Presented to Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council ... McMillan_01_25_2013.pdfReport”, October...
Transcript of Presented to Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council ... McMillan_01_25_2013.pdfReport”, October...
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