoff from this property may impact the water quality of surface water in
Thompson Creek and the underlying groundwater. Surface water sampling of Thompson Creek
7522
D U D E K 32 April 2013
212 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
(particularly after the first major rainfall event of the wet season) between the avocado grove and
the Kassel property may shed some light on the potential impact of runoff from the avocado
grove on surface water and groundwater quality in the OCE residential area.
Ponce (2012) estimated that 286 tons of salt is applied per year via irrigation (a combination of
imported water and groundwater) at Maderas. This estimate was provided using the 588.62 mg/L
TDS concentration at the Kassel well, which may be influenced by runoff from the upstream
avocado grove in the Thompson Creek watershed. The TDS concentration from the Kassel well
is not representative of the TDS concentration of applied irrigation water at Maderas because
Maderas and OCE are not hydraulically connected and, therefore, derive their water from two
different sources.
Ponce (2012) further stated that "every iota of solids associated with irrigation waters will
eventually find its way downstream, flowing into Lake Hodges and polluting the regional surface
waters with additional quantities of salt." The most common dissolved substances in water are
minerals or salts that include common constituents like calcium, sodium, bicarbonate, and
chloride and plant nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus. The common constituents that
represent the majority of TDS are not harmful to human health, although they may affect the
taste, odor, and clarity of water. The California Department of Public Health recommended a
secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for TDS of 500 mg/L to minimize the effects to
taste, odor and clarity.
The TDS concentration of water in streams draining to Lake Hodges averaged 1,340 mg/L from
2006 -2010 (City of San Diego 2011). This is 168% more than the secondary MCL for TDS. In
comparison, the TDS concentration of irrigation water applied at Maderas may be 550 mg/L if
Maderas uses 280 acre -feet of groundwater with a TDS concentration of 600 mg/L (from Ponce)
and 170 acre -feet of raw water with a TDS concentration of 470 mg/L (from City of Poway) to
meet the 450 acre -feet demand for the golf course. The TDS concentration of applied irrigation
water at Maderas is 10% more than the secondary MCL for TDS.
Lake Hodges has a 248 - square mile (or 158,720 acres) watershed that includes portions of
Escondido, Poway, Ramona, San Pasqual and a large portion of unincorporated areas of San
Diego County. Lake Hodges collects runoff from urban areas, agriculture, avocado groves like
the Malone Hidden Valley Ranch located upstream of Maderas in the Sycamore Creek
watershed, and recreational spaces and parks. The average runoff from the watershed to Lake
Hodges is 21,500 acre -feet per year (City of San Diego 2001). Maderas applies 450 acre -feet per
year for irrigation purposes. The average annual runoff to Lake Hodges in the Lake Hodges
watershed is 13% of local precipitation (City of San Diego 2011). Applying this value to the
irrigation water applied at Maderas, this equates to 60 acre -feet of runoff, which is 0.3% of the
7522
D U DE 0< 33 April 2013
213 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
volume of water entering Lake Hodges as runoff. The contribution of dissolved salts in runoff
from Maderas to Lake Hodges may be insignificant and not adversely affect the water quality at
the reservoir based on the estimated TDS concentration of applied water and the markedly small
volume of runoff from Maderas to Lake Hodges.
SCS (2012b) reported that "groundwater produced from Site wells is pumped directly to the
pond or indirectly via on -Site surface drainage (streams). Raw water purchased by Maderas is
also pumped into the lower pond." The golf course is then irrigated with water from the lower
pond. Raw water is provided by the City of Poway, which obtains its water from the Colorado
River and the Northern California Aqueduct. The imported water is stored at Lake Poway and
then treated before being supplied to the community. The City reported an average TDS
concentration of 469 mg/L for Lake Poway water (City of Poway 2011). No information on
water quality, including TDS concentrations, was provided for groundwater produced at
Maderas. However, SCS (2012c) reported that "a groundwater sample collected at the Maderas
ponds had a reported total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration of 400 mg/L." It is not clear
when this sample was collected and whether the "groundwater sample" was collected from the
surface water contained in the lower pond or from an actual well (production or monitor) on the
Maderas property. If the water sample was collected from the lower pond in 2012, then the water
is raw water from the City and the TDS concentration does not reflect groundwater beneath
Maderas. SCS did not provide an analysis or discussion of salt loading to the underlying
groundwater via applied irrigation water.
Dudek understands that, to date, there is no site - specific data on groundwater quality at Maderas.
The only information regarding water quality is a TDS concentration for a sample collected at
the Kassel well located over a mile northeast of Maderas and a possible water sample collected
from the lower pond that Maderas uses to irrigate the golf course. However, even given the
limited water quality data, pumping at Maderas will not create potential salinity issues for
groundwater produced at OCE because the two areas are not hydraulically connected. Runoff
from applied irrigation water at the golf course will not affect OCE water quality.
6.6 Conclusions of Hydrogeological Assessment
A review of previous hydrogeological reports and analyses of water level and groundwater
production data has led to the following observations and conclusions:
• Groundwater production at Maderas does not influence the water level at OCETW.
• Groundwater production at Maderas does not influence water levels at the alluvial wells
MW -2 and MW -4.
7522
D U D E K 34 April 2013
214 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
• Water level fluctuations observed at the alluvial wells MW -2 and MW -4 were induced by
seasonal wet and dry seasons.
o The water levels at the alluvial wells during some exceptionally dry seasons did fall
below the CUP threshold. Despite these low levels, the riparian habitat along
Sycamore Creek was characterized as healthy and thriving.
• A review of aquifer test results at Maderas Wells 4, 8, 9, and 10 indicated no hydraulic
connection between these wells and OCETW. There is no hydraulic connection between
Maderas Well 4 and the Myers and Tremble wells in the OCE community.
• Water level responses observed at the Maderas wells and the Bridgewater, Gill, Myers,
and Vaplon wells before and after Maderas stopped pumping in August 2011 indicated
no hydraulic connection between Maderas and these OCE wells.
® Despite the higher water levels at Maderas compared to OCE, there is no groundwater flow
from Maderas to OCE because there is no hydraulic connection between the two areas.
• Maderas Well 6 is in the Thompson Creek watershed based on similar water level responses
to climatic conditions observed between Well 6 and OCE wells in late 2011 and 2012;
however, Well 6 is not hydraulically connected with the Bridgewater, Gill, Myers, and
Vaplon wells in the OCE neighborhood.
• A water budget analysis should be conducted separately for the Thompson Creek and
Sycamore Creek watersheds based on the groundwater disconnect between the two watersheds.
Estimates of recharge and sustainable yield should be provided for each watershed.
o Pumping at Maderas will not increase the salinity of groundwater at OCE because the
two areas are not hydraulically connected and the water applied for irrigation will either
be contained on the golf course or will run off to Sycamore Creek downstream of OCE.
Runoff from applied irrigation water at the golf course will not affect OCE water quality.
o Salinity issues in the Thompson Creek watershed should focus on local (i.e.,
residential) irrigation practices and potential impacts from runoff originating from the
approximate 60 -acre avocado grove located upstream of the OCE residents.
f 411611i7! :31
7522
35 April 2013
215 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
7522
36 April 2013
216 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the IVladeras Golf Club
7.0 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
The primary purpose of the biological component was to review the biologically oriented studies
associated with this project to gauge their utility in evaluating the effects of well drafts on
riparian vegetation.
Healthy riparian systems in Southern California support a wide variety of tree, shrub, and
herbaceous plants that are supported by mostly continuously available moisture during the
year. More mature habitat may also include dead trees or snags, brush piles, and bare or
rocky openings. These systems support a variety of wildlife species, which use it for forage,
cover, movement, denning, or a combination of these. Some riparian systems support species
which are state- or federally listed as threatened or endangered. Though these stretches of
Sycamore and Thompson Creeks have not been documented to support listed species, there is
potential for them to occur.
7.1 Synopsis
A number of project - specific reports were reviewed, as summarized below. Additionally,
important timeline events occurred and are also summarized.
7.1.1 July 2000 Hydrologic Study of the Sycamore Creek Sub -Basin
This study formed the basis for analysis of well drafts on riparian and upland habitat associated
with Sycamore Creek. It also provided a set of biological baseline data by which future work
could be compared. The study evaluated two on -site locations, two upstream locations, and three
downstream riparian locations. The methods of study included evaluation of trees within 10-
meter wide belt transects which traversed the entire creek, including adjacent oak and sycamore
trees. Each tree was identified to species and assessed for general health and drought stress. Each
belt transect also included four sample 10 -meter by 10 -meter grids which were used to assess
herb- and shrub -layer percent cover. Percent cover was determined by species and was broken
into four quartiles (0 -25 %, 26-50 %, 51 -75 %, 76- 100 %). The creek was found to be flowing,
therefore no soil saturation studies were conducted.
The creek was described as being a typical southwestern riparian system, including a broad flood
plain with a narrow creek bed. The creek bed was described as small and shallow, but supported
water flow. The system was found to support typical riparian trees and vegetation including
willows (Salix spp.), California sycamores (Platanus racemosa), coast live oaks (Quercus
agrifolia), cottonwood (Populus fremontii), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), mulefat
(Baccharis salicifolia ssp. salicifolia), and others. It was the author's assessment that the
system appeared to be healthy with no dieback due to drought stress. Oaks and willows showed
no leaf dieback.
7522
1) U D E K 37 April 2013
217 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
7.1.2 January 2002 — (Maderas Golf Club 2001 Annual Biological Report for
Sycamore and Thompson Creeks
This report covers the period between September 2000 and October 2001. The same methods
used to develop the baseline in 2000 were used for this effort. However, they increased the
number of transects and shallow monitoring wells to eight, adding an upstream location. Each
shallow well was monitored from a depth of 11 -14 feet. Hydrologic monitoring of the shallow
wells was initiated during this period and included measuring the depth to water in the wells. On-
site wells were installed in April 2000, while off -site wells were installed in March 2001. Water
level was determined using a metal tape and sound, and water levels were tested monthly.
The transects revealed a large degree of seasonal variability in herbaceous and shrub cover, but
demonstrated little significant change between years. Differences in shrub cover was linked to
poison oak, which was expected due to it being deciduous. Hydrologic levels fluctuated with the
season, with lower water levels during the drier months and rising water levels during the wetter
months. The well that experienced the greatest variability was situated the farthest upstream from
Maderas in Blue Sky Reserve. Within the transects, the ratio of wetland species to upland plant
species increased in all but one transect. No qualitative changes were discerned between the
years. The author's conclusion was there was no indication that water extraction was negatively
affecting riparian vegetation within the creeks.
7.1.3 December 2004 — (Maderas Golf Club 2004 Annual Biological Report for
Sycamore and Thompson Creeks
This report covers the 2004 period. Similar methods as those outlined within the 2000 and
2001 reports were utilized for quantitative monitoring purposes. Similarly, qualitative
monitoring evaluated trees, shrubs, and herb layers for health. Shallow well monitoring was
discontinued in 2004.
The study found that there was little to no impact to the herb or shrub layers. There was also little
change in the percent cover to these layers. Variability in damage to trees was observed, with
some showing distress during some years, but recovering during the next year. The shallow
monitoring wells showed a trend for dropping during the dry years and rising during wetter
years. This was attributed to rainfall rather than well usage. The Thompson Creek well ran dry
for the entire monitoring period (since installation), but was set shallow due to hitting bedrock,
so the well was probably not an effective monitoring well. The upstream (Blue Sky) shallow
monitoring well was the only one to experience a decline when others experienced increases
in water levels. The ratio of wetland herb and shrubs to upland herb and shrub layers
increased in 2001 and 2002, but decreased in 2003 and 2004. Based on the data collected, it
7522
D U D. E K 38 April 2013
218 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
was not possible to determine if this was related to water drawdown, drought, monitoring
later in the year, or some combination. There appeared to be some loss of leaves on some
trees, but this was thought to be more a product of reduced water releases or less seepage
from Lake Poway. Thompson Creek riparian habitat was observed to be in decline prior to
development of Maderas and associated well installations. This creek is mostly formed in
exposed rock. There is no clear cause for the decline in this area though it has been dry since
the initiation of the monitoring in 2000.
7.1.4 December 2009 - Maderas Golf Club CUP Groundwater Monitoring
Program Letter from REC Consultants to Tom Story of
Sunroad Enterprises
This brief letter outlined the impact of the 2007 Witch Creek fire and indicated, that throughout
the 2000 -2004 monitoring period, all changes to riparian habitat health appeared to be naturally
caused and not the result of wells. REC Consultants concurrently monitored several other
mitigation areas on Maderas Golf Club that were unrelated to this effort, but anecdotally
observed that the entire riparian habitat within Sycamore Creek, including those areas previously
studied, were showing vigorous natural post -fire recovery. However, no qualitative, quantitative,
or photo documentation of this was presented.
7.1.5 January 2012 — Maderas Golf Club Riparian Hydrology Report
The City of Poway requested updated monitoring in order to determine the relative health of the
riparian system. REC Consultants provided a qualitative evaluation similar to the previous
efforts, but did not conduct a quantitative assessment; therefore, the results are not directly
comparable. The biologists walked the habitat and compared aerial photographs of the riparian
habitat, both before and after the Witch Creek fire.
The biologists found that there were no damaged, diseased, or dead sections of the riparian zone.
Treetops appeared to be healthy, and plenty of new growth was observed. Herb and shrub layers
appeared to be healthy and thriving. The riparian zone was comprised of mostly typical riparian
vegetation, but some upland species also occurred, particularly along the edges of the habitat
band. This is expected. Water was observed to be present in pools along the creek, and the soil
had high moisture content, even during the summer and fall months. A review of aerial
photographs showed that the extent of the habitat had remained approximately the same since
2000, with the only change occurring because of the 2007 Witch Creek fire. Aerial photographs
taken in 2010 showed that post -fire successional growth is still occurring, but despite vigorous
growth, will still take several years to match the conditions observed in 2002. The report
maintains that Maderas well pumping is not affecting riparian habitat.
7522
D U D E K 39 April 2013
219 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
7.1.6 May 2012 Thompson Creek Groundwater Sustainability Study
This report was written by Dr. Ponce on behalf of the OCE residents. Section 5 of the
report discusses biological processes associated with riparian systems and states that
depletion of groundwater threatens their health. Examples were provided from case studies
in Utah and Arizona.
The report discussed the riparian health in Thompson Creek and stated that the creek may have
already been compromised, comparing current aerial photography to historical geologic map
renderings. The report cited anecdotal recollections of long -term residents in the area regarding
springs and tree die -offs.
7.1.7 November 2012 — Maderas Golf Club Riparian Hydrology Report,
Upstream Monitoring Locations — Blue Sky Ecological Reserve and Old
Coach Way
The purpose of this report was to review the conditions at two upstream locations that were not
covered by the January 2012 report. REC Consultants revisited the 2000 -2004 monitoring
locations to perform a qualitative assessment that evaluated the general health and to note die -
offs, if any. This was not comparable to the 2004 report.
The site visit was conducted in November 2012. At that time, the biologists considered the Blue
Sky transect habitat to look healthy and to still support the same suite of species as it did in 2004.
REC Consultants noted few invasive plants to be present. The riparian vegetation cover was
estimated at 95 %, and standing water was noted to occur in pools. The Old Coach Way
monitoring location included the same suite of species as noted in 2004, had few invasive
species, and supported approximately 85% riparian species cover. There was no standing water,
but the soils were moist. There were no major dead areas within the riparian habitat, and the trees
looked healthy.
7.1.8 Summary
The various monitoring efforts provided basic information regarding the health and vigor of the
system from both a quantitative and qualitative perspective. The various monitoring efforts were
not directly comparable as methods used were not consistent; specific monitoring locations were
apparently not resurveyed; no consistent monitoring station /transect photographs were taken; and
the level of monitoring effort was not consistent. However, despite this, a clear picture was
provided which described a riparian system that did not show decline, was on its way to post -fire
recovery, and has consistently had water resources available to it.
7522
D U D E K 40 April 2013
220 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Mladeras Golf Club
The May 2012 Thompson Creek Report raised several points concluding that drawing water
from wells depletes creeks and threatens the health of Thompson Creek. However, the examples
in Utah and Arizona are from distinctly different systems, and the drawdown of water in those
areas does not correspond with the deep well pumping in this location. No analysis was provided
that included qualitative or quantitative data or analysis, only a few anecdotal observations.
Comparisons between current aerials and historic renderings is not appropriate as it does not take
into account the effects of the 2007 Witch Creek fire and the inherent mapping error when
drawing outlines of vegetation communities on topographic maps versus using orthotopo-
rectified aerial imagery.
7.2 Requirements to Support Riparian Vegetation
Riparian systems require that water be present during at least the growing season, and likely
for much longer. The following section outlines what these minimum requirements are and
what the threats are.
7.2.1 Rooting Depths of Riparian Trees and Emergent Wetlands
Tree species that comprise riparian woodlands typically require some contact with the water
table and capillary fringe that extends above the water table. The height of the capillary fringe is
dictated by soil type. For example, the capillary fringe in a coarse sand may extend only a few
inches above the water table compared to a few feet in silt or clay. The rooting depth of trees
varies by species and by locality with trees in drier environments generally rooting deeper
because of lower water tables than those in moist environments where the water table is
shallower. Similarly, responses to changes in groundwater levels vary among tree species and
localities with trees in drier environments generally being able to adjust rooting depth according
to gradually shifting moisture conditions such as in a drought situation. Symptoms of drought
stress typically occur from the top of the tree and then end downward resulting in "wilting, leaf
color loss, premature leaf drop, reduced leaf size, reduced shoot growth rate, and reduced seed
production' (CH2MHill 2003).
Willows generally require contact with groundwater and become stressed where groundwater
levels are greater than 15 feet bgs (CH2MHil1 2003). Rooting depth has been documented at 2 -9
feet bgs (Lite and Stromberg 2005; Van der Leeden and Troise 1990). Mulefat has been
documented as occurring in areas with groundwater at 9 feet bgs, but was most frequent where
groundwater depth was less than 3 feet ( Stromberg et al. 1996). Cottonwoods are generally
equally reliant on groundwater, requiring constant contact with groundwater or near saturated
soil. However, cottonwoods appear more resilient to groundwater level changes due to a root
structure that can become more extensive both vertically and laterally (Snyder and Williams
7522
DU D E K 41 April 2013
221 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
2000). Cottonwood rooting depth has been documented from 8 -16 feet bgs (Lite and Stromberg
2005; Van der Leeden and Troise 1990). Salt cedar (Tamarix spp.) has been documented in areas
with a groundwater depth of up to 8 feet ( Stromberg et al. 1996). Salt cedar, when compared
with Gooding's black willow (Salix gooddingii), responds more readily to groundwater declines
(Horton and Clark 2001). Whereas Gooding's black willow exhibits lateral root growth in
response to reduced groundwater availability, salt cedar exhibits vertical root growth. Sycamores
and oaks are adapted to drought conditions and do not require the level of soil moisture or
groundwater contact that willows and cottonwoods do. Sycamores may have a root structure
extending 6-8 feet bgs with laterals spreading 16 feet or more and additional vertical roots
extending 4-6 feet below the level of the laterals (10 -15 feet total root depth) (CH2MHill 2003).
Coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) support root structures extending up to 35 feet bgs and may
support mechanisms to transport stored water within fractured bedrock below this depth through
the use of mycorrhizae (Pugnaire and Valladares 2007; Bornyasz et al. 2002).
Emergent wetlands such as freshwater marsh are dependent on near surface groundwater or
surface water being present throughout the year. Based on the reconnaissance surveys, there is
little emergent wetlands habitat present within the study area. These wetlands may be supported
strictly by precipitation and surface water runoff within the immediate area. A groundwater
contribution to emergent wetlands is not consistent with the overall hydrogeology and biology
observed in the area; however, this potential contribution cannot yet be ruled out based on the
reconnaissance surveys completed.
7.2.2 Critical Threats to Major Riparian Vegetation
Groundwater levels are important in directly supporting riparian habitats, which include trees
that require root contact with groundwater. Many riparian plants are adapted to high groundwater
conditions typical along watercourses and react negatively to drought conditions or steep
declines in groundwater. Some species, including most willows and cottonwoods, require contact
with groundwater for most, if not all, the year (Stanley 1993).
Trees that grow in typically wet or moist areas will show the greatest decline when water sources
dry as these invest in more surficial root growth, whereas trees in typically drier areas send their
roots deeper. Root growth will be least in shady, moist riparian environments with high
groundwater (Biswell 1935); therefore, drought susceptibility and water reduction susceptibility
will be highest. As much as 90% of total fine -root mass may be found in upper soil layers in
moist riparian communities (Bunger and Thomson 1938); shallow- rooted trees in moist areas do
not survive well in drying conditions, in contrast to upland species with deep taproots, which
allow them to survive water level fluctuations. Drought symptoms in riparian trees may include
wilting, chlorosis (color loss), premature leaf drop, reduced leaf size, reduced shoot growth rate,
t� K r 7522
p6;JV U D E 42 April 2013
222 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
and reduced seed production (Stanley 1993). Sustained or sudden drought can result in overall
loss of vigor that eventually may kill the tree. Crowns of drought- stricken trees usually die from
the tops down (high -stem dieback).
7.3 Discussion
7.3.1 Previous Studies
As discussed earlier, the previous studies (2000 through 2012) did not provide consistent
qualitative or quantitative analysis of the potentially affected riparian bands along Sycamore
and Thompson Creeks. The methods employed, transect locations, and rigor were not
consistent. However, they all paint a similar picture when describing the riparian bands —
prone to some seasonal leaf dieback associated with seasonal rainfall, but consistently
vigorous and resilient. Throughout the 2000 to 2012 period, water was always present and
available to the riparian plants through free flow, pools, or soil moisture. This water
availability was poorly correlated to well pumping activities with correlations of +18%
between MW -2 and Maderas Well 2 (Figure 10) and +4% between MW -4 and Maderas Well
4 (Figure 16), and strongly correlated to precipitation with correlations of +43% at well MW-
2 and +59% at well MW -4 (Figures 9 and 15).
The May 2012 report did not provide any relevant information to dispute these points.
7.3.2 Supporting Data
As described in Sections 4.3 and 4.4 above, there are two aquifers available in this area. There is
a deeper fractured rock aquifer that the wells draw from, and there is a shallow aquifer that is
tied to alluvium and supports the riparian habitat. These two aquifers are separated from one
another by impermeable rock structures, with the alluvium aquifer perched above the fractured
rock aquifer. As the pumping wells are drilled, a concrete casing is grouted into the hole, thus
isolating the pumped well and fractured rock aquifer from the shallow alluvial aquifer. As stated
above, this shallow alluvial aquifer is strongly supported by precipitation and remained present
throughout the 2000 -2012 monitoring period. Unless a catastrophic event occurs and the
perching substrate fails, thus allowing the perched water to infiltrate into the fractured rock
aquifer, there is no reason to believe that this shallow alluvial aquifer will not continue to
provide water for the riparian habitat.
7522
D U D. E K 43 April 2013
223 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club.
7.3.3 Conclusion
Though comparable data does not exist between the studies conducted between 2000 and 2012,
the consensus is that the riparian habitat is sustaining itself and thriving. Water is present, and the
habitat is recovering from the severe Witch Creek fire in late 2007.
Maderas is drawing from deep wells within fractured rock, while the riparian habitat is supported
by shallow water within the alluvium layer. The presence of water and soil moisture during the
late summer /fall months, combined with observed continued plant growth, indicates that the well
pumping is not affecting the shallow water table, and therefore, is not affecting the riparian
vegetation. An earthquake, well casing failures, or other catastrophic events may change this by
draining the shallow water table into the deeper one, but currently. there is no apparent effect.
7522
D ;U D E K 44 April 2013
224 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
8.0 EVALUATION OF RESTRUCTURED GROUNDWATER
PRODUCTION AND MONITORING PLAN
Maderas proposed modifications to Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 90- 13M(2). The proposed
modifications are based on over 12 years of monitoring data, multiple aquifer tests, biological
assessments and groundwater mapping all of which were prepared at the City's direction. The
proposed modifications primarily relate to groundwater production, groundwater production
monitoring and reporting, and riparian vegetation monitoring and reporting. No change to the
maximum allowable groundwater production established by the existing CUP at 280 acre feet
per year is proposed.
Three groundwater production zones have been identified within the Maderas Golf Club site
based on known and possible hydrogeologic influences on the surrounding area. The zones
generally comprise the south, east, and west areas of the site. The proposed Groundwater
Production and Monitoring Plan (the Plan) identifies monitoring and reporting protocols and
specifies when they are required. The, Plan establishes the amount of annual groundwater
production that can occur within the eastern and southern zones before notifying the City and
conducting certain types of monitoring. The amount of annual groundwater production is
referred to as the groundwater production and monitoring trigger (Trigger). The Plan also
identifies the monitoring and reporting protocols to be followed when the Trigger is exceeded in
these zones. The Trigger for each zone is determined before the start of the water year (October 1
— September 31) and is based on historic groundwater production within the given zone. The
Plan also includes testing and construction requirements for additional wells at the golf course.
In summary, the Plan includes the following production and monitoring protocols:
1. The Trigger for a given zone will be based the highest consecutive 10 year average of
annual groundwater production that occurred within that zone.
2. The Lower Sycamore Creek Test Well (LSCTW) will continue to be monitored to
evaluate impacts of pumping from the Western Zone at Maderas on wells in the Lower
Sycamore Creek community.
a. If the water level at LSCTW falls below 100 feet below ground surface (bgs), then
groundwater production from Maderas Wells 4 and 5 (which have been shown to
influence the water level at LSCTW) and any other operational production well that
the City has determined to influence LSCTW will discontinue until the water level at
LSCTW has recovered to 90 feet bgs or more.
3. The alluvial wells MW -2 and MW -4 will continue to be monitored to evaluate the
impacts of pumping at Maderas on the shallow water table in the alluvium of the
7522
D U D E K 45 April 2013
225 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
Sycamore Creek corridor. If the City Manager (through an analysis conducted by a City -
approved biologist) determines that Maderas groundwater production caused the water
level in the alluvium (as monitored at wells MW -2 and MW -4) to decline to a level that
adversely impacts the riparian vegetation along the portion of Sycamore Creek located
within the limits of the Maderas Golf Course, then the groundwater production from
wells within the southern zone will be limited to no more than the highest consecutive 10
year monthly average for each given month, for one full water year. Further discretion is
given to the City Manager to adjust groundwater production should biological monitoring
indicate whether the riparian habitat continues to be impacted by pumping or not.
4. Maderas Well 6 will be monitored to evaluate the possible effects of pumping Maderas
Wells 7, 9 and 10 on water levels in the OCE community. These wells are permitted to
operate when the water level at Well 6 is 178 feet bgs or higher. Production from Well 6
is only permitted when an aquifer test is conducted at the well and water levels at
OCETW and OCE resident wells are measured to evaluate the possible influence of
pumping Well 6 on OCE resident wells. The OCE residents must not operate their wells a
few days prior, during and after the aquifer test to assure the integrity of the aquifer test.
Groundwater production at Maderas Well 6 is permitted if the City Manager has
determined that groundwater production at Well 6 does not significantly influence the
water level at OCETW and private wells in the OCE residential community.
5. Maderas will use reclaimed water to irrigate the golf course as soon as it becomes
available to the full extent that such water is available, on a first priority basis before raw
water, groundwater, or domestic water is used to irrigate the golf course unless and only
to the extent that the City Council in its sole discretion expressly allows the use of raw or
groundwater for such irrigation.
The proposed Plan includes monitoring and operational protocols for Maderas that are adequate
in protecting the groundwater resources for the riparian habitat along Sycamore Creek within the
limits of Maderas, and the groundwater resources available to the Lower Sycamore Creek and
Old Coach Estates residents.
7522
46 April 2013
226 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
9.0 CONCLUSION
Based on the data provided combined with supplemental research, Dudek concludes that
groundwater pumping at Maderas does not influence the water levels at OCETW and the wells
belonging to OCE residents Bridgewater, Gill, Myers, Tremble and Vaplon, nor does it affect the
alluvial water table that the riparian habitat along Sycamore Creek depends upon. There is no
hydraulic connection between Maderas and OCE given that pumping at Maderas did not
influence water levels at OCE and the depth and orientation of deep, major water bearing
fractures indicates no fracture connectivity between the two areas. There is no groundwater flow
from Maderas to OCE because there is no hydraulic connection between the two areas despite
the higher water levels recently measured at Maderas compared to OCE. Additionally, pumping
at Maderas will not create potential salinity issues for groundwater produced at OCE because the
two areas are not hydraulically connected. Runoff from applied irrigation water at the golf course
will not affect OCE water quality because the runoff is either contained on the golf course or
discharges to Sycamore Creek downstream of OCE. The contribution of dissolved salts in runoff
from Maderas to Lake Hodges may be insignificant and not adversely affect the water quality at
the reservoir based on the estimated TDS concentration of applied water and the markedly small
volume of runoff from Maderas to Lake Hodges.
Water levels at OCETW and the Bridgewater, Gill, Myers, and Vaplon wells did not respond to
pumping at Well 6 despite Well 6 being in the Thompson Creek watershed. Well 6 is offline and
will remain so under the restructured groundwater production and monitoring plan proposed for
the modified CUP. If Maderas wants to bring the well online, then Maderas is required to
conduct an aquifer test at the well to confirm that pumping does not significantly influence the
water level at OCETW and other OCE resident wells. This requirement is in place because no
aquifer test has been conducted at Well 6 that included water level monitoring at the OCE wells.
Aquifer testing at Maderas demonstrated that the Lower Sycamore Creek Test Well (LSCTW)
was influenced by pumping at Maderas Wells 4 and 5. Maderas will continue to monitor the
water level at LSCTW, per the restructured groundwater production and monitoring plan, and
will regulate pumping at Wells 4 and 5 (and any additional wells that aquifer testing has
demonstrated to influence the water level at LSCTW) to protect the groundwater resources for
the Lower Sycamore Creek residents.
Previous biological surveys indicated that the riparian habitat was prone to some seasonal leaf
dieback associated with seasonal rainfall, but was consistently characterized as vigorous and
resilient. Water was always present and available to the riparian plants through free flow, pools,
or soil moisture throughout the 2000 -2012 period. Fluctuations of the shallow groundwater in
7522
D a,,,fl D E K 47 April 2013
227 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
the alluvium, from which the riparian habitat is reliant, was influenced by precipitation and
stream flow rather than pumping at Maderas.
Groundwater production at Maderas is limited to 280 acre -feet per water year, as established
in the 'CUP. Groundwater production of 280 acre -feet at Maderas will not adversely affect
water levels at OCE wells and the riparian habitat because the fractured rock wells that
Maderas produces water from are not hydraulically connected to the wells in the OCE
community nor do they influence the shallow groundwater in the overlying alluvium that the
riparian habitat relies upon.
Maderas has proposed to amend existing CUP 90- 13M(2) to allow continued use of groundwater
for irrigation purposes under a revised Groundwater Production and Monitoring Plan. The
revised plan would allow Maderas to continue extracting groundwater up to a maximum allotted
280 acre -feet per year. However, the extraction and use of this resource would occur under a
revised monitoring and reporting program.
Based Ion Dudek's review of the proposed revised Groundwater Production and Monitoring Plan
coupled by the City's discretionary approval for the revised CUP, compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act must occur. The new program in effect replaces the existing
mitigation measures outlined in the 2000 MND that initially analyzed the use of groundwater as
a potential source of irrigation water. Dudek's environmental planning team has reviewed the
proposed changes and has concluded that no new or more intense impacts to the environment
would ibccur as a result of the revised program. Because there would be no new or no impacts
that weren't previously disclosed in the 2000 MND, Dudek recommends an Addendum to the
2000 MND be prepared to comply with the requirements of CEQA.
7522
D U D .E K 48 April 2013
228 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
10.0 REFERENCES
Biswell, H.H. 1935. "Effects of Environment Upon the Root Habits of Certain Deciduous Forest
Trees." Botanical Gazette 96: 676 -708.
Bornyasz, M.R. Graham, and M. Allen. 2002. "Distribution of Quercus agrifolia mycorrhizae
Deep within Weathered Bedrock: A Potential Mechanism for Transport of Stored
Water." In Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Oak Woodlands: Oaks in California's
Challenging Landscape, edited by R.B. Standiford et al., 821 -822. Gen. Tech. Rep.
PSW- GTR -184. Albany, California: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, .
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Bunger, M.T. and H.J. Thomson. 1938. "Root Development as a Factor in the Success or Failure
of Windbreak Trees in the Southern High Plains." Journal of Forestry 36:790 -803.
CH2MHill. 2003. Conceptual Groundwater Management Plan for the San Diego River System.
Prepared for the City of San Diego. May 2003.
City of San Diego, 2001. Watershed Sanitary Survey, Volume I of 5, Executive Summary.
Prepared by the San Diego Water Department. January. Revised May 2003.
City of San Diego, 2011. 2010 Watershed Sanitary Survey. Prepared by the City of San Diego
Public Utilities Water & Wastewater Water Operations Branch, Environmental
Monitoring and Technical Services Division. March 1.
City of Poway. 2000. Environmental Initial Study, Environmental Checklist Form, and Mitigated
Negative Declaration: City of Poway. August 29, 2000.
City of Poway. 2011. City of Poway Annual Water Quality Report — 2011: City of Poway.
County of San Diego. 2007. County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance and
Report Format and Content Requirements: Groundwater Resources. Land Use and
Environment Group, Department of Land Use and Planning, Department of Public
Works. March 19, 2007.
County of San Diego. 2012. "Average Annual Rainfall." San Diego County Flood Control
District. Accessed February 28, 2013. http : / /www.sdcfcd.org /annrain.html.
Don Howard Engineers. 2000. Hydrologic Study of the Sycamore Creek Sub - Basin. Covina,
California: Don Howard Engineers. July, 28, 2000.
Horton, J.L. and J.L. Clark 2001. "Water Table Decline Alters Growth and Survival of Salix gooddingii
and Tamarisk chinensis Seedlings." Forest Ecology and Management 140(2- 3):239 -247.
U p 7522
U
D D E K 49 April 2013
229 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
Lite, S.J. and J.C. Stromberg. 2005. "Surface water and ground -water thresholds for maintaining
Populus - Salix forests, San Pedro River, Arizona." Biological Conservation 125:153 -167.
Ponce, V.M. 2012. Thompson Creek Groundwater Sustainability Study. May 7, 2012.
Pugnaire, F. and F. Valladares, eds. 2007. Functional Plant Ecology, 2nd ed. CRC Press.
REC Consultants Inc. 2004. Maderas Golf Club 2004 Biological Report for Sycamore and
Thompson Creek. Prepared for Sunroad Enterprises. San Diego, California: REC
Consultants Inc. December 2004.
REC Consultants Inc. 2012. Maderas Golf Club Riparian Hydrology Report. Prepared for
Sunroad Enterprises. San Diego, California: REC Consultants Inc. January 2012.
SCS Engineers. 201 Oa. Aquifer Test Report. Prepared for the City of Poway. San Diego,
California: SCS Engineers. April 16, 2010.
SCS Engineers. 201 Ob. Revised Hydrogeological Assessment Report, Maderas Golf Club,
Poway, California. Prepared for Sunroad Enterprises. San Diego, California: SCS
Engineers. July 7, 2010.
SCS Engineers. 2012a. Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, October 2010 through
September 2011, Maderas Golf Course, Poway, California. Prepared for Sunroad
Enterprises. San Diego, California: SCS Engineers. March 16, 2012.
SCS Engineers. 2012b. Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report October 2011 through
September 2012 Maderas Golf Course. Prepared for Sunroad Enterprises. San Diego,
California: SCS Engineers. December 3, 2012.
SCS Engineers. 2012c. Review /Comment of Thompson Creek Groundwater Sustainability Study,
dated May 7, 2012 (Study). Prepared for Sunroad Enterprises. San Diego, California: SCS
Engineers. July 17, 2012.
Snyder, K.A. and D.G. Williams. 2000. "Water Sources Used by Riparian Trees Varies Among Stream
Types on the San Pedro River, Arizona." Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 105:227-240.
Stanley, T.J. 1993. A Literature Synthesis: Relationship Between Surface and Groundwater
Hydrology and Riparian Vegetation. Prepared for The Habitat Restoration Group.
November 15, 1993.
Stromberg, J.C., R. Tiller, and B. Richter. 1996. "Effects of Groundwater Decline on Riparian
Vegetation of Semiarid Regions: The San Pedro, Arizona." Ecological Applications
6(1):113 -131.
7522
D U D E K 50 April 2013
230 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
Van der Leeden, F. and F.L. Troise. 1990. The Water Encyclopedia. 2nd ed. CRC Press.
Wiedlin, M. 2012. Summary of Hydrogeologic Information Pertaining to Groundwater Conditions in
the Vicinity of the Maderas Golf Club and the Old Coach Estates Community, letter report
prepared by Matt Wiedlin & Associates Inc. of San Diego, California. March 26.
DUDEK
7522
51 April 2013
231 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
[011 1O W! Ci
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
52
7522
April 2013
232 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
11.0 PREPARERS
Steven Stuart, P.E., Senior Hydrogeologist
Lydia Roach, PhD, Hydrogeologist
Brock Ortega, Senior Biologist
Sarah Lozano, AICP, Senior Environmental Planner
Amy Seals, Technical Editor
Lesley Terry, GIS Analyst
Devin Doyon, Publications Specialist
DUDEK
7522
53 April 2013
233 of 374 November 1'9, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
®UD` K
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
7522
54 April 2013
234 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
7 ,
<
0
G�
El Toro
Station El
Toro Rancho
San0Marganta
Laguna
Al Hills Mission Coto De
Vejo ►Gaza
iso
Viejo Trabuco
Highlands
Laguna r
Niguel Sa�Juan
Capistrano range r
Dana O nUnH �c
Point San
Cie me Saco
✓lo�en�
Valley
Woodcrest
Nuevo
Hemet Hemet
Fallbrook m
Camp
Pendleton
North
Bonsall
Pendleton Hidden
south Oceanside Meadows Valley
Vista Center
San
Marcos Escondido
Carlsbad Project Site
I�~
Encinitas Ramona
San Diego
Country
Poway \�J Estates
Riverside County
San Diego County
Palm City
P a c i f i C 4Coronatdo
— Santee Lakeside Pine
Alpine Valley
Harbison
Canyon
O c e a n EhGajon
La 1Casa de
Mesa Oro-Mount Helix
•emo"y�`'RancrhoSan
Spring Diego__
Grove Valley Jamul
� National Bo nita
0 5 0 5
=kNOWOMMEMI
DUDEK
s 7522
Third Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
1 Vsta _ �� — Campo
Imperial
Beach _ - --
MEXICO
I
FIGURE 1
Regional Map
235 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource
Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
7522
56 April 2013
236 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
237 of 374
i V
r, W
November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
N p
Lu CL
>
m
LL N
d
- =LL =S-6m
°
R
3 o
m
a
E
j
j
m n U °ow° O
°
C
i° °
m a
o i 0 3 a
x
v o w°
Q
_
m o
°30> o�> "�
°$
L
=
m
mho
i
Qi a
i cr
F
in
3
H
=�a�«a��a °
n
_
{5
3
g
1
5
°
i
3
p
w
�
�
w
r a
a •_
E
1 t,�
m
°
u
•
18,
-
237 of 374
i V
r, W
November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
d
v
O
N
N1
Q'
l6 �
ci y
_O
M_0
W j
cz
� s
s
t4 1
.2 .1
_O
25
d i
0�
=E
0�
�i
m:
a
W
z
a
F
w
w
J
Q
z
0
F
z
w
z
Y
W
238 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
239 of
74
am
3 _
U
2
TF
°
K f
2
_
3ms
3
m
3 o
-�
m
gOW of v
c o
='w
W
¢
$ a t ° °
113
is
E
3
m
°m
�" W
a 9 0v°
U
R =�c5
UZ�'m�mf o
°3om� osm °� >>
0
0
0
C
m p m m
a u
U
c
o
c
" c
c D
m E m
m °
° m m`m °R, °Oa
i W
E
i af
u) m a a m m
g 3
3aay. m IE
Qi a
m o W n
°
9' 2.20 ..'
0
10 _��$._$3�3.
74
am
°
3
a
Y
Jt �s
Y =
w !�
� Q
LL .
N
m
t`o
r
C
7
Dm
w
3
M
3
a
�o
Z,
.E
'v
v
� W
2013 li
em # 3.1
3 _
U
2
TF
°
K f
2
_
°
3
a
Y
Jt �s
Y =
w !�
� Q
LL .
N
m
t`o
r
C
7
Dm
w
3
M
3
a
�o
Z,
.E
'v
v
� W
2013 li
em # 3.1
U
L
O
N
Q
A
U
M
O
OED
v
c
R
U
tM
O
6
d
O
L
w
O
3
m
d
�a
a
L
F
z
Q
a
m
w
W
a
r
a
a
Q
z
0
F
z
w
F
z
N
Q
240 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
241 �of 374 November 1'l,ID13 Item # 3.1
d
U
3
O
W
d �
Q'
N C
U V_
_O (
M_O
W j
cZ
� e
—s
t0 �
U J
t71 +
o�
O V
d S
Of �
O •-
t
2�
0 �
o4
m�
Q
ea
d
t
z
a
f�
F
W
a
a
a
Q
Z
O
F
z
a
F
z
N �
Q
_v
W
0
242 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
374 November 19, 2013 Iten
t 3.1
w w
� c
(u!) uo!leudPaJd *IuOW level
a
L
.....___._
.:,.. . ..__.
_..._ ....
__. __ ..... ......
__...' - _.. _.. _..
. « ......... ............_...........
2012
c
i
j
O
r
r
!
i
!
c
R
. .........
—__
._ .......... ......
2 010
N
–r
t
O
- :- - "—
'-----'- i
----*------ --'-- "- -_Y.- .._.__.-. .._._--.....
}.----_..__........
.....: _
._.. 2008
!
�.._...__..__._.... Y.._...... -.__ ...-
_.....p.._._.........__..._
_.__._ 2006
C
i
;
p
!__......_..-- ........
.......... {.. ....____.........
_._. ........ __ ......... ----
.__. t....-_._ .... .. ............ ...---- -'-t...'-- _....__ ---------------- ...... .... .. ..... ... _. ... .......
......_ _....._....._._.._...........
.. 2004
i
i..
�
U
2002
i
c
i
A
I
—
o
:
2000
I
--
t- -- .._-
_--......_ 1......_...._._......__.._.....
;
.._T._...____...._.....__.._...
__.._......__.1_...__.__.___.
— t- _.--- -.____ I ..._.
!
.._..__...,.._.._._.._.._._..__
_ -_.. -_
_......._.... 1998
a
T
i
0
�_ ...
_.. ....... ___
_. ___ :....._.._._...
._,.. ... _..__.. _ .. ..__..... _._.___.._
_ ....
...
.. _
_.. .. .
- - _.._ 1994
r
!
I
1992
:
I
I
i
r
!
I
1990
a
i
i
I
_ i
i
s
i._...._.._ �._.___._.....
....... _ .......
..t....___..._.._
_.__..__......_.........}.__...__.._.
._._.__- _
._._...._...._�..—.._�
1 _ ------ ----------
__.._ _ _.........___._ ..............._
1968
i
i
!
V
.t........._._______
e
r---
C7
i
-i ... .. ........... .. 1 .____--- __
- } —_.
1986
w
o
.. _._. 1
_..__._.�_...
!
_
m
!
r
!
_.«_...
.......... ..... ........____...;._.__..__.___.... ._..____.�_____..____._...
—____ __........____.....,.._.._
1984
0
:
-
E
`
-_ ....................... _
�
_
1982
c
. __..
i
..__.. .._. .
._.._.._
�
.__
-
1980
=
0
d
'
'o
m
-__ ...........
A
-- ...... .--Y...._.__�___.�,
_ .. _.._.._ ......
:
............___.
1976
�
u
-
n
,,
d
n
_
u
a _..__._........._..
c
..
_ ._..---...._-.---...__..._.._........._.._.... . }....-- _...........---...._.._
....
_
1976
Om
-
m
3
o
A
r
`
i
__ ........... +...... .....
------_ ___......... ..... .. --- -
r- r' -- -' — ' -''
-- .._ .........._..
.....
1974
$
E
!
-
o
o
o
.. __- ......_ ,....._. _ _._._..
...
1972
g
u
s
r
E
r
C
E_.._.........____........_..;.._......___..___
I..._._._....
._._.
1970
I_......__._
„___ ......._ ._..__
.....
.... .....!
IE
1968
NO
ueayy A144UO W wo.; amyeda0 aepgnulm
W
0
374 November 19, 2013 Iten
t 3.1
d
U
7
O
to
d �
t6 (
O) I
_O(
_OI
m
� I
ci
M ;
cv J
C1 +
O�
O r
d I
O) I
O ••
� I
2
w I
O j
ca
a
V
z
Q
a
o�
w
W
W
7^
a
.a
Q
Z
O
z
W
F
z
N r
r N
Q
Y
W
244 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
245
3.1
m-
z�
N842ul) IRiuRll N47uoW -ueew uwy ainyedad aApelnwwn:)
ME
LL a
oe eqi n ° o .°i n
_y— —
I
C
I
O
I•
E
3
I
o
W
a
m
V
3
U
I
>
_. - _
I
J.._....
}
N
_
...._...
,a
s
C
C
^L`d
y
V
c
V
df
IM
I
�
V
Q 1
J
�
U
L
I
LU
�
m
l6
H
m
J
o
r
�
c
0
s
u
o '
o
ZL
K
s
0
0
o_
a
m
I
o
I
I
�
m
�
0
a`
r
=
;
I
r
m
0
(88(3AVN u) uopenal3 �ajMpunojg
n
m
c
0
a
r
r
W
0
of 374
November 19, 2013
Item
3.1
d
V
L
O
y
d j
Q'
R C
2 y
f71 f
O
co
j
-a f
cz
� s
— s
lE
V S (
f3f +
O
O y
�s
sT
o
� s
2�
O(
� f
LL
S
f
fti e
a
L
r
z
a
a
LF�
W
W
a
O_
W
rIl
a�
N O
h NCg
G
x
W
246 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
24
3.1
^ C
w O
r
( SuNuw4 MP-NI
D
m o^ u0i g r9i °n .°+ o
LL
0
a
I,
e
Io
m
R
m
I
�
o
m
o
C
O
2
CL
>"
f
M
C
Im
m
I
o
�
;71
_M
LL
—
I
v
3
m
^ I
4 I
R
3
rn
I
a
o
m
F-
LU
R
o
�
a
;
m
J
I
I
y
I
�
g
U
a
I
o
E
c
w`o
I
a
m`
c
o
o'
o
$
}
m
v
m
m
S
I
a
�
A
a
g
LL'
I
i
o
Y
8 o
QQ o 0 0 8
a
0
n
89
�o v'ni
yf a° m in
ry
W
(88OAVN HI uopeeal3 jazempunoi!)
Q
0
24
3.1
d
v
0
N
d �
to C
U„
� 1
O
cc
O_ 1
m �
� 1
ci
ca ;
—.
0 1
U_ s
O
Ow
41 t
O
�1
we
O j
2�
�c
c
ca
a
v
s
z
Q
a
oa
F
u..
W
a
a
a
Q
z
0
F
z
W
F
z
N M
N
Q
Y
w
O
D
248 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
249
3.1
W �
� O
� r
LL 7
a
CL
E
a
-o
m
v
a
c
a
C
N N M V Ln lD oo m vi w d
w
>= a -o E
A
`
d
v v v m v w v w v u
m °uI
> ` a
y
(saPul) Ile;ulea AlWoyy -ueayy woi; ainliedap aAllelnwn:)
m
o
O O O O O O O
l0 Vl V M N N ~ N
y
N
0
U
o
L
O
a
c
R
�
U
J
G
d
y
i
1
1
d
a
1
is
1
N
N
_y
C
7
d
i
J
d
I
N
j
N
10
I
a
?
U
L
O
a
IF
u
i O
�
°
E
`o
E
i
o
'o
�
d
N
I
�
i
N
i
O O O O O O O O
O to O to O V1 O
Ln a R m m N N N
o
0
C
O
(884AVN u) uoilen813
a
0
v`
2
`o
3
rc
t
a
a
Y
W
of 374 November 19, 2013 Item
3.1
U
L
O
N
d
Q'
10
U
cm
O
O_
m
c
U
0)
O
O
d
O
L
w
O
3
d
O
Q'
M
a
L
F'
1
z
Q
W
..l
.d
Q
z
0
F
z
w
F
2
� N
a
Q
W
a
250 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
251
3.1
C7 10
LL
0
M
(SaPu!)
uo!jejjdl3aJd
A144UOVY
00
n tD
u1
zr
>
0
>
— ---
— — --
7
— — — oo a
Ti—
a
o
O.Ef
C
13
rn
lo
+
0
O
O
u
Ql
O
O
O
O
O
m
v
vi
In
Go
(n
(a:)epns
punoiS
molaq
Taal) JaleM-01-41da(3
"6
uj
of 374 November 19,1013 Item
3.1
d
U
7
O
to
d �
IE (
U�
D7 1
O
_O I
m �
� I
c�
� I
U�
C)
o1
E)
ml
a)
o
al
� 1
O j
d �
I
I
IE i
a
v
s
x
z
a
W
a
a
a
z
0
z
w
F
i
N
n
Q
252 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
of
3.1
o N
W
LL N
R
m
l6
m
C
Q
3
a
(laa ;- ne) Z IIaM le 8uidwnd
Ln N O I� Ln N O u1 O V1 O
N N N rl N N N Il Ln N O
N
4
A
N
N
N
>
J
m
I
3
0
N
d!
o 3
c 0
'o m
-• c
Q
E
a
sr,
ID W
O
D
�
c v
�p J
N
3
N
3
O
"
i
0
s`
o
E
`o
C
oe
`o
oo
ti
+ C
c
o
c
o
u
op
t0
N
�
O
U
m
p
O
a
c
O O O O O O O O O O O
oo (h O
N
p
)a:)epns punoi8 Molaq laa ;) jaleM- 04-yldaa
C
i
rc
r
a
0
r
Y
W
0
0
174 November 19. 2013 Item J
3.1
V
L
0
N
d
f6 (
V �
'Q1
O(
_O,
m
o�
Ow
d ,
D7 i
o�
w
Oj
m'
ea
a
L
p4
z
Q
a
ra
w
.a
..1
Q
z
0
F
z
w
F
z
N t7
N
N O
!` N
Q
254 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
25� of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
wa
D E
LLa
N
A
d
�0
N
N
(laa; -ane) uo!pnpaAd pla!j llaM sejapeyy
m
0 0 0
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o
>
pp pp 0
9 9 O � N N
J
� � u0i
C
w
3
ry
ti
El
m
l
O
C
r
o0
m
c
a
E
o
a
c
ro m
0
m
IQ�
I
>
a
c
C �
� N
M
N
U
3
L
r
�
a
S
E
`o
a
01
N
o
+
N
O
II
C
O
O
U
rn
0
o
pp
m
m
g
0 r
v v ad ai 0
(a3epns punoi8 mo!aq 3aal) jaleM- 0; -43dap
v`
2
5
3
Y
'm
C
C
a
0
Y
W
1
D
25� of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
fU
V
L
O
N
d
c6 f
v
c.
O(
O
M
R'
.2.
O
O�
eV
tT
O.
x
o`
m
d
a
r
x
z
Q
a
m
F
w
W
_1
J
Q
z
0
F
z
w
F
z
Q
256 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
25
I
I
3.1
N
r
W '�-
j C
LL T
T
L
C
O
N
N
3
(sagaul) u
uopeNdP -
-d AILPUOW
m w
w n
n w
w ,n a
a m
m N o
o N
N
3
0 9
m
o �
�
i
J
i
3
0
m
a
Q u
d
`a
i
4
i
6----- -
- - - - -- .
- - - -- -
----- .................
aacre r
a -
3
- -
- - - - -- -
+
r
a
O N
3
b
,
v
v
J �
�
L
0 ~
� 4
~ o
3 1
Y
So
o 7
4 0
7 C
0 O
O o
6
,n O
O ,
o O
O ,
O O
O
O
O a
.
+ -
+ -
m m
m v
v,
0
a 0
(aae}jns p
punoj2 M
Molag e
ea;) AWAA-o3 -
-43da4
i 8
8 r
s s m °
rc av c f
f �
Y W
W
7 of 374 NovemberAV,"21 11 'Y O
I
I
3.1
3.1
v
L
O
y
d
t6 (
U�
t.
O (
O_
m
C
t4 `
.2.
_O
O•
d
C1
O•
'LC '
T
x
o`
d�
a
L
H
yG
Z
Q
..7
R1
W
.a
J
.a
Q
z
O
F
z
w
F
2
N M
�Ntl O
h NC
6
Q
Y
W
0
258 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
of 374 November 19, 201 3 Item # 3.1
W �CC
� L
LL
H
d
d
J
d
A
3
0
(laa; -aj:)e) uoipnpoJd
0
0
0
C4 c„
0 0 0 o
i nj O
O
O O
W
N
N
N Cl t0
n'1
O 0
O
W
C
-
o
c
�
z
E
i
IL
o c
g
O u
o
a`
m
v
0 3
n
c
0
u
o -O
0
m
o_
Q N
61
3
f
0
c
0
u
a
0
�
rl
1
a
U
m
T
o
f
c
N
p
o_
ID
O
`o
fo m
T
ti
`o
i
�
�p
O
u
u
i
CL
Q
p
M
.2
O
O
m
p
O
i
lD
O
O �
a
-
.O
o
p p
O O
p p p p p
O O O O O
O
O
N
a
W 00 O N a
6
00
0
(s24 8) ja:WM- o3-43d &4
='
`o
3
Y
rc
C
a
a
Y
W
0
of 374 November 19, 201 3 Item # 3.1
d
V
L
7
O
U)
d �
f6 (
� I
O (
_OI
m
� I
c�
v]
_O
O V
d I
rn
O j
I
i�
V_ I
o�
d
I
a
r
�4
z
a
w
w
w
a
a
a
z
0
F
z
w
F
z
N CI
N r
r N
n
Q
Y
W
260 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
2611 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
�o
j LU N
� T
LL 7
7
(D
Q
N
r
C
!0
(3aa;
-aj:)e)
uol:pnpoJd
Z IRM pue
(say:)u!)
uolle4idi3aJd Alq;uoyy
o
N 01 00
A
N
d
ry
d
J
O
3
C4
o
�
N
,y o
a`
d N
Q _
cu
\
�
3
\
N
N
c
\ O 2
i
I
~
N
� �
U
't
a
\\
e
n
10
o
-- - -
- -
--
- -_
O
o
0
m
a
c
en
O (n
O N N
O
p
(a:)epns
punoj8
molaq
iaa;) ja;eM-
03 -41daa
o`
=
8
e
Y
K
T
C
a
v
r
f
Y
W
2611 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
d
U
7
O
y
d
fE
U r
tM
O
O_,
m I
'O
c'
R;
U,
0):
O'
Ow
O
�I
Oj
w�
0
m
�o
CL
z
x
z
Q
a
m
w
w
a
a
a
Q
z
0
F
z
w
F
29
r N
�a
Q
262 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
of 374 NovembdV'19, 2013 Item # 3.1
LL
0
2
(Sa43u!) uopej!dpaAd A141UOW
cls 14
>
ti
--------- tg--
13-
— — —
— — — —
— --
c
-42F-
E3--
O
O
13---1
--49-
oo
--430--
0
7c,
1
19-
c
o
a)
>
J
j0
U
--EF-
-EF-
0
0
1
------------
El
rn
Ln
cli
9
18
+
it
0
O
O
O
2o
O o 0
ID o a) c4 rn
(a:)epns punoig molaq laaJ) JaleM-01-41daa
x
o
rc
W
of 374 NovembdV'19, 2013 Item # 3.1
U
7
O
N
d �
f0 (
U�
O) i
O (
O_1
m
.2�
a'+
o'
O
N
a�
o.
w '
Oj
d
>,
�v
a
s
k
z
a
m
w
a
a
a
z
0
H
z
w
F
z
n NCC
6
Q
Y
LU
O
D
264 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
�a
w
C7 N
LL �
47
M
!0
C
R3
C
0
.t
(3aa; -ane) 8uidwnd
4 HaM
r-1
0 0
0\ 00
0
0 0
P ID Ln
0
e}
0 0
M
0
N
o
N
O
r
N
N
>
N
C
A
d
1
d
J
d
O
c
m
j
a
v
Oo 3
0
c �
'° ao
c
Q
E
a
ID
o w
N J
3
v
a
°
3
v
C
�
o
0
`C
o
0
�
+
II
O
C
V
C
O
0
o
-
O
O
U
0
o
m
a
I
p
$
o
v
Ln to
rl
°d m
o
. r.4
N
O
a
(a3epns
punoa8 molaq
3aa;) ja3eM-
o3 -43daa
x'
0
3
s"
z
a
`r
Y
W
0
of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
d
U
7
O
N
d j
l6 �
U y
O /I
W �
c=
eo ;
t4 �
U S
01+
O
Oy
m t
O ..
-p e
2 �
Oi
c
�a
a
v
t
�4
z
a
m
F
Cr.
w
Q
z
C
F
z
w
F
z
�s
r tV
Q
Y
W
c
D
0
266 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
267�of 374 November 19, 2013 Item � 3.1
n y
R
�
W
7 C
i c
LL c
R
C
O
.;
0
1
CL
2.
r
(laa; -ane)
uo!pnPoJd
P!a!j !!aM
seJapeyy
p
14
o pp
01 °0
pp
rl
b
L
M
N
N O
2
N
N
N
C
R
GL-
>
>
d
J
d
R
3
ti
C
R
m
C
Q
m E
0 3
c a
m
:1
to
o >
c v
�o
io
3
�
o
a
C
R
�
L
o
o
E
`o
c
a
`o
0
ry
O
+
11
C
9
`
C
O
f0
°
d
O
U
a
0
°
v
c
Q
A
u
C
O O
O
O O
O O
O
O
O
O
°
Vl lD
1� oo
Ql
O
.�-/ N
N
H
T
0
(a:)epns punoiP
Mo!aq
laa ;) JaleM-01-yldap
v`
i
E
rc
z
a
Y
W
267�of 374 November 19, 2013 Item � 3.1
U
7
O
0
d 1
t4 (
_U v
Q) t
O(
_O
m �
s= z
�s
rn•
o�
O v
�s
s� s
o..
w �
os
di
s
fC s
a
s
z
a
r�
H
w
w
a
a
a
z
0
w
z
N t7
N O
1� N
Q
Y
W
0
268 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
269
3.1
m�
W �CC
� C
LL C
M
M
f0
N
d
J
d
(;aa} -ane) uo!PnpoJd jalempunojg
o Lq o n o o
u1 N O 1� N O v1 O ul O
N N N O
O
C
7
Ai
r
O
`m
Y
O.
77�
O d
u
O 4
O
O
0o u
Q �
O
a`
a
w
M
,6
e
� �
U
a
�
d �
LL
o
�
u �O
`o
O
O
rn
`o
7
�
c
f
'
M
Q
u
o
m
9
u
O O O O O O O O O O O
V Ln %G N 00 M O 14 .N-I In
C
(s8q 3}) JaleM- 01-41da(3
a`
x'
s
3
rc
e'
a
v
L
H
Y
W
of 374 November 19;'20111 "'Item
3.1
d
U
L
7
O
H
d S
� C
O
m
O S
� e
— s
t6 (
V S
_O a
Or
O L
O
e
a
w (
O �
a
L
i
x
z
Q
07
Ls.
W
^7
Q
z
0
F
Z
W
F
z
N
n N
n
y
W
0
270 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Appendix B
Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration
271 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Sustainability of Groundwater
Withdrawal at Maderas
Maderas Golf Club
Poway, California
Presented to:
Mr. Tom Story
Sunroad Enterprises
4445 Eastgate Mall, Suite 400
San Diego, California 92121
Presented by:
SCS ENGINEERS
8799 Balboa Avenue, Suite 290
San Diego, California 92123
(858) 571 -5500
September 9, 2013
File No. 01203535.17
Offices Nationwide
www.scsengineers.com
272 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Sunroad Enterprises
September 9, 2013
File No. 01203535.17
Mr. Tom Story
Sunroad Enterprises
4445 Eastgate Mall, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92121
RE: Sustainability of Groundwater Withdrawal at Maderas
Site: Maderas Golf Club
Poway, California
Dear Mr. Story:
SCS Engineers is pleased to present this assessment of the sustainability of the groundwater
extraction at Maderas (Assessment). This work has been conducted on behalf of Sunroad
Enterprises in support of requested modifications to the requirements of the City of Poway
Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 90- 13M(2) and Planning
Resolution P- 00 -65, dated September 5, 2000.
Should you have any questions regarding this Assessment, please do not hesitate to call the
undersigned at (858) 571 -5500.
Sincerely. --,
�J
Tom Wright, PG 7972, CHg 980
Senior Project Professional
SCS ENGINEERS
Enclosures
TW
F:\Projects\203 \500 to 550 \535 (Sunroad) \01203535.17 (Maderas 2009 -2010 Annual Groundwater Monitoring
Report) \Sustainability Letter -SCS \01205535 17 sustainable yield Revision final 090913.docx
ustainability Assessment i September 2013
273 of 31% November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Sunroad Enterprises
Section
2
3
No.
Table of Contents
Summary............................................................................ ...............................
Page
Geology.............................................................................................................. ..............................2
Physiographic Setting and Regional Geology ..................................... ..............................2
Siteand Site Vicinity Geology ................................................................ ..............................2
HydrologicSetting ............................................................................................. ..............................3
Methodology....................................................................................................... ..............................3
Precipitation........................................................................................................ ..............................4
Lower Sycamore Creek Test Well ( LSCTW) ................................................. ..............................5
Groundwater Withdrawals
L
RiparianHabitat ................................................................................................ ..............................7
Conclusions........................................................................................................... ..............................7
Figures
1 Maderas Golf Course Site Vicinity
2 Lower Sycamore Creek Test Well (LSCTW) Groundwater Elevation and Total Monthly
Precipitation Vs. Time
3 Lower Sycamore Creek Test Well (LSCTW) Average Monthly Groundwater Elevation and
Precipitation Cumulative Departure From the Mean - Monthly Vs. Time
4 Lower Sycamore Creek Test Well (LSCTW) Average Monthly Groundwater Elevation and
Total Monthly Precipitation Vs. Time
5 Lower Sycamore Creek Test Well (LSCTW) Average Monthly Groundwater Elevation and
Total Groundwater Withdrawals Vs. Time
6 Lower Sycamore Creek Test Well (LSCTW) Total Monthly Groundwater Withdrawals and
Total Monthly Precipitation Vs. Time
Appendices
A Average Monthly Precipitation — NOAA Station Number USC000471 11 - Poway Valley,
California, USA
B LSCTW Average Monthly Groundwater Elevation
Sustainability Assessment ii September 2013
274 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Sunroad Enterprises
SUMMARY
To assess the sustainability of the 11 years of groundwater extraction in the Sycamore Creek
watershed by the Maderas Golf Club ( Maderas), SCS Engineers (SCS) evaluated the relationship
between the froundwater elevation in the Lower Sycamore Creek Test Well (LSCTW),
precipitation , and volume of groundwater withdrawn from Maderas' 10 production wells
(Wellsl through 10) between water year 2000 -2001 and water year 2010 -2011 (October 1, 2000
through September 30, 2011). Maderas is located in the Sycamore Creek watershed and the
LSCTW is located downgradient with respect to groundwater flow and gradient of Maderas
within this watershed (Figure 1).
Because LSCTW is located in the primary drainage area for the Sycamore Creek watershed, it
would be expected that groundwater overdrafting or decreases in recharge occurring upgradient
of LSCTW such as droughts would manifest as lower groundwater elevations in LSCTW.
Therefore, the groundwater elevation in LSCTW was judged to be an appropriate indicator or
proxy for the sustainability of groundwater withdrawals and, therefore used to assess the net
change in groundwater storage in the Sycamore Creek watershed.
The period assessed was from the beginning of the 2000 -2001 water year (October 1, 2000)
through the 2010 -2011 water year (September 30, 2011), which represents the full -scale
operation of production wells at Maderas and the period for which a consistent groundwater
elevation dataset exists for LSCTW. Groundwater elevations in LSCTW and precipitation during
this time period are presented (Figure 2). During the assessment period, Maderas had
groundwater withdrawals on average of 173 acre -feet (AF) per water year. Other groundwater
withdrawal sources do exist in the local watershed, such as private supply and irrigation wells;
however, the volumes of withdrawal from these additional sources are not known. This
assessment addresses the sustainability of reported groundwater withdrawals at Maderas between
October 1, 2000 through September 30, 2011 and the effect on the downgradient portion of the
Sycamore Creek watershed.
Maderas groundwater withdrawals are currently governed by the City's Environmental
Assessment and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 90- 13M(2), Sunroad Enterprises, Applicant, and
Poway City Council Resolution No. P- 00 -65, accepted by applicant September 5, 2000. The
CUP was subsequently superseded by an August 11, 2011, letter directing Maderas to suspend
all groundwater production.
The referenced CUP for Maderas includes mitigation measures that include monitoring and
regulate groundwater usage at the Site. The CUP includes threshold criteria "triggers" (i.e.,
lowered groundwater levels in certain monitoring wells) that, when reached, require Maderas to
reduce or suspend groundwater withdrawal. The CUP allows Maderas to withdraw groundwater
for irrigation provided groundwater levels stay above the designated action levels or trigger
depths. For LSCTW, the trigger depth has been set at 100 feet below ground surface or
approximately 286 feet above mean sea level (ft msl). Additional conditions of the CUP
pertaining to LSCTW include the daily monitoring of groundwater levels in LSCTW via an in-
well pressure transducer and a manual monthly monitoring of the groundwater levels. As part of
1 NOAA Station Number USC00047111 - POWAY VALLEY, CA US
Susta inability Assessment 1 September 2013
275 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Sunroad Enterprises
the CUP monitoring requirements, the daily and monthly groundwater measurements are
reported to the City on a monthly basis.
The mitigation measures for LSCTW allow for ongoing monitoring of the groundwater levels in
LSCTW, which provides a protective mechanism for the Sycamore Creek Watershed.
GEOLOGY
Physiographic Setting and Regional Geology
Maderas lies within the foothills of the eastern San Diego County mountains approximately 24
miles north- northeast of San Diego and approximately 9 miles west of Ramona. The golf course
is located approximately 6 miles north- northeast of downtown Poway. Topography at the Site
slopes gently to moderately down to the south with mountain highlands to the west and east. The
elevation of the Site ranges from approximately 450 ft msl at the southwest edge to
approximately 700 ft msl near the northeast corner.
The golf course is bounded by Old Coach Road and Old Coach Drive to the east, residential
properties to the north, open space and a San Diego Gas and Electric power line easement to the
west, and Sycamore Creek valley to the west and south.
The Site is located within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of Southern California.
This province is typified by northwest/southeast - trending mountain ranges approximately
parallel to San Andreas and related regional fault systems. The Peninsular Ranges are generally
characterized by granitic rocks of the Peninsular Ranges Batholith and associated metamorphic
rocks. Sedimentary rocks ranging in age from Cretaceous to Pleistocene form the San Diego
embayment and coastal terraces west of the batholith.
SCS reviewed a map titled Geologic Map of the Escondido 7.5 " Quadrangle, San Diego County,
California, compiled by Siang S. Tan and Michael P. Kennedy under the Southern California
Areal Mapping Project, United States Geological Survey and California Division of Mines and
Geology, 1999. According to this map, the Maderas Golf Course is underlain by
Cretaceous -aged Green Valley Tonalite, consisting of fine- grained tonalite with minor
granodiorite, gabbro, and other basic igneous rocks. To the north, east, and west of the Site
vicinity on this map is granodiorite of the Woodson Mountain Granodiorite.
Site and Site Vicinity Geology
Alluvial deposits are present along Sycamore Creek, which runs along the southern boundary of
the golf course. During mapping conducted at the Site and Site vicinity by SCS, rocks exposed in
outcrops were interpreted to include biotite granodiorite with minor gabbro. These rocks were
generally moderately to highly fractured, with mafic dikes and inclusions as well as quartz -rich
dikes /stringers present. The granitic rock underlying the golf course consists generally of light
brown to light gray, fine to medium- grained, biotite granodiorite to tonalite composition rock
with quartz dikes and stringers up to an inch or more in thickness.
Sustainability Assessment 2 September 2013
276 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Sunroad Enterorises
HYDROLOGIC SETTING
Precipitation is a primary source of recharge in the Sycamore Creek watershed. Other sources of
water that likely recharge the Maderas area are underflow and leakage from Lake Ramona and
Lake Poway Dams. Both of these unlined reservoirs have earthen dams and are filled with
imported water. According to the Ramona Municipal Water District, "all water is imported
through the San Diego County Water Authority. "2 According to the City of Poway website, the
Lake Poway reservoir is filled with "water from both the Colorado River and Northern
California " .3 While exact volumes of water that are transmitted by the reservoirs though
underflow or leakage are not available, these reservoirs provide a yearly source of groundwater
to the Sycamore Creek watershed. Additional sources of recharge to the watershed are
agricultural and residential runoff. The volumes of the above referenced watershed inputs were
not evaluated in this assessment.
The aquifer underlying Maderas is fractured crystalline (granitic) bedrock, interpreted to be
biotite granodiorite with some mafic dikes. The rock is generally moderately to highly fractured.
This is shown both by the abundant fractures observed and measured in outcrops at the Site and
Site vicinity4.
2 METHODOLOGY
To assess the sustainability of groundwater withdrawals by Maderas, an evaluation of the annual
precipitation, groundwater elevation in LSCTW, and reported groundwater withdrawals at
Maderas over the assessment period were compared to the cumulative departure from the
monthly mean (CDMM) for precipitation and the groundwater elevation in LSCTW.
The CDMM approach is used as a groundwater management tool to estimate groundwater
recharge by comparing rainfall and groundwater levels. It has been shown that natural
groundwater level fluctuation is related to the departure of rainfall during the current period from
the mean rainfall of the preceding time period. The CDMM approach is based on the premise
that equilibrium conditions develop in an aquifer over time, i.e. the average rate of losses equates
to average rate of recharge of the system. The trend of the CDMM can indicate if the current
precipitation is more or less than the mean precipitation, which can then be used to assess the
potential recharge to the local aquifer.
The assessment period was selected as the beginning of water year 2000 -2001 through
2010 -2011. The water year 2000 -2001 was the first fully recorded water year of groundwater
production at Maderas. The end of the assessment period was selected based on the shutdown of
Maderas groundwater production by the City of Poway in August 2011.
2 Ramona Municipal Water District, http: / /www.rmwd .org/lakeramona /lakeramona.htm , accessed December
2011
3 City of Poway, http: / /www.poway.org/Index.aspx ?page =326, accessed December 2011.
4 SCS Engineers, Revised Hydrogeological Assessment Report, Maderas Golf Club
Poway, California, July 7, 2010.
5 Manual on Quantitative Estimation of Groundwater Recharge and Aquifer Storativity, Bredenkamp Db,
Botha Lj, Van Tonder Gj And Van Rensburg Hj 1995, WRC Report No TT 73/95.
Sustainabilit Assessment 3 e t mb r 013
277 of 374 y Novemite� '�9, Al � Item # 3.1
Sunroad Enterprises
The CDMM methodology utilized in this assessment consisted of:
• Determining the monthly mean and cumulative monthly mean for the Poway
precipitation station National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
USC000471 I I and LSCTW water level data over the assessment time period (October 1,
2000 through September 30, 2011).
• Subtracting the monthly mean value from the reported monthly precipitation with the
resulting departures indicating whether an annual value departs above or below the mean.
• Accumulating the resulting departure from the mean values over the length of time
Maderas has been extracting groundwater.
PRECIPITATION
• Precipitation data utilized in this assessment was from Poway Valley Station No. 7111
from the National Climatic Data Center website operated by the NOAA. This rainfall
collection station is located approximately 1 mile south of Maderas.
• The annual (1956 -2012) mean precipitation for the area was reported to be 13.01 inches.
• During the 1956 -2011 precipitation record available for the Poway Valley Station No.
7111, it is estimated that the station recorded 21, 5 -Year 6 -hour rainfall events, It is
estimated that during the 1956 -2012 precipitation record available 0.1 percent are 5 -Year
events. During the assessment period [2000 -2011 ], it is estimated that the station
recorded 4, 5 -Year rainfall events. It is estimated that during the assessment period, the
precipitation record available, 0.1 percent are 5 -Year events. Based on the comparison of
the 1956 -2011 and assessment period (October 1, 2000 through September 30, 2011)
precipitation records, and the estimated 5 -Year 6 -hour event reoccurrence the assessment
period precipitation is representative of the larger 1956 -2011 precipitation record.
During the assessment period (October 1, 2000 through September 30, 2011), El Nino
events occurred during the 2003 -2004 and 2009 -2010 water years, which for California
are typically characterized by higher than normal precipitation. During the assessment
period, California also experienced two multi -year droughts, from 2000 -2002 and 2007-
2009.8 During the assessment period, California was reported to have two multi -year
droughts and two El Nino events which are characterized by higher than normal
precipitation, therefore, it is SCS' opinion that these assessment period precipitation
record is representative of the of the larger precipitation record extending from 1956
through 2011.
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resource Monitoring Information for the Maderas
Golf Club, Dudek, April 2013.
San Diego County Hydrology Manual, County of San Diego Department of Public Works, June 2003.
Drought in California, California Department of Water Resources, Fall 2012.
278 of
Sustainability Assessment 4 Novem)ertig,b2e01 Item # 3.1
Sunroad Enterprises
• In order to assess the relationship of the precipitation versus the groundwater elevation in
LSCTW, the available precipitation data were organized into monthly totals (Figure 2
and Appendix A).
• To assess the potential effects of climate on regional groundwater levels in the Sycamore
Creek watershed, the CDMM rainfall was calculated from 1968 through 2011. In that
period, the mean- monthly rainfall ranged from a mean of 0.02 inches for July to a mean
of 2.87 inches for February.
• The CDMM rainfall was calculated by starting with the monthly rainfall recorded in
October 1968 (0.11 inches) and comparing it to the mean- monthly October rainfall of
0.55 inches, which gave a deficit of 0.44 inches. The deficit is then accumulated with
next month's mean monthly comparison carrying it through the assessment period. The
CDMM for January 2000 through December 2011 is presented (Figure 3).
• The trend of the precipitation CDMM from 2000 through 2010 is generally declining,
indicating a less than normal monthly precipitation (Figure 3). Beginning in 2010 and
through 2012, the trend of the precipitation CDMM is generally positive indicating more
than normal precipitation.
LOWER SYCAMORE CREEK TEST WELL (LSCTW)
• In order to assess the relationship between monthly precipitation and the groundwater
elevation in LSCTW, the groundwater elevation in LSCTW was organized into monthly
averages for the water years 2000 -2001 through 2010 -2011 (Appendix B). During the
assessment period, the mean- monthly groundwater elevation ranged from a mean of
290.7 ft msl in August to a mean of 338.2 ft msl for March.
The average monthly groundwater elevation in LSCTW versus the precipitation CDMM
(Figure 3) indicates that even though the precipitation CDMM has a declining trend from
water year 2000 -2001 through water year 2009 -2010, there is not a declining trend in the
average monthly groundwater elevation in LSCTW. This is interpreted to support the
interpretation that precipitation is not the only recharge component to LSCTW. This also
is interpreted to indicate that the groundwater withdrawals at Maderas have not had a
substantial effect on the groundwater elevation at LSCTW.
The average monthly groundwater elevation in LSCTW versus total monthly
precipitation is estimated to have a positive 43% correlation (Figure 4). The relationship
between precipitation and the groundwater level in LSCTW is interpreted to indicate a
seasonal recharge bias or that the most groundwater recharge at LSCTW (higher
groundwater elevations) occurs during the wet season and that precipitation is a major
component of recharge at LSCTW. Additional sources of recharge from runoff,
irrigation, and leakage from the Lake Ramona and Lake Poway Dams are also likely to
provide some year -round recharge.
Sustainability Assessment 5 5eptpinl3,g,401 3m # 3.1
279 of 374 November 19 LU
Sunroad Enterprises
GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS
Groundwater withdrawal data for the Maderas Well Field are collected and tabulated at
the end of each month and reported to the City of Poway on a monthly basis. The mean
groundwater withdrawals at Maderas between water year 2000 -2001 and water year
2010 -2011 is estimated to be 173 AF per water year. The mean- monthly groundwater
withdrawals range from a mean of 5.5 AF in February to a mean of 26.1 AF in May.
The average monthly groundwater elevation in LSCTW versus total groundwater
withdrawals at Maderas is presented (Figure 5). There is interpreted to be a negative 28%
correlation (inverse) between the groundwater elevation in LSCTW and total
groundwater withdrawals at Maderas. Groundwater withdrawals at Maderas will cause
declines in the groundwater elevations at LSCTW. This is likely due to hydraulic
connection between the upper and lower Sycamore Creek Watershed. A higher negative
correlation would be anticipated if groundwater withdrawals at Maderas were the sole
cause of groundwater elevation declines at LSCTW; however, as noted previously, there
are other production wells in the vicinity of LSCTW which likely influence groundwater
elevations at LSCTW, as well as natural migration of groundwater downgradient in the
local watershed.
The linear regression best fit line for the end of month groundwater elevation at LSCTW
is presented (Figure 2). The best fit line is interpreted to depict a stable trend of the
groundwater elevation in LSCTW from October 1, 2000 through September 30, 2011,
meaning that while there is an inverse relationship between the groundwater withdrawals
at Maderas and the groundwater elevation at LSCTW (increase in withdrawals, declines
in groundwater elevation), the withdrawal of 173 AF per water year on average has been
sustainable (i.e., inducing little observable change in monthly average groundwater
elevation in LSCTW) over water year 2000 -2001 through water year 2010 -2011 and
groundwater withdrawals in the local watershed, known and unknown, have not
negatively affected long -term aquifer storage over the groundwater withdrawal record.
Additionally, using linear regression, there has been less than 1 foot of drawdown in
LSCTW over the Maderas groundwater withdrawal record. The estimated less than 1
foot groundwater elevation decline in LSCTW demonstrates that groundwater
withdrawals have been sustainable as substantiated by the last 13 years of data.
• Total groundwater withdrawals at Maderas versus total monthly precipitation is presented
(Figure 6). This relationship is estimated to have a negative 42% correlation (inverse).
When there is more precipitation, there is less groundwater removed for irrigation water
at Maderas.
Sustainability Assessment 6 September 2013
280 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Sunroad Enterprises
RIPARIAN HABITAT
• Based on an evaluation by REC Consultants, Inc. (REC),9 of fluctuations in the health of
the riparian system at the Site, "the riparian habitat within the study area is healthy." REC
stated, "there was no indication that extraction of ground water by the golf course has had
any negative impacts on the riparian habitat along Sycamore Creek at the Maderas Golf
Club." This conclusion by REC further collaborates that groundwater withdrawals at
Maderas have been sustainable over the groundwater withdrawal record and have not
impacted the shallow groundwater aquifer that immediately underlies the riparian habitat.
3 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the data obtained and reviewed as part of this Assessment, it is SCS' professional
opinion that:
• Based on the end of the month groundwater elevation at LSCTW (Figure 2), and the
linear regression best fit line of the end of the month groundwater elevation, the
groundwater elevation at LSCTW is stable, with less than 1 foot of drawdown at LSCTW
over the Maderas groundwater withdrawal record. The estimated less than 1 foot
groundwater elevation decline in LSCTW demonstrates that groundwater withdrawals
have been sustainable as substantiated by the last 13 years of data.
• Based on the estimated less than 1 foot of groundwater drawdown at LSCTW over the
Maderas groundwater withdrawal record, and our opinion that LSCTW is an appropriate
indicator of groundwater storage in the Sycamore Creek watershed, there have not been
long -term negative effects on groundwater storage in the LSCTW vicinity due to
groundwater withdrawals at Maderas.
• The monthly precipitation CDMM is interpreted to be generally declining from 2000
through 2010 indicating a less than normal monthly precipitation. However a
corresponding decline in the groundwater elevation at LSCTW was not observed.
Additionally the average monthly groundwater elevation in LSCTW versus total monthly
precipitation is estimated to have a positive 43% correlation. This indicates that while
precipitation is the major recharge component for the Sycamore Creek watershed, it is not
the only component of groundwater recharge in the watershed. Other sources include
runoff from irrigation and seepage from the two unlined reservoirs in the Sycamore
Creek watershed, i.e. Lake Ramona and Lake Poway.
• During the 11 -year period assessed by this report, the mean (average) groundwater
withdrawal at Maderas is estimated to be 173 AF per year. Because there are no apparent
negative effects on the downgradient groundwater storage or decreases in groundwater
elevation at LSCTW, it is our opinion that the volume of groundwater withdrawal has
been sustainable over Maderas' groundwater withdrawal record. If current precipitation
patterns and groundwater withdrawal management at Maderas remain consistent with the
9 Maderas Golf Club Riparian Hydrology Report, REC Consultants, January 2012.
Sustainability Assessment 7 eptem r 2013
281 of 374 November 1% �13 Item # 3.1
Sunroad Enterprises
historical groundwater withdrawal record in the local watershed, it is expected that
continued groundwater withdrawals will remain sustainable into the future. Long -term
changes to the precipitation patterns and/or increase in groundwater withdrawal could
require re- assessment of the sustainability, reflecting those changes. Mitigation measures
currently in place at LSCTW include daily groundwater elevation monitoring, and will
allow for monitoring of any long -term changes in the groundwater levels in the vicinity
of LSCTW.
Sustainability Assessment 8 September 201 3
282 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Sun road Enterprises
FIGURES
283of�uTsrainability Assessment Novempe�tfCj,�bii'ltem #3.1
4-fl!
# 3.1
CCu
G
N
Ls
i
00 .
N
i H
s �
O
� V
i O
S w
f0
s L
v
ev
O
14 rn CO r�
Monthly Rainfall (inches)
W Ln en N ri O
2012
LU
Ln
x
4A Ln
Cc 0
Ln
Cu
CLO
Cu
- WE
Boom
son
Or-
°0 0°0 � °v °N °O 0°0 � °v
v m m m m m N N N
(larval eas ueaw anoge;aa;) uollen813 jazempunoj9
2011
L
C
O
2
O
2010 0
> C
> W
d a+
w M
L W
2009 3
C
O J
� O
2008 v
J �
2007
2006 E'
P
2005
L
c
O
v �
u O
2004 0
C W
O
M C
O
2003 W
w
M a
0
L
C
2002 o a
� C7
2001
2000
O OO
N N
285 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
C
f0 �
C E
O
Q)
W C
GJ CG
+' C
f0
3 °u
c >.
O a�
C
L
N �
O
M t t V
L 4+ 4-
i � E O
Q
O
L
` N
L
U � �
N CC
f0 C
a
a� °1
v
F-
-Y 3
E
L
U U
O C
E
ca �+
� a
N "u
L
°1 a
O
J
Cumulative Departure From the Mean - Monthly Rainfall (inches)
Ln O n O O Ln o
N N rl 1--4 Ln O in
Ln
N
2012
O 00 lO 'IT r14 0 N
O 00 lO O
M M M M M N N N N
(lanal eas ueaw anoge;aa;) u01;ena13 ja;empunojg
2011
2010 2E
0
U
2009
7
E
U
2008 C
Y
Y
.Q
U
L
a
2007
j
a
2006 E o
P
4J
w
a
2005 3
0
T
2004 :E
C
cO
G
v
ra
2003
Q
U
U
N
J
2002
2001
2000
O
O
N
286 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
w
L
L
if1
� L
� 3
s V
's =
s �
� L
I
i 2
Monthly Rainfall (inches)
0
.-1 rn oo n � Ln v
M N r1
O
2012
O CO LD C4 O 00 k.0 V ON
Cr M M M M M N N N N
(larval eas ueaw anoge laa;) uollena13 ialempunojg
2011
2010 c
0
M
M
w
2009 m
3
-a
c
3
O
kD
2008 s
C
O
G1
00
2007
a
U
2006 E J
I
H
2005
U
C
C
Y
2004 a
w
D_
m
2003 >
r
C
0
2002 1
2001
2000
O
O
N
287 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Boom
>
LU
r
son
0
w
M
aj
a
O CO LD C4 O 00 k.0 V ON
Cr M M M M M N N N N
(larval eas ueaw anoge laa;) uollena13 ialempunojg
2011
2010 c
0
M
M
w
2009 m
3
-a
c
3
O
kD
2008 s
C
O
G1
00
2007
a
U
2006 E J
I
H
2005
U
C
C
Y
2004 a
w
D_
m
2003 >
r
C
0
2002 1
2001
2000
O
O
N
287 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Ln
L
t
i01
E
i�
N
• N
i f0 H
3 L
f° o
J L
JO v
3 �
L
M aj
C�
1 C C
3
o
U9
Well Production (acre /feet)
o 0 0 0 0 0
0 2012
°o CO ° v ° ° 00 000 ° 0 °
m m m m m N N N N
(lanal eas ueaw anoge jaa;) uoljena13 ja;empunojg
2011
2010
2009 W
v
3
c
2008 0
T
t
C
2
2007 m
w
v
a
2006 E U
2005
U
Q
c
0
2004 D
0
2003
WIN
2001
2000
0
0
N
a
0
288 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
s
--
0
�2E
Ci
Qj
Nor-
Ln
NNW
CU
°o CO ° v ° ° 00 000 ° 0 °
m m m m m N N N N
(lanal eas ueaw anoge jaa;) uoljena13 ja;empunojg
2011
2010
2009 W
v
3
c
2008 0
T
t
C
2
2007 m
w
v
a
2006 E U
2005
U
Q
c
0
2004 D
0
2003
WIN
2001
2000
0
0
N
a
0
288 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
C
M
_N
M
M
L
s
3
L
W
4j
M
3
-a
C
O E
s > a,
C C i
0 0
�D M V
i rte+ fl. 0
to i N
I.L T L
Cu
t
kA C
� M
v 0 L
CU —
0
a�
H
Y
N
G7
L
V
0
L
0
M
v
a
h
L
CU
3
J
289 of 374
Monthly Rainfall (inches)
0
.-� rn oo Ln -Cr m c14 o
4� 2012
O 0 O 0 O O
(taa; /aiw) uollanpwd IIaM
2011
2010
2009 LL.
U
Q
C
N
U
7
2008 0
a
v
3
0
2007
2006 E v
H �
U
C
C
O
2005 a
v
a
0
2004
t
Y
C
0
2003 '
2002
2001
2000
O O
November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Sunroad Enterprises
APPENDICES
Sustainability Assessment September 2013
290 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Sunroad Enterprises
Appendix A
Average Monthly Precipitation —NOAA Station Number
USC0004711 1 - Poway Valley, CA US
Sustainability Assessment September 201 3
291 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Appendix A
(Page 1 of 11)
Precipitation Data NOAA Station Number USC00047111
Cumulative Departure From the Mean Estimates
Month
Year
Date
Monthly Total
Precipitation (inches)
Departure From Mean -
Monthly (DMM) [inches]
Precipitation
Cumulative DMM
(CDMM)
Month for Monthly
Mean
Monthly Mean
(Water Year 1968 -
2013)
.[inches]
Equation or
Source
From NOAA Station
Number USC00047111
[Monthly Total - Monthly
Mean]
DMM + Previous Month
CDMM
October
1967
10/1/1967
0.00
-0.55
January
2.78
November
1967
11/1/1967
2.08
0.68
February
2.87
December
1967
12/1/1967
2.63
0.71
March
2.40
January
1968
1/1/1968
0.40
-2.38
April
1.06
February
1968
2/1/1968
0.39
-2.48
May
0.32
March
1968
3/1/1968
2.64
0.24
June
0.08
April
1968
4/1/1968
1.03
-0.03
July
0.02
May
1968
5/1/1968
0.24
-0.08
August
0.08
June
1968
6/1/1968
0.05
-0.03
September
0.21
July
1968
7/1/1968
0.35
0.33
October
0.55
August
1968
8/1/1968
0.00
-0.08
November
1.40
September
1968
9/1/1968
0.00
-0.21
December
1.92
October
1968
10/1/1968
0.11
-0.44
-0.44
November
1968
11/1/1968
0.63
-0.77
-1.21
December
1968
12/1/1968
1.23
-0.69
-1.90
January
1969
1/1/1969
5.95
3.17
1.27
February
1969
2/1/1969
6.32
3.45
4.71
March
1969
3/1/1969
2.00
-0.40
4.31
April
1969
4/1/1969
0.35
-0.70
3.61
May
1969
5/1/1969
0.41
0.09
3.70
June
1969
6/1/1969
0.27
0.19
3.89
July
1969
7/1/1969
0.01
-0.01
3.88
August
1969
8/1/1969
0.25
0.17
4.04
September
1969
9/1/1969
0.02
-0.19
3.85
October
1969
10/1/1969
0.03
-0.52
3.33
November
1969
11/1/1969
1.06
-0.34
2.99
December
1969
12/1/1969
0.43
-1.49
1.50
January
1970
1/1/1970
0.90
-1.88
-0.38
February
1970
2/1/1970
1.24
-1.63
-2.01
March
1970
3/1/1970
3.94
1.54
-0.48
April
1970
4/1/1970
0.59
-0.47
-0.94
May
1970
5/1/1970
0.06
-0.26
-1.20
June
1970
6/1/1970
0.02
-0.06
-1.26
July
1970
7/1/1970
0.00
-0.02
-1.28
August
1970
8/1/1970
0.05
-0.03
-1.32
September
1970
9/1/1970
0.00
-0.21
-1.53
October
1970
10/1/1970
0.43
-0.12
-1.66
November
1970
11/1/1970
2.09
0.69
-0.96
December
1970
12/1/1970
2.87
0.95
-0.01
January
1971
1/1/1971
0.77
-2.01
-2.02
February
1971
2/1/1971
1.13
-1.74
-3.76
March
1971
3/1/1971
0.03
-2.37
-6.14
April
1971
4/1/1971
1.04
-0.02
-6.16
May
1971
5/1/1971
1.51
1.19
-4.96
June
1971
6/1/1971
0.00
-0.08
-5.04
July
1971
7/1/1971
0.00
-0.02
-5.07
August
1971
8/1/1971
0.02
-0.06
-5.13
September
1971
9/1/1971
0.00
-0.21
-5.34
October
1971
10/1/1971
1.23
0.68
-4.67
November
1971
11/1/1971
0.54
-0.86
-5.53
December
1971
1 12/1/1971
3.47
1.55
-3.97
January
1972
1/1/1972
0.02
-2.76
-6.73
February
1972
2/1/1972
1 0.26
-2.61 1
-9.35
March
1972
3/1/1972
1 0.00
-2.40
1 -11.75
November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Appendix A
(Page 2 of 11)
Precipitation Data NOAA Station Number USC00047111
Cumulative Departure From the Mean Estimates
Month
Year
Date
Monthly Total
Precipitation (inches)
Departure From Mean -
Monthly (DMM) [inches]
Precipitation
Cumulative DMM
(CDMM)
Month for Monthly
Mean
Monthly Mean
(Water Year 1968 -
2013)
[inches]
Equation or
Source
From NOAA Station
Number USC00047111
[Monthly Total - Monthly
Mean]
DMM + Previous Month
CDMM
April
1972
4/1/1972
1 0.08
-0.98
-12.73
May
1972
5/1/1972
0.36
0.04
-12.69
June
1972
6/1/1972
0.81
0.73
-11.95
July
1972
7/1/1972
0.00
-0.02
-11.98
August
1972
8/1/1972
0.00
-0.08
-12.06
September
1972
9/1/1972
0.36
0.15
-11.91
October
1972
10/1/1972
1.39
0.84
-11.08
November
1972
11/1/1972
3.69
2.29
-8.79
December
1972
12/1/1972
1.96
0.04
-8.74
January
1973
1/1/1973
2.39
-0.39
-9.13
February
1973
2/1/1973
2.57
-0.30
-9.44
March
1973
3/1/1973
3.94
1.54
-7.90
April
1973
4/1/1973
0.20
-0.86
-8.76
May
1973
5/1/1973
0.08
-0.24
-9.00
June
1973
6/1/1973
0.02
-0.06
-9.05
July
1973
7/1/1973
0.00
-0.02
-9.08
August
1973
8/1/1973
0.12
0.04
-9.04
September
1973
9/1/1973
0.00
-0.21
-9.26
October
1973
10/1/1973
0.00
-0.55
-9.81
November
1973
11/1/1973
2.05
0.65
-9.16
December
1973
12/1/1973
0.21
-1.71
-10.86
January
1974
1/1/1974
4.43
.1.65
-9.21
February
1974
2/1/1974
0.14
-2.73
-11.95
March
1974
3/1/1974
2.66
0.26
-11.69
April
1974
4/1/1974
0.32
-0.74
-12.43
May
1974
5/1/1974
0.00
-0.32
-12.75
June
1974
6/1/1974
0.00
-0.08
-12.82
July
1974
7/1/1974
0.00
-0.02
-12.85
August
1974
8/1/1974
0.00
-0.08-
-12.93
September
1974
9/1/1974
0.00
-0.21
-13.14
October
1974
10/1/1974
1.98
1.43
-11.72
November
1974
11/1/1974
0.32
-1.08
-12.80
December
1974
12/1/1974
2.37
0.45
-12.34
January
1975
1/1/1975
0.35
-2.43
-14.77
February
1975
2/1/1975
1.08
-1.79
-16.57
March
1975
3/1/1975
4.68
2.28
-14.29
April
1975
4/1/1975
4.23
3.17
-11.12
May
1975
5/1/1975
0.08
-0.24
-11.36
June
1975
6/1/1975
0.00
-0.08
-11.43
July
1975
7/1/1975
0.15
0.13
-11.31
August
1975
8/1/1975
0.00
-0.08
-11.39
September
1975
9/1/1975
0.02
-0.19
-11.59
October
1975
10/1/1975
0.22
-0.33
-11.92
November
1975
11/1/1975
1.21
-0.19
-12.11
December
1975
12/1/1975
0.70
-1.22
-13.32
January
1976
1/1/1976
0.00
-2.78
-16.10
February
1976
2/1/1976
5.70
2.83
-13.28
March
1976
3/1/1976
2.19
-0.21
-13.49
April
1976
4/1/1976
1.66
0.60
-12.89
May
1976
5/1/1976 1
0.05
-0.27
-13.16
June
1976
6/1/1976
0.00
-0.08
-13.24
July
1976
7/1/1976
0.00
-0.02
-13.26
August
1976
8/1/1976
0.02
-0.06
-13.32
September
1976
9/1/1976
2.00
1.79
-11.54
November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Appendix A
(Page 3 of 11)
Precipitation Data NOAA Station Number USC00047111
Cumulative Departure From the Mean Estimates
Month
Year
Date
Monthly Total
Precipitation (inches)
Departure From Mean -
Monthly (DMM) [inches]
Precipitation
Cumulative DMM
(CDMM)
Month for Monthly
Mean
Monthly Mean
(Water Year 1968 -
2013)
[inches]
Equation or
Source
From NOAA Station
Number USC00047111
[Monthly Total - Monthly
Mean]
DMM + Previous Month
CDMM
October
1976
10/1/1976
0.05
-0.50
-12.04
November
1976
11/1/1976
2.15
0.75
-11.29
December
1976
12/1/1976
1.26
-0.66
-11.95
January
1977
1/1/1977
2.55
-0.23
-12.18
February
1977
2/1/1977
0.55
-2.32
-14.50
March
1977
3/1/1977
1.15
-1.25
-15.75
April
1977
4/1/1977
0.09
-0.97
-16.72
May
1977
5/1/1977
2.07
1.75
-14.97
June
1977
6/1/1977
0.05
-0.03
-15.00
July
1977
7/1/1977
0.00
-0.02
-15.02
August
1977
8/1/1977
1.32
1.24
-13.78
September
1977
9/1/1977
0.00
-0.21
-14.00
October
1977
10/1/1977
0.15
-0.40
-14.40
November
1977
11/1/1977
0.17
-1.23
-15.63
December
1977
12/1/1977
2.97
1.05
-14.58
January
1978
1/1/1978
10.50
7.72
-6.86
February
1978
2/1/1978
5.51
2.64
-4.22
March
1978
3/1/1978
7.60
5.20
0.97
April
1978
4/1/1978
1.15
0.09
1.07
May
1978
5/1/1978
0.26
-0.06
1.01
June
1978
6/1/1978
0.00
-0.08
0.93
July
1978
7/1/1978
0.00
-0.02
0.91
August
1978
8/1/1978
0.00
-0.08
0.82
September
1978
9/1/1978
0.70
0.49
1.31
October
1978
10/1/1978
0.06
-0.49
0.82
November
1978
11/1/1978
2.29
0.89
1.71
December
1978
12/1/1978
3.61
1.69
3.40
January
1979
1/1/1979
6.10
3.32
6.72
February
1979
2/1/1979
2.00
-0.87
5.85
March
1979
3/1/1979
4.55
2.15
7.99
April
1979
4/1/1979
0.02
-1.04
6.95
May
1979
5/1/1979
0.14
-0.18
6.78
June
1979
6/1/1979
0.02
-0.06
6.72
July
1979
7/1/1979
0.00
-0.02
6.70
August
1979
8/1/1979
0.02
-0.06
6.63
September
1979
9/1/1979
0.00
-0.21
6.42
October
1979
10/1/1979
1.02
0.47
6.88
November
1979
11/1/1979
0.42
-0.98
5.90
December
1979
12/1/1979
0.06
-1.86
4.05
January
1980
1/1/1980
9.27
6.49
10.54
February
1980
2/1/1980
8.16
5.29
15.82
March
1980
3/1/1980
3.05
0.65
16.47
April
1980
4/1/1980
2.33
1.27
17.74
May
1980
5/1/1980
0.43
0.11
17.85
June
1980
6/1/1980
0.00
-0.08
17.78
July
1980
7/1/1980
0.00
-0.02
17.75
August
1980
8/1/1980
0.00
-0.08
17.67
September
1980
9/1/1980
0.00
-0.21
17.46
October
1980
10/1/1980
0.11
-0.44
17.01
November
1980
11/1/1980
0.00
-1.40
15.61
December
1980
12/1/1980
0.84
-1.08
14.54
January
1981
1/1/1981
1.32
-1.46
13.08
February
1981
2/1/1981
2.21
-0.66
12.41
March
1981
3/1/1981
5.19
2.79
15.20
November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Appendix A
(Page 4 of 11)
Precipitation Data NOAA Station Number US000047111
Cumulative Departure From the Mean Estimates
Month
Year
Date
Monthly Total
Precipitation (inches)
Departure From Mean -
Monthly (DMM) [inches]
Precipitation
Cumulative DMM
(CDMM)
Month for Monthly
Mean
Monthly Mean
(Water Year 1968 -
2013)
[inches]
Equation or
Source
From NOAA Station
Number USC00047111
[Monthly Total - Monthly
Mean]
DMM + Previous Month
CDMM
April
1981
4/1/1981
0.07
-0.99
14.21
May
1981
5/1/1981
0.24
-0.08
14.13
June
1981
6/1/1981
0.00
-0.08
14.06
July
1981
7/1/1981
0.00
-0.02
14.03
August
1981
8/1/1981
0.00
-0.08
13.95
September
1981
9/1/1981
0.00
-0.21
13.73
October
1981
10/1/1981
0.18
-0.37
13.36
November
1981
11/1/1981
1.14
-0.26
13.10
December
1981
12/1/1981
0.72
-1.20
11.91
January
1982
1/1/1982
2.08
-0.70
11.21
February
1982
2/1/1982
1.41
-1.46
9.74
March
1982
3/1/1982
3.43
1.03
10.77
April
1982
4/1/1982
1.07
0.01
10.78
May
1982
5/1/1982
0.14
-0.18
10.60
June
1982
6/1/1982
0.00
-0.08
10.52
July
1982
7/1/1982
0.00
-0.02
10.50
August
1982
8/1/1982
0.00
-0.08
10.42
September
1982
9/1/1982
0.59
0.38
10.79
October
1982
10/1/1982
0.29
-0.26
10.53
November
1982
11/1/1982
3.92
2.52
13.05
December
1982
12/1/1982
2.58
0.66
13.71
January
1983
1/1/1983
2.15
-0.63
13.08
February
1983
2/1/1983
5.01
2.14
15.22
March
1983
3/1/1983
9.56
7.16
22.38
April
1983
4/1/1983
2.55
1.49
23.87
May
1983
5/1/1983
0.14
-0.18
23.69
June
1983
6/1/1983
0.03
-0.05
23.64
July
1983
7/1/1983
0.00
-0.02
23.62
August
1983
8/1/1983
0.26
0.18
23.80
September
1983
9/1/1983
0.33
0.12
23.91
October
1983
10/1/1983
1.35
0.80
24.71
November
1983
11/1/1983
2.30
0.90
25.61
December
1983
12/1/1983
2.13
0.22
25.83
January
1984
1/1/1984
0.35
-2.43
23.40
February
1984
2/1/1984
0.03
-2.84
20.55
March
1984
3/1/1984
0.04
-2.36
18.19
April
1984
4/1/1984
0.68
-0.38
17.81
May
1984
5/1/1984
0.00
-0.32
17.49
June
1984
6/1/1984
0.17
0.09
17.58
July
1984
7/1/1984
0.00
-0.02
17.56
August
1984
8/1/1984
0.36
0.28
17.83
September
1984
9/1/1984
0.09
-0.12
17.71
October
1984
10/1/1984
0.24
-0.31
17.40
November
1984
11/1/1984
1.95
0.55
17.95
December
1984
12/1/1984
5.93
4.02
21.97
January
1985
1/1/1985
0.95
-1.83
20.14
February
1985
2/1/1985
1.11
-1.76
18.37
March
1985
3/1/1985
1.06
-1.35
17.03
April
1985
4/1/1985
0.43
-0.63
16.40
May
1985
5/1/1985
0.00
-0.32
16.08
June
1985
6/1/1985
0.00
-0.08
16.01
July
1985
7/1/1985
0.00
-0.02
15.98
August
1985
8/1/1985
0.00
-0.08
15.90
September
1985
9/1/1985
0.74
0.53
16.42
November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Appendix A
(Page 5 of 11)
Precipitation Data NOAA Station Number USC00047111
Cumulative Departure From the Mean Estimates
Month
Year
Date
Monthly Total
Precipitation (inches)
Departure From Mean -
Monthly (DMM) [inches]
Precipitation
Cumulative DMM
(CDMM)
Month for Monthly
Mean
Monthly Mean
(Water Year 1968 -
2013)
[inches]
Equation or
Source
From NOAH Station
Number US00004 71 1 1
[Monthly Total - Monthly
Mean]
DMM + Previous Month
CDMM
October
1985
10/1/1985
0.22
-0.33
16.09
November
1985
11/1/1985
5.63
4.24
20.33
December
1985
12/1/1985
1.63
-0.29
20.04
January
1986
1/1/1986
0.77
-2.01
18.03
February
1986
2/1/1986
3.34
0.47
18.50
March
1986
3/1/1986
3.03
0.63
19.12
April
1986
4/1/1986
0.62
-0.44
18.69
May
1986
5/1/1986
0.00
-0.32
18.37
June
1986
6/1/1986
0.00
-0.08
18.29
July
1986
7/1/1986
0.00
-0.02
18.27
August
1986
8/1/1986
0.34
0.26
18.52
September
1986
9/1/1986
0.89
0.68
19.20
October
1986
10/1/1986
0.72
0.17
19.36
November
1986
11/1/1986
1.39
-0.01
19.35
December
1986
12/1/1986
2.03
0.11
19.47
January
1987
1/1/1987
2.04
-0.74
18.73
February
1987
2/1/1987
1.63
-1.24
17.48
March
1987
3/1/1987
17.48
April
1987
4/1/1987
17.48
May
1987
5/1/1987
0.15
-0.16
17.32
June
1987
6/1/1987
0.00
-0.08
17.24
July
1987
7/1/1987
0.01
-0.01
17.23
August
1987
8/1/1987
0.07
-0.01
17.22
September
1987
9/1/1987
0.19
-0.02
17.19
October
1987
10/1/1987
2.29
1.74
18.93
November
1987
11/1/1987
1.27
-0.13
18.80
December
1987
12/1/1987
3.10
1.19
19.99
January
1988
1/1/1988
1.56
-1.22
18.76
February
1988
2/1/1988
0.07
-2.80
15.96
March
1988
3/1/1988
0.00
-2.40
13.56
April
1988
4/1/1988
4.08
3.02
16.58
May
1988
.5/1/1988
0.21
-0.11
16.47
June
1988
6/1/1988
0.00
-0.08
16.39
July
1988
7/1/1988
1 0.00
-0.02
16.37
August
1988
8/1/1988
0.00
-0.08
16.28
September
1988
9/1/1988
0.03
-0.18
16.10
October
1988
10/1/1988
0.00
-0.55
15.55
November
1988
11/1/1988
1.08
-0.32
15.23
December
1988
12/1/1988
2.41
0.50
15.73
January
1989
1/1/1989
0.56
-2.22
13.51
February
1989
2/1/1989
1.38
-1.49
12.01
March
1989
3/1/1989
1.33
-1.07
10.94
April
1989
4/1/1989
0.07
-0.99
9.96
May
1989
5/1/1989
0.13
-0.18
9.77
June
1989
6/1/1989
0.01
-0.07
9.71
July
1989
7/1/1989
0.00
-0.02
9.68
August
1989
8/1/1989
0.00
-0.08
9.60
September
1989
9/1/1989
9.60
October
1989
10/1/1989
0.39
-0.16
9.44
November
1989
11/1/1989
0.23
-1.17
8.27
December
1989
12/1/1989
0.01
-1.90
6.36
January
1990
1/1/1990
3.07
0.29
6.65
February
1990
2/1/1990
6.65
March
1990
3/1/1990
0.83
-1.57
5.08
November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Appendix A
(Page 6 of 11)
Precipitation Data NOAA Station Number US000047111
Cumulative Departure From the Mean Estimates
Month
Year
Date
Monthly Total
Precipitation (inches)
Departure From Mean -
Monthly (DMM) [inches]
Precipitation
Cumulative DMM
(CDMM)
Month for Monthly
Mean
Monthly Mean
(Water Year 1968 -
2013)
[inches]
Equation or
Source
From NOAA Station
Number USC00047111
[Monthly Total - Monthly
Mean]
DMM + Previous Month
CDMM
April
1990
4/1/1990
5.08
May
1990
5/1/1990
0.48
0.16
5.24
June
1990
6/1/1990
0.00
-0.08
5.17
July
1990
7/1/1990
0.00
-0.02
5.14
August
1990
8/1/1990
0.00
-0.08
5.06
September
1990
9/1/1990
0.00
-0.21
4.85
October
1990
10/1/1990
0.00
-0.55
4.29
November
1990
11/1/1990
0.00
-1.40
2.89
December
1990
12/1/1990
0.50
-1.42
1.48
January
1991
1/1/1991
1.22
-1.56
-0.08
February
1991
2/1/1991
1.97
-0.90
-0.99
March
1991
3/1/1991
10.34
7.94
6.95
April
1991
4/1/1991
0.05
-1.01
5.94
May
1991
5/1/1991
0.00
-0.32
5.62
June
1991
6/1/1991
0.00
-0.08
5.55
July
1991
7/1/1991
0.00
-0.02
5.52
August
1991
8/1/1991
0.00
-0.08
5.44
September
1991
9/1/1991
0.00
-0.21
5.23
October
1991
10/1/1991
5.23
November
1991
11/1/1991
0.04
-1.36
3.87
December
1991
12/1/1991
1.86
-0.06
3.81
January
1992
1/1/1992
2.94
0.16
3.97
February
1992
2/1/1992
4.95
2.08
6.05
March
1992
3/1/1992
4.03
1.63
7.67
April
1992
4/1/1992
1.13
0.07
7.74
May
1992
5/1/1992
0.34
0.02
7.77
June
1992
6/1/1992
0.00
-0.08
7.69
July
1992
7/1/1992
0.12
0.10
7.79
August
1992
8/1/1992
0.14
0.06
7.85
September
1992
9/1/1992
0.00
-0.21
7.63
October
1992
10/1/1992
7.63
November
1992
11/1/1992
0.05
-1.35
6.28
December
1992
12/1/1992
3.09
1.18
7.46
January
1993
1/1/1993
12.64
9.86
17.32
February
1993
2/1/1993
5.85
2.98
20.30
March
1993
3/1/1993
1.68
-0.72
19.58
April
1993
4/1/1993
0.00
-1.06
18.52
May
1993
5/1/1993
0.00
-0.32
18.20
June
1993
6/1/1993
0.59
0.51
18.71
July
1993
7/1/1993
0.02
0.00
18.71
August
1993
8/1/1993
0.00
-0.08
18.63
September
1993
9/1/1993
0.01
-0.20
18.42
October
1993
10/1/1993
0.17
-0.39
18.04
November
1993
11/1/1993
1.25
-0.15
17.89
December
1993
12/1/1993
0.83
-1.09
16.80
January
1994
1/1/1994
1.79
-0.99
15.82
February
1994
2/1/1994
4.46
1.59
17.40
March
1994
3/1/1994
3.82
1.41
18.82
April
1994
4/1/1994
1.91
0.86
19.67
May
1994
5/1/1994
0.33
0.02
19.69
June
1994
6/1/1994
0.00
-0.08
19.61
July
1994
7/1/1994
19.61
August
1994
8/1/1994
19.61
September
1994
9/1/1994 1
19.61
November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Appendix A
(Page 7 of 11)
Precipitation Data NOAA Station Number USC00047111
Cumulative Departure from the Mean Estimates
Month
Year
Date
Monthly Total
Precipitation (inches)
Departure From Mean -
Monthly (DMM) [inches]
Precipitation
Cumulative DMM
(CDMM)
Month for Monthly
Mean
Monthly Mean
(Water Year 1968 -
2013)
[inches]
Equation or
Source
From NOAA Station
Number USC00047111
[Monthly Total - Monthly
Mean]
DMM + Previous Month
CDMM
October
1994
10/1/1994
0.07
-0.48
19.13
November
1994
11/1/1994
19.13
December
1994
12/1/1994
19.13
January
1995
1/1/1995
19.13
February
1995
2/1/1995
19.13
March
1995
3/1/1995
19.13
April
1995
4/1/1995
19.13
May
1995
5/1/1995
19.13
June
1995
6/1/1995
0.45
0.37
19.50
July
1995
7/1/1995
0.06
0.04
19.54
August
1995
8/1/1995
0.00
-0.08
19.46
September
1995
9/1/1995
0.00
-0.21
19.24
October
1995
10/1/1995
0.00
-0.55
18.69
November
1995
11/1/1995
0.34
-1.06
17.63
December
1995
12/1/1995
0.61
-1.31
16.32
January
1996
1/1/1996
1.62
-1.16
15.16
February
1996
2/1/1996
3.41
0.53
15.69
March
1996
3/1/1996
2.13
-0.27
15.42
April
1996
4/1/1996
0.74
-0.32
15.10
May
1996
5/1/1996
0.67
0.35
15.45
June
1996
6/1/1996
0.00
-0.08
15.38
July
1996
7/1/1996
0.10
0.07
15.45
August
1996
8/1/1996
0.00
-0.08
15.37
September
1996
9/1/1996
0.12
-0.10
15.27
October
1996
10/1/1996
1.20
0.65
15.92
November
1996
11/1/1996
2.72
1.32
17.24
December
1996
12/1/1996
1.96
0.04
17.28
January
1997
1/1/1997
5.41
2.63
19.91
February
1997
2/1/1997
0.83
-2.05
17.86
March
1997
3/1/1997
0.00
-2.40
15.46
April
1997
4/1/1997
0.20
-0.86
14.60
May
1997
5/1/1997
0.07
-0.25
14.36
June
1997
6/1/1997
0.04
-0.04
14.32
July
1997
7/1/1997
14.32
August
1997
8/1/1997
14.32
September
1997
9/1/1997
1.63
1.42
15.73
October
1997
10/1/1997
0.18
-0.37
15.36
November
1997
11/1/1997
2.13
0.74
16.10
December
1997
12/1/1997
1.83
-0.09
16.01
January
1998
1/1/1998
4.66
1.88
17.89
February
1998
2/1/1998
10.36
7.48
25.37
March
1998
3/1/1998
3.68
1.28
26.64
April
1998
4/1/1998
2.35
1.29
27.94
May
1998
5/1/1998
2.24
1.93
29.86
June
1998
6/1/1998
0.01
-0.07
29.80
July
1998
7/1/1998
0.00
-0.02
29.77
August
1998
8/1/1998
0.00
-0.08
29.69
September
1998
9/1/1998
0.18
-0.03
29.66
October 1
1998
10/1/1998
0.16
-0.39
29.26
November
1998
11/1/1998
1.19
-0.21
29.06
December
1998
12/1/1998
0.74
-1.18
27.88
January
1999
1/1/1999
2.10
-0.68
27.20
February
1999
2/1/1999
0.76
-2.12
25.08
March
1999
3/1/1999
1.16
-1.25
23.83
November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Appendix A
(Page 8 of 11)
Precipitation Data NOAA Station Number USC00047111
Cumulative Departure From the Mean Estimates
Month
Year
Date
Monthly Total
Precipitation (inches)
Departure From Mean -
Monthly (DMM) [inches]
Precipitation
Cumulative DMM
(CDMM)
Month for Monthly
Mean
Monthly Mean
(Water Year 1968 -
2013)
[inches]
Equation or
Source
From NOAA Station
Number USC00047111
[Monthly Total - Monthly
Mean]
DMM + Previous Month
CDMM
April
1999
4/1/1999
2.82
1.76
25.60
May
1999
5/1/1999
0.00
-0.32
25.28
June
1999
6/1/1999
0.56
0.49
25.76
July
1999
7/1/1999
0.20
0.18
25.94
August
1999
8/1/1999
0.42
0.34
26.28
September
1999
9/1/1999
0.00
-0.21
26.06
October
1999
10/1/1999
0.00
-0.55
25.51
November
1999
11/1/1999
0.00
-1.40
24.11
December
1999
12/1/1999
0.00
-1.92
22.20
January
2000
1/1/2000
1.01
-1.77
20.43
February
2000
2/1/2000
4.89
2.01
22.44
March
2000
3/1/2000
1.29
-1.12
21.32
April
2000
4/1/2000
1.09
0.03
21.35
May
2000
5/1/2000
0.00
-0.32
21.04
June
2000
6/1/2000
0.00
-0.08
20.96
July
2000
7/1/2000
0.00
-0.02
20.93
August
2000
8/1/2000
20.93
September
2000
9/1/2000
20.93
October
2000
10/1/2000
0.00
-0.55
20.38
November
2000
11/1/2000
20.38
December
2000
12/1/2000
20.38
January
2001
1/1/2001
3.64
0.86
21.24
February
2001
2/1/2001
4.22
1.34
22.58
March
2001
3/1/2001
1.46
-0.94
21.64
April
2001
4/1/2001
0.99
-0.07
21.57
May
2001
5/1/2001
0.24
-0.08
21.49
June
2001
6/1/2001
0.00
-0.08
21.41
July
2001
7/1/2001
0.00
-0.02
21.39
August
2001
8/1/2001
0.00
-0.08
21.31
September
2001
9/1/2001
0.00
-0.21
21.09
October
2001
10/1/2001
0.00
-0.55
20.54
November
2001
11/1/2001
1.01
-0.39
20.15
December
2001
12/1/2001
1.34
-0.58
19.57
January
2002
1/1/2002
0.53
-2.25
17.32
February
2002
2/1/2002
0.31
-2.56
14.76
March
2002
3/1/2002
1.17
-1.23
13.53
April
2002
4/1/2002
0.49
-0.57
12.96
May
2002
5/1/2002
0.00
-0.32
12.64
June
2002
6/1/2002
0.00
-0.08
12.56
July
2002
7/1/2002
0.05
0.03
12.59
August
2002
8/1/2002
0.00
-0.08
12.51
September
2002
9/1/2002
0.11
-0.10
12.40
October 1
2002
10/1/2002
0.07
-0.48
11.92
November
2002
11/1/2002
2.09
0.69
12.61
December
2002
12/1/2002
2.15
0.23
12.84
January
2003
1/1/2003
0.01
-2.77
10.07
February
2003
2/1/2003
4.15
1.27
11.34
March
2003
3/1/2003
2.36
-0.04
11.30
April
2003
4/1/2003
2.39
1.33
12.63
May
2003
5/1/2003
1.01
0.69
13.32
June
2003
6/1/2003
0.04
-0.04
13.29
July
2003
7/1/2003
0.11
0.09
13.37
August
2003
8/1/2003
0.00
-0.08
13.29
September
2003
9/1/2003
0.00
-0.21
13.07
November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Appendix A
(Page 9 of 11)
Precipitation Data NOAA Station Number USC00047111
Cumulative Departure From the Mean Estimates
Month
Year
Date
Monthly Total
Precipitation (inches)
Departure From Mean -
Monthly (DMM) [inches]
Precipitation
Cumulative DMM
(CDMM)
Month for Monthly
Mean
Monthly Mean
(Water Year 1968 -
2013)
[inches]
Equation or
Source
From NOAA Station
Number USC00047111
[Monthly Total - Monthly
Mean]
DMM + Previous Month
CDMM
October
2003
10/1/2003
0.00
-0.55
12.52
November
2003
11/1/2003
0.81
-0.59
11.93
December
2003
12/1/2003
1.26
-0.66
11.28
January
2004
1/1/2004
0.36
-2.42
8.86
February
2004
2/1/2004
4.37
1.49
10.35
March
2004
3/1/2004
0.61
-1.79
8.55
April
2004
4/1/2004
1.08
0.02
8.57
May
2004
5/1/2004
0.00
-0.32
8.26
June
2004
6/1/2004
0.00
-0.08
8.18
July
2004
7/1/2004
0.00
-0.02
8.15
August
2004
8/1/2004
0.00
-0.08
8.07
September
2004
.9/1/2004
0.00
-0.21
7.86
October
2004
10/1/2004
2.48
1.93
9.78
November
2004
11/1/2004
1.83
0.43
10.21
December
2004
12/1/2004
3.55
1.63
11.85
January
2005
1/1/2005
5.99
3.21
15.06
February
2005
2/1/2005
0.59
-2.29
12.77
March
2005
3/1/2005
1.07
-1.33
11.44
April
2005
4/1/2005
0.65
-0.41
11.03
May
2005
5/1/2005
0.16
-0.16
10.87
June
2005
6/1/2005
0.00
-0.08
10.79
July
2005
7/1/2005
0.00
-0.02
10.77
August
2005
8/1/2005
0.00
-0.08
10.69
September
2005
9/1/2005
0.25
0.04
10.72
October
2005
10/1/2005
1.21
0.66
11.38
November
2005
11/1/2005
0.05
-1.35
10.03
December
2005
12/1/2005
0.01
-1.91
8.12
January
2006
1/1/2006
0.95
-1.83
6.29
February
2006
2/1/2006
1.31
-1.57
4.72
March
2006
3/1/2006
1.13
-1.27
3.45
April
2006
4/1/2006
0.89
-0.17
3.28
May
2006
5/1/2006
0.20
-0.12
3.16
June
2006
6/1/2006
0.00
-0.08
3.09
July
2006
7/1/2006
0.15
0.13
3.21
August
2006
8/1/2006
0.00
-0.08
3.13
September
2006
9/1/2006
0.00
-0.21
2.91
October
2006
10/1/2006
0.00
-0.55
2.36
November
2006
11/1/2006
0.00
-1.40
0.96
December
2006
12/1/2006
0.20
-1.72
-0.75
January
2007
1/1/2007
-0.75
February
2007
2/1/2007
3.06
0.18
-0.57
March
2007
3/1/2007
0.08
-2.32
-2.90
April
2007
4/1/2007
0.60
-0.46
-3.36
May
2007
5/1/2007
0.05
-0.27
-3.62
June
2007
6/1/2007
0.00
-0.08
-3.70
July
2007
7/1/2007
0.00
-0.02
-3.73
August
2007
8/1/2007
0.00
-0.08
-3.81
September
2007
9/1/2007
0.10
-0.11
-3.92
October 1
2007
10/1/2007
0.54
-0.01
-3.94
November
2007
11/1/2007
1.82
0.42
-3.52
December
2007
12/1/2007
2.41
0.49 1
-3.02
January
2008
1/1/2008
4.82
2.04
-0.98
February
2008 1
2/1/2008
1.54
-1.34
-2.32
March
2008 1
3/1/2008
0.11
-2.29
-4.61
November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Appendix A
(Page 10 of 11)
Precipitation Data NOAA Station Number USC00047111
Cumulative Departure From the Mean Estimates
Month
Year
Date
Monthly Total
Precipitation (inches)
Departure From Mean -
Monthly (DMM) [inches]
Precipitation
Cumulative DMM
(CDMM)
Month for Monthly
Mean
Monthly Mean
(Water Year 1968 -
2013)
[inches]
Equation or
Source
From NOAA Station
Number US00004 71 1 1
[Monthly Total - Monthly
Mean]
DMM + Previous Month
CDMM
April
2008
4/1/2008
1 0.01
-1.05
-5.66
May
2008
5/1/2008
0.20
-0.12
-5.78
June
2008
6/1/2008
0.00
-0.08
-5.86
July
2008
7/1/2008
0.00
-0.02
-5.88
August
2008
8/1/2008
0.00
-0.08
-5.96
September
2008
.9/1/2008
0.00
-0.21
-6.18
October
2008
10/1/2008
0.14
-0.41
-6.59
November
2008
11/1/20081
1.52
0.12
-6.47
December
2008
12/1/2008
2.31
0.39
-6.08
January
2009
1/1/2009
0.07
-2.71
-8.79
February
2009
2/1/2009
4.31
1.43
-7.36
March
2009
3/1/2009
0.10
-2.30
-9.66
April
2009
4/1/2009
0.03
-103
-10.69
May
2009
5/1/2009
0.05
-0.27
-10.96
June
2009
6/1/2009
0.17
0.09
-10.86
July
2009
7/1/2009
0.00
-0.02
-10.89
August
2009
8/1/2009
0.00
-0.08
-10.97
September
2009
9/1/2009
0.00
-0.21
-11.19
October
2009
10/1/2009
0.03
-0.52
-11.71
November
2009
11/1/2009
0.66
-0.74
-12.45
December
2009
12/1/20091
3.25
1.33
-11.11
January
2010
1/1/2010
6.63
3.85
-7.26
February
2010
2/1/2010
4.18
1.30
-5.96
March
2010
3/1/2010
0.58
-1.82
-7.79
April
2010
4/1/2010
1.84
0.78
-7.01
May
2010
5/1/2010
0.02
-0.30
-7.30
June
2010
6/1/2010
0.00
-0.32
-7.62
July
2010
7/1/2010
0.02
0.00
-7.63
August
2010
8/1/2010
0.00
-0.08
-7.71
September
2010
9/1/2010
0.09
-0.12
-7.83
October
2010
10/1/2010
4.04
3.49
-4.35
November
2010
11/1/2010
1.61
0.21
-4.14
December
2010
12/1/2010
8.97
7.05
2.92
January
2011
1/1/2011
1.29
-1.49
1.43
February
2011
2/1/2011
3.69
0.81
2.24
March
2011
3/1/2011
1.98
-0.42
1.81
April
2011
4/1/2011
0.40
-0.66
1.16
May
2011
5/1/2011
0.96
0.64
1.80
June
2011
6/1/2011
0.13
0.05
1.85
July
2011
7/1/2011
0.00
-0.02
1.83
November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Appendix A
(Page 11 of 11)
Precipitation Data NOAA Station Number US000047111
Cumulative Departure From the Mean Estimates
Month
Year
Date
Monthly Total
Precipitation (inches)
Departure From Mean -
Monthly (DMM) [inches]
Precipitation
Cumulative DMM
(CDMM)
Month for Monthly
Mean
Monthly Mean
(Water Year 1968 -
2013)
[inches]
Equation or
Source
From NOAA Station
Number USC00047111
[Monthly Total - Monthly
Mean]
DMM + Previous Month
CDMM
August
2011
8/1/2011
0.00
-0.08
1.74
September
2011
9/1/2011
0.32
0.11
1.85
October
2011
10/1/2011
0.52
-0.03
1.82
November
2011
11/1/2011
4.09
2.69
4.51
December
2011
12/1/2011
1.08
-0.84
3.67
January
2012
1/1/2012
0.98
-1.80
1.87
February
2012
2/1/2012
0.74
-2.13
-0.26
March
2012
3/1/2012
1.93
-0.47
-0.74
April
2012
4/1/2012
2.08
1.02
0.29
May
2012
5/1/2012
0.18
-0.14
0.15
June
2012
6/1/2012
0.00
-0.08
0.07
July
2012
7/1/2012
0.00
-0.02
0.05
August
2012
8/1/2012
0.01
-0.07
-0.03
September
2012
9/1/2012
0.00
-0.21
-0.24
October
2012
10/1/2012
1.05
0.50
0.25
November
2012
11/1/2012
0.40
-1.00
-0.74
December
2012
12/1/2012
3.40
1.48
0.74
January
2013
1/1/2013
1.60
-1.18
-0.44 _
February
2013
2/1/2013
1.44
-1.43
-1.87
March
2013
3/1/2013
1.39
-1.01
-2.89
April
2013
4/1/2013
0.08
-0.98
-3.87
November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Sunroad Enterprises
Appendix B
LSCTW Average Monthly Groundwater Elevation
Sustainability Assessment September 2013
303 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Appendix B
(Page 1 of 3)
Lower Sycamore Creek Test Well (LSCTW) Average Monthly Groundwater Elevation (GWE)
Maderas Golf Club
Date
LSCTW GWE Average-Monthly
March -00
348.2
April-00
346.5
May -00
294.5
June -00
July -00
296.1
August -00
306.4
September -00
304.4
October -00
307.0
November -00
325.9
December -00
318.2
January-01
328.3
February-01
346.7
March -01
349.5
April -01
337.2
May -01
317.9
June -01
304.3
July -01
299.1
August -01
287.0
September -01
294.8
October -01
304.4
November -01
320.7
December -01
358.8
January-02
364.5
February-02
352.4
March -02
341.2
April-02
334.7
May -02
312.9
June -02
294.2
July -02
283.0
August -02
277.2
September -02
308.4
October -02
292.8
November -02
330.3
December -02
353.4
January-03
360.4
February-03
344.4
March -03
332.4
April -03
305.2
May -03
222.3
June -03
296.6
July -03
291.5
August -03
288.6
September -03
288.4
October -03
281.2
November -03
318.7
December -03
326.1
January-04
335.5
February-04
335.1
March -04
339.1
April-04
324.0
May -04
293.6
June -04
281.8
July -04
287.1
August -04
292.9
September -04
283.3
October -04
296.6
November -04
325.0
December -04
333.2
January-05
February-05
351.0
November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Appendix B
(Page 2 of 3)
Lower Sycamore Creek Test Well (LSCTW) Average Monthly Groundwater Elevation (GWE)
Maderas Golf Club
Date
LSCTWGWEAverage- Monthly
March -05
338.7
April-OS
315.1
May -05
309.6
June -05
310.4
July -OS
309.3
August -05
310.5
September -05
300.1
October -05
November -05
302.1
December -05
302.1
January-06
324.5
February-06
319.4
March -06
335.9
April -06
337.8
May -06
316.4
June -06
295.8
July -06
August -06
September -06
October -06
296.9
November -06
306.6
December -06
315.2
January-07
322.8
February-07
334.4
March -07
333.1
April -07
329.5
May -07
307.5
June -07
299.5
July -07
293.3
August -07
291.9
September -07
292.0
October -07
289.2
November -07
309.4
December -07
January-08
345.8
February-08
March -08
April -08
May -08
June -OS
J u ly -08
August -08
282.7
September -08
309.1
October -08
311.8
November -08
314.3
December -08
330.6
January-09
347.5
February-09
338.4
March -09
349.0
,April-09
327.4
May -09
310.1
June -09
307.5
July -09
297.7
August -09
290.1
September -09
302.2
October -09
303.0
November -09
302.8
December -09
323.6
January-10
335.0
February-10
345.1
March 710
349.0
November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Appendix B
(Page 3 of 3)
Lower Sycamore Creek Test Well (LSCTW) Average Monthly Groundwater Elevation (GWE)
Maderas Golf Club
Date
LSCTW GWE Average-Monthly
April -10
334.4
May -10
320.6
June -10
301.2
July -10
294.2
August -10
296.6
September -10
294.7
October -10
306.4
November -10
317.4
December -10
330.8
January-11
343.0
February-11
339.0
March -11
343.3
April -11
336.4
May -11
322.4
June -11
320.6
July -11
308.0
August -11
300.0
September -11
302.7
Groundwater elevations are based on in -well pressure transducer readings and manual readings. Please note that months without data are
where no data is available. Typically reasons for no data collected were transducer malfunctions and damage due to wildfires.
November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Updated Western Well Zone Section
(This is the Maderas proposed update to this
section from that shown in Attachment G)
Western Well Zone
Based on data demonstrating significant influence between Maderas Wells 4 and 5 in the western
zone and LSCTW, monitoring groundwater depths in LSCTW is required independent of the
amount of groundwater production from Maderas Wells 4 and 5 and any other operating well
that the City determines influences LSCTW. Therefore, determining a Trigger is not required for
the western well zone.
Groundwater production at Maderas Golf Club will not be conducted in a manner which
adversely impacts groundwater production for Assessor Parcel No. (APN) 272 - 150 -24 (San
Dieguito Joint Powers Authority headquarters) and the five parcels in the lower Sycamore Creek
neighborhood that are or could be developed with a single family detached dwelling unit and
where the property is also dependent on groundwater as the only source of potable water. These
parcels include APN 272 - 150 -20, APN 272 - 150 -28, APN 272- 150 -36, APN 272 - 150 -26, and
APN 272 - 150 -23 (collectively, "Lower Sycamore Creek Area (hereinafter "LSC Area" ).
Maderas will measure the static groundwater level at LSCTW and will adjust groundwater
production as follows:
• The groundwater depth at LSCTW should not exceed 100 feet bgs pursuant to the
monitoring protocols of this plan.
• If the water level depth exceeds 100 feet bgs anytime from January 1 through September
30 the applicant shall discontinue pumping groundwater from Maderas Wells 4 and 5 and
any other operational production well which the City has determined to influence
LSCTW, for 15 days or until the water level rises to at least 90 feet bgs, whichever is
longer.
• If within 30 days of resumed pumping the water level depth at LSCTW exceeds 100 feet
bgs, applicant shall discontinue pumping for 30 additional days or until the water level
rises to 90 feet bgs, whichever is longer.
• If the water level depth exceeds 100 feet bgs anytime from October 1 through December
31, the applicant shall discontinue pumping groundwater from Maderas Wells 4 & 5 and
any other operational well which the City has determined significantly influences
LSCTW, for 30 days or until the water level rises to 80 feet bgs, whichever is longer.
307 of 374 ATTACHMENT J November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Maderas, and /or any and all subsequent applicants and /or property owners, shall
guarantee water service to the LSC Area and all its residents for as long as: (1) Maderas
and all subsequent applicants and /or property owners operate well(s) in the western zone,
or any other well(s) for which there is a connection to LSC Area, and (2) the City has not
provided permanent potable water services to the resident properties in the LSC Area.
Notwithstanding anything to the eont, -ai-v . ,;, hin this dden „mi +The requirements of this
CUP on Maderas; and any subsequent applicants fio*s and /or property owners, to monitor
its well(s) as well as the restrictions on pumping the wells, shall at all times, remain in full
force and effect. In the event groundwater supplies become inadequate to meet the
domestic and non - domestic water needs of the residents and properties in the LSC Area,
Maderas and any subsequent applicants and /or property owners shall supply water to meet
those needs in such quantities and for such periods as necessary to meet those needs, at
Maderas and any subsequent applicants and /or property owners sole cost and expense.
Maderas and any subsequent applicant and /or property owners shall also be responsible
for any secondary expenses such as road repairs, 'determined by the Director of
Development Services as necessary to provide the water service. The alternatives for
supplying such water service shall include, but is not limited to, deepening wells, trucking
and storing water on site(s), or extending a temporary aboveground water line from the
Highland Ranch area or closest point. Maderas or any subsequent applicant and /or
property owners, may select the alternative and shall be responsible for all costs associated
with implementing continued and uninterrupted water service. In the event of a dispute
between any resident and Maderas or any subsequent applicant and /or property owners,
over the adequacy of the water supply or the adequacy of the remedy implemented by
Maderas or any subsequent applicant and /or property owners, the City Council shall
308 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 31
n-m-t-Fir-ations this the UP,
to in the lower- Syeamer-e Greek
of plan and apply
par-eels
1 I
multi family residential or- to a fiaffl; n-Ii-al use,
or- these pafvels refi-er-t-I -above have
. 1110
OW
NOW`
Maderas, and /or any and all subsequent applicants and /or property owners, shall
guarantee water service to the LSC Area and all its residents for as long as: (1) Maderas
and all subsequent applicants and /or property owners operate well(s) in the western zone,
or any other well(s) for which there is a connection to LSC Area, and (2) the City has not
provided permanent potable water services to the resident properties in the LSC Area.
Notwithstanding anything to the eont, -ai-v . ,;, hin this dden „mi +The requirements of this
CUP on Maderas; and any subsequent applicants fio*s and /or property owners, to monitor
its well(s) as well as the restrictions on pumping the wells, shall at all times, remain in full
force and effect. In the event groundwater supplies become inadequate to meet the
domestic and non - domestic water needs of the residents and properties in the LSC Area,
Maderas and any subsequent applicants and /or property owners shall supply water to meet
those needs in such quantities and for such periods as necessary to meet those needs, at
Maderas and any subsequent applicants and /or property owners sole cost and expense.
Maderas and any subsequent applicant and /or property owners shall also be responsible
for any secondary expenses such as road repairs, 'determined by the Director of
Development Services as necessary to provide the water service. The alternatives for
supplying such water service shall include, but is not limited to, deepening wells, trucking
and storing water on site(s), or extending a temporary aboveground water line from the
Highland Ranch area or closest point. Maderas or any subsequent applicant and /or
property owners, may select the alternative and shall be responsible for all costs associated
with implementing continued and uninterrupted water service. In the event of a dispute
between any resident and Maderas or any subsequent applicant and /or property owners,
over the adequacy of the water supply or the adequacy of the remedy implemented by
Maderas or any subsequent applicant and /or property owners, the City Council shall
308 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 31
n-m-t-Fir-ations this the UP,
to in the lower- Syeamer-e Greek
of plan and apply
par-eels
multi family residential or- to a fiaffl; n-Ii-al use,
or- these pafvels refi-er-t-I -above have
Maderas, and /or any and all subsequent applicants and /or property owners, shall
guarantee water service to the LSC Area and all its residents for as long as: (1) Maderas
and all subsequent applicants and /or property owners operate well(s) in the western zone,
or any other well(s) for which there is a connection to LSC Area, and (2) the City has not
provided permanent potable water services to the resident properties in the LSC Area.
Notwithstanding anything to the eont, -ai-v . ,;, hin this dden „mi +The requirements of this
CUP on Maderas; and any subsequent applicants fio*s and /or property owners, to monitor
its well(s) as well as the restrictions on pumping the wells, shall at all times, remain in full
force and effect. In the event groundwater supplies become inadequate to meet the
domestic and non - domestic water needs of the residents and properties in the LSC Area,
Maderas and any subsequent applicants and /or property owners shall supply water to meet
those needs in such quantities and for such periods as necessary to meet those needs, at
Maderas and any subsequent applicants and /or property owners sole cost and expense.
Maderas and any subsequent applicant and /or property owners shall also be responsible
for any secondary expenses such as road repairs, 'determined by the Director of
Development Services as necessary to provide the water service. The alternatives for
supplying such water service shall include, but is not limited to, deepening wells, trucking
and storing water on site(s), or extending a temporary aboveground water line from the
Highland Ranch area or closest point. Maderas or any subsequent applicant and /or
property owners, may select the alternative and shall be responsible for all costs associated
with implementing continued and uninterrupted water service. In the event of a dispute
between any resident and Maderas or any subsequent applicant and /or property owners,
over the adequacy of the water supply or the adequacy of the remedy implemented by
Maderas or any subsequent applicant and /or property owners, the City Council shall
308 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 31
determine which of the above stated alternatives is to be implemented and Maderas, or any
subsequent applicant and /or property owners, shall comply with the City Council's
determination as a condition of this Conditional Use Permit. In the event that the City
Council determines at any time that the water service to the LSC uArea is inadequate, it
may direct that the groundwater usage by Maderas or any subsequent applicant and /or
property owners shall cease until the City Council determines that the service has become
adequate. In the event such direction is not complied-with by Maderas or any subsequent
applicant and /or property owners, this Conditional Use Permit may, after public hearing,
be modified or revoked by the City Council.
309 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
0
MICKEY CAFAGNA, Mayor
DON HIGGINSON, Deputy Mayor
BOB EMERY, Councilmember
JAY GOLDBY, Councilmember
BETTY REXFORD, Councilmember
C ITY OF POWA�
F U L E
GfeM J. Smith, Recorder/County Gerk
SEP 0 6 2000
sy V
DEFUrf
CITY OF POWAY
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1. Name and Address of Applicant: Sunroad Enterprises, 1455 Frazee Road, Suite
1000, San Diego, CA 92108
2. Brief Description of Project: Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit
CUP 90 -13 Modification (M), Sunroad Enterprises, Applicant: A request to modify
an existing conditional use permit to establish an operational plan for the use of
groundwater at the Maderas Golf Club based on the "Hydrogeologic and Biologic
Study for the Sycamore Creek Sub - Basin ", the establishment of a riparian habitat
monitoring program, and for compliance with prior conditions and mitigation
measures from the January 4, 2000 City Council resolution addressing unauthorized
grading, preservation of habitat on the periphery and within the golf course and
encroachments into the riparian corridor along Sycamore Creek. The property is
located at 17750 Old Coach Road within the Planned Community (PC) zone.
3. In accordance with Resolution 83 -084 of the City of Poway, implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, the City of Poway has determined that
the above project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. An
Environmental Impact Report will not be required.
4. Minutes of such decision and the Initial Study prepared by the City of Poway are on
file in the Development Services Department of the City of Poway.
5. This decision of the City C:Ol1I1Cil of the City or Poway is final.
Contact Person: Stephen A. Streeter Phone: (858) 679 -4293
July 26, 2000
RECEIVED
OCT 11 2000
City °ive
Mailing Address P.O. Box 858) 748 -6600, 695 -1400
31 Q,af 374,,;..,,;,; „;,,,,; ATTACHMENT K November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
CITY OF POW AY
Environmental Initial Study,
Environmental Checklist Foram, and Mitigated Negative Declaration
1. Project idle: Conditional Use Permit W13M(2) Madams Goff Course Groundwater Use
APT 277 - 170 -06
2. Lead agency name and address:
3. Contact person and phone number:
City of Poway - Planning Division
P.O. Sox 789
Poway, CA 92074-0789
Steve Streeter, Principal Planner. (658) 6794293
4. Project location: The proposed project is within the existing Maderas Golf Course located
in the northern portion of the City of Poway, County of San Diego, State
of California. The project site is east of Old Coach Road and mainly
north of Sycamore Creek The project parcel is immediately north of the
existing Old Coach Collection residential development; west and south
of the Heritage Unit 1 residential development and, east of an open
space parcel (APN: 272 - 150 -06) owned by the San Dieguito River Park
Joint Powers Authority ("San Dieguito River Park ").
5. Project sponsors name and address: Sunroad Enterprises
1455 Frazee Rd.
San Diego, CA 92108
617. General Plan/Zoning designation: Planned Community (PC); Old Coach Golf Estates
Planned Community
8. Description-of project
Between August 1999 and May 2000, the golf course irrigation used abort 218 acre -feet
of groundwater and 115 acre-feet of potable water for a total of 333 acre -feet. An
estimated 59 acre -feet of water (19+ acre -feet of groundwater and 39+ acre -feet of
potable waiter) is expected to be used in June and July 2000. The total Irrigation needs
for the golf course is 450 acre -feet with 257 acre -foot currently from groundwater and 194
acre -foot from potable water. On June 13, 2000, the City Council authorized an extension
of groundwater use at the Madems Golf Club through August 31, 2000 at a rate equal to
one -third of the annual need, i.e. 150 acre fit per year.
The project is a request to modify an existing, approved conditional use permit to establish
an operational plan for the use of groundwater at the Madams Golf Club based on the
"Hydrogeoiagic and Biologic Study for the Sycamore Creek Sub - Basin" (Con Howard
Engineers, July 2000), the establishment of a riparian habitat monitoring program, and for
29 of 94
311 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
compliance wit.. prior conditions and mitigation measures from City Council Resolution P-
00-03 in order to rectify unauthorized grading. prtssemation of habitat on the periphery and
within the golf course, and encroachmerrts into the riparian corridor along Sycamore
Creek. The property is located at 17750 Old Coach Road withmin the Planned Communib,
(PC) zone. Access to the golf course is from a single driveway extending west off Old
Coach Road, just north of Cascade Crossing. A semi - circular driveway provides access
to the maintenance yard on the west side of Old Coach Road, south of Sycamore Creek.
The purpose of this project is to implement a condition from a May 1990 City Council
resolution of approval (Resolution No. P- 90 -34) for the Old Coach Golf Estates project
(that includes this site) pertaining to use of groundwater. The applicant has now performed
a groundwater hydrology analysis to determine the feasibility of the use of groundwater
until reclaimed water is available. The upcoming public hearing, findings and decision
by the City Council will determine how much groundwater will be authorized for use by the
Maderas Golf Club. Monitoring of groundwater levels for consumptive use by neighboring
property owners and irrigation for the golf course within the 2,800 acre watershed and
monitoring of the Sycamore Creek riparian habitat with shallow monitoring wells are key
aspects of the operational plan described in the •Hydrologeologic and Biologic Study of
the Sycamore Creek Sub - Basin°.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: The project parcel is immediately north of the existing
Old Coach Collection residential development; west and south of the Heritage Unit 1
residential development; and, east of an open space parcel (APN: 272 - 150 -06) owned
by the San Dieguito River Park Joint Powers Authority.
The southern portions of the project site borders the Sycamore Creek natural oak riparian ,
forest and woodland habitat. Two golf holes and the golf course maintenance building are
located to the south of the creek. In addition, the upper portions of the site overlook the
creek's natural riparian woodland habitat and the surrounding hillsides and mountains of
North Poway.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits and project concurrence.)
Development of the property will require subsequent approvals from Responsible
Agencies identified as follows:
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for Nationwide Permit.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game for
compliance with the Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan.
• California Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Diego, Region 9) for a 401
Water Quality Certification or Waiver.
• Califomia Department of Fish and Game for a Section 1600 Streambed Alteration
Agreement for the bridge on the west end of the golf course and a second bridge
crossing of Sycamore Creek
CUP 9o- 13M(2) Page 2
Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Study
30 of 99
312 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
ENVIRONMENTAL FACT%-.6 POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a'Potentially Significant impact`° as indicated by the c heddist on the following
pages. None are checked because all impacts are mitigated to less than significance,
• Aesthetics
• Agriculture Resources
O Air Quality
O Biological Resources
O Cultural Resources
O Geology/Solis
O Hazards & Hazardous Materials
O HydrologylWater Quality
O Land usenanning
O Mineral Resources
O Noise
O Population/Housing
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
O Public Services
O Recreation
O TransportationlTraffic
O Utilities 1 Service Systems
O Mandatory Findings of
Significance
O 1 find that the proposed pmjed COULD NOT have a significant effed on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
e I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by
or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
O 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
O 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant itnpactt" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain
to be addressed.
O 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are ' posed upon the p posed project, nothing further is required.
Signature: ' Date:
St phen A. Streeter
CUP 90- 13M(2) page 3
Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Study
31 of 94
313 of 374 November 1-9;= 13` W6M7#3.#
ATTACHMENT A Location Map and Exhibit Depicting Well Locations
ATTACHMENT B REC biological assessment letter to Sunroad Enterprises dated October 20,
1999 (describes the physical parameters and methodology of the riparian
habitat monitoring transects)
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Hydrologic and Biologic Study of the Sycamore Creek Sub- Basin, July 2000, prepared by Don
Howard Engineers and REC Environmental Consultants (on file at the Poway Development Services
Department, Planning Division)
Final EIR for Old Coach Golf Estates, May 1990, prepared by P & D Technologies and certified
by the Poway City Council on May 15, 1990 (on file at the Poway Development Services
Department, Planning Division)
CUP 90- 13M(2) Page 4
Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Stuffy
32 of 94
314 of 374 November
ISSUES:
I. AWHEMS - Would the project:
pommy Less Than
less Than
No
3001eant Sip Worm WM
SOVfkant
cmpacc
hoped Aainoaoon
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
❑ ❑
❑
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and history buildings within a state scenic
❑ ❑
❑
❑
highway?
plan?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site
❑
❑
❑
and its surroundings?
❑
existing or projected air quality violation?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
El
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
®
❑
(�
!l. AGFUCULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to
pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an
agricultural resources are sigriftent environmental eft ft. lead agericies
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
may refer to the Califomia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
Assessment Model (1897) prepared by the Caiifamis Dept of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
❑
❑
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Fat ,,do d), as shown on the reaps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Cailfomie Resources
❑ ❑
❑
.�./
U°
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
❑ ❑
❑
c�ntraict
d
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their
E3 E]
®
Iocathn or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to
L7
non- agricultural use?
Ill. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance a Nei established
by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district
may be relied upon to make the fallowing determinations. Would the
prole
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable eir quality
❑
❑
❑
plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantiality to an
❑
❑
❑
existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
®
❑
❑
,�(
U
pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
❑
❑
❑
CUP 90- 13M(2) Pop 5
Modem Golf Course Groundwater Study
33 of 94
315 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
POW belly
Less Than Less Than No
❑
Significant
Significant with Signifcent Impact
and Wildlife Service?
Impact
Mitigation Impact '
IN. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the projW:
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited
❑
e) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
hydrological interruption, of other means?
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
d) Interfere substantialiy with the movement of any native resident or
® ❑
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native Wildlife nursery
or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
sites?
Wildlife Service?
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
❑
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies,
❑
regulations or by the Califomia Department of Fish and Garde or US Fish
❑
and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited
❑
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, eta.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, of other means?
d) Interfere substantialiy with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native Wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved Iocal, regional,
or state habitat conservation plan?
V- CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in 15064.5? ❑
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site
or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, inrJuding those interred Outside-of formal
cemeteries?
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
U
C'
C
CUP 90- 13M (2) Page 6
Maderes Golf Course Groundwater Study
34 of 94
316 of 374 Novernber� -T9; 2011, I4ew# $.1
V1. Gwilogy and Bois - Woull � e
Pt Aty teas Than Lass Than No
SWWOM SbMMI WNh Sin in, nt impact
8) EXhose people or structures to potential stbstOn1181 adverse effects,
As°�bori �
including the risk of loss, injury, or death invohfg:
1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault. as delineated on the most
® ❑ ❑
recent IUquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial once of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strom seismic ground shaking?
❑ ❑ ❑
iii) Seismio-related ground fallure, including liquefaction?
® ❑ 2�' ❑
iv) Landslides?
❑ ❑ ❑ e
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of lopsol17
® ® ❑ L!d
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become result the
® ® ❑ r..}r
unstable as a of project, and potentially result in on- or
t�
off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence. liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive loll. as defined In Table 18-1 -B of the
nlform Building Code (1994), "risks
,._,/
E3 13 12
creating substarntial to ,life or
property?
or Have sods d adequately supporting the use of septic tanks
tine incapable
❑ ❑ ❑
wad where sewers are not
available for the disposal of wasteewwate�
W. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environmenl through
the transport, disposal hazardous
❑ ❑ ❑
routine use, or of materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the pubic or the environment through
foreseeable
® ❑ ® �/
1!
reasonabl upset and accidenl conditions involving the
release ofyhazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hiazerdous
materials, substances, or
❑ ❑ ❑
waste within one- quarter mile of an existing a
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included an a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled to Government Code
❑ ❑ ❑
pursuant Section 65962.5 and, as
a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
CUP 90- 13M(2) Page 7
Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Study
35 of 94
317 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3:'1
pelardwy Loss "Iran Less Ttmn No
t m sig t Impact � n
e) For a PrqeCt located within an airport land use plan or, where g.Ch a plan has
riot been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the in
❑ ❑ ❑
project result a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area?
0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ect
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
❑ ❑ ❑ [>�
area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response
❑
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
❑ ❑
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of foss, injuuryry or death
involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas
❑ L� ❑ ❑
or where residences are intermixed with wrildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements ?.
❑ ® ® ,�/
LI
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the
❑ ❑ ❑
production rate of pro- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
❑
course of a stream or river, in a
❑ ❑
manner which would result in substantial erosion or s+ttation on- or
off -site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
❑ ❑
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which wild result in flooding on- or off -site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the unity of
existing or planned storrnwater drainage systems or provide substantial
❑ ❑ ❑
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
❑ ❑ ❑
g) Place housing within a 900 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
❑ ❑
Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
❑ [+
h) Place within a 900 -year flood hazard area structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
❑ ❑
nvol�in eflood ng including flooding as a rnesultkof the sfailu of levee
❑ ❑ ❑
or dam? a
[�
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
❑ ❑ ❑ /
CUP 90- 13M(2) Page 8
Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Study
36 of 94
318 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Pak IN LM Then Less Th#n No
NMI S W Sim t Impact
n
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
® ❑ ❑
b) Conflict with any applicable land use lan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the (including, but not limited the
❑ ❑ ❑
project to
rom
general plan, specific plan, local coastal p rem, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or tag an env mental
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
❑ �,/ ❑ ❑
community conservation plan?
uJ
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral nssouroe that would
,.,/
11 El El 03
be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- portartt mineral resource
❑ ❑ ❑
recovery site delineated on a local general plan, spedbc plan or other
land use pion?
Xl. NOISE- Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
❑ ❑ 0 ,-,/
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome
❑ ❑ ❑
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent incase in antbiard noise levels m the project
levels
❑ ❑ ❑
vicinity above existing without the proms?
!�
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in embisrtt noise levels in
❑ ❑ ❑
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project iocated within on airport land use plan or, where such a
has been
11 13
plan not adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose pie residing or working m the
project area to excessive noise levels.
0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project
in
❑ ❑ ❑
expose people residing or working the project area to excessive noise
L�'
levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
by
❑ ❑ ❑
example, proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly f�
exempie. through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
❑ ❑ ❑
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction
,�,/
❑ ❑ El
of replacement housing elsewhere?
LJ
CUP 90- 13M (2) Page 9
enmr4arsaa rnif Course Groundwater Study
319 of 3M °:' 94 November 19, 2bY:Y 'MM -4311 I
XHI- PUBLIC SERVICES -
a) Would the project result In substantial adverse physical Impacts
es ��ns � intfacilneed for ow physica altered physically governmental
facilities, the
construction of which could Cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services,
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
XJV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the faclydy would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATIOPirMFFIC - Would the project.
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a
substantial increase in either the number of vehicle b", the volume to
Capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
C) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety
risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
i) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting
altemative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts. bicycle racks)?
XVJ. UTILITIES ANO SERVICE SYSTEMS -Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Contra Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or exxppansion of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause signihmnt environmental effects?
Lou Than less Then No
5s9rr1 Sioni6cant lmpac
npMd
ffmpla
❑ ❑ @(
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
Er
❑ L:7
o �
o ra'
❑ LsJ
❑ 1�
❑ L7
CUP 90- 13M(2) Page 10
mArfprac r-1-11 course Groundwater Study
36 of 99
320 of 374 Novembe 1- . %20'r3" Me-" eA �
Q Be
aaccommodeatedthe project's solid wast udisposal needs ❑ ❑ ❑ Er
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related
to sold waste? ❑ ❑ ❑
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
9. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
envtivrtrftertt, subsbutlspy reduce the habitat of 6sh or wildilfe species.
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal commurtlly, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or
eliminate ht>porWnt examples of the major parrs of the Cam ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have cts which are individually limited, but
cumulatively cansrderable7Cumulettivecat�iderabie means that
the inc rental effects of an individual p ara considerable when
viewed In connection with the effect of past projects, and probable ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
future projects.)
c. Does the project have the environmental effects which will Muse ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
substantial adverse effects on human behigs, either directly or
indirectly?
CUP W1 3M(2) page 11
Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Study
"9 of 94
321 of 374 November WROVS-fteWW�11"
'
Lis
SVN=At YAth
Low ftn
SWd =nt
No
impat
Wfip on
Impact
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing faciilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental
❑
❑
❑
[�
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the p�q from
existing entJtlemw is e�
❑
,.,/'
and resources, or are new or ef�tanded
i�
❑
❑
needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has adequate �r to serve the
❑
®
❑
project's pro aced demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
Q Be
aaccommodeatedthe project's solid wast udisposal needs ❑ ❑ ❑ Er
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related
to sold waste? ❑ ❑ ❑
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
9. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
envtivrtrftertt, subsbutlspy reduce the habitat of 6sh or wildilfe species.
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal commurtlly, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or
eliminate ht>porWnt examples of the major parrs of the Cam ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have cts which are individually limited, but
cumulatively cansrderable7Cumulettivecat�iderabie means that
the inc rental effects of an individual p ara considerable when
viewed In connection with the effect of past projects, and probable ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
future projects.)
c. Does the project have the environmental effects which will Muse ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
substantial adverse effects on human behigs, either directly or
indirectly?
CUP W1 3M(2) page 11
Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Study
"9 of 94
321 of 374 November WROVS-fteWW�11"
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. AESTHETICS
The project will not have a significant adverse impact on the aesthetics of the area. The tong -term
riparian habitat mitigation monitoring shall ensure that no impacts occur.
11. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
The project will not have a significant adverse impact on any agricultural resources in that the property
is surrounded by development and has limited value as prim agricultural land.
Ill. AIR QUALITY
The project will not have a significant adverse impact on air quality levels in the area as it will not
result in any traffic generation in the area.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
A. Groundwater
On June 13, 2000, the City Council authorized withdrawal of up to 150 acre -feet of groundwater per
year by the Maderas Golf Club. This amount represents one -third of the annual golf course irrigation
needs.
The oak riparian forest and woodland habitat is dominated by oak, sycamore and willow trees with an
understory of mule fat, poison oak, baecharis and other typical low lying riparian plant species. The
"Hydrologic and Biologic Study of the Sycamore Creek Sub - Basin" provided a baseline assessment
of the riparian corridor along Sycamore Creek that is within and borders the 203 acre golf course
Parcel. Habitat conditions were examined at several or site locations along the creek in February
2000 within the golf course parcel, upstream from the golf course and downstream from the golf
course. Conclusions from the examinations at seven transect locations are: 1) There is no apparent
effect on the riparian vegetation resulting from the use of groundwater wells for the golf course over
the past 12 months. 2) Willows have a shallower root system than sycamore or oak trees and
therefore would be the first tree species to show evidence of poor health or drought stress in response
to groundwater use. 3) In time, and with the collection of additional data (from re- examination of the
transects and the monitoring welts), it will be possible to ascertain if there is deterioration of the health
of the willows onsite.
Conclusion: A riparian habitat mitigation and monitoring program shall be required to accomplish these
objectives.
Mitigation:
1. The applicant shall retain a qualffed biologist on a continuous basis for monitoring of the riparian
habitat. The biologist shall be responsible for ensuring that the operation and maintenance of the
Maderas Golf Course does not result in any siltation entering the riparian corridor. If it is determined
that there are siltation problems, the biologist shall submit a letter to the Director of Development
Services identifying immediate corrective actions.
CUP 90- 13M(2) Page 12
Maderat r;nlf Course Groundwater Study
40 of 94
322 of 374 November 4,44 fl* 3.1&
2. By r 1.20M or prior to kawskV de amount of f withdrawal approved
pursuant to the City C,-andl action of Jana 13. 2000, the appocamt shall to the satisfaction of the
Director of Developrtnent Services:
a. Install pressure transducers and data loggers at the four shallow riparian monitoring wells (at
26 feet deep in the alluvium of Sycamore Creek within the Madams Golf Course) and in the
nearby pumping wells 2 and 4 (at 50 to 65 feet deep to the top of bedrock) as shown in the
"Hydrolgeologic and Biologic Study of the Sycamore Creek Sub - Basin" to establish the
baseline water levels and monitor the changes over time.
b. Obtain the permission of property owners and install six off -site riparian habitat monitoring
wells, as described in item c. below, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development
Services. Piezometers shall be placed at the 15 foot depth in each wait.
c. Shallow monitoring wells shall be installed at eight locations, adjacent to each transact as
follows:
i. The three upstream locations shall include a location within Thompson Creek to the east
of Old Coach Road, a location within Sycamore Creek just downstream of the Hidden
Valley Ranch property, and a location within Green Valley Creek boated in the Blue Sky
Ecological Reserve.
The two onsite locations shall be within Sycamore Creek and along the golf course
iii. The three downstream locations shall be offsite of the golf course and within Sycamore
Creek and within the ownership of the San Dieguito River Park.
The physical parameters and methodology of dum transacts shag be the same as those
transacts identified in the REC biological assessment letter to Swmad dated October 20
1999. (See Attachment B to this Initial Study.)
d. The long -term riparian habitat mitigation and monitoring program shall include the following:
Transact survey data of the riparian habitat and the riparian monitoring wails shall be
prepared by qualified processionals and submitted in a report format for review, evaluation
and acceptance by the City. The information shall be submitted to the City on May 15 and
October 15 of every year. The frequency of transact inspections will be evaluated by the
City during the first year of this permit for adjustment to a less frequent or more frequent
interval.
ii. A photo inventory of each transact shall be included in the report as described above and
provided to the City in digital format, to the satisfaction of the Dire of Development
Services, for the riparian habitat monitoring so that the health of the riparian trees and
plants can be visually assessed. The digital photos shall be correlated to a map of the
riparian areas to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
iii. The report submitted shall compare actual measurements with pre - established warning
and action criteria.
iv. The riparian habitat monitoring shall be consistent with the Restoration Plan ,for the
Maderas Gotf Course and California Departn ent of Fish and Game Straambed Alteration
Agreement #5- 317 -97 dated October 1999 and the operational plan dated July 2000 for
The Hydrogeologic and Biologic Study of the Sycamore Creek Sub - Basin ".
CUP 90- 13M(2) Page 13
Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Study
41 of 94
323 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item 9 3.1 `
v. In the a 'At the 1189 of groundwater by the a` :ant results in any d'mect or indirect
impacts .o wetland and riparian resources, the following mitigation and monitoring
requirements shall be Implemented by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Director of
Development Services:
A "Compensation Mitigation Plan" shall be prepared by the qualified biologist retainec,
by The applicant. This Plan shall be submitted to the Development Services
Department for review and approval. This Plan shall identify the specific location of the
impact(s), quantify the impacts) and recommend `compensation mitigation" in
compliance with Section 7.4 of the Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (Poway
HCP).
ii. A minimum five (5) year `Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Maintenance Program"
shall be prepared by the qualified biologist retained by The applicant. This Program
shall be submitted to the Development Services Department for review and approval.
The Program shall include appropriate monitoring and reporting requirements,
maintenance and success criteria, and plant replacement guidelines. The Program
shall be consistent with and further the conservation objectives of the Poway HCP, and
shall ensure the successful completion of all Identified mitigation measures.
vi. Retrieve and analyze the data from the data loggers In the bedrock (production) wells
monthly beginning September 1, 2000. Monitor groundwater elevations at the shallow
riparian wells adjacent to the transects monthly. If water levels in the alluvial shallow
monitoring wells reach 15 feet below ground surface in Maderas Well -2 or Maderas
Well -4, the health of the riparian vegetation will be assessed immediately by Maderas'
biologist.
vii. If the water levels in any of the eight shallow monitoring wells decline to 10 feet or
more below ground surface and the health of the riparian habitat is in distress. as-
determined by the City, the use of groundwater shall cease upon notification by the
City. The use of groundwater will be reassessed by the City Engineer prior to
resumption.
3. The applicant shall comply with the operational plan for groundwater usage as contained in the
Hydrology and Water Quality section of this environmental initial study.
B. Revised Grading and Revegetation: The grading for the golf course was to observe a minimum
riparian setback of 50 feet from Sycamore Creek with some authorized encroachments to 25 feet for
about a 1,200 lineal feet. The actual encroachment into and beyond the 25 foot riparian corridor line
was about 3,000 lineal feet. Remedial grading and revegetation with riparian tree and plant species
is required for the unauthorized expansion of the golf course into the riparian zone. The as -built
grading plans will be compared with the original topography and approved grading plans for the golf
course periphery along with field verification to determine the .extent of remedial grading and
revegetation.
Mitigation:
1. Prior to the use of more than 150 acre -feet of groundwater, the applicant shah obtain and fully
implement all necessary state and federal agency permits as required to resolve and mitigate all
identified environmental impacts caused by unauthorized activities by the applicant. (Reference
item 10 on page 2 of this initial study.) The implementation of agency permit requirements, .the
implementation of required City mitigation measures, and an appropriate mitigation monitoring and
reporting program to ensure the successful completion of all such requirements and measures
CUP 90- 13M(2) Page 14
Maderes Golf Course Groundwater Study
42 of 94
324 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
i Rya =.
Y. CULTURAL. RESOURCES
The project will not result in any impact to cultural resources because no new development is
proposed and the monitoring wells will not be located in any culturally sensitive areas.
!!l. GEOLOGY AND SOLS
The project will not result in any impact from geology or soils because no new development is
proposed and the groundwater levels will be monitored.
The project does not involve the use of hazardous materials or emissions. The property has not
been identified by local agencies as having hazardous or contaminated soils. Therefore the project
will not have a significant hazardous impact on Ilhe area.
Bill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
A. Groundwater. The -Hydrologic and Biologic study of the Sycamore Creek Sub-Basin- studied
ttie effects of extensive groundwater withdrawal by the golf course beginning in May 1999. The
Sycamore Creek watershed is about 2.904 acres in area.
Conclusions of the study included: 1) The water dernand for the Maderas Golf Course and for
residents in the sub -basin is estmated to be 495 sae -teat per year. 2) The. bufldotst of residential
lots is estimateed to yield a water demand of 570 acre-feet per yr. 3) The average - groundwater
recharge is estimated to be 442 acre feet per year. 4) The total aquifer storage within the sub -
basin at a minimum of 543 acre -feet and a maxmum of 866 act -foot. 5) The groundwater
balance indicates that between 110 acne -fast and 145 acre -foot are availiable for oonsumptive use
annually. 6) Maderas' groundwater production has been metered since August 1999 with a total
groundwater production between August 1999 and May 2000 of 217.7 acs -feet. 7) Groundwater
level measurements taken on July 9, 2000 indicate a decline at off -sits wells of 35.7 feet at the
Lower Sycamore Creek test well (to the west) and 5.3 feet at Old Coach Estates test well (to the
east) below the baseline measurements taken on March 25, 2000.
Mitigation:
1. In order to further supplement the baseline data contained in the study, the applicant will. be
required to implement an operational plan for groundwater usage within the Sycamore Creek
Sub -Basin to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services. The data shall be
provided to the City for review by the City's consultant on a monthly basis. The plan shall
include, at a minimum, the following information:
a. preci ig tation ,12ata: (see Exhibit A attached as page 19) "
b. SrgUndwater MI: (see Exhibit A attached) "
c. Production: (see Exhibit A attached). Data to be provided to City consultant for review on
a monthly basis. ""
d. Pum iginng: The applicant will pump up to one -third (maximum 150 acre-feet per year) of
CUP 90- 13M(2) Page 15
Maderan rnlf course Groundwater Study
43 of 94
325 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
their water requirements until August 31, 2000 (see Exhibit A attached), and thereafter
increase their production as provided in mitigation measure 3 below provided mitigatec
measure 2 below is complied with. --
2. The applicant may adjust its groundwater production up to 200 acre-feet from September 1,
2000 through September 1, 2001 provided that prior to said adjustment the applicant shall
obtain and fully implement all necessary state and federal agency permits as required to
resolve and mitigate all identified environmental impacts caused by unauthorized activities by
the applicant as referenced in Section B. page 14 of this initial Study. The implementation of
agency permit requirements, the implementation of required City mitigation measures, and an
appropriate mitigation monitoring program to ensure the successful completion of all such
requirements and measures shall be to the satisfaction of the agencies and the Director of
Development Services.
3. After one year of groundwater production at the 200 acre -feet level, the City will evaluate the
findings of the operational plan and riparian habitat monitoring Program as to the impact of the
pumping at this rate. water level data collected from the three upstream Old Coach Estates
wells, as proposed in the Operational Plan, shall be used to evaluate the representativeness
of the Test well(s). Based on this review, it may be necessary to reduce groundwater
production based on water level fluctuations at the other Old Coach Estates wells that are
being monitored. At the end of the monitoring year (typically October 1 through September
30), a monitoring report with an updated groundwater balance analysis shall be prepared. The
report may include sufficient surface flow measurements to demonsbate additional inflow into
the basin, as well as groundwater recharge through the creek bed. This information may
provide technical support for an increase in groundwater production for the following year(s)...
Appmval of this increase will be given by the City Manager.
4. After one year of groundwater production at the 200 acre -feet level, the applicant may increase
its groundwater production by 20 acre -feet, each and every year for the next four years to 280
acre -feet, which is the maximum production allowed.
5. if any adverse impact is noticed due to the monitoring of the production wells, or the riparian
wells. the applicant will immediately discontinue the production until the wells are fully
recharged as described in Item 7 below.
6. The data collected shall be submitted to'the City's consultant for review. All expenses and
fees for the consultant and staff time shall be bome by the applicant. The Cost of the review
of the data shall not exceed $10,000 (to be on deposit). This fee does not include any unusual
study that may be required due to impact of water usage.
7. If depth to water criteria as specified are exceeded, groundwater production will be terminated
for a minimum of two weeks, until water levels recover to 40 feet above the designated water
level criteria. when these criteria are met, pumping will resume at 75 percent of the prior rate
for the remainder of the year. If the depth to water criteria is exceeded again, the process will
be repeated.
8. Production should be distributed as evenly as possible through the year to avoid peak
drawdown.
9. The applicant will produce fully- designed working drawings for extension of the domestic water
CUP 90- 13M(2) Page 16
Maderac rsw rnurse Groundwater Study
44 of 94
326 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
main to the lower Sycamore Canyon area within 12 months of approval of CUP 90- 13M(2).
10. The applicant will stop using potable (domestic) City water immediately in case of finks in the
Old Coach area.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
The project should not have a significant adverse impact on noise levels in the area.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
According to the 1990 Master Environmental Assessmient for the City of Poway no known mineral
resources exists in.the project area. Therefore the project will not have a significant adverse
impact on any known mineral resources in the area.
XI. NOISE
The project should not have a significant adverse impact on noise levels in the area.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
The project will not have a significant adverse impact on the population and housing in the area.
No additional housing is proposed.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
The project will not have a significant adverse impact on the public services in the ama.
XVI. RECREATION
The project will not have a significant adverse impact on recreation resources in the area.
X11. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC
The project will not have a significant adverse impact on the transportation system in the area
because no new development is proposed.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
There is adequate utility systems in proximity to the project to accommodate the proposed
development.
CUP 90- 13M(2) Pegs 17
Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Study
327 of 3745 of 94 November 11,1926t, 14e 3.14
Exhibit A
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
+
Collect manth#y
tempe precipitation data from the Poway Valley Station Pao. 7111. and precipitation and
rature data from Maderas' on -site weather station when operational.
°+
-Gr2undwateLinvols
Install pressure transducers and data loggers at four bedrock wells and four shallow alluvial wells
to measure static water levels. Data loggers shall record water levels a minimum of every two
hours at the four bedrock wells and four shallow alluvial wells. The four bedrock wells are
Maderas Wells 2 and 4, Lower Sycamore Creek Test Well and Old Coach Estates Test Well. The
four alluvial wells are Monitoring Well 1 and 2 at Maderas Well 2 and Monitoring Wells 3 and 4 at
Maderas Wells 4. The data will be retrieved on a weekly basis th h August 37, 2000, and
thereafter on a monthly basis. During the retrieval of data water leve s will also be measured
manually. Water levels taken manually should be measured to the nearest 0.01 -foot below a
consistent reference point and. with the date and time. Manual water levels should also
be taken at the following additional wells:
• Maderas Wells 1, 3.5 and 6 ® Barkin Well
• Malone Well mayo Well
• Myers Well • San Dieguito River Park Well
• Tremble Wells (2) • Slum Wells 3
• Sawzak Wells (3), if possible (), if Possible
Record, on a weekly basis, the flow meter readings for each of the wells equipped pp
through August 31, 2000, and thereafter on a monthly basis. The totalizer reading should be
noted the time the water levels are measured. 'Production volumes should be calculated for
each well.
+ar,+ pip
The groundwater levels must stabilize at or above 80 feet below ground surface at the Lower
Sycamore Creek Test Well, and at or above 120 feet below ground surface for the Old Coach
Estates. However, the ggroundwrater elevations (water level depth) ill not exceed 180 feet below
ground surface for Old Caaeh Estes' test well and 100 feet sir Lower Sycamore Creek test well.
Upon the first signs of any functional distress, Maderas shall discontinue the production of wells
until wells are fully recharged as described in Item 4.
E:IPLANNINGIOOREPORM lPgoj3_EIS
CUP 94- 13M(2) Page 18
Maderas Golf Course Groundwatee Study
46 of 94
328 of 374 November 'P9, M 1'` 6htf1 -d 3.+
r_.. ._mss !��_�.•.._��. r .r w
• -- • - -_..:��¢_ r �.'i:.,- Pry -- — - - '., _ J_' � _ ..
y {aN _. ✓q r �!- - ---.�- •�l .i ' ate'_ - „� 1t _ i\- `,`� -.��- sy`/r — 1�/ -.fir_• `- ..
;=
Cf
' S
/ 1 -' _ .900 �. J . � - • G:. �_
1 ,' 1. /'1 • /
r /' 721. _ •' -,•�' '_ ti _ -' Re1P'�:
`
x: Park
2$ 3654
, �.: � �v -_:' 1, \;. � /_'• .�. '._ r�.� �. /, .. ., ... ,, �' ;'`,
r• ands dm
- Jae des l ✓Lr` �”
6d.''
17,
:'r
�i3
' iig 'acs°�..,. -�
r�r=s ,,� ``^ _ /f' �,t •fL i •� rF .,� .L :d.• f -;I' `' •J '4jI
.•�r� %7 •"w:.. ;,,a%�• i t I
• es'�6- -�', �Irr A �r+- .. j _ _ tros l_. _ .I N
S1p�I�,a`_..' a ,�f.�c. ^ - ''-�•;:- . �� .. f
f .+� •� •` • O_ ; •� ~� " iJ/ . - '9 -� C `; Esmondido 7.5' V. SSG.& Quadrangle `
�- �_i `�� •s -f - *ATTA Af Seedons 18 is 19, Township 13 S., Range 1 1N.
a > i• 1� ak:'. San Bernardino lase & Meridian
of 99 e y ,
329 of 374 November 19, 26TT Ifein x`3'1`
Jason Martin CORRESPONDENCE # 1
From: Ron Sawzak <ronsaw @att.net>
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 3:07 PM
To: Don Higginson
Cc: Jason Martin; Tom Tremble; Frank Vaplon; jerry gill; Pamela Moore; Judy Purvis
Subject: CUP Maderas
Mayor (Don) Higginson
I was unable to attend the meeting in City Council Chambers this week but was provided with the summary. I
have been a resident of Old Coach Estates since the late 90's and appreciate what it takes to be a neighbor in
that area. You may not recall, but I do, that I went before you and the Council in 1997 just to obtain a permit
to build my home. Guess what the issue was? Ground water sufficiency. Like all things in business and
personal things tend to be cyclical. So here we go again.
Let me give you my definition of Good Neighbor. We accepted Maderas as a neighbor in the 90's because
there were benefits to all parties concerned. Our isolation was decreased by the improvement of roads and
utilities. On the other side Maderas was constructed and they would abide by certain standards as all
neighbors in the area. I am not an engineer, just a businessman and community member. At that time and
correct me if I am wrong, Maderas had half the amount of wells that they have today. Next they were going to
manage consumption by measuring a test well near my home. Two years ago the test well was dry and we
attended a meeting with the City of Poway I believe conducted by Jim Lyons. I learned at that time that
Maderas had doubled their wells. My question was naturally why wasn't this brought to our attention and the
answer by the Sunroad representative was that they didn't have to because that was a County issue. As a
citizen if I were going to construct another barn on my property or excavate the land I would first bring it to
the attention of my neighbors before I built my barn. In fact, the City wouldn't allow me to until they notified
my neighbors of my intent. It seem to me in this particular definition of Good Neighbor that Sunroad failed the
test. Now I am a trusting person but if you try to put something over on me I begin to see if that person can be
trusted. Now I put two and two together. Digging clandestine wells without discussing it with your neighbors
for several years and trying to build a building two stories higher than allowed and then having to tear two
stories off leaves me in doubt. I ask you what credibility can I have in anything that this company undertakes.
Reviewing the notes from Wednesdays meetings a few more things caught my attention. As in the first
meeting 2 years ago the Sunroad hydrological representative leaves many questions unanswered. If you cant
provide the answers to key questions presented by the neighborhood then, again, how can I have credence in
your report? I noted another comment by Jason Martin that I need clarification on. Please correct me if I
misquoted him but he said that "My responsibility is to support the needs of the Maderas business ". I certainly hope that
this is not the position of the "City in the Country".
In summary, I thank you for your time and I strongly urge that the existing CUP be enforced to its fullest and in
fact stricter monitoring be in place to prevent the further deterioration of the water levels in Old Coach. With
all the time and dollars devoted to this issue over the last two years why are we re- inventing the wheel. Time
to move on and let the real "Good Neighbors" enjoy the reasons why they moved to Old Coach Estates in first
place.
330 of 374 ATTACHMENT L November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Jason Martin CORRESPONDENCE # 2
From: Jason Martin
Sena: Monday, June 10, 2013 12:52 PM
To: Bob Manis
Subject: FW: Lower Sycamore Creek owners
From: drbarkin @mall.com [mailto:drbarkin(&gmail.com] On Behalf Of David Barkin
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 10:22 AM
To: Jason Martin
Subject: Lower Sycamore Creek owners
Jason: I am one of the property owners of the Lower Sycamore Creek residents. You had a neighborhood
meeting last Monday discussing the impact on the water supply relative to the various wells maintained and
operated by Maderas Golf Course. I wanted to write you and let you know that while our neighborhood has
always attempted to be cooperative with Maderas, it does have some serious concerns with the new language it
has put in the MND which we believe alters and dilutes some of Madera's obligations under the existing
Resolution No.P- 00 -65. In part, they eliminate some of the rights the City has over Maderas to guaranty their
compliance, and in part, adds certain burden to the City to determine if additional wells are connected to the
impact of flow of water to LSC residence. I would like to talk to you about the Ianguage Maderas is proposing
and whether the City has a position on accepting the Maderas language at this time: I can be reached at this e-
mail address or you may feel free to call me at (760) 803 -4614. Thank you in advance for your time.
Dave Barkin
Dave
331 of 374 1 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Jason Martin
From: drbarkin @gmail.com on behalf of David Barkin <dbarkin @davidbarkin.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 2:43 PM
To: Jason Martin; Tom Story
Subject: Modification of the Maderas CUP propsal
Hello Jason: Per my discussions with you, please accept this e-mail as Lower Sycamore Creek's response to the
Notice of Public Review concernig the Environmental Assessment and CUP (90 -13M). Please be advised that
the Lower Sycamore Creek neighborhood objects to the proposed modifications to paragraph N on page 9
to Resolution NO. P -00 -65 Conditional Use Permit 90 -13, submitted to City Council by Maderas, as their
proposed amendment to their CUP permit 90 -13. While our neighborhood wishes to cooperate with Maderas,
and have done so by accepting their modified monitoring and pumping restrictions, we cannot accept their
attempt to modify their obligations to guaranty water supply in the event they impact our water usage. We wish
to substantially return the language concerning water supply guaranty essentially back to the original language
with some minor clarifications in the language. I am submitting our suggested draft of the language which our
neighborhood has reviewed and is prepared to accept. Said language is intended to replace the existing
language in paragraph N on page 9 of the Resolution NO. P- 00 -65, and to be inserted in lieu of the Maderas
proposed language concerning the water supply guaranty. I would appreciate if you would submit this e-mail to
the Director of Development Services as well to the Honorable City Council Members. I believe this satisfies
the written requirement contained in your Notice of Pubic Review. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely,
Dave Barkin
332 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
"Maderas.
Creek and all area (herinaafter subsequent applicants
and its residents for water
lon as : 1
well(s) In the westem zone, or an service to ail residence er the
has not provided e y other wells) for which there Is a connection () Madams operates
A rmanent potable water service to the resident Properties cbo to LSCTIN, and I the City
event groundwater supplies become Inadequate to meet the dometic na one a LSCTW area. !n the
the residents and properties in that area. Maderas and any subsequent a omall Water needs of
meet those needs in such quantities and for such periods as necessary applicant shall supply water to
and any subsequent applicants sole cost and expense. to
an any meet u ethose needs at Maderas
be responsible for any secondary expenses such as road repairs determined pPlicant shalt also to Development Services as necessary
water service shall include, but is nt limited too, the water service. The alternatives
�� Director of such
extending a temporary abov deepening wells, trucking and shoring water supplying or
any subsequent applicant, may select tie alternate nd hall Ibedresp� area or closest Point. Maderas or
imPlementing continued and uninterrupted water service. in the event of a dispute between any resident
and Maderas or any subsequent responsible for all costs associated with
remedy Implemented by Maderrasao pany subvsequent adequacy of the water supply or the adequacy of.the
the above stated alternatives is to be Implemented end Maderas or arty Council Shall
subsequent applicant shall which of
Pty with the Council's determination as a Condition of this Conditional Use Permit in the event that the
City Council determines at any time that the water service to the lower Sycamore Creek area is
Inadequate, it may direct that the groundwater usage by Maderas or any subsequent
until City Council determines that the service has
complied with by Maderas or an subsea berme equate. In the event such direction shall cease
hearing, be modified or revoked b the City C applicant, this Conditional Use Permit may, after ubfc t
Y ity Council.' Y p
333 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
CORRESPONDENCE # 3
To the members of the Poway City Council:
This letter is in response to the June b meeting regarding the Maderas CUP amendment proposal
and in anticipation of the council meeting where this situation will be further discussed.
We are residents of the Old Coach Estates (OCE) community of Poway and have been proud
citizens of Poway since 1985. We believe we have not only contributed to the growth and
community of the city over that time, including establishing a technology company locally that now
employs about 90 people - many of whom live in Poway, but have developed a large network of
friends and co- workers throughout the city. We raised all of our kids here and this is where we call
home. We built our house in OCE over a decade ago and then rebuilt it after it was destroyed by the
2007 wildfires. In all of that time we have tried to be good citizens and have never complained or
sought consideration from the city. Now, however, we feel our very livelihood is threatened by the
changes being proposed for the Maderas CUP and we must speak up.
Many years ago, we contributed to having city water brought down the valley of OCE. Since we
currently have no city water, we have not seen a return on that investment. Five years ago, the drive
we and our neighbors paid for (entirely) was torn up to put in pipes and a pump station was placed
half way up our driveway in order for the city of Poway to set up. a water reservoir at the top of the
mountain. The road was not repaired to its original state, the pump house is surrounded by barbwire
fencing, not landscaped and is an eyesore, but we have not complained because our understanding
was that it would allow a straightforward way for us to connect to the city water should it be
necessary. Last year when we tried to gather information about the possibility of connecting to city
water we found no straightforward means to do so was provided in that infrastructure construction.
After being passed around to several less - than - helpful city employees, we learned that we would
also be subject to astronomical fees to make any connection (not even counting the quarter mile of
plumbing we'd have to put in). Suffice it to say that despite our efforts and investment to the
contrary, we are completely dependent on well water at our home. If the well goes dry, we will not
be able to live here!
So here are the facts that have driven us to write this letter:
• The water level of our well is going down
• Both environmental conditions and excessive pumping by Maderas have likely contributed
• Our well will almost certainly be impacted in the long run by the proposed CUP change
• The option of connecting to city water is not being facilitated by the city
• No mechanism, or even apparent consideration, has been provided to safeguard us against
losing our home should Maderas pumping impact our well water
• The San Diego County Groundwater Ordinance, 2011, specifically limits non - resident wells
(with example of a golf course) where it would impact residents dependent on ground water
It is our hope that the Poway City council will place the very subsistence of its citizens above the
profit of a golf course. We have no problem with the Maderas golf course but they can pass the
costs of water on to their customers, whereas residents that are totally dependent on groundwater
have virtually no recourse should their wells run dry. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Dr. Thomas E. Carter and Dr. Lorinda J. Carter
334 of 374
RECEIVED
JUN 1 7
CITY OF POWAY
DEVELOPMENT = lcpY1GI =�v
November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Jason Martin CORRESPONDENCE # 4
From: yearnforpeace @aol.com
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 3:19 PM
To: Jason Martin; Don Higginson; imullen @poway.org; icunningham @poway.org; Dave
Grosch; Steve Vaus; pam.d.moore @att.net
Cc: glassm @bgsurplus.com; CaroIRD @Cox.net; yea rnforpeace @aol.com;
jafreestone @aol.com; atorretto @powayusd.com; shults3 @gmail.com;
dplvmeier @hotmail.com; Annie Ransom
Subject: Blue Sky's Perspective on Maderas Well Water Issue
Attachments: 121029 _Blue_Sky_Perspective_ #l.docx; 130405 _Blue_Sky_Perspective_ #2,docx; 130414
_Blue_ Sky_ Comments _on_Maderas_Water_Plan.docx; 130424
Blue-Sky-Comments -on the_3rd_Party_Reptort.docx
Dear Jason:
Thanks for hosting the neighborhood meeting on 6/5/13. I am very happy to see that most parties of interest on this groundwater
issue were represented.
The comments that I made in that meeting originates from one of 4 documents I prepared since attending the first neighborhood
meeting last October. In these documents, I summarized, succinctly, the concerns of Blue Sky specifically and the long term effects
on habitats in particular. I have attached these 4 documents, with identifying titles, to this email and would hope that you could post
them under the Maderas folder such that all interested parties have access to them.
With all council members' email addresses being public knowledge, I took the liberty of sending this email to them as well as to
you. But I don't have all the names and email addresses of the other responsible personnel in the City, at Dudek, and at Sunroad
Enterprise, I am hoping that you would be kind enough to forward this email, with attachments, to the appropriate parties.
In addition, as President of the Friends of Blue Sky, Mary Glass will file a formal petition with the City to have the monitoring well
in Blue Sky be periodically monitored in coming years to ensure the health of the Ecological Reserve. Details of that effort will need
to be worked out between the City and Blue Sky.
In what follows, I'll try to address each party of interest with the hope that an open communication would result in less
misunderstanding and lead to a more rational resolution. I am counting on you to forward this email to everyone involved so that a
more productive conversation can be had when the City Council meets on July 16, 2013. Yes, this is a rather lengthy email. But
compared with the 90+ and the 150+ page reports issued by Dudek in the last few weeks, this email is a relatively easy read.
Dear Pam,
I hope you don't mind me answering your email in an open letter like this. In a controversial issue like this, l feel that open
communication with no hidden agenda is the best way forward,
With your neighborhood wells running dry, I truly sympathize with your frustration towards the Course Owner and the City. It is
clear to me that you have made your argument loud and clear to the City Council. And I agree that we need to continuously putting
pressure on the City to consider the long term ramification rather than take some expeditious decisions to address some short term
issues.
In the following letters, I shall again emphasize some of the technical points I made in the neighborhood meeting on 6/5/13 to the
Sunroad management and the Dudek scientists.
Dear City of Poway Council,
This Maderas groundwater usage issue has been going on for over a dozen years. Because adverse effects started to show up in
2009, the City had wisely issued a stop pumping order in August 2011. Not content with the indefinite moratorium, Sunroad has
come back with an "in- depth" study by Dudek as a base for requesting a modification of the current CUP- 90 -13. In essence, Sunroad
requests a resumption of groundwater pumping (with some limitations) and possible future installation of more wells. The primary
rationale for such a request is a long list of anecdotal evidences that the pumping wells in Maderas are "hydraulically disconnected" to
the surrounding aquifers. In a June 5, 2013 neighborhood meeting, representing the Friends of Blue Sky, I made a presentation that
strongly disputed that assertion (see 130421 Blue Sky Comments on the 3rd Party Report). The riparian habitat of Blue Sky
335 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Ecological Reserve depends solely on the Sycamore Creek watershed, If the aquifer under that watershed is depleted, there will be no
more Blue Sky. Because of that, Blue Sky would strongly urge the Council to not grant the CUP modification.
I do understand the City has to function as a mediating party between the local residents and the Golf Course owner. But one
principle the City should never compromise on is the preservation of fragile habitats in this County. if worse comes to worst, Sunroad
is somehow allowed to resume pumping, Blue Sky would respectfully ask the City to start recording the level in the one monitoring
well situated on the premise.
Dear Dudek Scientists,
The mental picture you have painted in most audiences' minds is that there are two aquifers, one shallow and one deep, under the
Maderas Golf Course (and its surroundings). There exists an impermeable barrier between the two, be it clay or some other geological
material. According to your "hydraulically disconnect" postulate, such barriers even exist between the Madreras wells and the local
residents wells.
I lived in two different homes in rural Maryland some years ago. We relied on well water. In that particular region of Maryland,
there are two known aquifers, one shallow and one deep. In our first home, we had a shallow well — less than 30 feet — and the electric
pump is installed at the top of the well thus relying on atmospheric suction to get the water to the surface. Our second home had a
deep well, more than 300 feet. Suction would not work. The pump had to be lowered to the bottom of the well to "push" the water
up. The two aquifers are separate, but not to a point where they never exchange water. Even man -made concrete is permeable to
water. Permeability is matter of degree. This brings me back to the multiple aquifers presumably existing in the Thompson,
Sycamore Creek watershed, If the deep aquifer is depleted, it may take quite some time for the upper aquifer to trickle down to the
lower "chamber." This slow drain may well explain some of the seemingly healthy riparian habitats that Dudek pointed out in their
short-term, spot -check studies. The potential of such delayed habitat decimation is precisely what concerns us at Blue Sky,
Dear Sunroad Managers,
As a person who has had a fair amount of business dealings in my working career, I have tried to put myself into your shoes.
Running a golf course is a long -term investment. No one wants to see a lavishly appointed golf course to run its course (excuse the
pun) in 2, 3, or even 5 years. On the other hand, we all live in southern California and we know the scarcity of fresh water.
Underground aquifers are there because of thousands, if not tens of thousands, of years of delicate balances among nature's various
processes - rainfall, runoff, evaporation, etc. Any sudden influx of human intervention can only upset this balance. Fortunately, there
are some farsighted pioneers and politicians, John Muir and President Roosevelt came to mind, who fought to preserve the precious
few "islands" to allow nature to run its course. We are thankful that we now have Yosemite, Yellowstone, Anza Borrego, and Blue
Sky Ecological Reserve. Sustainability is a term we hear often in this ongoing debate. The question is whether we want sustainability
in 5 -10 years, or 50 -100 years.
As pointed out in my first write -up (121029 Blue Sky Perspective #1), 1 wondered aloud why doesn't the management of Sunroad
take a longer view of this irrigation problem - install drip irrigation systems (Israelis do), invest in a grey water infrastructure, or even
helping the City to establish a citywide grey water system. Yes, any of these efforts will take vast amount of capital investment. But
then, doesn't all successful businesses, Apple, Intel, Genentec, etc., have Boards that are willing to invest heavily to insure future
survival of their hardeam enterprises?
Thanks for your attention.
Respectfully yours,
Bob Kiang
Friends of Blue Sky
336 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
4/24/2013
Comments on
Third -Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological
Resource Monitoring Information for the Maderas Golf Club
Final Report
Dudek of Encinitas, California
Dated April 2013
This document is authored by Bob Kiang, a docent at the Blue Sky Ecological
Reserve of Poway. Bob is a retired engineer with a Ph.D. in aerospace engineering
from Stanford University. Throughout his engineering career of more than 40
years, Bob was engaged in research and development programs, many of them
involving reviewing and commenting on scientific works of various disciplines.
Even to a casual reader of this Final Report, it is obvious that Dudek based their conclusions on a
single postulate — that the aquifers underneath the Golf Course are not connected to the aquifers in the
surrounding, neighborhoods. The term "no hydraulic connection" appears no less than 8 times in the
Executive Summary alone.
Dudek would undoubtedly protest my using the word "postulate" because the whole theme of this
report is to find data that support this hydraulic disconnect. And I would agree that some of the data do
appear to support this postulate, but others do not. Among the many supporting evidences presented by
Dudek, I shall quote two.
On p.18 of the report: " Maderas produced 246 acre -feet in the 1 999 -2000 water year (October
1— September 30)," and that included a one -month historic peak production in August 2000. Yet,
despite the very high volume pumping by Maderas and a relatively dry year, the level in the test well at
Old Coach Estate (identified as OCETW) stayed well above the 180 feet bgs (below ground surface)
threshold. I can think of at least two reasons for this disconnect. One, these were the early years of
Maderas' operation. Wells 1 through 7 (wells 8, 9, and 10 were not added until late in the decade) were
just beginning to extract water from the aquifer. Two, unlike wells 8, 9, and 10, most of the seven wells
are farther away from OCETW.
In item 3 of the Executive Summary (p.2): "after Maderas stopped pumping in August 2011. The
water levels at the Maderas wells increased (i.e., recovered) after pumping stopped, but the water
levels at the aforementioned OCE wells continued to decline for approximately 3 months after
pumping stopped." To Dudek, this is an indisputable evidence that there is no hydraulic connection
between the Maderas wells and the OCE wells. To me, given the distance between the two clusters of
wells - about 1/3 mile — it is not surprising that it would take 3 months for the stop pumping effect to be
felt at OCE.
Not only Dudek chose to interpret the data in a less- than - objective way, but they also elected to cherry
pick the data that favor their postulate. When data point the other way, they either down - played them or
invoked their favorite postulate: "no hydraulic connection." I am referring to the two most glaring
evidences: the "uncharacteristic" level drop, between April and November 2009, in OCE wells that
337 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
included the OCETW (p.19), and a similar sharp decline following a 10 -day pumping test in March 2010
(p.22). The 2009 drop happened during and shortly after all 3 new wells, 8, 9, and 10 came online. The
I0 -day pumping test, designed expressly to assess the connection between the Maderas wells and the
OCE well, had wells 8, 9, and 10 going full board 24/7 (p.22). To their credit, Dudek did acknowledge
both events; but they somehow side - stepped the obvious conclusion - that excessive pumping in Maderas
caused a sharp drop in OCE wells. Instead, they concluded on p.19: "These wells (meaning 9 and 10),
along with Well 8, were tested in March 2010 to evaluate their potential influence on water
levels at OCETW. The aquifer test results indicated that pumping at Maderas Wells 8, 9 and 10
did not influence the water level at OCETW; hence, there is no hydraulic connection between
these Maderas wells and OCETW." For anyone who examines the data closely, the above statement is
an outright contradiction to reality.
The City apparently shared the concerns of the local residents. It ordered a pump shutdown in August
2009 and the 10 -day pumping test in March 2010. It is rather interesting that, with wells 8, 9, and 10
offline between August 2009 and March 2010 (wells 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 were allowed to resume operation
in October 2009), the level in OCETW started to recover in the early months of 2010 until the 10 -day test
reversed the trend.
With all the qualitative discussions above, I need to put down some numbers as references.
Annual consumption by OCE residents: 50 acre -feet (all numbers are approximate)
Maderas consumption between 1998 and 2011: roughly 5 times that of the residents
Maximum extraction allowed by CUP 90- 13M(2): 280 acre -feet per year
Total water pumped during the 10 -day test: 13 acre -feet (1/4 of OCE annual consumption)
As mentioned earlier, one of the main conclusions and justifications that Dudek repeatedly invoked
was the claim that the aquifers below the Maderas Golf Course are "hydraulically isolated" from the
neighboring communities and habitats. So I asked myself this question. How much water is there under
the Golf Course? Dudek's report provided sufficient data to allow such a calculation. The relevant data
are:
Golf Course acreage: 80 as informed by Course authority
Thickness of the aquifers: 1000 feet (This is an ultra conservative high estimate since the fracture
zone thicknesses quoted in Sec. 6.1.3 vary all over the map and
the zones, or aquifers, may be multi - layered as well as
inclined.)
Storage coefficient (p,21): 0.03% (Simply put, storage coefficient is the fraction of water volume in
an aquifer, the bulk of which may be rocks, sand, or soil. This
fraction is usually much less than 0.01 according to Wikipedia
(Google search: storage coefficient hydrology). Underneath the
Maderas Golf Course, this fraction, as quoted by Dudek, is only
0.0003.)
Using these 3 numbers, it is an easy calculation to get an estimate of the water volume within this
supposedly confined aquifer. This number turns out to be 24 acre -feet. With Maderas pumping a couple
hundred acre -feet per year, it would have run out of groundwater in one month. Obviously, it is being
replenished by the entire watershed, thus not hydraulically isolated.
338 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Admittedly, the assumption that all Maderas wells draw water from an aquifer the size of the Golf
Course and extending downward 1000 feet is not realistic. But such a simple exercise does bring to light
the fact that groundwater in our semi -arid region is very limited. In my October 2012 note, I hinted that it
is to Maderas own interest to plan a long -term strategy regarding its water source.
Finally, a word on riparian habitats. Dudek reached its conclusion that " Maderas is not adversely
impacting the riparian habitat" is based on a few biological monitoring made over the years (item 12 of
the Executive Summary). But if one examines carefully, all of the quantitative riparian studies were made
between 2000 and 2004. All subsequent studies were cursory and qualitative. The health of the
surrounding riparian habitats can at most be classified as uncertain, and that includes Blue Sky Ecological
Reserve.
339 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
5 Apr 2013 RLK
Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Usage Issue
The Blue Sky Ecological Reserve Perspective - 2
Blue Sky contacts: Mary Glass & Bob Kiang
An SCS Engineers annual groundwater report (Ref. 1) dated 3 December 2012 was made available to
us recently. After a careful analysis of the data presented in Ref. I, Blue Sky would like offer some
comments, again from our perspective (Our first note, Ref. 2 dated 29 October 2012, addressed the same
issue from a broader perspective).
Let us first commend SCS Engineers for doing an excellent job on this annual report. We may not
agree with all of their conclusions, but we appreciate their discussion of relevant data and their detailed
analyses.
Out of the many pages of tables and figures in the SCS report, we would like to focus on three figures
- Fig. 2, Fig. 14, and Fig. B -l.
. ol+';`�
t '�� yjA� w �� t� . � ,!t` y �h+r • ., X, � s t �siY� , a jtl
yy'$ Anl•:k t air }., :,a r{ i '� t i ,G a c+ 'k F Ky
.NY
\
tt3 &WYx iEC�l ✓ d �# r �b � �ELL�7ea t j ,� y a .bs 7�r�iy�a��j�t v � y�y ��p ��r
. �f�Js 1 �Jt, ���`�.` • 'R, %ir�+l�_a is_t n r�i' y i.tt
5>Q : tSt h1 s7 ki ;� +t =•� _y.�sp�t l+rs r 1.4r lyp
~:
�t Atca�k
i9(9S/n at WELL1 }0 ,l}xtt� �y ✓ �,
t ,a� 1f v (r !' ✓ f...�a "bt;�lL e { r - 1,•: r . Si,
��1's'� � M xlitortng wed py{keett) w.4h wed name nd oMed
' 1 1 }'� }�r,, -.�E
'-F
°� S, a. � ,� � • �, ri- ' -�er�i §i'�' -�,'u �YC } � 1 tip' �. �. F �� 8Wf Ii �, f. t'r.. .
x , Ael"e +}ra ,5; d MYY'3 Ll_4 n l ° tir`sx"'9(14�;{- `.��G'OETW y.:tu �.�✓�`'
C.;
� � air 'l ? <f''�`f t }'✓ E113 » �t� �,�, ELL 6k {,
-M1tr,✓ , ,4 rte{ 5`� 'i 0 �" tg y, pk t j .. ti'y fl
1 . _
y 1 �� ' ""� '1 �� •!'' .• �.7` S t -..V ' `ate r '" SupplyWeA (typical) vain wen name tnchCefed
s-.
�).` h �r t �K n?t•,rleir{
x. i r ,.•Pr t/ 7P 71��in•�g�it ��t y 1��_ � o � + .+K�' + 'vr�`t } ;�t,L�Fj�1-.%
S � 7 ik � ♦ 4F �� ,rl{ dy j •�"` � �' � R { � -� i , r y F ��s v�,r .Y: _�'.Ta'�d WF���e . �a
i •.',1;�y�YP i {f T fit' "tO +,r ., 1>;1dSD Rlt :FVi .:.
•t .: ' -, ! �r i'' °t= -.ri Maderes Gar 0-b Site wcuvty rs)a +n:
7tao�a,COtesn ,m
7. .�' +t' % ..s +39. .l�. �n l ` `� ffs tr.•....a arw 17750011COa;1 lbe) Alum
}j 5 fy , rf, t 11 1S a' ,.. fy-�t ...C�rwws 1p4 MY .CEI7IN10 l.a. ✓..n a,_.s
Fig. 2, copied above, identifies the locations of wells in and around the Maderas Golf Course. In
particular; we note that wells 8, 9, and 10, which line the eastern border of the course, were the last three
wells installed by the course operator between Feb. 08 and Apr. 09. They are closest to the Old Coach
340 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Estate that is situated east of the golf course. The Old Coach Estate Test Well ( OCETW) lies more or less
in the middle of OCE and is 1700 feet east of well 6.
Fig. 14, copied above, is the primary set of data SCS uses to conclude that "the drawdown occurring in
the OCE wells is due to localized groundwater pumping of private supply wells in the OCE area." The
main rationale for this conclusion is the fact that Maderas has been prohibited by the City to pump
groundwater for irrigation since Aug. 2011. As will be elaborated below, we feel that annual
groundwater level fluctuation of 40 -50 feet is a naturally occurring phenomenon in this semi -arid region
of the country. It does not necessarily reflect any over pumping by the local community nor the cessation
of pumping by the golf course operator. As a matter of fact, Fig. B- 1, copied below, offers a perfect
example of this argument.
Because of the greatly reduced scale after copying, rendering it almost illegible, let me first explain the
essential features of this figure. This is a historical record of the water levels in the OCETW (situated in
the middle of the community). The time period covered is from Oct. 95 to May 2013. The vertical scale
of water depth in the well is 50 ft apart. The blue curve is the recorded water depth over the years. Each
vertical dotted line marks a specific event. The dotted line on the far right marks the date when all
Maderas wells (10 total) were ordered shutdown in Aug. 2011. Also annotated on the graph, for
legibility, are another shut off in Apr. 09, the installation dates of the last three wells (8, 9, and 10), as
well as the 10 -day test run in Mar. 2010. During that test run, wells 8, 9 and 10 were pumping at their
maximum capacity, estimated to be at least 1.0 acre -foot per week (roughly the same amount pumped by
341 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
the local community). The purpose of that test was to see whether an aggravated pumping would affect
the water levels in the neighboring wells.
or wwrrrbr (*pot eu Otnpt q0 cost " Nb b t re It A#[)
'•AObrYorr CXWGr nll lvwp tsp►mbor 2017
MAIN a 0011COUS0
ai - -- _ �.. - - _..
,m
�;� 1I ��• I I�_. _ I it /
j J All wells
I � � I I lu";• � � / � I � shut off
Pump 8 installed IU I !
....11,1
Pumps 9& IU I I I
IU -clay test
7. I )II l -
20
O OUS Fm Yr N.ta -
04 ft 1.00 APM rrtrat H-c" Jim rxm Fyel9 ntpm Na+t ttnrt)
6-
Source: Appendix B, Ref. 1
Let's take a closer look at this figure.
The Maderas groundwater usage started in the 2001 time frame (about 1/3 way into the timeline).
Prior to that time, the water level in OCETW averages about 150 ft below ground surface (bgs), but with
wide swings easily exceeding +/- 50 ft. Most likely, these swings reflect the wet and the dry years. A
good reference is the year 2005. We all remember that was an unusually wet year. Look at the highest
peak in this chart. It is at Mar -Apr 2005.
Something drastic happen after wells 8, 9, and 10 were installed: the level in OCETW took a dramatic
dive. The City ordered all pumps shutdown in Apr. 09. Just as the water level started to recover in Jan -
Feb 10, the 10 -day test run was conducted. The run truncated the upward climb of the water level in the
test well, and prompted another steep dive shortly thereafter. Somehow, the SCS report concluded "that
pumping wells 8, 9, and 10 did not affect the OCETW water levels."
As we mentioned earlier, we strongly disagree with SCS's conclusions.
Where does this leave Blue Sky? Blue Sky is uptream of Sycamore Creek, approximately 1 -1 /2 miles
from Maderas. It is about 100 ft higher in elevation. As noted in Ref. 2, water flows down slope,
including groundwater. Years of excessive pumping (3 -4 times the amount extracted by the local
342 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
communities) has probably lowered the water table below Blue Sky, and the process may still be going on
despite the near zero pumping by Maderas in the past 1 -1/2 years.
An ecological note: We have all heard about the "tipping point" in the on -going climate change debate.
Adverse effect from human activities may not be obvious until the tipping point is reached. The
consequence beyond that point can be dramatic. When one or two oak or sycamore trees die in Blue Sky,
we may just attribute that to natural attrition. But when rows of trees start to topple over, we'll know we
have passed beyond the tipping point.
References:
1. SCS Engineers, "Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report - October 2011 through September 2012,"
December 3, 2012
2. Maderas Golf Course. Groundwater Usage Issue - The Blue Sky Ecological Reserve Perspective,
October 29, 2012
343 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
29 Oct 2012
Maderas Golf Course Groundwater Usage Issue
The Blue Sky Ecological Reserve Perspective
Blue Sky contacts: Mary Glass & Bob Kiang
Issue at a Glance
RLK
Since 1999, Maderas Country Club in northern Poway has, on and off, used groundwater to irrigate
their golf course. This large scale pumping of groundwater has resulted in dried wells, dead trees,
disappearing spring, and dried out creek according to residents of neighboring communities, in particular,
the Old Coach Estate (OCE). A precipitous drop in one of the test wells next to the Golf Course
prompted the City of Poway to issue a stop pumping order in August 2011. Blue Sky Ecological
Reserved is located upstream of the Golf Course along the Sycamore Canyon Creek. Even though no
large scale pumping has occurred over the past 14 months, Blue Sky is concerned that significant
extraction of groundwater over the past dozen years may already have impacted the riparian habitat in
Blue Sky (Given that groundwater knows no boundary and will certainly migrate from high ground to
low ground, this assertion is by all means reasonable). The recent effort by Maderas to modify the City's
Conditional Use Permit with the unstated intent to resume pumping only adds to the urgency of Blue
Sky's concern.
Timeline
May 1999 - Maderas began groundwater pumping from 7 deep wells on the premise.
Aug 2000 - City approved Conditional Use Permit, CUP 90- 13M(2).
Dec 2004 - REC Consultants, Inc., under the sponsorship of Sunroad Enterprises, owner of the
Maderas Country club, published a well monitoring and biological study report.
2008 -2009 - Wells No. 8, 9, and 10 are added to the 7 existing wells.
Jun 2009 - Level in test well OCETW dropped below the CUP 90- 13M(2) thresholds of 180 feet.
Aug 2011 - City ordered Maderas to stop groundwater pumping.
Early 2012 - Sunroad Enterprises filed a request with the City to modify CUP 90- 13M(2) with a list of
proposed changes that include dispense of the 180 feet threshold.
May 2012 - Completion of Prof. Victor Ponces, San Diego State U., groundwater sustainability study.
Jul 2012 - SCS Engineers, under the sponsorship of Sunroad, commented on Ponce's report.
Aug 2012 - City issued RFP (Request for Proposal) to potential bidders.
Sep 2012 - Dudek, an environmental consultant Co., won the City contract to review relevant documents
and information, then render a judgment on the groundwater sustainability by next spring.
16 Oct 2012 - City, chaired by Jason Martin, convened a meeting between Dudek, OCE and other Poway
residents, as well as representatives from Blue Sky.
Three Types of Wells
To dispel any confusion regarding the wells of interest, here is a brief description of the 3 types of
wells involved in this issue:
344 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Water extracting wells - 10 wells owned by Maderas and an unknown number owned by neighboring
residents. These are deep wells (hundreds of feet) and they could be deepened if the water table drops.
Test wells - Also being called monitoring wells. They were drilled for the explicit purpose of monitoring
the water table fluctuations surrounding the Golf Course. There are 2 such deep wells. The one on the
east of the Golf Course, within the OCE community, is named Old Coach Estates Test Well, or OCETW.
The one on the west of the Golf Course is named Lower Sycamore Creek Test Well, or LSCTW.
Shallow monitoring wells - Eight (8) of these were drilled and monitored as mandated by CUP 90-
13M(2). Monitoring was done by Sunroad from 2000 to 2004. The locations of these 8 wells are shown
in the following map. Seven of the 8 are in the vicinity of Maderas. The one on the lower right is in Blue
Sky.
Maderas ,
11 ::iitt 1 "'d.
� r•
V.
Es}iola Rd.
• w. ; `yr� � � - � , � Blue Sky _lM..i? • •.. .
2
345 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Discussion
There are about 50 homes in the surrounding neighborhood that depend wholly or partially on ground
water for their livelihood. Their presence in this area probably dates back to the 1950s, and their annual
groundwater usage was estimated to be about 53 acre -feet (one acre -foot = 326,000 gallons) in the CUP
90- 13M(2) (Ref. 1). When Maderas started groundwater pumping from 7 wells in May 1999, CUP
estimated that the demand by the Golf Course would be 450 acre -feet, 8 times that of the residential
usage. CUP puts a maximum allowable extraction at 50% initially (meaning no more than 225 acre -feet
annually) but later imposed a 30% limit, or 150 acre -feet. The truth of the matter is that none of the
pumping wells has a metering device. So the amount of extracted water ( "charge ", a term used in many
reports) provided by the groundkeeper is a guesstimate at best. When 3 new wells were added in 2008-
2009, the pumped volume was undoubtedly boosted (Question: if the 7 wells pumping at full capacity
were able to keep the grass green, why would Maderas want to invest in 3 new wells ?) Because of the
lack of precise measurements, the volume of water extracted each year is a contentious number hotly
debated in various reports (Refs. 2, 3, 4). One of the lower numbers can be found in Ponce's report (Ref
2), citing a 12 -year (1.999 -2011) average extraction from the Maderas wells as being 164 acre -feet per
annum. This is still triple the amount the residents used. Regardless the exact amount, the fact remains
that 12 -year protracted pumping by Maderas is clearly not sustainable as evidenced by (1) the precipitous
drop of water level in the OCETW test well in June 2009, and (2) the OCE verbal reporting (16 Oct 2012
meeting in the City Hall) on the occurrences of dried wells, dead trees, disappearing natural spring, and
dried up Green Valley Creek over the past few years.
Blue Sky is situated at a higher elevation than Maderas. Any aquifer depletion at a lower elevation
would draw water from the surrounding higher grounds. But this percolation process is necessarily slow.
If the aquifer below Maderas is substantially depleted, it will take months if not years for the water table
at Blue Sky to drop. It is unfortunate that monitoring of the 8 shallow wells, including the one at Blue
Sky, was stopped in 2004 after only a 5 -year survey. All circumstantial evidences - the drying of the
residential wells, the demise of the trees, etc. - point to the likelihood that the aquifer depletion
accelerated towards the latter half of the 12 -year pumping episode. As a matter of fact, aquifer depletion
at Blue Sky may very well be still on -going despite the fact that Maderas has stopping pumping 14
months ago. Therefore, Blue Sky, one of the environmental crown jewels of the City, would urgently
request a resumption of the shallow well monitoring by the City.
A Puzzling Mindset
Over the past 12 years, Sunroad Enterprises, owner of the Maderas Golf Course, has spent a great deal
of resources to secure the groundwater pumping rights:
Hired Don Howard Engineering to do a baseline hydrological and biological analysis of the Sycamore
Creek sub -basin in July 2000 as a basis for petitioning the City.
Petitioned the City to modify the 1990 CUP 90 -13 to CUP 90- 13M(2) in 2000.
Hired REC Consultants to design then monitor the environmental impact of groundwater pumping as
mandated by the Mitigated Negative Declaration. REC's monitoring lasted from 2000 to 2004.
346 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Petitioned the City to modify CUP 90- 13M(2) in early 2012 after being ordered to shut off all
groundwater pumping in Aug 2011.
Hired SCS Engineers to rebut Ponce's report.
Groundwater is a very limited natural resource, especially in southern California. Large scale
pumping guarantees a one -time "benefit" lasting perhaps no more than a few decades. Land subsidence
in the central U.S. (the Ogallala Aquifer) and in the San Joaquin Valley as a result of groundwater
overuse are now textbook examples cited by geologists and hydrologists. So, my questions to the Board
of Trustees of Sunroad Enterprises: Are you not thinking about the welfare of Maderas Country Club
beyond, say, 2015? Isn't it time to spend some resources looking for a more permanent solution to your
irrigation problem?
Conclusions and Recommendations
- It is our opinion that added groundwater extraction in the Thompson Creek and Sycamore Creek
watershed, multiple times that of the area residents', is not sustainable.
- Water table under the riparian habitat of Blue Sky may already have been affected; the recession is
likely to continue despite the fact that large scale pumping was stopped in Aug 2011.
- Blue Sky would urgently request the City to resume periodic water level measurements in the existing
monitoring well situated on the premise.
References
1. City of Poway Agenda Report, Environment Assessment and Conditional Use Permit CUP 90- 13M(2)
Sunroad Enterprises, Applicant, August 29, 2000.
2. Victor M. Ponce, "Thompson Creek Groundwater Sustainability Study," 7 May 2012.
3. A 12 -page report appended to a letter to Tom Story of Sunroad Enterprises, 17 July 2012.
4. Jason Martin, City of Poway Request for Proposal: " Maderas Golf Course RFP," 6 Aug 2012.
4
347 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
CORRESPONDENCE #5
Date: June 18, 2013
To: Jason Martin, Project Planner
From: Pam Moore, Public Representative
RE: Addendum to a Mitigate Negative Declaration, CUP 90 -13
Apns: 277 - 170 -31 and 277 - 171.34
*Approval needs significant studies on sustainability and recharge in the San Dieguito
Watershed (North Poway, Rancho Bernardo area) where golf club most recently claims
neighboring groundwater available for their use as per Matt Wiedlin report.
(GVCA, Friends of Blue Sky, Old Coach, Deer Valley, other areas support this. What was the purpose of Dudek ?)
*280 acre feet a year, is twice that acre feet recommended by state and federal agencies on a
temporary basis for this golf course in 2000. Current research would most likely recommend
only one quarter this amount, with current signs of declining groundwater, drought and the
historical background or the area. (There are near 50 wells, just in the Heritages Estates now)
*All original monitoring sites as previously stated in the original CUP need to be monitored
regularly on a weekly basis. (Why did the monitoring stop ?)
*Original trigger indicators must be adhered. Such as riparian area triggers should be the
same as San Diego County standard Of 10ft. (on the golf course, Blue Sky, SDRP, etc.)
*No changes in test well sites, nor trigger depths for the protection of North Poway Habitat
(The majority of rules were broken by the golf club, not adhered by city staff — Why are major concessions being
provided now for breaking the rules ?)
*Monitoring needs to be conducted weekly by a state certified hydrologist or daily by
computerized monitoring systems, and posted on the City of Poway website in a timely
fashion. Measuring should be accurate and not estimates by gardeners, or guesses.
*Public notice must be given if new wells are proposed and studies to occur prior to drilling
on sustainability and water quality, such as salt water intrusion.
*Golf club needs to devise a conservation plan, which in includes turf reduction, more
efficient irrigation and low water landscape. Fertilizer reduction is necessary also, less
nitrates to the water quality and riparian areas. Perhaps the course should be redesigned as
a LINKS course as approved and stated in the Poway Habitat Plan several times.
*Additionally, not ALL the public has been properly notified of this addendum that could
severely affect groundwater usage in all of North Poway, parts of Ramona, Rancho Bernardo,
and Escondido, along with the quality of the local riparian areas, especially residents solely
dependent on groundwater water in surrounding areas of the golf club.
348 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Jason Martin CORRESPONDENCE # 6
From: Jessica Owens <jessica.m.owens @gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:06 AM
To: Jason Martin
Cc: Bob Manis; Don Higginson; dgroesh @poway.org; Steve Vaus; Jim Cunningham; John
Mullin; Penny Riley, Pamela Moore; owens justin.d @gmail.com; 'Sleeper, Maggie'; Tina
White; dgroesh @poway .org;jessica.m.owens @ gmail.com; water@ sand iego.g ov;
sdcfb @sdfarmbureau.org
Subject: Madera CUP Modification
Mr. Martin,
As a result of the neighborhood meeting on June 5, 2013, 1 feel there were too many " I don't knows..." from the subject
matterexperts from Dudek and SCS Engineers to bring this the City of Poway Council.
In order to address the "I don't knows," we feel that a long term study needs to be done to address the effects of pulling
280 acre ft. of groundwater per year would have on the City of Poway and the San Dieguito Watershed. The studies
provided by the City of Poway only seem to address one small connection or lack thereof (depending how you chose to
interpret the data) in regards to the Old Coach Estates.
Water is a limited resource in Southern California, and in the long term I want to ensure that there is water for future
generations. As citizens and or representatives of Poway, we have a responsibility to make sure water is not used in a
wasteful manner.
To summarize, I feel that prior to ANY modification to the CUP for the Maderas Golf Course:
• Conduct a long term (5 -10) year study on the water sustainability in the area
o Study should be larger scale, i.e. the entire Poway area /San Dieguito Watershed and NOT focused just
how it affects or doesn't affect the Old Coach Estates
• Contact all well owners in the Poway area that could be effected (I have heard numbers upward of 500 well
owners) in addition well owners in other affected cities: Ramona & Escondido.
• Contact surrounding cities to ensure no negative impact on their water resources, i.e. City of Ramona, City of
Escondido, County of San Diego, and of course the San Dieguito Water Park
• Ensure that any modification(s) to the CUP complies with both State & County regulations for riparian water
levels.
Thank you,
Jessica Owens
18201 Old Coach Road
Poway, CA 92064
349 of 374 - November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Jason Martin CORRESPONDENCE # 7
From:
Mary Glass <glassm @bgsurplus.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, June 19, 2013 4 :32 PM
To:
Jason Martin
Subject:
Public comment on the Maderas CUP revision
Dear City Council Members and others,
Thanks very much for providing this forum for public comment and your willingness to listen to the community you love
and serve. I write this on behalf of the Blue Sky Ecological Reserve located about a mile and a half from the Maderas Golf
Course. There are several things about the renewed request to pump ground water that concern us.
When pumping was allowed triggers were exceeded on numerous occasions and the City was forced to call a halt to the
pumping. Many questions regarding the aquifers, connections between them and recharging time frames have not been
answered to date despite another study. We all know we live in an and climate and water conservation is strongly
encouraged for all residents. How can a business be exempt from this concern? This has been ongoing since 2000 but
there is no indication that Maderas has looked at or considered ways to conserve water or be ecologically responsible.
Also of concern is that there is a test well in Blue Sky that has not been monitored since 2004. Without any information
on possible impacts of pumping for over eight years it does not seem right to move forward with renewed pumping.
Maderas golf course is a community resource but one used by very few members of the community and it is by no
means free. Maderas has resources and options that the rest of us do not have. Blue Sky is also a community resource. It
is used by a broad spectrum of the community for a wide variety of programs few of which ever cost the participants
anything. This is not because what Blue sky offers if not of value. On the contrary, the natural beauty and peace of Blue
Sky are beyond a nameable price.
Sincerely,
Mary Glass
President of Friends of Blue Sky Canyon
CONFIDENTIALITY DISCLAIMER: This e -mail message and any attachments are the property of Fortegra
Financial Corporation, its subsidiaries, et al. and may contain privileged, confidential,. proprietary, or otherwise
protected private information meant solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, then destroy and delete the e-mail
and any attachments from your system. Thank you.
350 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
CORRESPONDENCE #8
Date: June 19, 2013
To: Jason Martin, Project Planner 853 - -1205 (city fair)
From: Torn L. Moore
18555 Wild Horse Creek
Poway, CA 9200
959- 451 -9449
RE: Review for Addendum To !Mitigated Negative Declaration
APNS 277 - 170-21 and 277 - 171 -34
6 pates
Will send via email, duplicate copy vla email later today.
351 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Comments to the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared from the City of Poway
and Paid by Maderas Golf Club.
The Environmental Assessment and the CUP 90-13M (5) does not consider the lack of a new EIR for the
changes to the Poway Multiple Species Habitat Plan for the change of the Golf Club from a link style golf
course.
As per Wikipedia and About.comGolf concur that a LINKS golf course is a specific type of golf course. A
LINKS course has very few if any trees. The uneven fairways are rarely, if ever watered except by nature.
Sandy bunkers are numerous, varying in size, and the course is naturally laid out. The soil is sandy and
drains easily, generally built on sand dunes or open parkland. There are few if any water hazards on a
LINKS course.
The current EIR does not address groundwater sustainability and recharge rates that were developed by
Dr. victor Ponce's May 2012 Study on Thompson Creek Groundwater Sustainability for the watershed
areas that Maderas Goff Club now claims in a new 2012 groundwater claim report by Matt Wiedlin, City
Hydrologist.
City staff has totally disregarded 613 permitted residential wells located in the watershed that Maderas
now claims for their neighboring groundwater sources. Most of the well permitees have not been given
any formal notice of the EIR and the possible harm to them. The June 19 date should be extended for
proper notification.
Sustainability to the long -term riparian habitats has never been addressed. Blue Sky Ecological Preserve
test well monitoring ceased in 2004. Current groundwater claims by the golf club are groundwater are
part this California State preserve. All San Diego County riparian standards should be adhered in the
Maderas Golf Club CUP and monitored to the San Diego County standard in riparian areas.
Water quality for the entire term of time of water mining by Maderas Golf Club under all of the EIR has
never addressed, nor has the City of Poway Staff required any test well be tested for water quality
changes. Water quality testing over the period from 2000 to present has not been conducted, by the
City of Poway or Maderas Golf Club. Not even on Wells #9 and #10 that are 500 feet below sea level. By
not following through with testing the City is culpable in the changes to the water quality for the aquifer.
Note there is a sufficient amount of fertilizer used on the turf and several wells are 500 feet below sea
level.
SCS Engineers and the Dudek studies failed to address the erroneous data used by SCS Engineering in all
of their reports. SCS referred to this data as estimates, guesses and I don't know. Mr. Bob Manis in an
email said the city staff would weigh heavily on the Dudek report. How can city staff weigh heavily on
inaccurate and incomplete data that affects the entire North Poway area? Sustainability and water
quality studies are necessary and were thoroughly discussed with Dudek consultants and city staff.
352 of 374
2 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
The EiR does not address the change in the Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan /Natural
Community Conservation Plan, whereas the golf club development changes from a Links style course to
the present form of the Maderas Golf Club with heavy water consumption. EIR failed to incorporate the
requirements set forth in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in the August 2000 report and
previous reports.
Also noted in these reports by the United States Fish and Wildlife was only a very temporary use of
groundwater at one third the demanded 450 acre feet needed for the golf course was advised. Only
temporary use for startup. The August 2000 report noted groundwater was not to be used to sustain
this course, as did the California Regional Water Quality Control Board concur. RWQCB also noted the
project could cause serious adverse impacts to water quality and beneficial uses. Only 150 acre feet of
temporary groundwater use was the original approval by City Council. The usual 5unroad studies later
apparently persuaded an unrealistic increase leading to the overuse problem.
This 280 acre feet amount of groundwater water pumping infringes upon neighboring rights and needs
to be modified to a safer yield, after all test wells recover to beyond their trigger points. All test wells
should be continued to be monitored by California State certificated professionals including wells such
as Blue Sky and the San Diegulto River Park should be reinstated for weekly monitoring that is then
available to the public.
The EIR failed to address that the triggers set forth by the CUP and other documents were never
enforced by the City of Poway Development Services or the City of Poway City Manager. Mandatory
triggers were for the intentional purpose to protect riparian habitat and residents, especially ones solely
dependent on groundwater. The Maderas golf club ignored all these triggers and the city staff
negligently did not enforce them.
Furthermore, there are only 12 permitted wells out of fourteen wells at the Maderas Golf Club. For
these wells no public notice was provided. There were no sustainability or water quality studies. All
future wells should have public input, study and review open to the public as per law.
Tom L. Moore June 19, 2013
18555 Wild Horse Creek Poway, CA 92064
353 of 374
L- - A
3 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
HOARD OF DIRECTORS
Chair Jim Cunningham
Poway City Council
Vic —Chair Last, Recbner
Solana Beach City Council
Don Mosiet
Del Mar City Council
Olga Dlaz
Escondido City Coundi
Sherri Ughtner
San Diego City Council
Mark Kersey
San Diego City Cr cil
Dave Roberts
Supervises. County of San Dleqo
Dianne Jacob
Supervisor, Cowdy of San Diego
Tom Cialich
Citizens Advisory Conuniltee
Becky Rattling. Ex Officio
22nd District Aqricultural Assoc.
Dick Boben
Executive Director
San Dieguito River Valley
Regional Open Space Park
18372 Sycamore Creek Road
Escondido, CA 92025
(858) 674 -2270 Fax (858) 674 -2280
www.sdrp.org
June 19, 2013
Bob Manis
Director
City of Poway
Development Services Department
13325 Civic Center Drive
Poway, CA 92074
CORRESPONDENCE # 9
Subject: Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed
Maderas Golf Club CUP Modification (CUP 90- 13M(5))
Dcar Mr. Manis:
Thank you for providing the JPA the opportunity to review and comment on this
AMND as well as the proposal from Maderas Golf Club to modify conditions in
CUP 90- 13M(5) regarding groundwater production and monitoring. The JPA
appreciates the City's efforts to engage the surrounding property owners in this
project and the applicant's willingness to hold public discussion regarding their
proposal. After carefully reviewing the AMND and supporting documentation,
attending a public meeting, and discussing the project with City staff and the
applicant, we have concerns/comments regarding the proposed CUP
modifications.
The JPA has an interest in this project for two reasons: (1) the JPA owns open
space property within the Lower Sycamore Creek area including our San Dieguito
River Park office headquarters which relies on a groundwater well that was
severly impacted in 1999 at the onset of pumping by the Madcras Golf Club, and
(2) Sycamore Creek, sensitive habitat and groundwater aquifers are located within
the River Park's Focused Planning Area.
We understand that this project may be considered by the Poway City Council
sometime in July 2013, which would not allow our JPA Board to review the
project in time. Therefore, these comments are from JPA staff. Our comments on
the AMND and project are:
What is the rationale for it groundwater production cap of 280 acre -fee(
(at)'? A cap of 150af was initially established as part of a settlement
agreement with the Lower Sycamore Creek property owners (including
the JPA) and by the Poway City Council in June 2000. It is unclear when
and why that initial cap was increased to 280af and what rationale was
used to make that determination. The CUP does not specify a cap amount
nor has any analysis for it cap been provided. We would appreciate it better
understanding of that increased amount (in addition, please see below).
354 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Mr. Marais
June 19, 2013
Page 2
It is unclear whether the environmental assessment provided for the CUP that established
the conditions for groundwater use (MND July 26, 2000) considered permanent long-
term use of groundwater for the golf course (as opposed to reclaimed water) and the
impact of groundwater production (pumping) at a rate of 280af for the Iong term. The
impact discussion in the Environmental Initial Study for CUP 90- 13M(2) appears to be
based on a rate of 150af or one -third of the annual inigation need (page 4). Has an
analysis of the effects of permanent use of groundwater at a rate of 280af been done?
Mitigation measures regarding pumping were specified in the 2000 MND, but the results
of those measures (that could shed light on the effects of pumping) were not provided
(Section VIII, measures I, 3 and 4).
Although according to the groundwater data provided, historic groundwater production at
the golf course has not reached 280af since the golf course was initially installed.
However, this situation is likely to change. Reliance on groundwater may increase in the
near future as the cost of potable water rises and as the potential for prolonged droughts
increase. We do not see any evidence that a level of sustained pumping at an average of
280af has been analyzed in previous or current CEQA documents.
o Neither MND addressed groundwater use at full build out of this area including the golf
course and residential uses and its impact on the environment.
® 1s a cap of 280af sustainable and appropriate? According to the information contained in
the original approvals for this project, the original premise and expectation for this use
was that reclaimed water would be available in the fidure to irrigate the golf course rather
than a permanent reliance on groundwater. The phrase "until reclaimed %eater is
available" is stated many times in the documentation (for example, pg 2 of
Environmental Initial Study). An expectation of reclaimed water use may have caused
decision makers at the time the Maderas Golf Course was approved to think of
groundwater purnping as.a temporary Situation and not a permanent solution. To our
knowledge, there are no foreseeable plans for reclaimed water in this area. An analysis of
whether permanent use of groundwater for a golf course that requires an annual supply of
450af of water to irrigate is sustainable in this area is not provided.
e The project description in the AMN D does not state whether any of the original
conditions in CUP 90- 13M(2) regarding groundwater use (per Resolution P- 00 -65) would
be retained in this CUP modification. it is left to the reader to guess or assume which
measures would be completely removed or left unchanged.
® The project description includes a discussion of "additional wells' (page 14), but the
project does not propose any new wells nor does the AMND evaluate the potential impact
from additional wells. No criteria or process is provided to allow additional wells. We
suggest that the proposed CUP modifications not address new wells other than to say that
no new wells (or additional wells) are permitted under this modification.
355 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Mr. Manic
.rune 19, 2013
Page 3
The original CUP modification established conditions for the alluvial wells that included
mitigation measures should the health of the vegetation ever be impacted by the golf
course use of groundwater. It is unclear whether those measures (Condition 1.3) are
retained in the proposed monitoring modifications. It is imperative that the riparian
corridor be protected from any impacts due to groundwater pumping; therefore mitigation
mmeasures must remain in place should it ever be determined that the riparian vegetation
has suffered from such use of groundwater.
• The rationale for the proposed triggers is not explained in the ANIND in terms of how
they were established and whether the trigger amounts (51 of and 61 at) are appropriate
and reasonable, and whether adequate safeguards are included. These safeguards are
listed in the findings for CUP 90- 13M(2).
The proposed CUP modifications contain conditions for the Southern Well Lone that
would be used to determine whether the health of the riparian vegetation is harmed by
reduced water levels in the alluvium. However, the proposed conditions do not include
Shutting down pumping while this is determined and appears to require three years of
data to establish Mann. Due to the potential for delayed harm should the alluvial aquifer
be lowered, damage to the riparian vegetation could worsen while the three years of data
is collected. Should adverse effects to the riparian vegetation along Sycamore Creek be
noticed, then pumping should cease immediately as required in the original CUP
(condition 1.2).
• A rationale for modifying the original stabilization requirements for the .L.SCTW from
40ft bgs to 90ft bgs is not provided. We are concerned about the potential for latent and
delayed impacts to the aquifer from over pumping considering slow recovery of the
aquifer (condition J.4).
® In the case that groundwater levels in the Lower Sycamore Creek neighborhood fell to it
level where groundwater supply becomes inadequate to niect the needs of the residents,
then groundwater pumping at Maderas should cease immediately as required in the
original CUP (condition J.5).
We request answers to our questions and concerns prior to Consideration of this project by the
City Council. Thank you for considering our comments.
Sincerely, f
Sh, v la '. Anderson. AICP �.
Principal Planner
356 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Sheila Cobian CORRESPONDENCE # 10
From: Mike Wydra <mikewydraucsd @gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2013 8:06 PM
To: Sheila Cobian
Cc: bobrien @maderasgolf.com
Subject: Maderas Initiative
Dear Mayor Higginson and members of the Poway city Council,
I've been the golf coach at UC San Diego for 34 years. During that time, I have seen many golf facilities built and prosper,
while others have gone out of business. You are probably aware that of the 77 golf courses in San Diego County,
Maderas has consistently ranked in the top five according to the Zagat survey, many times actually ranking #1. As a
result, we must come to the conclusion that the Maderas golf course is a giant asset to San Diego County in general and
to the city of Poway in particular.
In addition, they take the lead among area golf courses in providing a green zone where less water is used for
maintenance then nearly any course in the area. By eliminating substantial areas of turfgrass and replacing them with
natural habitat, the Maderas maintenance philosophy puts them on the cutting edge of water conservation and
environmental mitigation.
As a result, any pending litigation that would prevent them from obtaining water would run contrary to the best
interests of the city of Poway. Not only are the proposed measures not supported by scientific fact, but also are clearly
unfair in their application. Our area needs more facilities of this kind, not ways to prevent them from being operationally
feasible.
Finally, I want to stress that Maderas would be a deserving beneficiary of a favorable ruling from the council. Their
operation benefits the surrounding community in multiple ways, not only with the general public who enjoy a visit there,
but also with their extensive work with grade school, high school and college age athletes.
I have first hand knowledge of the wonderful work they do helping me with a summer camp for kids held on their
property. In addition, they extend playing privileges to our golf team several times a year, without which we would be
devastated.
In conclusion, I hope that you will vote in favor of allowing Maderas to carry on as a golfing jewel and good neighbor in
our community.
Sincerely,
Mike Wydra
UC San Diego
Head Golf Coach
357 of 374 1 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Council /Penny/Tina /Bob /Jason
Q4OQS��gfiRFORMlN 4glS
no ,. CORRESPONDENCE #11
July 17, 2013
Honorable Mayor Don Higginson and
Members of the Poway City Council
City of Poway
13325 Civic Center Drive
Poway, CA 92064
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
F O U o o RECEIVE
JUL 2 2 2013
CRY OF POWAY
Cf1YMANAQERS oFfte
As a member of the Poway business community, I am writing in support of Maderas Golf Course and their request
for an amendment to the 2000 Conditional Use Permit which sets limits on groundwater use and monitoring.
In the past 13 years Maderas Golf Course has been a strong supporter of the Poway Community. Maderas has
been a supporter of the POW Foundation since 2004. For several years Maderas hosted our annual golf
tournament, a project essential to meeting our fundraising goals. In all our dealings with the Maderas
management and staff we found them to be ethical and upstanding and would gladly vouch for the character of
the organization.
I understand that in 2000, the City approved a modified Conditional Use Permit for Maderas that approved the use
of groundwater to partially irrigate the golf course and included an operational plan and groundwater monitoring
program. Since that time, Maderas has monitored their use of groundwater and conducted numerous hydrological
tests. I have reviewed the findings of the independent Third -Party Review which are quite clear in their
conclusions that there is no hydraulic connection between existing Maderas wells and Old Coach Estates Wells and
that Maderas use of groundwater has not influenced the water levels in alluvial monitoring wells and the riparian
habitat is thriving.
I understand the concern of surrounding property owners whose well levels are declining. However, the data
examined in the Dudek report makes It clear that the drop in water tables is not a result of the use of groundwater
by Maderas. The rainfall over the past 10years has been declining, and it appears that the residents are using
more groundwater than is being recharged into the system. I believe it is unfair to penalize Maderas' use of
groundwater as a result of a situation over which they have no impact /control.
Based on these findings, I urge the City Council to vote in support of the Maderas Golf Club request for an
amendment to Conditional Use Permit 90- 13M(2).
Sincerely,
Director
Poway Center for the Performing Arts Foundation
15498 Espola Road, Poway CA 92064
358 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
CORRESPONDENCE # 12
Carol Lec a
From:
Sandra Mubarak <sandy @oldcoachvineyards.com>
Sena:
Saturday, August 03, 2013 6:39 PM
To:
Don Higginson; John Mullin; Jim Cunningham; Dave Grosch; Steve Vaus
Cc:
yearnforpeace @aol.com; glassm @bgsurplus.com; brute @medikeeper.com;
Shawna @sdrp.org; dbobertz @sdrp.org; stevenstone @mac.com; twatripp @yahoo.com
Subject:
request to receive notices, inform all affected re: our well & riparian area preservation
Attachments:
IMG 3111.JPG; IMG_3113JPG; IMG_3114.JPG; IMG_3115.JPG; photo[2]JPG;
photo[3j.JPG; photo[1]JPG
We are usually very quiet compliant model citizens but we need your awareness.
We have only recently in the last couple months been informed that the City of Poway has had some ongoing issues over
several years to deal with regarding ground and well water usage /overusage.
We are appalled that we have never received a notification about these issues which can directly affect our Poway property. It
was only by coincidence that we discovered the meeting we attended on June 5.
There are huge and widespread ramifications to all of us for the City of Poway's pending decisions.
Our Poway history:
For 24+ years we have lived and ecologically managed this 41 acres of pristine riparian, vineyard and pasture land directly
north of the Maderas golf course. We are completely supported by our own well without the help if City of Poway water or
other Poway utilities, although pay Poway taxes. In 2002 we signed and recorded the easement adjustment allowing Maderas
to be built on the promise by Bruce Tabb that Sunroad would be building a LINKS/Zero Scape course and would be installing
and using reclaimed water. It has become evident that this breach of promise and EIR was not addressed.
You should be aware we have been able to monitor water entering the riparian area since 1988 and in the past 6-7 years have
measured an unprecedented annually increasing deterioration of volume and quality of natural spring, ground and deep well
water levels. We are aware of the rainfall levels but this continuing damage of the natural levels and stark stoppages and then
regain of flow indicate significant pumping is periodically occurring. The Fish and Game has been made aware as has been the
State Water Board, but budget cuts have eliminated many efforts at enforcement. We are now aware that the
huge negative impact could be at least in part by unprecedented water use by Maderas. Having lived on wells and waterways
for all our lives, confirmed by USGS, we are well aware that water basins, ground and deep well water are ultimately all
connected from "snow to storm to stream to sea."
We would hope you take into consideration all of your North Poway citizens that are being insidiously affected by the
deterioration of water tables at all levels. We encourage you to look into stream pumping and off hours well pumping. We see
this occurring in all directions from our property since the cost of Poway and Ramona water has gone up so much for irrigation
of large parcels more and more of this is happening.
We respectfully request that the City of Poway include us in any correspondence, meeting notices, etc. which
affect the value and functioning of our property, especially or precious water sources. We have been stellar
supportive Poway Citizens and somehow have been left out of the correspondence loop. We all need to do our part
to restrict unnecessary use of water and return to LINKS Zero Scape and reclaimed water, reserving potable water for humans,
359 of 374 1 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
not landscape. We practice Sustainable Agriculture, l00'A Solar, organically grown drip irrigation viticulture to do our part for
the environment. We expect no less from all our neighbors.
At the june meeting with Mr. Story of Sunroad /Maderas, the Dudek Company, SCS Engineers and a gentleman named Matt
wiedlin, many questions that several concerned citizens of Poway asked, were not sufficiently addressed and
some not answered at all. Please address why this course is not required to be conserving, reducing, LINKS or
other conservative model, and reduce its water use and expense, like you are asking the reset of your citizens
to do.
If I Understand it correctly, the city Council will soon be voting on this Maderas CUP change to basically have unrestricted use
of water. We are pleased to hear it has been postponed, but let us know if that vote is still scheduled to occur. I don't think
the impact is fully understood or fully studied or these devastated areas would have come to your attention._ The City Council
needs to know all the neighborhoods east, west and north to highland valley and down into the San Dieguito Valley to lake
Hodges are all being affected by declining levels of ground water all over the county, excessive pumping, overpopulation and
declining rainfall. We all need to change our over - consumptive ways. Requiring Maderas to return to LINKS /Zero Scape water
use restrictions is a more admirable, less expensive, precedent setting example of keeping their word to be a model for good
course management.
We are attaching before and after shots of our own property riparian and adjacent to riparian areas as only one example of
the complete devastation and lack of consideration given to us as close neighbors, severely affected by the over consuming
pumpers devastating our natural water table which was sustained beautifully before the aggressive pumping began without
regard to replenishment capabilities. Compare the first beautiful four shots of a bass - filled - family- enjoyed pond to the last
three showing the eight foot or more drop in water level containing precious bass habitat reduced to a mud hole in
which you can see our grand daughter trudging through, II of us saddened with all the turtles, fresh water
clams, crayfish, blue gills waterlilies, and marginals devastated.
Pictures are worth a thousand words.
We all should be protected equally by the city of Poway. These precious riparian areas and their waterways will not recover if
you do not take action to protect all of us. There is no doubt we have a critical issue and important decision
here.
To the City of Poway, please do not change the CUP, enforce LINKS /ZeroScape /reclaimed
water irrigation practices as promised for Maderas, and protect our precious riparian areas of Poway, public
and private.
This is in the best interest of all your Poway residents.
I will be available on e-mail, text and voicemail to my cell.
Respectfully requesting protection,
Sandy Mubarak
360 of 374 2 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Co- winemaker, Operations Manager, Old Coach Vineyards and Winery
Global cell 858 395 -5549
e -mail: sandv @oldcoachvineyards.com
Join our wine club for 200A discounts on all of our award - winning estate grown reserve wines www.oldcoachvinevards.com
mailto:BManis @poway.org
Dave Grosch <dgrosch @cox.net >; dbarkin @davidbarkin.com;'dbobertz' <dbobertz @sdrp.org >; vearnforpeace@aol.com;
'Mary Glass' <glassm2bgsurplus.com >; nick @drstavros.com; twatripp @vahoo.com; Steven Stone <stevenstone @mac.com>;
Bruce Tarzy <bitarzv @cox.net >; Sandra Mubarak <sandv @oldcoachvineyards.com >; 1'w sb lobal.net 'Frank Vaplon'
<fmvaplonEsbcglobal.net>;leanen@yahoo.com iessica.m.owens @gmail.com; gadrian @sandiego.gov;
ibennetesandiego.gov;'Pam Moore' <pam.d.moore @att.net >;'Nanette Wier' < nanette. wier @gcccd.eduscrosby @poway.org
NOTICE: This message, including attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain legally
protected confidential, proprietary, and /or privileged information. PLEASE DO NOT FORWARD WITHOUT EXPRESS
PERMISSION OF THE SENDER. If you are not the intended recipient (or intended recipient's employee or agent), you may not
use, copy, disclose, or distribute this message or its attachments. If you believe you have received this message in error,
please contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the original message and any attachments. Thank you.
361 of 374 3 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
CORRESPONDENCE # 13
Stephen E. Wittman
2602 West Canyon Avenue
San Diego, CA 92123
August 7, 2013
C,IIV 01'P(1WaV
Mayor Don I ilgglnsorl h.
Melllbc:rs 0fthe City Council
113125 Civic Center Drive
Poway, CA 92064
Dear Mayor i ligginson ant] Council Members:
As a long -tinle t61'nlel' Irsidcnl and active past Community service Volunteer, I wish to express
Illy support ol'the Maderas Goli'Course for amending the 2000 Conditional l ►se Perrin limiting
ground water use..
It is not Illy intention to reiterate its you and your staffthe professionally and extensively
prepared report eclnlplcted by Dudek ol'April, 2013 lavorable to tile: e011(lltional use peI-rllit
anlcrldillcnt.
lo��(ver, ill balancing Your responsibilities to the Poway con11»unily, I would urge that you talc
Into deep consideration the value anti ccc)nu111ic hcnefits sut:ll a recreation use (g011: c() nlcrenec
alid education IaCility) tale Madcras Goli'Ouh provides to Poway and the entire San Dicgn
Comlltttnity.
Ask anyone living in southern California the past 10 years and they Nvill by simple recollection
sllal'e their view that the shortage of rainfall over the past 10 ycal-s has not only led to tires, but
also recharging of water wells to the property owners in Old Coach Estates.
The Maderas Golf Course and its linlited nionitor(xl use ofground water is more than just about
water. It is about being a major contributor to this great conlnulnity <llld heautilill natural habitat.
Thank You for your CUllln unity service and exercising g0(ld jlldglllerlt oil I111porlant I11ai1CI'ti SLIC11
as (ills,.
Yourytrtily,_
S1eph�fi E."Wittman ---�
cc: 5hcila Cobian. City Clerk
S�tlt�i�inur;h�lwgy_c�rg
362 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Jason Martin CORRESPONDENCE # 14
From: Pamela Moore <pam.d.moore @gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 3:40 PM
To: Jason Martin; Penny Riley; Bob Manis
Cc: Dave Grosch; Don Higginson; John Mullin; Jim Cunningham; Steve Vaus; Steve Crosby
Subject: SCS study
Attachments: Sustainability of Groundwater Withdrawal at Maderas.pdf
Dear Jason,
Thank you very much for notifying us of the most recent SCS Engineering /Sunroad road on the Poway City
website. However, after some review many of us our confused as how this report might be passed off as a sustainability
study for North Poway, or even a sustainability study for the Maderas Golf Club. There appears to be no mention
and /or justification of a safeguarded sustainable groundwater extraction for the golf club, as per its acreage and
recharge.
There are several designated test wells as per the CUP besides the LSCTW, such as in the Blue Sky Ecological Reserve,
Malone Ranch, San Dieguito River Park and Old Coach Estates area that appear to be left out of the report which are
part of North Poway and the crisis. As per the United States Geological Survey aquifers are connected to
aquifers. There are no cement walls, just some rock that dictates the time flow of water movement.
Lower Sycamore Creek and the Maderas Golf Club are not their own isolated aquifer. Wells in the both Heritage and the
Old Coach Estates Test Well went DRY at the near same time of the ten day testing of Maderas Wells #9 and #10 in
spring 2010. Just as in 1999 when the Sycamore Creek residents wells went DRY, the Old Coach Test Well plunged to
nearly 190ft, 50ft past the trigger level.
SCS Engineers seem to indicate it is likely that Maderas receives CUP 280 acre feet of ground water allotment frorn leaks
in Lakes Ramona and Poway. However, Blue Sky Ecological Preserve, other riparian areas such as in the Green Valley
area, and even some homeowners solely depend on this same groundwater source. Not sure if you have walked
through the Blue Sky Ecological Reserve recently, but the sole pond dried up months ago and oaks trees are dying. It is
unclear if the designated Blue Sky test well in the Maderas CUP was ever even monitored, as it relies on the leaks in
Lake Ramona and Poway too, as SCS Engineers seems to claim for the Maderas Golf Club ground water source.
Additionally, there are. some 600 permitted wells in the North Poway area. As by most recent San Diego County ground
water standard it indicates resident wells should be limited to no more than one acre foot per year. The requested
sustainability for the Maderas Golf Club is not just about what might be available, but what is the sustainable, a safe
extractable amount to use that still provides enough ground water for all the stakeholders and future needs. The
stakeholder, first our sensitive North Poway riparian areas, then those solely dependent on ground water, other
residents, agriculture, then recreation.
We understand there has been an unfortunate drought the past two years that has added to the strain of the original
over drafting crisis, but this is dry Southern California. California has both a documented surface and ground water
shortage. Unfortunately, groundwater does not recharge as readily as surface waters and once depleted groundwater
can take many decades to recharge as documented by the United States Geological Survey.
Does SCS Engineers plan to complete as requested this current study /report data to support a 280 acre foot of
groundwater is an sustainable extraction for their total area, that most specialists might estimate should really be
363 of 374 1 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
limited to about 40 acre foot per year? Or is this just about water mining to save money for the golf club, and the
deepest wells as those 1,200 foot wells at the golf club getting the last drop?
Also, again SCS Engineers still has not provided.answers to questions from past reports and questionable data which
make unexplainable claims by Tom Wright about water connections, need, usage and runoff.
Thank you again and look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Pam Moore
364 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
9/16/2013
Comments on SCS Sustainability Study
dated 9/9/2013
by
Bob Kiang
CORRESPONDENCE # 15
1. One of the main conclusions of this SCS study is: "The estimated less than I foot
groundwater elevation decline in LSCTW demonstrates that groundwater withdrawals
have been sustainable as substantiated by the last 13 years of data."
2. Water level in the LSCTW (Lower Sycamore Canyon Test Well) was specifically chosen to
be an indicator of the health of the aquifer because "LSCTW is located downgradient with
respect to groundwater flow and gradient of Maderas within this watershed."
3. It is my judgment that using LSCTW as "an appropriate indicator or proxy for the sustainability
of groundwater withdrawals" is totally irrational.
4. A simple analogy: Consider a pile of wet sand. Imagine each grain of sand is magnified to
the size of a fractured rock and the hilly terrain surrounding the Maderas Golf Course.as piles of
sand, one gets a pretty good idea what the aquifer in this watershed looks like. The sand layers
near the top of the pile would dry out first as a result of evaporation. If one sticks a moisture probe .
deeper into the pile, one would still find wet sand. Now think of the evaporation being the groundwater
extraction upgradient from the well, and LSCTW being the moisture probe, one would quickly conclude
that a downgradient well is not an appropriate proxy to measure the health of the aquifer.
5. It is curious that SCS engineers chose to use the LSCTW data for this study instead of the OCETW
(Old Coach Estate Test Well) data. The latter well is 200 feet higher in elevation than the former, and is
closer to the average elevation of the Golf Course.
6. Thus, despite the repeated claim by SCS that the "data" support sustainability, there needs to be a
rational debate about the appropriate data to use for such a study.
7. I want to make it clear that I have reviewed this SCS report on behalf of Blue Sky. Blue Sky is
situated upstream of the Maderas Golf Course. It is my contention that groundwater will migrate
downward over long periods of time (we are talking perhaps 20 -50 years). It could be that the aquifer
underneath Blue Sky is affected while LSCTW still registers "normal" level.
365 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
R E C E I V ED r e d l r n
�l,soctates. Inc.
June 26, 2012 JL!'1 2 8 20'2
CITY OF POW .Y P.O. Box 910462
DEVELOPMENT E;ERVICE:S San Diego, CA 92191 -0462
City of Poway � Applictions in �rocrter Science
Development Services 858.259.6732 • fax 858. 259.6094
Attn: Bob Manis
P.O. Box 789
Poway, CA 92074 -0789
Subject: Review of Thompson Creek Sustainability Study, May 7 2012, Poway, CA
Dear Mr. Mavis:
The following provides a limited review of the above referenced document prepared by Victor
Ponce. The document discusses anecdotal water table decline in the upper Thompson Creek
Watershed, characterizes groundwater availability using ratios of groundwater production, or
capture, to groundwater recharge and critiques the Don Howard Engineering 2000 Hydrologic
Study of the Sycamore Creek Sub -Basin (Howard Engineering, 2000). The document also
provides an anecdotal discussion of riparian health habitat for the upper and lower Thompson
Creek, a generalized discussion of salt loading to groundwater from irrigation, and a discussion
of the difference between safe yield and sustainable yield. Based on these discussions Dr. Ponce
(the author) provides conclusions and recommendations. Notably, Dr. Ponce's report did not
include an assessment of Maderas groundwater levels or the relationship of Old Coach Estate
groundwater levels to Maderas groundwater levels; hence he did not constrain his analysis of
groundwater availability with actual field data that have been collected since Howard
Engineering, 2000.
The following provides limited commentary on the document.
Section 2.5 Thompson Creek water balance/2.6 Thompson Creek capture -to- recharge
These sections utilizes a range of recharge rates drawn from the literature and from Howard
Engineering 2000 and applies the rates to an area of 2,693 acres that is comprised of the
Thompson Creek watershed as well as an additional 808 acres of land surrounding Sycamore
Creek downstream of the confluence with Thompson Creek (Ponce's Figure 2.1). The author
states that because all groundwaters are eventually connected, the choice of the size of a
groundwater basin for purposes of groundwater recharge calculations is largely arbitrary.
The author attributes this opinion to an editorial written by John Bredehoeft in the November -
December 1997 issue of the journal, Ground Water (Attachment A). A review of that editorial
indicates that groundwater basin size, or the selection of groundwater basin boundaries, for
recharge or water balance studies is not mentioned. Hence the opinion is apparently
misattributed. In my opinion, the selection of the groundwater basin boundaries is not arbitrary,
though all groundwaters may eventually be connected, where they connect is highly relevant.
For example, groundwater recharge in areas directly up gradient from Maderas is relevant
because these waters flow through the Maderas well field, yet do not flow through the Old Coach
366 of 374 ATTACHMENT M November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Wiedlin & Associates, Inc. 2
Applications in Groundwater Science
Estates area. Whereas groundwater recharge and flow in the San Pasqual Valley is not very
relevant as flow from this area does not join with Sycamore Creek flow until some distance
down gradient from Lower Sycamore Creek. Nevertheless, one of the inherent difficulties in
preparing a water balance study is selecting basin boundaries that adequately represent the scale
of the hydrogeologic environment under study.
P\'o
o
12
l "C 1 IV-
Lake ti TC? TCO
�V
(lodges TC4
�rorrVso,, Creek
L�
o TC3 GVO
0 e�
e
'P_ G�
2 \e� GV t
GCee Lake Ramona
GV2
Lake Poway
CanYon Creek WCO
Ponce's Figure 2.1
In the case of the Thompson Creek analyses, the author prepared ratios between groundwater
pumped (aka captured) and mean annual groundwater recharge over the 2,693 acre area. The
author derived ratios that ranged from 1.53 acre -feet pumped per l acre -foot of groundwater
recharged to 0.82 acre -feet pumped per 1 acre -foot of groundwater recharge. As stated by the
author, establishing a criterion for this ratio is by no means straight forward, but certainly the
values cited above can be considered unsustainable if they were actually reflective of site
conditions. If the capture to recharge ratios were representative of site conditions, Maderas
groundwater levels should be at least equally or even more impacted by drawdown than the Old
Coach Estates water wells since most of the capture occurs at Maderas wells. However, Maderas
groundwater levels have remained relatively stable over time.
The inconsistency between Ponce's capture to recharge ratios, and actual groundwater levels at
Maderas are caused by the author's selection of the recharge area which does not include the
Warren Canyon Creek, Green Valley Creek, or the Sycamore Creek SC 1 tributary area upstream
of Maderas (Ponce's Figure 2.1). Recharge from these areas is the probable source for the
P.O. Box 910462 San Diego, CA 92191-0462 Ph 858 259 -6732
367 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Wiedlin & Associates, Inc. 3
Applications in Groundivaler Science
majority of the groundwater inflow to Maderas. Three lines of evidence support this statement;
1) it is the expected pathway of groundwater flow based on general groundwater flow concepts,
2) the occurrence of an extensive riparian habitat along Sycamore Creek up gradient of the
Thompson Creek confluence indicates significant shallow groundwater inflow, 3) 12 years of
groundwater production at Maderas with stable on -site groundwater levels.
Section 3.4 Groundwater capture in Thompson Creek
In this section the author notes that shallow hand -dug wells in Old Coach Estates attests to the
fact that settlers in the early 201h century were reliant on shallow groundwater. The author goes
on to state that prior to extensive groundwater development in the 1990s; the water table depth
may have been less than 20 feet.
During my groundwater level measurement work with Old Coach Estate residents, the water
table depth was measured at two hand dug wells (Figure 1). The depths to water in these wells
on October 1, 2011 were 7.7 and 11.9 feet. The well where the shallower water level was
observed is located in the Thompson Creek riparian area approximately 1,200 feet northeast of
the OCETW. The well where the deeper measurement was made is located outside the riparian
habitat approximately 650 feet east of the OCETW. Water table depth measurements were taken
at a time when groundwater levels typically approach annual lows and indicate that at least some
locations in the Thompson Creek/Old Coach Estates area overlie shallow water table conditions
throughout the year. However, it would be reasonable to expect the water table to drop below
the shallow alluvial sediment deposits and decomposed granite into the underlying fractured
granitic rock as one gets closer to the localized groundwater depression that is partially defined
by the Myers, Vaplon, Bell, Magnum, Bridgewater, and OCETW wells.
Section 5.1 Riparian health in Lower Thompson Creek
The author notes that the riparian health of lower Thompson Creek is less than that of Sycamore
Creek. The author surmises that this may be attributable to the combined effect of urban
development, wildland fire, and groundwater depletion. This statement may, or may not be
accurate and inspection of older aerial photographs may assist in such an assessment. However,
inspection of aerial images on Google Earth dating back to 1995, and pre -golf course
construction, indicates that the extent of trees in lower Thompson Creek in the 1995 images is
about the same as the extent in the most recent image taken in 2010. Hence, if the vegetation
conditions along lower Thompson Creek are attributable to groundwater depletion; it is from
activities that predate the golf course.
Section 5.3 Riparian Health in Upper Thompson Creek
The author provides anecdotal reports of tree loss in the upper Thompson Creek drainage area
with particularly heavy losses at the Kassel property. The author reports that concurrent to the
tree loss, Mr. Kassel experienced poor groundwater quality in the form of burnt orange colored
water. The implication made is that poor groundwater quality may be responsible for the tree die
off. If this was the case, poor groundwater quality would manifest as brackish water. However,
burnt orange colored water is most likely symptomatic of an iron bacterial infection of the Kassel
P.Q. Box 910462 San Diego, CA 92191 -0462 Ph 858 259 -6732
368 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Wiedlin & Associates, Inc. 4
Applications in Groundwater Science
water well rather than elevated salinity. Tests to assess salinity and iron bacteria activity are
simple and inexpensive.
If water table decline was a contributory factor to the reported tree loss, it is improbable that
Maderas groundwater production plays a role since shallow water table conditions exist between
Maderas and upper Thompson Creek within the Old Coach Estates area (Figure 1). Additionally,
as discussed in previous correspondence with you, groundwater elevation contour maps, water
level hydrographs, and cross sectional analysis provide persuasive site specific data that
demonstrate the Old Coach Estates deep drawdown condition in the vicinity of the OCETW is
independent of Maderas pumping. Hence, possible drawdown conditions attributable to Maderas
pumping nearly a mile further up gradient are even less plausible.
Section 6 Salinity
The author accurately points out that groundwater sustainability is not only a function of
groundwater quantity, but groundwater quality and that irrigation results in an increase in the
mass of salt delivered to the hydrogeologic environment compared to native state conditions.
Generalized salt load calculations prepared by the author have not been verified as part of this
review, but are consistent with my experience in assessing salt loading.
It is important to understand that salinity impacts related to Maderas irrigation will likely be
similar whether Maderas irrigates with groundwater or city water; to the extent that salinity of
these two water sources are similar. Hence any actions pertaining to salt loading from a golf
course, if justified at Maderas, would be equally justified for any other golf course within the
city, or for that matter irrigation in large city parks.
It is unlikely that any golf course in the County has been subject to a salt balance study except,
conceivably, where reclaimed water was expected to be used. The salt balance studies I have
been involved in through the authority of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and/or the
County Department of Environmental Health pertained to the disposal of sewage effluent or the
use of reclaimed water which would generally be expected to have higher salinity than
groundwater or city water.
In the big picture, the challenge regarding this matter is what can be done to mitigate salt loading
if it is determined that a reduction in salt loading is desired. Two choices are apparent, either
irrigate with lower salinity water or reduce the amount of water applied to the golf course.
Lowering water salinity would entail treating water with a membrane -type filtration system such
as reverse osmosis. This approach would entail very large costs. Reducing the amount of water
applied to the golf course implies either improving irrigation efficiency or reducing the area
subject to irrigation. It is my general understanding that Maderas is already highly motivated
towards maintaining high irrigation efficiencies; however the City could consider evaluating
Maderas' irrigation practices if a need to reduce salt loading is indicated. Reducing the extent of
irrigated areas could also reduce salt loading but may likely change the character of the golf
course.
P.O. Box 910462 San Diego, CA 92191 -0462 Ph 858 259 -6732
369 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Wiedlin & Associates, Inc. 5
Appitcations in Groundwater Science
If the city elected to address the salt loading issue, possible actions might include annual
measurement of salinity of groundwater at selected existing water wells. The objective of these
recurring measurements is to assess whether salinity is increasing over time. If groundwater
salinity was increasing with time, and if salinity levels were greater than the Regional Water
Quality Control Board's Basin Plan Objective, then the hard decision regarding what to do, if
anything, may then need to be addressed. Costs for monitoring would be low as laboratory fees
are currently about $35 per analysis. It is almost certain that the golf course measures the
salinity of their irrigation water using a field method called electrical conductance. Other
considerations regarding this sort of effort include the likely need to measure salinity in
groundwater up gradient from the golf course and the reasonable possibility that whatever
salinity impacts the golf course has had on groundwater over the past 12 years may be
approaching a steady state condition.
Lastly, salinity impacts induced by Maderas would not be expected to affect Old Coach Estates
because Maderas is down gradient of Old Coach Estates.
Section 8 Sustainable Yield
The author discusses in this section, and elsewhere in the document, the difference between safe
yield and sustainable yield, an updated concept regarding the amount of groundwater yield that is
possible without damaging other groundwater users, human and otherwise. The document
accurately describes that judicious extraction of groundwater is constrained by the recognition
that the extraction removes groundwater from the hydrogeologic system and results in lower
down gradient flows.
The City's requirements for Maderas groundwater pumping have included a cap on groundwater
production, groundwater level control at the discharge point of the aquifer system in Lower
Sycamore Creek at the LSCTW, groundwater level control on the up gradient side of the golf
course at the OCETW, and groundwater level control where pumping occurs in the riparian area
along Sycamore Creek. Groundwater monitoring data has demonstrated that drawdown in the
vicinity of the OCETW is not induced by Maderas pumping and further groundwater level
monitoring in the vicinity of OCETW by Maderas would be fruitless. However, as discussed in
previous correspondence, groundwater monitoring at or in the vicinity of Maderas Well 6 will
provide the necessary control to avoid excessive capture of Thompson Creek groundwater
discharge.
Accordingly, the City has been practicing a sustainable yield approach to Maderas groundwater
use through the use of groundwater level triggers with respect to riparian health and a practical
application of the limit of down gradient flow capture through the LSCTW monitoring. Local
pumping and related drawdown over the past three years have rendered the OCETW ineffective
as a monitoring well to assess potential drawdown for Maderas pumping activity. The revised up
gradient monitoring location is expected to provide limits to Thompson Creek groundwater
outflow capture that was addressed earlier by the OCETW.
P.O. Box 910462 San Diego, CA 92191 -4462 Ph 858 259 -6732
370 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Wledlin & Associates, Inc.
Applications in Groundwater Science
9.0 Conclusions
C
Eighteen statements of conclusion have been prepared. I have prepared comments on a select
few.
Conclusion No.2: All groundwaters are eventually connected; therefore the actual size of a
groundwater basin for purposes of recharge calculations is largely arbitrary. The contributing
area considered in this study consists of Thompson Creek and the downstream portion of
Sycamore Creek, beginning at its confluence with Thompson Creek, amount to 2693 acres.
As stated earlier, this assumption is essential to the author's conclusion that Maderas is primarily
responsible for unsustainable capture of groundwater flow. The failure to incorporate
groundwater inflow from up gradient catchment areas into the analysis leads to a gross
underestimate of groundwater inflow into Maderas. Because groundwater flowing from Green
and Warren Canyons does pass through Maderas, but does not pass through the Old Coach
Estates area, these up gradient catchment areas are relevant to the assessment of Maderas'
groundwater resources.
Conclusion No. 6: Over the past 12 years (2000 - 2011), the average groundwater- capture -to-
recharge percentage in Thompson Creek and vicinity has been 109%. To provide a measure of
comparison, the average capture -to- recharge percentage in the continental United States is
8.7 %.
If the full watershed of 8,236 acres as identified by the author was used, rather than, as the author
states, an "arbitrary" 2,693 acres, and assuming the same recharge rate used by the author, the
average capture -to- recharge percentage would be on the order of 35 percent. The author's
recharge estimate is based only on rainfall infiltration and does not account for leakage from the
Poway or Ramona reservoirs. Hence the ratio is likely lower than 35 percent. One of the
author's recommendations is that sustainable yield is reasonably interpreted as 30% of the gross
recharge (Section 10.1).
Conclusion No. 9: A spring near the Myers property in Old Coach Estates documented by the
U.S. Geological Survey in its 1990 geologic map of Thompson Creek and environs, is currently
(2012) no longer there. Groundwater depletion may be presumed to be the most probable cause
of the spring's demise.
The spring is actually located on the USGS topographic map, which the 1990 geologic map uses
as a base. Hence, the USGS is not asserting that the spring was present in 1990, but at the time
the map was originally prepared. The topographic map was originally prepared in 1947 and was
revised in 1968 with field verification checks. Subsequent revisions to USGS topographic maps
are based on aerial photographs without field work, and as the USGS has stated, identification of
springs through photo revision is not likely. Hence it is reasonable to assume that the spring was
present at the time of the 1968 field check which was prior to the residential subdivision of the
Old Coach area. Groundwater level measurements at the Myers well by the original drilling
contractor in August 1978 and by Howard Engineering in March 2000 were reported at 20 feet
P.O. Box 910462 San Diego, CA 92191-0462 Ph 858 259 -6732
371 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Wiedlin & Associates, Inc. 7
Applications in Grounahvater Science
and 97 feet respectively. Hence 77 feet of groundwater drawdown in the Old Coach Estates area,
in the vicinity of the spring had already occurred by the time golf course had opened.
10.2 Recommendations
The author recommends that the sustainable yield, interpreted as a reasoned fraction of the
recharge be determined. The author suggests that considering other aspects besides irrigation
demand, 30 percent may be that reasoned fraction, though reasons why 30 percent were selected
were not provided to support this admittedly difficult assessment.
Despite the author's opinion that Maderas is conducting unsustainable groundwater extraction,
actual site specific groundwater level data indicates that Maderas has over the past 12 years
produced groundwater without impacting Old Coach Estates and without long term impact to
Lower Sycamore Creek. Maderas can continue sustainable groundwater pumping practices by
conducting the following:
• replace the OCETW with a groundwater level monitoring point at or near Well 6,
• continued groundwater level control at LSCTW,
• riparian groundwater level monitoring when pumping patterns deviate from established
pumping patterns such as extended pumping at Wells 1 through 3 and 8 when LSCTW
levels are breached,
• remaining within the historic annual pumping volumes.
Please contact me if have questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Matthew P. Wiedlin
California Certified Hydrogeologist, No. 97
Attachment: Ground Water Vol. 35, No. 6, Page 929, November - December 1997. Groundwater
Editorial by John Bredehoeft
P.O. Box 910462 San Diego, CA 92191 -0462 Ph 858 259 -6732
372 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
and Dug Well
enth to Water = 7.7 A 10/1/11
B&I
,• 1
9
Y
�.� fr _ f ., S���X- L • Eye
dA4.r' F Hand Dug Well �+ �
„Depth to Water = 11.9 ft, 10/1/11
rozimate
h `4`
Figure 1 Hand Dug Well Locations and Measured Water Table Depth
373 of 374 November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
Editorial
Safe Yield and the Water Budget Myth
by John BredehoeftB
The editorial by Marios Sophocleous in the July- August issue
of Ground Water is an especially important one. I agree with
Marios, the idea of safe yield as it is generally expressed in which
the size of a development if it is less than or equal to the recharge
is considered to be "safe" is fallacious. As Marios indicates, Theis
pointed out the fallacy of this notion of "safe yield" in a 1940
paper entitled: The source of water to wells: essential factors con-
trolling the response of an aquifer to development (Civil
Engineering, p. 277 - 280) --every practitioner of ground water
should go back and read this paper. Theis' 1940 principle is one of
the least understood concepts in ground -water hydrology.
Hilton Cooper, Stavros Papodopulos, and t reiterated Theis' par-
adigm in a 1982 paper entitled: The water - budget myth (Scientific
Basis of Water Management, National Academy of Sciences Studies
in Geophysics, p. 51 -57). At the time, Theis said to me that this paper
eliminated the need for a paper he had been contemplating.
Unfortunately, our 1982 paper was printed in an obscure publica-
tion; and yet it may be one of the more important papers we wrote.
I have some additional remarks to add to Marios Sophocleous'
editorial. As Marios correctly indicated, Theis stated: "A new.state
of dynamic equilibrium is reached only by an increase in recharge
(induced recharge), a decrease in discharge, or a combination of
the two." Cooper, Theis, and others had a name for the suns of
increased recharge plus the decreased discharge --they refer to it as
capture. In order for a development to reach a new equilibrium, the
capture must ultimately equal the new stress on the system, the
development. Capture is dynamic, and depends upon both the
aquifer geometry and the parameters (permeability and specific stor-
"Consultant, The Hydrodynamics Group, 234 Scenic Dr., La Honda,
California 94020.
The views expressed here are the author's and not necessarily those
of the AGWSE, NGWA, and/or the Ground Water Publishing Company.
374 of 374
age) of the system. This is why both well response and aquifer sys-
tem response are so much a part of ground -water hydrology.
In my experience, the recharge, and certainly the change in
recharge due to a development (induced recharge) is difficult, if not
impossible, to quantify. Usually the recharge is fixed by rainfall and
does not change with development. Marios leaves an impression that
the change in recharge (induced recharge) is where our focus as
ground -water hydrologists should be. It is on this point that we may
differ.
Commonly the virgin discharge is what changes and makes it
possible to bring a ground water system into balance. Capture is a
dynamic quantity that changes through time until the system reaches
a new equilibrium. Usually this is what we attempt to quantify with
flow models —we estimate the magnitude of the capture from the
virgin (natural) discharge. It is usually much more important to focus
on the discharge, and the change in discharge —the capture. Capture
from the natural discharge is usually what determines the size of a
sustainable development.
Pumping does not have to exceed the recharge for streams to
be depleted. Pumping is an additional stress on the system. The water
pumped will usually be supplied from both storage and from
reduced natural discharge. We define equilibrium as a state in
which there is no more change in ground -water storage with
time —water levels are stable in time. If no new equilibrium can he
reached, as Theis showed for the high plains aquifer of New
Mexico, the aquifer will continue to be depleted. Once a new equi-
librium is reached, the natural discharge is reduced by an amount
equal to the development -- capture equals development. This state-
ment has nothing to do with recharge. Often streams are depleted
long before the pumping reaches the magnitude of the recharge.
It is important that the profession understand the concept of safe
yield. Sustainable ground -water developments have almost noth-
ing to do with recharge; as Marios correctly states, it is irrelevant.
However, I continue to hear my colleagues say they are studying
the recharge in order to size a development —I heard this again last
week. The water budget as it is usually applied to scale development
is a myth —Theis said this in 1940. Yet the profession continues to
perpetuate this wrong paradigm.
November 19, 2013 Item # 3.1
.,_, 11 - c i nfNi Twm IXTATnn h1....,......L.._ T,........,.1 -,._ 1nn7 010