ADAPTATION OF LOW IMPACT DESIGN TO THE DESERT

ADAPTATION OF LOW IMPACT DESIGN TO THE DESERT SOUTHWEST Abubaker Alamailes Thesis Master of Science-Civil Engineering Fall 2011

Examination Committee: • Dr. John Walton – Advisor. • Dr. Shane Walker – Member. • Dr. Richard Langford – Member. © The University of Texas at El Paso

outline • • • Introduction Simulation Method Simulation Results Field Method Field Results Conclusion © The University of Texas at El Paso

Introduction http: //www. invisiblest ructures. com/stormw ater. html © The University of Texas at El Paso

Con. Introduction • Low Impact Design (LID) is intended to deal with these problems • LID publications oriented to different climates • Objective: – adapt LID concepts to desert southwest conditions – An efficient passive landscape included – Field comparison method © The University of Texas at El Paso

Approach • • • Design at household level Only passive appropriate for climate Stormwater neutral designs for 3 cities Divide lot into mini-watersheds Mini-scale practices Water balance of P, R, ET, and S Native vegetation Equivalent initial cost Field and simulation studies © The University of Texas at El Paso

LID Design The Model House © The University of Texas at El Paso

LID Design Con. Mini-Watersheds Options. Runoff Paths. Option 1. © The University of Texas at El Paso Option 2.

LID Design: LID practices – Selection, and Placement. Locations of LID Practices and Flow Path. © The University of Texas at El Paso

LID Design Con. Cross Sections of a Bioretention Cell and a Vegetated Swale. © The University of Texas at El Paso

LID Design Con. French Drain Impermeable Mulch © The University of Texas at El Paso

LID Design Con. Bioretention Size • SCS Method for small watersheds. • Runoff discharge (in): • Initial abstraction: Ia = 0. 2 S, Pre-development CN Paved street, roofs, driveways, and sidewalk 98 96 Highly porous 1 ft layer of gravel and sand (the surface of the bioretention units) Post-development 77 gravel mulch with impervious weed barrier Surface Cover Desert with poor natural landscape of shrubs and grasses. 0 • Runoff volume (R) = Q (in) * Awatershed (acre) • Bioretention Volume= (Psot- R) – (Pre-R)= A*φ*D © The University of Texas at El Paso

LID Size Results. Option 1 (Lot) Option 2 (Lot + street) Bioretention/Capture El Paso 24% Albuquerque 21% Phoenix 22% © The University of Texas at El Paso

Climate Data Analysis Annual Statistical Analysis For the Climate data from 1991 -2010 El Paso Analysis category Albuquerque Phoenix Precipitation, Net Precipita Temperature, Precipitation, Net Precipita Temper-ature, Precipitation, Net Precipitain -tion, in °F in tion, in Temperature, °F Mean 8. 96 6. 63 65. 7 9. 63 6. 67 57. 7 8. 31 6. 47 75. 1 Std. Error of Mean 1. 16 1. 02 0. 18 0. 68 0. 56 0. 19 1. 32 1. 18 0. 18 Median 8. 47 5. 72 67. 5 9. 81 7. 19 58. 3 7. 62 5. 41 75. 0 Mode Std. Deviation 0. 00 78. 1 10. 02 0. 18 73. 9 0. 00 92. 8 5. 20 4. 55 15. 2 3. 03 2. 51 16. 1 5. 88 5. 26 15. 7 Variance 27. 1 20. 8 232 9. 16 6. 29 260 34. 61 27. 6 245 Range 23. 54 19. 7 76. 8 12. 8 10. 3 77. 5 27. 1 23. 8 73. 8 Maximum 23. 5 19. 7 99. 1 13. 3 10. 5 91. 9 27. 1 23. 8 106 Number of days when P>0 54. 0 Number of days when Net P>0 26. 0 69. 0 40. 0 31. 0 22. 0 © The University of Texas at El Paso

Mean Monthly Precipitation and Net Precipitation from 1991 -2010 El Paso Phoenix Albuquerque © The University of Texas at El Paso

Passive landscape • Native Vegetation Scientific Name Common Name Type Height Ft Width Ft Ceratoides Lanata Larrea Tridentata Koberlinia Spinosa Winterfat Creosote Bush Crucifixion Thorn Four Wing Saltbush Texas Sage/Ranger Guajillo Honey Mesquite Desert Willow Gregg’s Ash Shrub 3 8 5 2 6 7 Shrub 6 8 Shrub 4 -8 Shrub Tree 12 30 25 15 12 30 20 8 Arizona White Oak Tree 35 30 Atriplex Canescens Leucophyllum Frutescens Acacia Berlandiera Prosopis Glandulosa Chiloposo Linearis Fraxinus greggii Quercus Arizonica Evergreen Or Deciduous Evergreen Water Requirements Simi. Evergreen Low Deciduous Semi. Evergreen Low Low © The University of Texas at El Paso Low Low Low

Vegetation Root System for Some Chihuahuan Desert Plants. Honey Mesquite Desert Zinnia (ZIAC) and Snakweed (GUSA) © The University of Texas at El Paso

Landscape Water balance -Excess • Soil moisture storage: • Vs = Ө * ((L+1) * (B+1)) * D © The University of Texas at El Paso

Con. . Landscape Water balance • Evapotranspiration (ET) Vegetation Salt cedar Cottonwood Mesquite Honey mesquite Russian olive Ponderosa pine Pinyon-juniper Grass Shrub Mixed; low elevation Xerophytes Sagebrush Sage and bitterbrush Location Gila River, AZ Middle Rio Grande, NM Colorado River near Blythe, AZ Middle Rio Grande, NM San Pedro River, AZ Colorado River near Blythe, AZ Middle Rio Grande, NM Northern AZ, high elevation Nevada and northern NM Northern AZ, mid-elevation Nevada Middle Rio Grande, NM Nevada © The University of Texas at El Paso ET rate (inches/year) 56 42 -57 34 -49 28 -30 65 -85 44 -53 19 -28 27 25 -26 19 42 -50 20 11 --19 16 12 2. 8 -23 0 -14 0 -16 9 -12 12 10 -18

Con. . Landscape Water balance • ET volume = Avegetation crown area (acre) * Ave ET (in) Vegetation area subdivision Ave ET (in/year) Depth of root system (ft) 100 % trees 0% shrubs 25 10 75 % trees and 25% shrubs 21 8 50% trees and 50% shrubs 16 7 25% trees and 75% shrubs 12 6 0% trees and 100% shrubs 7 5 • Precipitation: P volume = Abioretention (acre) * P(in) • Runoff: R volume = R (in) * Awatershed (acre) © The University of Texas at El Paso

Simulation © The University of Texas at El Paso

Landscape Differential Cost • • EPA cost calculator tool. Low estimate & High estimate Initial, 3, 6, 10 years cost Annualized Cost (30 year loan at 5% interest) Comparison categories: Water rate, $/1000 – Annual water use City gallon – Annual water cost El Paso 4. 5 – Vegetation Maintenance Albuquerque 1. 1 Phoenix © The University of Texas at El Paso 3. 6

Landscape Results El Paso: Option 1 Alb: 77% 34% Pho: 74% 27% Option 2 85% 37% 81% 30% © The University of Texas at El Paso

hmmmm © The University of Texas at El Paso

Accidental case 1 © The University of Texas at El Paso

Accidental case 2 © The University of Texas at El Paso

Landscape Differential Cost Results City Comparison Category Water use gallons/ year Low Estimate Conventional Passive 20, 000 0 saving 100% High estimate Conventional Passive 49, 000 0 saving 100% 10 years cost $ 22, 000 $ 12, 000 45% $ 44, 000 $ 25, 000 43% annalized cost El Paso $ 1, 900 $ 950 50% $ 3, 900 $ 2, 000 49% Water use Albuquerque 10 years cost annalized cost Water use phoenix 19, 000 0 100% $ 21, 000 $ 12, 000 43% $ 43, 000 $ 25, 000 42% $ 1, 800 $ 950 47% $ 3, 700 $ 2, 000 46% 20, 000 0 0 100% 49, 000 0 100% 10 years cost $ 21, 000 $ 12, 000 43% $ 44 $ 25, 000 -56718% annalized cost $ 1, 900 $ 950 50% $ 3, 800 $ 2, 000 47% © The University of Texas at El Paso

Field Method • Soil Moisture Energy – Volumetric water content (VWC%) – Soil suction (cetibars) TDR Tensiometer © The University of Texas at El Paso

Field Study. Con… © The University of Texas at El Paso

Field Study Results A 3 A 2 © The University of Texas at El Paso

Field Study Results. . Con. B 2 © The University of Texas at El Paso

Conclusions & Recommendations Conclusions • Lush vegetation without watering • No detention ponds or lined arroyos needed • Lowers development costs • Lowers homeowner costs • Replaces equipment and watering with knowledge • Beautiful Recommendations • Field tests • Examine other options: infrequent watering, soil amendments, larger scales, commercial developments, 100% capture © The University of Texas at El Paso

Acknowledgements • • My Family Dr. Walton My committee My friends © The University of Texas at El Paso

Questions ? ? Or Thanks © The University of Texas at El Paso ? ?

Landscape Results El Paso: Option 1 Alb: 77% 34% Pho: 74% 27% Option 2 85% 37% 81% 30% © The University of Texas at El Paso