Drainage Design Manual
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Environmental Screening Of
Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Improvement Project, Avenue 54 to Thermal Drop Structure Draft Environmental Impact Report / State Clearinghouse No. 2015111067 Appendices APPENDIX C Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Improvement Project, Phase I Biological Resources Assessment & Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Compliance Report City of Coachella and Unincorporated Community of Thermal Submitted to: Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. 42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101 Palm Desert, CA 92211 Submitted by: Amec Foster Wheeler, Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 3120 Chicago Avenue, Suite 110 Riverside, CA 92507 3 February 2016 Coachella Valley Water District C-1 Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Improvement Project, Phase I Biological Resources Assessment & Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Compliance Report City of Coachella and Unincorporated Community of Thermal Riverside County, California Submitted to: Terra Nova Planning and Research, Inc. 42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101 Palm Desert, CA 92211 Contact: John Criste (760) 341-4800 [email protected] Submitted by: Amec Foster Wheeler, Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 3120 Chicago Avenue, Suite 110 Riverside, CA 92507 Contact: John F. Green Senior Biologist (951) 369-8060 [email protected] 3 February 2016 Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Improvement Project, Phase I Biological Resources Assessment & MSHCP Compliance Report February 2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY For the purposes of this assessment, analysis of the proposed Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel (CVSC) Improvement Project, Phase I (project) could include the following: Extension of existing and construction of new concrete-lined channel/levee banks, a fully concrete-lined channel from Airport Boulevard to the Thermal Drop Structure near Avenue 58, and construction of a bypass channel or combinations thereto. -
Chapter 10 Open Channels
Chapter 10 Open Channels Chapter 10 Open Channels Table of Contents 10-1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 10-1-1 Chapter Overview ............................................................................................................. 1 10-1-2 Design Flows .................................................................................................................... 1 10-1-3 Channel Types .................................................................................................................. 2 10-1-4 Sediment Loads ................................................................................................................ 5 10-1-5 Permitting and Regulations ............................................................................................... 6 10-2 Natural Stream Corridors ............................................................................................................... 7 10-2-1 Functions and Benefits of Natural Streams ...................................................................... 8 10-2-2 Effects of Urbanization ..................................................................................................... 9 10-2-3 Preserving Natural Stream Corridors .............................................................................. 11 10-3 Stream Restoration Principles ..................................................................................................... -
Drainage and Erosion Control Design Manual
City of West Lake Hills Drainage and Erosion Control Design Manual May 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Applicability .................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Waivers ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.4 Amending the Manual .................................................................................................. 1 1.5 References and Definition of Terms ............................................................................ 1 Chapter 2 Drainage Criteria .............................................................................................. 3 2.1 Permit Submittal Components ..................................................................................... 3 2.1.1 Preliminary Drainage Plan ......................................................................................... 3 2.1.2 Type I Development Submittal ................................................................................. 4 2.1.3 Type II Development Submittal ................................................................................ 4 2.1.4 Type III Development Submittal .............................................................................. -
Request for Proposal No. PWG117-FLOOD-2154 West Fontana Channel Bioswale Improvements
Request for Proposal No. PWG117-FLOOD-2154 West Fontana Channel Bioswale Improvements County of San Bernardino Flood Control Engineering Division 825 E. Third Street, Rm. 140 San Bernardino, CA 92415 Release Date: August 18, 2016 Deadline Date: September 8, 2016 (Rev 1/30/2015) San Bernardino County Request for Proposal No. PWG117-FLOOD-2154 Flood Control District West Fontana Channel Bioswale Page 2 of 48 Improvements TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 A. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION ............................................................................................................................................... 3 B. PURPOSE ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3 C. TERM OF AGREEMENT .................................................................................................................................................. 3 D. QUESTIONS .................................................................................................................................................................. 3 E. CORRESPONDENCE ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 F. ADMONITION TO PROPOSERS ........................................................................................................................................ -
Biofiltration Media Optimization – Phase I FINAL REPORT
ST. ANTHONY FALLS LABORATORY Engineering, Environmental and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Project Report No. 593 Biofiltration Media Optimization – Phase I FINAL REPORT by Andrew J. Erickson, Jessica L. Kozarek, Kathryn A. Kramarczuk, and Laura Lewis St. Anthony Falls Laboratory, University of Minnesota, 2 Third Avenue SE Minneapolis, MN 55455 Prepared for University of Minnesota Water Resources Center, Minnesota Stormwater Research Council December 2020 Minneapolis, Minnesota Cite as: Erickson, AJ, Kozarek, JL, Kramarczuk, KA, and Lewis, L. (2020). “Biofiltration Media Optimization – Phase 1 Final Report.” Project Report No. 593, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. December 2020. Biofiltration Media Optimization – Phase I Final Report – December 2020 This project was supported by the Minnesota Stormwater Research and Technology Transfer Program administered by the University of Minnesota Water Resources Center through an appropriation from the Clean Water Fund established by Minnesota Clean Water Land and Legacy Amendment and from the Minnesota Stormwater Research Council with financial contributions from: ● Capitol Region Watershed District ● Comfort Lake-Forest Lake Watershed District ● Mississippi Watershed Management Organization ● Nine Mile Creek Watershed District ● Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District ● South Washington Watershed District ● City of Edina ● City of Minnetonka ● City of Woodbury, and ● Wenck Associates ● Minnesota Cities Stormwater Coalition For more information about the Center and the Council, visit: https://www.wrc.umn.edu/projects/storm-waste-water For more information about the Minnesota Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment, visit: https://www.legacy.mn.gov/about-funds Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Water Resources Center or the Minnesota Stormwater Research Council. -
CHAPTER-6 Cross-Drainage and Drop Structures 6.1 Aqueducts and Canal Inlets and Outlets 6.1.1 Introduction
Cross-Drainage and Drop Structures CHAPTER-6 Cross-Drainage and Drop Structures 6.1 Aqueducts and canal inlets and outlets 6.1.1 Introduction The alignment of a canal invariably meets a number of natural streams (drains) and other structures such as roads and railways, and may sometimes have to cross valleys. Cross drainage works are the structures which make such crossings possible. They are generally very costly, and should be avoided if possible by changing the canal alignment and/or by diverting the drains. 6.1.2 Aqueducts An aqueduct is a cross-drainage structure constructed where the drainage flood level is below the bed of the canal. Small drains may be taken under the canal and banks by a concrete or masonry barrel (culvert), whereas in the case of stream crossings it may be economical to flume the canal over the stream (e.g. using a concrete trough, Fig. 6.1(a)). When both canal and drain meet more or less at the same level the drain may be passed through an inverted siphon aqueduct (Fig. 6.1(d)) underneath the canal; the flow through the aqueduct here is always under pressure. If the drainage discharge is heavily silt laden a silt ejector should be provided at the upstream end of the siphon aqueduct; a trash rack is also essential if the stream carries floating debris which may otherwise choke the entrance to the aqueduct. 6.1.3 Superpassage In this type of cross-drainage work, the natural drain runs above the canal, the canal under the drain always having a free surface flow. -
Lower Long Tom River Haibtat Improvement Project
Lower Long Tom River Habitat Improvement Plan 2018 Developed by: Confluence Consulting, LLC and Long Tom Watershed Council Lower Long Tom River Habitat Improvement Plan January 2018 1 | P a g e Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction............................................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Study Goals and Opportunities ...................................................................................................................................................... 7 Stakeholders and Contributors ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 Background on the Lower Long Tom River .................................................................................................................................... 9 Long Tom Fisheries ............................................................................................................................................................................ 11 Fishery Background (excerpted from the US Army Corps of Engineers report “Long Term on the Long Tom,” February 2014) ............................................................................................................................................................................... -
US EPA Stormwater Best Management Practice Design Guide
United States Office of Research EPA/600/R-04/121 Environmental Protection and Development September 2004 Agency Washington DC 20460 Stormwater Best Management Practice Design Guide: Volume 1 General Considerations EPA/600/R-04/121 September 2004 Stormwater Best Management Practice Design Guide Volume 1 General Considerations By Michael L. Clar, P.E. Ecosite, Inc. Ellicott City, Maryland, 21042 Billy J. Barfield, P.E., Ph.D. Professor Emeritus Department of Agricultural Engineering Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma Thomas P. O’Connor Urban Watershed Management Branch Water Supply and Water Resources Division National Risk Management Research Laboratory Edison, NJ 08837 Order No. 1C-R059-NTSX Project Officer Thomas P. O’Connor Urban Watershed Management Branch Water Supply and Water Resources Division National Risk Management Research Laboratory Edison, NJ 08837 NATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT RESEARCH LABORATORY OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY CINCINNATI, OH 45268 Notice The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research and Development partially funded and collaborated in the research described here under Order Number 1C-R059- NTSX to Ecosite, Inc. It has been subjected to the Agency’s peer and administrative review and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. ii Foreword The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. -
1 Isaac River Condition, Condition Trajectory and Management
Memo Subject Response to information request from DEHP From Rohan Lucas Distribution BMA Date 12 February 2016 Project Broadmeadow EA amendment – Watercourse Subsidence 1 Isaac River condition, condition trajectory and management 1.1 Request The administering authority requires more information relating to the proactive management strategies that BMA will adopt to ensure the condition trajectory of the diversion is not negatively impacted by subsidence. 1.2 Response Understanding the incremental risk posed by subsidence The Isaac River diversion, constructed in the mid 1980’s was undertaken to a different standard to that which would be adopted today. The diversion underwent major erosional adjustment in the 1980’s and 1990’s (see Figure 2). Following some management intervention in the mid-late 1990’s (including timber pile fields) and a period without any major flow events from 1991 to 2007 (refer to Figure 1), the diversion underwent substantial recovery. This recovery included the deposition of benches against toe of bank and colonisation of those benches with riparian vegetation, providing a near continuous coverage along the diversion. These vegetated benches protect the near vertical, erodible upper banks from erosion in the majority of flow events (refer Figure 3). The diversion, which reduced river length by several kilometres, was constructed with two drop structures to compensate for the increase in gradient. One of these structures is now largely redundant and the other has been subject to damage from flow events and repair on numerous occasions. The remaining functional structure performs its design intent during smaller flows but is ineffective in larger flows in reducing energy conditions sufficiently. -
4.5 Bioretention
4.5. Bioretention (rain gardens) Bioretention Bioretention areas typically are landscaping features adapted to treat storm water runoff. Bioretention systems are also known as Mesic Prairie Depressions, Rain Gardens, Infiltration Basins, Infiltration Swales, bioretention basins, bioretention channels, tree box filters, planter boxes, or streetscapes, to name a few. Bioretention areas typically consist of a flow regulating structure, a pretreatment element, an engineered soil mix planting bed, vegetation, and an outflow regulating structure. Bioretention systems provide both water quality and quantity storm water management opportunities. Bioretention systems are flexible, adaptable and versatile storm water management facilities that are effective for new development as well as highly urban re-development situations. Bioretention can readily adapt to a site by modifying the conventional “mounded landscape” philosophy to that of a shallow landscape “cup” depression. Such landscape depression storage and treatment areas fit readily into: parking lot islands; small pockets of open areas; residential, commercial and industrial campus landscaping; and, urban and suburban green spaces and corridors. Bioretention works by routing storm water runoff into shallow, landscaped depressions. These landscaped depressions are designed to hold and remove many of the pollutants in a manner similar to natural ecosystems. During storms, runoff ponds above the mulch and Engineered Soil Mix in the system. Runoff from larger storms is generally diverted past the facility to the storm drain system. The runoff remaining in the bioretention facility filters through the Engineered Soil Mix. The filtered runoff can either be designed to enhance groundwater infiltration or can be collected in an underdrain and discharged per local storm water management requirements. -
SEEDS) Sustainability Program Student Research Report
UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Sustainability Program Student Research Report Replacement of the Spiral Drain at the North End of UBC Campus Mona Dahir, Jas Gill, Danny Hsieh, Rachel Jackson, Michael Louws, Chris Vibe University of British Columbia CIVL 446 April 7th, 2017 Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS Sustainability Program provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student research project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore, readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Sustainability Program representative about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report”. UBC NORTH CAMPUS SPIRAL DRAIN REPLACEMENT Final Design Report PREPARED FOR: Client Representative: Mr. Doug Doyle, P.Eng Associate Director, Infrastructure and Planning Client: UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Project Team 24: Rachel Jackson Danny Hsieh Mona Dahir Michael Louws Jasninder Gill Chris Vibe April 7th, 2017 Executive Summary Vortex Consulting has prepared a detailed design report, as requested by UBC Social, Ecological, Economic Development Studies (SEEDS), for the replacement of UBC's current North Campus Stormwater Management facility, the spiral drain. This report intends to provide UBC SEEDS with an understanding of the design components, technical analysis and design, and project costs and construction sequencing, that are required to mitigate a 1 in 200 year storm event. -
Drop Structures
DROP STRUCTURES 1 DESCRIPTION OF TECHNIQUE Drop structures (also known as grade controls, sills, or weirs) are low-elevation structures that span the entire width of the channel, creating an abrupt drop in channel bed and water surface elevation in a downstream direction. Drop structures have been used extensively in Washington State to stabilize channel grades, improve fish passage, and to reduce erosion. Generally speaking, in fish bearing waters, vertical drops must not exceed 1 foot [WAC 220-110-070]; lesser drops are often required to accommodate certain species and age classes of fish. Drop Structures are designed to spill and direct flow such that there is a distinct drop in water surface elevation at normal low flows. The purpose of drop structures may include but is not limited to: • redistribute or dissipate energy; • stabilize the channel bed; • restore a step pool morphology to an altered channel • limit channel incision; • limit bank erosion by directing flow away from an eroding bank; • modify the channel bed profile and form by promoting collection, sorting and deposition of sediment; • create structural and hydraulic diversity in uniform channels; • improve fish passage over natural and artificial barriers by backwatering the upstream reach; • scour the channel bed, creating holding pools for fish and other aquatic life; • provide backwater (depth) in groundwater fed side channels; or • raise the bed of an incised stream to reconnect it with its floodplain. Drop structures may resemble porous weirs in appearance. But while drop structures direct water over the structure and are applied primarily to modify the profile of a channel, porous weirs allow water to flow through the structure and are applied primarily to redirect or concentrate flow.