Macro-Rainwater Harvesting Evaporation Interception Presented to Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council January 25, 2013 Prescott Active Management Area

Granite Creek Total AMA Basin Area = 485 Sq Mi Black Hills Little Chino Subbasin Area = 310 Sq Mi

Aqua Fria Subbasin Area = 175 Sq Mi

Sub-Basin Boundary

Granite Mountain

Willow Aqua Fria Creek

Lynx Creek Sierra Prieta Range ADWR Third Management Plan, Chapter 1 Surface Flow Through the Prescott AMA and History of Dam Overflows 4

3 Dam Overflows: 1995, 2005 & 2010

Lonesome Valley Drainage

Black Hills 2 Granite Mountain Willow Lake Prescott Valley 1

Willow Creek Watershed = 25.2 SQ MI 21” Annual Average Aqua Fria Precipitation Watershed = Bradshaw Mountains River 36.3 SQ MI Prescott 1 - Watson Lake Dam 2 - Granite Creek 3 - Del Rio Springs 4 - Confluence of Granite Creek & the Verde River

USGS Photograph USGS Photograph a. Based on Table 4 from Hydrogeology of the Upper and Middle Verde River Watersheds, Central , U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5198 and assumption of annual average precipitation of 21 inches. Prescott AMA Precipitation and Evapotranspiration

25 in. 13 in. 21 in.

17 in.

21 in.

Evapotranspiration Exceeds Precipitation 25 in. Prescott AMA Average Annual Precipitation (From Prescott AMA Virtual Tour) Average Monthly Prescott Evapotranspiration, Inches

Figure A above from: Hydrogeology of the Upper and Middle Verde River Watersheds, Central Arizona Yitayew, M. 1990. Reference Evapotranspiration Estimates for Arizona. Tech 1 Bull. 266. By Kyle W. Blasch, John P. Hoffmann, Leslie F. Graser, Jeannie R. Bryson, And Alan L. Flint Agr.Exp.Stn.Col. Of Agr. University of Arizona 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

Precipitation ~16 IN/YR Evapotranspiration 414,000 AF/YR 407,200 AF/YR (100.0%) (98.4%)

Surface Outflows 0 AF/YR NATURAL SURFACE WATER OUTFLOWS ENVIRONMENT USE

Natural Recharge 6,800 AF/YR (1.6%) Well Pumping 23,700 AF/YR*

4,500 AF/YR Deficit = Effluent, Surface 14,700 AF/YR Water & Incidental Recharge 6,700 AF/YR*

* Well pumping includes exempt well pumping estimate by CE of 2,968 AF/YR. Above values from “Prescott AMA Groundwater Flow Model Update Effluent recycle =3,400 AF/YR (COP, PV & CV). Surface water recharge = 1,400 Report”, October 31, 2006, ADWR Prescott AMA “2007 Annual Report” and AF/YR. Incidental recharge = 1,900 AF/YR (50% of Irrigation) Aquifers City of Prescott “Assured Water Supply Portfolio Summary”. Prescott AMA Water Budget – With Macro-Rainwater Harvesting

Precipitation ~16 IN/YR Evapotranspiration 414,000 AF/YR 392,500 AF/YR (100.0%) (94.8%)

Surface Outflows 0 AF/YR NATURAL SURFACE WATER OUTFLOWS ENVIRONMENT USE

Natural MRH Recharge 14,700 AF/YR 6,800 AF/YR (3.6%) (1.6%)

Well Pumping 23,700 AF/YR*

4,500 AF/YR Effluent, Surface Deficit = 0 Water & Incidental Recharge 6,700 AF/YR*

* Well pumping includes exempt well pumping estimate by CE of 2,968 AF/YR. Above values from “Prescott AMA Groundwater Flow Model Update Effluent recycle =3,400 AF/YR (COP, PV & CV). Surface water recharge = 1,400 Report”, October 31, 2006, ADWR Prescott AMA “2007 Annual Report” and AF/YR. Incidental recharge = 1,900 AF/YR (50% of Irrigation) Aquifers City of Prescott “Assured Water Supply Portfolio Summary”. Lateral Cross Section of the Little Chino Aquifer Basin

Granite Mountain Granite Creek Black Hills Hydraulic Conductivity Values in the Prescott AMA

Upper Verde River Springs Upper Verde River Springs Del Rio Springs Del Rio Springs

COP Wellfield

COP Wellfield

Upper Agua Fria Springs at Humboldt

Upper Alluvium Lower Volcanic Unit

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 Longitudinal Cross Section of the Little Chino Aquifer Basin Relationship Between Groundwater Levels and Spring Flows

30’ Well GWL – Spring Elevation

Upper Verde River Base Flow

10’

1962 2009 Del Rio Springs Upper Verde River

Well Flow Verde River Gauge

Spring

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. Groundwater Recharge in Granite Creek

180’ BLS 3/10 3/05

3/95 3/12

5/99 3/01 2/08 Depth to

240’ 2/97 2/00 3/03 Water Table BLS

Well 523565 Adjacent to Granite Creek

Shallow Well With Response to Flooding

4,900 1/10 3/95 1/05 2,030 cfs 4,800 Granite Creek Flowrate Upstream 370’ BLS of Watson Lake 4,700 alluvium

4,600

layers of gravelly to cobbley layers sand to cobbley of gravelly

medium to fine grained sand withsand grained fine to medium

cemented Depth to clayey Water Table 4,500 sand in 400’ lower BLS 2012 section 1998 Well 562286 Adjacent to Granite Creek 4,400 fractured basalt Deep Well With No Response to Flooding 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 Prescott Urban Runoff to Groundwater Recharge in Granite Creek

Granite Creek Upstream of Highway 89A Bridge City of Prescott – Forest Trails Subdivision Watson Lake on January 24, 2010 Looking North, February 1, 2008

Granite Creek at Perkinsville Rd, January 23, 2010 (Did not reach the Verde River)

Granite Creek Between Hwy 89A Aerial View of Granite Creek Granite Creek at Perkinsville Rd, and Perkinsville Rd, April 15, 2007 February 28, 2008 February 1, 2008

The Lonesome Valley – Where Does the Water Go?

Total = 97.3 Sq Mi 12.3 Sq Mi = 20% of Prescott AMA

Perkinsville Rd

2 9.7 Sq Mi Martin Canyon

8.6 Sq Mi

66.7 Sq Mi

1 Predominately Clay

Lonesome Valley Granite Creek Granite

1. Local resident at this location reported seeing only one flood event (monsoonal) in past approximate 10 years. ~ 5 Miles

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 Lithology Section in Coyote Springs Area reaching Granite Creek. Flooding from Lonesome Valley to the south was reported to be not observed.

Lonesome Valley Soil Texture - Affect on Evaporation

0’ 3’

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%

Water Repellent Soils: a state-of-the art LeonardF.DeBano, March 1981, United States Department of Agriculture, Based on soil maps generated from the USDA Soil Web Survey General Technical Report PSW-46. Prescott Valley Urban Runoff to Lonesome Valley and Evapotranspiration

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

Lonesome Valley Bottom Drainage Drainage Course Exits Poquito Valley into Lonesome Valley Bottom Drainage Looking North at Perkinsville Rd Lonesome Valley Ranch Land, August 17, 2008 Looking South 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

Recharge

Transport County Maintained

Paved Road

Granite Creek Granite 6.3 Miles 6.3 Harvest

Town of Prescott Valley Subdivisions: Viewpoint and Pronghorn Surface Drainage Collection Using “Roaded Catchment” System

Compacted, Graded Infiltration and Evaporation and Smoothed Soils

Ephemeral Wash With Coarse Grain Material

Fine Soils Collection From Existing Condition No Runoff “Roaded Catchment” to Wash and Transport Runoff to Before Evaporation 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

Ephemeral Wash With Coarse Grain Material Engineered Trench in Drainage Swale Fine Saturated Soils Collection from Perforated in Drainage Swale No Runoff Piping System and Transport to Wash Before Evaporation Existing Condition

Runoff to Drainage Swale with Recharge Saturated Soils in Wash

Profile View 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

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)

Micro-Rainwater Macro-Rainwater Harvesting Harvesting

Curb and Gutter with Storm Drain Inlet Overflow to Foundation Drain Macro-System Connection

Area Drain Connection Local Area Ditch Paved Road * * Area of Building Footprints in the Prescott AMA in 2011 = 3,906 Acresa * Perforated Pipe (French Drain)

Local Area Ditch Paved Road Regional Area of Right of Way in the Area Ditch Prescott AMA in 2011 = 8,964 Acresa * CMP Culvert Pipe a. Data obtained from the Yavapai County GIS Department * - Collection Opportunity Macro-Rainwater Harvesting from Existing Subdivision Macro-Rainwater Harvest / Evaporation Interception Potential Production

44% Impervious, AAP = 14.0 in, 0.32 AF/Acre 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. Potential Areas for Macro-Rainwater Harvesting Implementation

Commercial PV Residential 0.15 Acres CV Residential 0.25 Acres PV

81% Impervious, AAP = 16.1 in, 0.57 AF/Acre 53% Impervious, AAP = 12.6 in, 0.28 AF/Acre 44% Impervious, AAP = 14.0 in, 0.32 AF/Acre

Agriculture

Residential 2.0 Acres YC Residential 0.50 Acres COP Residential 0.80 Acres YC 5% Impervious, AAP = 13.7 in, 0.13 AF/Acre 33% Impervious, AAP = 19.6 in, 0.31 AF/Acre 18% Impervious, AAP = 15.8 in, 0.22 AF/Acre With On-Site Surface Modifications = 0.40 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

What Does it Achieve? What Does it Look Like?

• Captures and treats runoff from 40 • Underground infiltration gallery for acres of residential land use groundwater recharge

• Provides 16 acre-feet of recharge • Vegetated swales to hold and absorb annually stormwater runoff and rain barrel overflow • Reduces peak flows and pollutant loads to the Los Angeles River • Drought-tolerant and native landscaping • Reconnects the neighborhood to the natural hydrology of the Los Angeles • Meandering sidewalks River Watershed • Additional trees and green space • Demonstrates multiple Low Impact Development strategies on both public • Increased permeable surfaces and private lands • Rainwater collection for irrigation Unit Harvest = 0.40 Acre Feet / Acre

U.S. Dept of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation and Los Angeles & San Gabriel Watershed Council Sanitary Sewer Infiltration / Inflow (Unintended Sub-Surface Collection)

Computer Tools for Sanitary Sewer System Capacity http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/wastewater/II/What.aspx Analysis and Planning , EPA

Study or Source Units Range City of Auburn SSES Report by Black & Veatch Gallons per Day per Inch-Mile 1,080 to 13,470

R Value = Ratio of Volume of Stege Sanitary District Cost Effectiveness Infiltration Inflow / Volume of Analysis Report by Black & Veatch Precipitation x 100 (%) 5 to 64

Santa Rosa, Ca Infiltration / Inflow Study Gallons per Day per Acre 5,328 (Infiltration Inflow Limits for Medium Residential Planning) Acre Feet per Day per Square Mile 10.5

Capital Regional District (CRD) Gallons per Day per Acre 32,142 Vancouver Island, BC, (100 year old VCP, 100 year, 1 hour storm) Acre Feet per Day per Square Mile 63.1 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 Factors Affecting Cost Harvesting Productivity

 New Infrastructure for Harvesting  Precipitation

 Level of Flood Protection  Average Annual  Surface Modification  Intensity & Duration  Gravity Versus Pumping  Distribution Over Time  Sediment Control  Land Use & Zoning  Water Treatment  Surface Characteristics  Manufactured Surfaces  Environmental, Legal & Social Issues  Soil Texture & Structure  Land and Easement Purchases  Slope  Availability of Natural Recharge Sites  Available Infrastructure  Operation & Maintenance  Storm Drain Catchments

 Pipelines & Basins

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”

FM “Roaded Catchment” With Application of FM Polymer

FM Compaction with FM Application of Tall Oil Pitch FM

Compaction to 95% Modified Proctor Density

Control Area Thank You Questions?

Watson Lake on January 24, 2010