Macro-Rainwater Harvesting

Evaporation Interception Presented to

Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council

January 25, 2013

Prescott Active Management Area

Total AMA Basin Area =

485 Sq Mi

Little Chino Subbasin Area =

310 Sq Mi

Aqua Fria Subbasin Area =

175 Sq Mi

ADWR Third Management Plan,

Chapter 1

Lynx Creek

Bradshaw

Mountains

Sierra Prieta

Range

Willow

Creek

Granite

Mountain

Granite Creek

Black Hills

Aqua Fria

Sub-Basin Boundary

Surface Flow Through the Prescott AMA and History of Dam Overflows

Lonesome Valley

Drainage

Granite

Mountain

1

Prescott

Prescott Valley

Black Hills

Willow

Lake

Chino Valley

USGS Photograph

USGS Photograph

3 - Del Rio Springs 4 - Confluence of Granite

Creek & the Verde River

Aqua Fria

River

1 - Watson Lake Dam 2 - Granite Creek

Bradshaw Mountains

2

3

4

Dam Overflows: 1995,

2005 & 2010

a. Based on Table 4 from Hydrogeology of the Upper and Middle Verde River Watersheds, Central Arizona , U.S. Geological Survey,

Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5198 and assumption of annual average precipitation of 21 inches.

21” Annual

Average

Precipitation

Willow Creek

Watershed =

25.2 SQ MI

Granite Creek

Watershed =

36.3 SQ MI

Verde River

Prescott AMA Precipitation and Evapotranspiration

Yitayew, M. 1990. Reference Evapotranspiration Estimates for Arizona. Tech 1 Bull. 266.

Agr.Exp.Stn.Col. Of Agr. University of Arizona

Average Monthly Prescott Evapotranspiration, Inches

Figure A above from: Hydrogeology of the Upper and Middle Verde River Watersheds, Central Arizona

By Kyle W. Blasch, John P. Hoffmann, Leslie F. Graser, Jeannie R. Bryson, And Alan L. Flint

13 in.

17 in.

21 in.

21 in.

25 in.

25 in.

(From Prescott AMA Virtual Tour)

Prescott AMA Average Annual Precipitation

Evapotranspiration Exceeds Precipitation

Volume of Groundwater in Alluvial and Volcanic Units

Prescott AMA in 2009, Acre Feet

2,390,500 AF 1,002,900 AF

Alluvial Unit Volcanic Unit

Annual Groundwater Level Decreases in Prescott AMA

Prescott AMA Water Budget – Existing Condition

Aquifers

Deficit =

14,700 AF/YR

SURFACE

ENVIRONMENT

WATER

USE

Above values from “Prescott AMA Groundwater Flow Model Update

Report”, October 31, 2006, ADWR Prescott AMA “2007 Annual Report” and

City of Prescott “Assured Water Supply Portfolio Summary”.

* Well pumping includes exempt well pumping estimate by CE of 2,968 AF/YR.

Effluent recycle =3,400 AF/YR (COP, PV & CV). Surface water recharge = 1,400

AF/YR. Incidental recharge = 1,900 AF/YR (50% of Irrigation)

Well Pumping

23,700 AF/YR*

NATURAL

OUTFLOWS

Surface

Outflows

0 AF/YR

Natural

Recharge

6,800 AF/YR

(1.6%)

Effluent, Surface

Water & Incidental

Recharge

6,700 AF/YR*

4,500 AF/YR

Precipitation ~16 IN/YR

414,000 AF/YR

(100.0%)

Evapotranspiration

407,200 AF/YR

(98.4%)

Prescott AMA Water Budget – With Macro-Rainwater Harvesting

Aquifers

Precipitation ~16 IN/YR

414,000 AF/YR

(100.0%)

SURFACE

ENVIRONMENT

WATER

USE

Above values from “Prescott AMA Groundwater Flow Model Update

Report”, October 31, 2006, ADWR Prescott AMA “2007 Annual Report” and

City of Prescott “Assured Water Supply Portfolio Summary”.

* Well pumping includes exempt well pumping estimate by CE of 2,968 AF/YR.

Effluent recycle =3,400 AF/YR (COP, PV & CV). Surface water recharge = 1,400

AF/YR. Incidental recharge = 1,900 AF/YR (50% of Irrigation)

Well Pumping

23,700 AF/YR*

NATURAL

OUTFLOWS

Surface

Outflows

0 AF/YR

Effluent, Surface

Water & Incidental

Recharge

6,700 AF/YR*

4,500 AF/YR Deficit = 0

Evapotranspiration

392,500 AF/YR

(94.8%)

MRH

14,700 AF/YR

(3.6%)

Natural

Recharge

6,800 AF/YR

(1.6%)

Lateral Cross Section of the Little Chino Aquifer Basin

Granite Mountain Granite Creek

Black Hills

Hydraulic Conductivity Values in the Prescott AMA

Prescott AMA Groundwater Flow Model Update Report, October 31, 2006, Daniel Timmons and Abe Springer, Northern Arizona University, Prepared for Arizona

Department of Water Resources, Contract #: 2005-2592, Final Report

Upper Alluvium Lower Volcanic Unit

Del Rio Springs

Upper Verde River Springs

Upper Agua Fria Springs at Humboldt

Del Rio Springs

Upper Verde River Springs

COP Wellfield

COP Wellfield

Longitudinal Cross Section of the Little Chino Aquifer Basin

Relationship Between Groundwater Levels and Spring Flows

Del Rio Springs

Upper Verde River

Well

Spring

Flow

Gauge

Upper Verde River Base Flow

Well GWL – Spring Elevation

1962 2009

Pressure head of Well 603912 GWL relative to Upper Verde River spring elevation versus Paulden gauge base flow analysis and figure above by Doug McMillan, 2010.

10’

30’

Verde River

Groundwater Recharge in Granite Creek

3/95 1/05 2,030 cfs

1/10

Granite Creek

Flowrate Upstream

of Watson Lake

Figure Above Right: The University of Arizona, Arizona Cooperative Extension, College of Agriculture and

Life Sciences, August 2007. Understanding Arizona’s Riparian Areas. Chapter 3, Hydrologic Processes in

Riparian Areas, By Mary Nichols. Well Log

4,600

4,500

4,400

4,800

4,700

4,900

3/95

3/05

3/10

Depth to

Water Table

Well 523565 Adjacent to Granite Creek

1998 2012

370’

BLS

Depth to

Water Table

400’

BLS

Well 562286 Adjacent to Granite Creek

240’

BLS

180’

BLS

Shallow Well With Response to Flooding

Deep Well With No Response to Flooding

all

uv

ium

med

ium

to

fin

e g

rain

ed

san

d w

ith

layers

of

gra

vell

y t

o c

ob

ble

y s

an

d

fractured

basalt

cemented

clayey

sand in

lower

section

2/08

3/12

3/03 2/00 2/97

3/01 5/99

Prescott Urban Runoff to Groundwater Recharge in Granite Creek

City of Prescott – Forest Trails Subdivision Watson Lake on January 24, 2010

Granite Creek Upstream of Highway 89A Bridge

Looking North, February 1, 2008

Aerial View of Granite Creek

February 28, 2008

Granite Creek Between Hwy 89A

and Perkinsville Rd, April 15, 2007

Granite Creek at Perkinsville Rd,

January 23, 2010

(Did not reach the Verde River)

Granite Creek at Perkinsville Rd,

February 1, 2008

The Lonesome Valley – Where Does the Water Go? G

ran

ite

Cre

ek

9.7 Sq Mi

8.6 Sq Mi

66.7 Sq Mi

Lonesome Valley

Total =

97.3 Sq Mi

= 20% of

Prescott AMA

12.3 Sq Mi

1

2

1. Local resident at this location reported seeing only one

flood event (monsoonal) in past approximate 10 years.

2. County road maintenance supervisor reported seeing

monsoonal flood event in 2005 originating from Martin

Canyon over topping Perkinsville Rd but did not reach

Granite Creek. Also reported seeing winter flood event in

1998 from Martin Canyon over topping Perkinsville Rd and

reaching Granite Creek. Flooding from Lonesome Valley to

the south was reported to be not observed.

Martin

Canyon

Perkinsville Rd

Lithology Section in Coyote Springs Area

Predominately Clay

~ 5 Miles

Lonesome Valley Soil Texture - Affect on Evaporation

Based on soil maps generated from the USDA Soil Web Survey

Water Repellent Soils: a state-of-the art LeonardF.DeBano, March

1981, United States Department of Agriculture,

General Technical Report PSW-46.

Trench showing Fine Soils

in Antelope Meadows

% of Lonesome Valley alluvial area with clay in first 3 feet

from surface = 50%

% of Lonesome Valley alluvial area with clay or clay loam in

first 3 feet from surface = 66%

0’ 3’

Prescott Valley Urban Runoff to

Lonesome Valley and Evapotranspiration

Street in Viewpoint Subdivision, January 21, 2010 Discharge to Engineered Channel in Viewpoint

Subdivision, January 21, 2010 Flow in Engineered Channel in Viewpoint

Subdivision, January 21, 2010

Drainage Course Exits Poquito Valley into

Lonesome Valley Ranch Land, August 17, 2008

Lonesome Valley Bottom Drainage

Looking South at Perkinsville Rd

Lonesome Valley Bottom Drainage

Looking North at Perkinsville Rd

Macro-Rainwater Harvesting /

Evaporation Interception Implementation

Harvest rainwater that otherwise would have been lost to evaporation

and transport to a recharge area with high infiltration rates.

Harvest rainwater on or below the surface with the intent that at no

time would this rainwater have had the potential to leave the Prescott

AMA as surface outflow.

Example of a Macro-Rainwater Harvesting /

Evaporation Interception System in the Lonesome Valley

3.9 Miles

6.3

Mile

s

County Maintained

Paved Road

Recharge

Transport

Harvest

Gra

nite C

reek

Town of Prescott Valley Subdivisions:

Viewpoint and Pronghorn

Surface Drainage Collection Using “Roaded Catchment” System

Ephemeral Wash With

Coarse Grain Material

Infiltration and Evaporation

No Runoff

to Wash Existing Condition

Collection From

“Roaded Catchment”

and Transport

Before Evaporation

Fine Soils

Compacted, Graded

and Smoothed Soils

Runoff to

Recharge

in Wash

Example of Surface Drainage Collection

“Roaded Catchments” in Western Australia

Roaded Catchments to Improve Reliability of Farm Dams, Bulletin 4660

Sub-Surface Infiltration Collection Using Perforated Piping System

Infiltration and Evaporation

Existing Condition

Collection from Perforated

Piping System and Transport

Before Evaporation

Ephemeral Wash With

Coarse Grain Material

Fine Saturated Soils

in Drainage Swale No Runoff

to Wash

Runoff to

Recharge

in Wash

Engineered Trench

in Drainage Swale

Profile View

Drainage Swale with

Saturated Soils

Example of Sub-Surface Infiltration Collection Using Perforated Piping System

Viewpoint Drainage Channels and Detention Basins

Micro and Macro-Rainwater Harvesting Can Work Together as One System

Curb and Gutter with

Storm Drain Inlet

CMP Culvert Pipe

Local Area

Ditch Regional

Area Ditch

Local Area

Ditch Paved Road

Macro-Rainwater

Harvesting Micro-Rainwater

Harvesting

Perforated Pipe

(French Drain)

Foundation Drain

Connection

Area Drain

Connection

Overflow to

Macro-System

*

*

* - Collection Opportunity

* * Area of Building Footprints in the

Prescott AMA in 2011 = 3,906 Acresa

Area of Right of Way in the

Prescott AMA in 2011 = 8,964 Acresa

Total Area of Right of Way and Building

Footprints in the Prescott AMA in 2011 =

12,870 Acres = 20.1 Square Milesa

(Excludes Driveways and Parking Lots)

Paved Road

a. Data obtained from the Yavapai County GIS Department

Macro-Rainwater Harvesting from Existing Subdivision

Macro-Rainwater Harvest / Evaporation Interception Potential Production

Assumptions Results

Average Annual Precipitation = 14.0 Inches = 1.17 Feet Area of Impervious = 0.12 Acres

Annual Percent Harvest (Impervious) = 50%a Area of Pervious = 0.16 Acres

Annual Percent Harvest (Pervious Area Modified) = 35%a Area of Semi Impervious with Alternative Modification = 0.16 Acres

Annual Percent Harvest (Pervious) = 10%a Annual Harvest From Impervious Area = 0.07 Acre Feet

Density = 0.25 Acre Parcels (0.28 Acres with Half Street) Annual Harvest from Pervious Area = 0.02 Acre Feet

Impervious Density = 44% of All Areas (Parcel + Half Street) Annual Harvest from All Areas = 0.09 Acre Feet

Pervious Density = 56% of All Areas Annual Unit Harvest from All Areas = 0.32 Acre Feet/Acre

Alternative Modification: Pervious Made Semi-Impervious Annual Harvest from Alternative Modification Area = 0.07 Acre Feet

Annual Harvest from All Areas with Modification = 0.14 Acre Feet

Annual Unit Harvest From All Areas With Modification = 0.50 Acre Feet/Acre

a. Calculation based on applying SCS TR-55 runoff volume equation using 2005 hourly rainfall data for Prescott and Chino Valley and grouping storms . Assumed CN of 98

for impervious surfaces, 96 for pervious surfaces made semi-impervious and 79 for pervious surfaces.

44% Impervious, AAP = 14.0 in, 0.32 AF/Acre

Potential Areas for Macro-Rainwater Harvesting Implementation

Commercial PV Residential 0.15 Acres CV Residential 0.25 Acres PV

Residential 0.50 Acres COP Residential 2.0 Acres YC

Ag

ricu

ltu

re

53% Impervious, AAP = 12.6 in, 0.28 AF/Acre 44% Impervious, AAP = 14.0 in, 0.32 AF/Acre

33% Impervious, AAP = 19.6 in, 0.31 AF/Acre 5% Impervious, AAP = 13.7 in, 0.13 AF/Acre

With On-Site Surface Modifications = 0.40 AF/Acre

Residential 0.80 Acres YC 18% Impervious, AAP = 15.8 in, 0.22 AF/Acre

81% Impervious, AAP = 16.1 in, 0.57 AF/Acre

Assumed CN of 98 for impervious surfaces, 96 for pervious surfaces made impervious and 79 for pervious surfaces

Los Angeles Basin Water Augmentation Study

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation and the

Los Angeles and San Gabriel Watershed Council

Elmer Avenue Neighborhood Retrofit Project

U.S. Dept of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation and Los Angeles & San Gabriel Watershed Council

What Does it Achieve?

• Captures and treats runoff from 40

acres of residential land use

• Provides 16 acre-feet of recharge

annually

• Reduces peak flows and pollutant

loads to the Los Angeles River

• Reconnects the neighborhood to the

natural hydrology of the Los Angeles

River Watershed

• Demonstrates multiple Low Impact

Development strategies on both public

and private lands

What Does it Look Like?

• Underground infiltration gallery for

groundwater recharge

• Vegetated swales to hold and absorb

stormwater runoff and rain barrel

overflow

• Drought-tolerant and native

landscaping

• Meandering sidewalks

• Additional trees and green space

• Increased permeable surfaces

• Rainwater collection for irrigation

Unit Harvest = 0.40 Acre Feet / Acre

Sanitary Sewer Infiltration / Inflow (Unintended Sub-Surface Collection)

http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/wastewater/II/What.aspx

City of Auburn SSES Report by Black & Veatch

Study or Source Units Range

Gallons per Day per Inch-Mile 1,080 to 13,470

Stege Sanitary District Cost Effectiveness

Analysis Report by Black & Veatch

R Value = Ratio of Volume of

Infiltration Inflow / Volume of

Precipitation x 100 (%) 5 to 64

Santa Rosa, Ca Infiltration / Inflow Study

(Infiltration Inflow Limits for Medium

Residential Planning)

5,328 Gallons per Day per Acre

Acre Feet per Day per Square Mile 10.5

Capital Regional District (CRD)

Vancouver Island, BC, (100 year old

VCP, 100 year, 1 hour storm)

Gallons per Day per Acre

Acre Feet per Day per Square Mile

32,142

63.1

Computer Tools for Sanitary Sewer System Capacity

Analysis and Planning , EPA

Precipitation Routing Through Basin and Ultimate Disposition

One possible routing example shown in red above.

Cost Effectiveness ($/Acre-Foot)

of Macro-Rainwater Harvesting / Evaporation Interception

Factors Affecting

Harvesting Productivity

Precipitation

Average Annual

Intensity & Duration

Distribution Over Time

Land Use & Zoning

Surface Characteristics

Manufactured Surfaces

Soil Texture & Structure

Slope

Available Infrastructure

Storm Drain Catchments

Pipelines & Basins

Factors Affecting Cost

New Infrastructure for Harvesting

Level of Flood Protection

Surface Modification

Gravity Versus Pumping

Sediment Control

Water Treatment

Environmental, Legal & Social Issues

Land and Easement Purchases

Availability of Natural Recharge Sites

Operation & Maintenance

Issues Associated With Macro-Rainwater Harvesting / Evaporation Interception

Economics

Affordability

Revenue Sources & Financing

Environmental Benefits Versus Impacts

Sustaining Upper Verde River Base Flow & Ecosystem

Effects of Surface Modifications on Native Plants & Soils

Potential Loss of Water for Plant Transpiration

Assurance of Surface Water Rights Protection

Engineering / Technical Challenges

Mitigation of Potential Flooding Due to Increased Runoff

Water Quality and Sediment Control

Social Conflicts

Who Pays for Land and Infrastructure Improvements & Who Benefits?

Effects on Water Related Recreational Facilities

Land Use Decisions

UVRWPC Pilot Study - Old Home Manor in Chino Valley – Pilot Site Layout

“Roaded Catchment”

With Application of

Polymer

Compaction with

Application of

Tall Oil Pitch

Compaction to 95%

Modified Proctor Density

Control Area

FM

FM

FM

FM

FM

“Roaded Catchment”

Thank You

Questions?

Watson Lake on January 24, 2010