Conceptual DPR Coe Ilpwrm

MoUD, GoI, sponsored Center of Excellence (COE)
Integrated Landuse Planning and Water Resource Management (ILPWRM)

Conceptual Detail Project Report (DPR)
for Implementation of Pilot Project
Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati
Guwahati‐781039

Foreword
This is a Conceptual Detailed Project Report (DPR) made for implementation of Pilot Project for
Mitigating Urban Flood Hazard through implementation of Ecological Management Practice in
the Pilot Area identified by the Technical Core Committee constituted with representative from
different relevant departments of Govt. of Assam. This conceptual DPR is prepared by Ministry
of Urban Development sponsored Centre of Excellence ILPWRM (Integrated Land Use Planning
& Water Resource Management) of established in the Department of Civil Engineering, Indian
Institute of Technology Guwahati.
(Arup Kumar Sarma)

P.I. of the Project
Contents
Chapters Title Page No.
Foreword i
1
1. Introduction
1
1.1 Background and Introduction 1
1.2 Organisation of Work
1.2.1 Formation of TCC
1.2.2 Field Survey and Identification of Watershed
1.2.3 Carrying Capacity Calculation
1.2.4 Drainage System
1.2.5 Ecological Management Practices for Hilly Urban
Areas
1.2.6 Proposal for PPIC Formation
1.3 Problem Visualization and way forward 3
2. Formation of Technical Core Committee 4

2.1 Introduction 4
4
2.2 Constitution
4
2.3 Brief History 4
2.4 Remarks 5
6
3. Field Survey and Identification of Watershed 6
3.1 Introduction 6
3.2 Field Survey 7
3.3 Acquiring of Images 15
3.4 Identification of Watershed 16
3.5 Final Selection of Pilot Watershed 16
4. Computation of Carrying Capacity 17

4.1 Introduction 17
18
4.2 Framework for carrying capacity calculation
20
4.3 Application of the Concept in Practical Field
ii
Contents
Chapters Title Page No.
5. Design of Drainage in Hilly Areas 23

23
5.1 Introduction
23
5.2 Steps for Designing 25
5.3 Design of Drainage 30
5.4 Conclusion 62
63
6. Ecological Management Practices for Urban Hilly Areas 63
6.1 Introduction to EMPs 63
6.2 EMP for Watershed with detailed study
6.2.1 Ecological Management Practices
6.2.2 Existing problems in the Pilot Watershed
67
6.3 Measures in Existing Settlements 73
6.4 EMP Map 74
6.5 Prospects Ahead
75
7. Formation of PPIC 75
7.1 Introduction and Objective 75
7.2 Components of PPIC 76
7.3 Terms of Reference 76
7.4 Lump Sum Costs
8. 8.1 General Discussions and Conclusions 77

8.2 General Discussions 77
Challenges Ahead 77
References iv
Working Group v
iii
List of Figures
Figure No. Description Page No.

3.1 The 10 watersheds studied for pilot project 6
3.2 The TIN model of the 10 watersheds 7
3.3 Major Stream Network of Guwahati 8
3.4 Settlement on Hills in Guwahati (1972) 9
3.5 Settlement on Hills and Plain Areas in Guwahati (2000) 10
3.6 Settlement on Hills in Guwahati (2000 11
3.7 TIN Model of Guwahati ( Sarma et al., 2005) 12
3.8 Slope Map of Hilly Areas of Guwahati 13
3.9 Aspect Map of Major part of Guwahati 14
3.10 The TIN model of the Pilot watershed 15
4.1 DEM map of the study area 20
5.1 Urban Storm Water Master Plan as a part of the Catchment 25

Management Plan
5.2 Delineated Map 26
5.3 Vertical Drop 28
5.4 Delineated Map (WMS File) of the Pilot Area along with Basin 29
IDs
5.5 Elevation vs. Distance plot (8B) 30
5.6 Stepped Chute (from A to B, length = 20m) of 8B 31
5.7 Stepped Chute (from C to D, length = 10m) of 8B 31
5.8 Stepped Chute (from E to F, length = 50m) of 8B 31
5.11 Flow Channel design along downstream(4B) 34
5.12 Vertical drop at 10.617 m from upstream(4B) 34
5.23 Elevation vs. Distance plot (AB) 45
5.24 Elevation vs. Distance plot (BB) 46
5.25 Elevation vs. Distance plot (CB) 47
5.26 Elevation vs. Distance plot (DB) 48
5.27 Elevation vs. Distance plot (EB) 49
5.28 Elevation vs. Distance plot (FB) 50
5.29 Elevation vs. Distance plot (GB) 51
5.30 Elevation vs. Distance plot (HB) 52
iv
List of Figures
5.31 Elevation vs. Distance plot (IB) 53

5.32 Elevation vs. Distance plot (JB) 54
5.33 Elevation vs. Distance plot (KB) 55
5.34 Elevation vs. Distance plot (14B),a 56
5.35 Elevation vs. Distance plot (14B),b 57
5.36 Elevation vs. Distance plot (14B),c 57
5.39 Elevation vs. Distance plot (LB) 60
5.40 Elevation vs. Distance plot (MB) 61
6.1 Ecological Management Practices as per slopes 63

6.2 Ecological Management Practices as per slopes 64
6.3 Vetiver Grass on a steep slope 65
6.4 Steps cut out of earth 67
6.5 Measures to control erosion 67
6.6 Slopes cut unscientifically 68
6.7 Measures to control sediment 68
6.8 Slope without Protection 69
6.9 Slope protection measures 69
6.10 Perished Steep Slope 70
6.11 Geogrids to control erosion 70
6.12 Gunny Bags used to protect slopes 71
6.13 Correct methods of Land Use 71
6.14 Unmettaled road washed out by a drain 72
6.15 Measures to control erosion 72
6.16 Ecological Management Practices Map 73
v
List of Tables
Table No. Description Page No.

4.1 Calculation of land requirement for infrastructural facilities 22
5.1 Calculation of different parameter (8B) 30

5.14 Calculation of different parameter (AB) 45
5.15 Calculation of different parameter (BB) 46
5.16 Calculation of different parameter (CB) 47
5.17 Calculation of different parameter (DB) 48
5.18 Calculation of different parameter (EB) 49
5.19 Calculation of different parameter (FB) 50
5.20 Calculation of different parameter (GB) 51
5.21 Calculation of different parameter (HB) 52
5.22 Calculation of different parameter (IB) 53
5.23 Calculation of different parameter (JB) 54
5.24 Calculation of different parameter (KB) 55
5.28 Calculation of different parameter (LB) 60
5.29 Calculation of different parameter (MB) 61
vi
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Introduction
The prime objective of the report is providing technical support for working towards the
implementation and scientific development of urban hilly areas. Over the years, studies were
conducted in the MoUD sponsored research project “Integrated Land Use Planning and Water
Resource Management.” The prime objective of the research project was to manage the land and
water resources in hilly areas of the Guwahati city using Ecological Management Practices
(EMPs). Numerous steps were taken towards the study seeking solution to ever increasing water
related hazard of Guwahati city. The study conducted at the Centre of Excellence (CoE) for
Integrated Landuse Planning and Water Resource Management (ILPWRM) at Civil Engineering
Department of IIT Guwahati, have come with several measures towards development of the
urban hilly areas in a scientific approach.
1.2 Organization of Work
1.2.1 Formation of Technical Core Committee (TCC)
At the very beginning, a Technical Core Committee was formed which consisted of
members from the following government departments:
• Urban Development Department

• Guwahati Development Department
• Guwahati Municipal Corporation
• Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority
• Soil Conservation Department
• Water Resources Department
• Public Works Department (PWD)
• Assam Science Technology and Environment Council
• Revenue Department
• Science & Technology Department
• Environment & Forest Department
The need for personnel with expertise was very necessary for carrying out various tasks for
running the project successfully.
1|Page
1.2.2 Field Survey and Identification of Watershed
After several field surveys, it was decided by the TCC to take up the Games Village
Watershed of Guwahati as the site for the pilot project. The chosen watershed was considered to be
the most suitable for study of various methods to lessen the water related hazards in the city of
Guwahati, Assam, India. The detailed account of this watershed has been mentioned in Chapter-3.
1.2.3 Carrying Capacity Calculation
A generalized method was developed to calculate the carrying capacity of the pilot
watershed. A Carrying capacity calculation discussed in detail in Chapter-4 is used for design of
storm water drains.
1.2.4 Drainage System
The absence of scientifically designed and built drains adds to further woes of the area
especially during monsoons. Hence, Chapter-5 dwells on the methodology which discusses
design of Drainage System all throughout the Pilot Watershed.
1.2.5 Ecological Management Practices for Hilly Urban Areas
Various Ecological Management Practices have been suggested for controlling of erosion
and hence, mitigate flooding. These practices are meant to be implemented for shaping up of the
hilly urban area in a proper manner. Chapter-6 mentions about such prospects in detail.
1.2.6 Proposal for PPIC Formation
Formation of Pilot Project Implementation Committee (PPIC) have been proposed in

the recent meetings. This is found to be very necessary for conducting various works
related to implement and adopt correct methods to develop urban hilly areas.
2|Page
1.3 Problem Visualization and way forward
It has been found out that the population of the area under study in specific is
increasing day by day. Mostly, it is the lower economic groups who settle in these hilly
areas. At different points during the study new settlements have been found to have come
up without proper methods of development. Hence, at the time of implementation case
specific studies and solutions at various points of the watershed under study is required.
Formation of a Pilot Project Implementation Committee (PPIC) comprising of representatives
from different relevant department is the need of the hour to have horizontal coordination among
them.
3|Page
Chapter 2 Formation of Technical Core Committee (TCC)
2.1 Introduction
It is very important to have a panel of experts from various fields for acquiring knowledge as
well suggestions for successful conduction of the project. Hence, a TCC was formed with
members from various Government Departments.
2.2 Constitution
The various departments included in the TCC hails from the following departments:
• Urban Development Department

• Guwahati Development Department
• Guwahati Municipal Corporation
• Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority
• Soil Conservation Department
• Water Resources Department
• Public Works Department (PWD)
• Assam Science Technology and Environment Council
• Revenue Department
• Science & Technology Department
• Environment & Forest Department
2.3 Brief History of TCC
The first TCC meeting was held on 16th June 2010 and it was decided to go for a pilot
study in a watershed of Guwahati where unplanned urban developments have induced
considerable impact on the ecology in terms of soil erosion and downstream flooding.
The second TCC meeting was conducted on 23-07-2010 with the objective of giving a shape
to the Pilot watershed and it was decided to start off with the preparation of base maps.
The third TCC meeting was held on 10th of December 2012 with the purpose of discussing
the measures that needs to be taken as first steps towards implementation of the suggested
measures.
4|Page
Chapter 2 Formation of Technical Core Committee (TCC)
2.4 Remarks
Over time various officials from the aforesaid Government Departments and technical
Consultants have attended the meetings. Having learnt their ideas, feedbacks have also been of
immense help in conducting the research works under the project.
5|Page
Chapter 3 Field Survey and Identification of Watershed
3.1 Introduction
As per the decisions and discussions in the 1st TCC meeting, extensive field surveys were
conducted at a number of places. After considering various constraints it was decided to zero in
on the Games Village watershed as the Pilot watershed for carrying out the various researches.
3.2 Filed Survey
The extensive field visits were made in ten degraded urban watersheds of Guwahati
following suggestion of the members of TCC, and topographical maps were prepared. A map of
these ten watersheds and TIN model are shown in the Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.1 : The 10 watersheds studied for pilot project
6|Page
Figure 3.2: The TIN model of the 10 watersheds
3.3 Acquiring of Images
Various images of Guwahati city were collected and developed not only for the purpose of
identification but also detailed study concerning the water related hazards of urban hilly areas.
The maps have been given sequentially from Fig 3.3 to Fig 3.
7|Page
Figure 3.3: Major Stream Network of Guwahati
8|Page
Figure 3.4: Settlement on Hills in Guwahati (1972)
9|Page
Figure 3.5: Settlement on Hills and Plain Areas in Guwahati (2000)
10 | P a g e
Figure 3.6: Settlement on Hills in Guwahati (2000)
11 | P a g e
Figure 3.7: TIN Model of Guwahati ( Sarma et al., 2005)
12 | P a g e
Figure 3.8: Slope Map of Hilly Areas of Guwahati
13 | P a g e
Figure 3.9: Aspect Map of Major part of Guwahati
14 | P a g e
3.4 Identification of Watershed
In the second core committee meeting (3rd July, 2010) the possibilities and constraints of
undertaking the pilot project on the above ten watersheds were discussed with focus on the
extent of the problem. Finally it was decided by the TCC to take up the Games Village
Watershed of Guwahati as the site for the pilot project. Also, a meeting with Chief Secretary,
Govt. of Assam was also held on 5th August, 2010 regarding the pilot project. After several
rounds of discussions, permission from Govt. of Assam to carry out the survey in Games Village
Area of Guwahati was received on 3/6/2011 and recently the survey work has been completed.
During the survey it was experienced that for smooth implementation of the project cooperation
of local people is also necessary and thus CoE (ILPWRM) decided to develop a video
documentary and songs, so that people can be made aware about the actual causes of various
hazards and need of taking mitigation measures. With this background CoE (ILPWRM) request
Assam State Disaster Management Authority to take up an extensive awareness generation
programme on the issue, so that the technical intervention can smoothly be made for solving the
ever increasing flood and landslide problem of Guwahati City.
Figure 3.10: The TIN model of the Pilot watershed
15 | P a g e
3.5 Final Selection of Pilot Watershed
The Pilot watershed located at the upstream of the Games Village was found suitable for
implementation of the pilot project for the following reasons:
1. The watershed has both undisturbed and habituated area. This will give the opportunity
of studying EMP application in a newly developed area and in an already developed
area.
2. The site is now in degraded condition and is visible from the main highway and located
conveniently with well connected road. Thus it will be an ideal location for
demonstration which will inspire people of other areas to cooperate in such
developmental schemes.
3. The watershed has both hills and plains thus it will provide opportunity to experiment
both on hill slope hydrology and hydrology of plain area.
4. The area is located quite near to the Bashistha River that drains ultimately to the Deepor
Beel, a major wetland located on the western part of the city. So, it will be convenient to
analyze the effect of management practice on water and sediment yield of the watershed,
as this will not be disturbed by the flow from upstream watershed.
5. As suggested by the members of core committee, this location will also be convenient
from administrative point of view.
16 | P a g e
Chapter 4 Computation of Carrying Capacity
4.1 INTRODUCTION
After reviewing all existing concepts and methods of evaluating carrying capacity, Center
of Excellence (CoE) for Integrated Land use Planning and Water Resources Management
(ILPWRM) at IIT Guwahati has come up with a new method especially suitable for eco sensitive
urban areas. The method was first developed for calculating carrying capacity of hilly urban area
that will ensure hazard free sustainable urban development. However the concept can be applied
to any urban area. Here, the basic concept of ecological footprint is first used to decide a trial
sustainable carrying capacity of a watershed or cluster of watersheds covering the urban area or
expected urban area under consideration.
Watershed boundary covering extent of potential urban expansion or the urban planning
area is considered here as system boundary and interaction with bioregion can indirectly be
included through concept of regional planning. Following this, a trial carrying capacity is first
determined by allocating population and infrastructures iteratively, so that the infrastructures
provided remain sufficient to cover the virtual footprint of the allocated population. Feedback of
the urban watershed is then analyzed through model study after virtual accommodation of this
trial carrying capacity in the model. Feedback can be assessed in terms of several case-specific
performance criteria to ensure that the area remain hazard free. In case of inadequacy,
technological intervention is first tried to make it adequate. After ensuring that state of the art
technological intervention is also insufficient to meet the set performance criteria, the trial
carrying capacity is adjusted iteratively to arrive at an acceptable carrying capacity by reducing
floor area ratio (FAR), which also indirectly determines the actual and logical FAR for the urban
area. For example performance criteria can be accepted limiting values for sediment yield and
water yield from the urban watershed so that flooding at downstream can be eliminated. Putting
these limits as constraints one can arrive at the acceptable carrying capacity iteratively by
analyzing feedback of the urban watershed in terms of these performance criteria. As the method
finally accommodates a sustainable population iteratively through trial allocation and feedback
analysis, the method is named as “Sustainable Accommodation through Feedback Evaluation
(SAFE)”
17 | P a g e
4.2 FRAMEWORK FOR CALCULATION OF CARRYING CAPACITY USING

METHOD OF “SUTAINABLE ACCOMODATION THROUGH FEEDBACK
EVALUATION (SAFE)”
To elaborate the steps involved in calculation of carrying capacity by the proposed

“SAFE” method, step by step procedure is presented below with example of development of a
hilly urban watershed.
Step 1: Delineation of the urban watershed:

In this step the hilly watersheds covering the potential urban area are delineated from DEM or
marked from the city master plan following natural drainage network.
Step 2: Demarcation of the developable & non-developable area:

The hills consist of both developable areas & areas having less scope for development,
i.e. non developable areas. In this step, the non-developable areas of the delineated hilly region
are demarcated using latest geospatial tools. The non-developable areas mainly consist of land
with high slope, reserved forest areas, water bodies, stream lines, drainage channels, springs,
depressions, etc. Thus the usable areas with respect to various developmental activities can be
marked out.
So, AU= AD+AND ...……… (i)

Therefore, AD= AU - AND ............. (ii)
Here, AU is the total hilly urban area, AD is the net developable area and AND is the net non
developable area.
Step 3: Determination of area required for different infrastructure and facilities:

Now within the developable regions of the hilly urban areas, several sub-regions are allotted for
various urban infrastructure and facilities development like, water treatment plants, sewage
treatment plants, drainage, commercial hubs, heath centers, educational institutions, recreational
areas, transport facilities etc. For calculating these areas the regional planning approach is
adopted as a tool. For example, an urban centre with a population of 1000 will not need a solid
waste dumping site; rather a provision of solid waste dumping can be kept by tying with the
regional dumping site. Space required for different infrastructure can be determined through site
specific requirement. The standard space requirement index of the UDPFI guidelines of the
Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India can also be used as a guideline for
calculating the required space for various infrastructure developments.
So, AD= AIF + AR ................ (iii)
Here, AIF is the area for infrastructure development and AR is the area for residential
requirements.
Step 4: Calculation of the available residential area:

The net residential area available for settlement development can be calculated using the
following equation:
From (i) & (iii), AU = AND + AIF + AR
Therefore, AR = AU – (AND+ AIF)
18 | P a g e
Step 5: Socio economic survey of the urban region & calculation of the floor area
requirement of the people: A thorough demographic and socio economic survey of the hilly
urban area should be done to estimate an average floor area requirement per head of the people
dwelling there. In this regard the national floor area standard values (MoUD, GOI) can be
consulted to get an understanding of the same. The floor area requirement of the people will
greatly vary with respect to economy and lifestyle of the people living there.
Step 6: Determination of the Floor Area Ratio: Floor Area Ration is defined as:
FAR= AF/AP
Where, FAR is the Floor Area Ratio, AF is the total floor area and AP is the area of the
plot.
FAR need to be determined by considering various aspects like, provision of intended

free space, safe bearing capacity of soil, economy of people for affording earthquake resilient
structures, drainage and transportation requirement and so on. While the proposed “SAFE”
method itself will determine an acceptable FAR, one need to provide an initial value of FAR.
This value can be given from guidelines provided by different organization including ULB. In
absence of any such guidelines, a value of 1.5 can be used for initial trial value. This value is
suggested based on the general trend observed so far in Indian condition.
Step 7: Calculation of carrying capacity: Based on the overall study, the carrying capacity of
the area with respect to urban development can be calculated using the following equation:
CC= AU – (AND+ AIF) x FAR/S
Here, S is the Floor area requirement per head.
Based on the trend of population growth, the demands of the people with regards to
infrastructure and other facilities will also increase. Hence, it is advisable that the carrying
capacity should be periodically calculated using the above relation so as to check haphazard,
unplanned or illegal development which will harm the ecosystem in the long run by calling
hazards or natural calamities.
Step 8: Check for adequacy of drainage system, sewerage system, water quality etc which were
not explicitly considered during carrying capacity calculation. If inadequate, following two
options need to be tried in sequence:
i. Apply possible Ecological Management Practices or any other technological

interventions to bring sediment yield, peak discharge, sewerage volume and water quality
within permissible limit.
ii. In case of under achievement, reevaluate the carrying capacity by reducing FAR. In case
of over achievement there remains a chance of even increasing the FAR.
19 | P a g e
4.3 APPLICATION OF THE CONCEPT TO THE PRACTICAL FIELD: A CASE

STUDY OF A PILOT WATERSHED IN GUWAHATI CITY OF ASSAM, INDIA
The study watershed is located near the Games Village area of Guwahati City of Assam,
India. The area under consideration is 22.9 ha. The process of delineation of the watershed is
done initially by using ArcGIS and WMS 8.2.
Fig.4.1: DEM map of the study area
4.3.1 COMPUTATION OF CARRYING CAPACITY
A computer program developed for the purpose was used in order to produce an appropriate
value of carrying capacity. This value can be called as the calculated carrying capacity. A socio
economic survey is carried out in the area to understand the population status, land requirement,
economic status, etc of the people residing there. The survey of the area has highlighted the
absence of basic infrastructural amenities. Hence the following infrastructures are being
considered for the area:
• Water treatment plant

• Sewage treatment plant
20 | P a g e
• Park /Open area

• Health facility
• Socio cultural facility
• Postal services
• Milk booth
• Transportation
• Business / Commerce Area
Based on primary and secondary data collected on required area for different infrastructure and
also considering some minimum value for some of the infrastructures, logical statistical
relationship between infrastructure and population were developed.
The following constraints are taken for demarcating the non developable area in the study area:
Stream Buffer:20m
Slope: >30% with 5m buffer
The FAR of the area has been taken to be 0.6 (considering houses covers up 60% of the plot )
following Master Plan for Guwahati Metropolitan Area (GMDA, 2009).
The socio economic survey has shown that the people residing in the area are lower middle class.
Requirement of area for different infrastructural facilities for the study area was determined by
using standard norm. For the facilities, for which standard norms were not available, effort was
made to develop logical relationship between population and desired infrastructural area based
on data collected for such existing infrastructures in other areas. While using such relation care
has been taken that for essential facilities a minimum area is assigned even if the population is
quite low.
Based on analysis of socio economic status of the present population and considering future
possible matrix of different classes, an average logical floor area requirement is being considered
at 0.002 ha per head. The overall analysis gives the calculated carrying capacity to be 1128
persons. The results obtained regarding area of different infrastructure for this computed carrying
capacity is given in the Table 1.
21 | P a g e
Table 4.1: Calculation of land requirement for infrastructural facilities
Components Model Results

Area of the watershed 22.9 ha
Non developable Area 8.4 ha
FAR 0.6
S 0.002 ha
Infrastructure Total area obtained (ha)
Water Treatment Plant 1.0826
Sewage Treatment Plant 1.0826
Health 0.0400
Parks 0.4888
Socio Cultural facility 0.0100
Postal Service 0.0100
Milk Booth 0.0180
Transportation with road side drain 2.29
Business & Commerce 3.435
Open Space 2.29
Total infrastructural area 10.7389
Total residential area 3.7610
CALCULATED CARRYING 1128
CAPACITY (Person)
22 | P a g e
Chapter 5 Design of Drainage in Hilly Areas
5.1 Introduction
When any human settlement or man-made developments first exist in an area covered by
natural cover emphasis is given to both roads and drainage for smooth working of the inhabitants
there. But due to the economy of the country, roads are built up first giving no due consideration
to the drainage, and sometimes after the development it is found that there is no space for
drainage channels which may result in a serious situation due to the water and sediment yield
from hills in upstream. In an eco sensitive urban area watershed as more and more people are
settling down, the land area has to be modified and in some cases even the forests have to be cut
down.
Water in urban areas, and urban storm drainage as a part of the urban infrastructure, are
topics which are gaining importance in recent years. In modern societies, the status of urban
drainage as a part of the integrated infrastructure system varies from one country to another,
depending primarily on the level of development and the society awareness of the importance of
this problem. In general, the importance of the system increases with the level of development,
but there are also exceptions. The awareness of the wet weather pollution potential has rapidly
increased in recent years. The systems, which used to have a simple function of collecting storm
water and conveying it to the nearest point of disposal as soon as possible, have gradually
evolved and are being replaced by the integrated systems which are gaining in importance. Their
role has changed and now in addition to covering urban flood protection, pollution control and
management they are starting to cater for improvement of the quality of life by bringing water
features – creating urban amenity in the city. Additionally, storm water is considered to be a
precious resource, which can be retained near the source to be reused, recharged to the
underground for aquifer replenishment or to create habitat for the return of wildlife to designated
urban areas etc.
When human settlement starts in watershed, the inhabitants need space to develop their
territory for living purposes; they break down forests, grass cover and even cut down hill slopes
in the form of steps for easy conveyance. Whenever human activity disturbs the natural cover, it
yields sediments and water upstream which if not conveyed safely to the river or drain
downstream may result in serious epidemic conditions. These channels ensure that all the water
and discharge at a specific velocity does not harm the living conditions and at the same time also
gives a urban look to the settlement area. The drainage channels are the lifeline for watersheds to
exist safely.
23 | P a g e
Urban drainage system as a part of integrated river basin water

Management – principles of design and operation
It is well known that the river basin has been considered an entity that determines both the range
and reach of human activities with respect to water in both ancient and modern societies. The
catchment is used as a unit for planning and management of not only water, but also of other
resources, as well as human and economic activities. In the case of urban drainage of a particular
city, the relevance of a catchment is greater for smaller catchments and decreases as the size of
the catchment increases, in the sense that the relative effect of the quantity and quality of runoff
water generated by that particular drainage system diminishes with the size of the catchment and
with the distance from the point of storm water disposal. However, the integrated effect of all
storm drainage systems contributing to the balance of surface water and to the flux of suspended
sediment and other pollutants has to be taken into account at the level of river basin or sub-basin
upstream of the point under consideration, especially in densely populated areas. The interaction
of storm drainage systems with downstream municipalities and water users is strong in those
cases when the drainage peak flow uses up the capacity of the river channel, so that no capacity
is left for downstream runoff. In these cases, the downstream-upstream relationships and links
have to be analyzed in order to either share the existing capacity or to share the costs of its
enlargement. Small river basins in densely populated areas are therefore more sensitive to this
problem and shall be analyzed in the following discussion. On the other hand, the rivers carrying
water from large catchments serve as receiving waters for both solid and dissolved pollutants,
and the effect of urban storm water disposal has to be analyzed from the point of view of its
pollution and contribution to the silting of downstream water, including reservoirs. Alterations to
the natural water balance within the catchment area can have both positive and adverse effects on
upstream and downstream water users. In that respect, integrated planning and design of urban
drainage systems requires that both effects are analyzed and an unbiased assessment is made in
all phases of the planning and management process. Figure below outlines an approach which
integrates catchment wide, metropolitan/municipal as well as local area planning and
management considerations.
24 | P a g e
Fig 5.1: Urban Storm Water Master Plan as a part of the Catchment Management Plan
5.2 Steps for designing
From the survey, an AutoCAD map is generated which represents the contours of the
area under consideration. Using ArcGis or geomatica, a DEM (Digital Elevation Model) is
generated which is then imported to WMS 8.2 for further analysis of the area, followed by
delineation of the area where we can divide the watersheds into sub watershed by considering
outlets at various points, this stream lines so formed now have to be designed for open channels .
From WMS we derive the area, time of concentration (Kirpich formula), and slope for each
basin. Using Sarma et al (2008), we can derive intensity considering 2 years return period and
time of concentration as the duration in hours. Now we can easily calculate peak discharge at a
definite outlet for a basin using the rational formula. While designing open channel for a
watershed which has sub watersheds we should check the peak discharge at downstream and
upstream, sometimes peak discharge at downstream maybe lower than that at upstream, in that
case we will consider the design considerations we followed for the channel upstream in case of
downstream. In case of slopes having values within the range 0.1-1.73 we can design energy
dissipators as vertical drops and stepped chutes (according to Chinnarasri and Wongwises, 2006)
with stilling basin if necessary, to lower the velocity downstream providing 3 m/s as a safe
25 | P a g e
velocity limit in case of safety. To provide passage of water under crossing or roads culverts are
also designed.
Design Steps:
Delineation of the DEM is done from an AutoCAD contour map which is converted into DEM
and processed in WMS to delineate two watershed areas of 18 Ha and 5 Ha.
Fig. 5.2: Delineated Map
1. Selecting various outlets, sub watersheds are formed.

2. Drainage Area (A) and length of overland flow(L) and overland flow length slope (S) for
each sub water shed were formed from WMS. Using the rational model for time of
concentration feature arc. Basins are labeled during delineation process.
3. From Kirpich formula, time of concentration in minutes,
Tc=0.0078(L0.77/S0.385)
26 | P a g e
4. For intensity of the design rainfall with 2 years return period, by using Intensity-Duration
curve by Sarma et al(2004).
I= 51.307 e-0.2179D , where I= intensity in mm/hr and D= duration in hour given by Tc.
5. Assume run-off coefficient = 0.4

6. Calculation of Peak discharge, Q
Q=C*I*A/3600000
Where, C=runoff coefficient
I=rainfall intensity
A=Area in sq. m
7. Assume Mannings coefficient for brickwork = 0.015
8. For the pilot area rectangular channel is designed with a maximum velocity restraint of 3
m/s.
Therefore most efficient design gives us,
Area, A=2y2
Wetted Perimeter, P=4y
Hydraulic Radius= 0.5y
Where y=depth of flow and 2y=width of channel
9. Also Freeboard is given to the section accordingly
Freeboard, FB Discharge, Q
0.30 <0.15
0.45 0.15-0.75
0.60 0.75-1.5
0.75 1.5-85
10. Velocity of flow in channel, V=Q/A.

11. Froude Number =V/• (gd)
Critical depth, dc=(q2/g)1/3 , q= discharge per unit width
12. Check for Critical sections & design velocity < 3m/s by adapting change in width so as to
maintain the velocity less than 3 m/s during flow.
13. On slopes> 0.1 exceeding velocity =3m/s , stepped chutes are provided to dissipitate the
energy.
14. For Design of Stepped Chutes,
From Chinnarasri & Wongwises(2006)

0.1≤ h/l≤ 1.73
To maintain a skimming flow, the minimum critical depth required is
dc/h = (0.844 + 0.003Ɵ)(h/l)-0.153+ 0.004Ɵ
27 | P a g e
To maintain a nappe flow, the maximum critical depth required is

dc/h = 0.927 -0.005Ɵ- 0.388(h/l)
Also, energy loss due to flowing over chutes is given by

El/EO = 1.10e(-9.98dc/Nh)
15. Whenever the channel passes through an obstruction/intersection such as road culverts has
to be designed for the smooth flow of discharge. Sometimes in certain cases to overcome a
slope or path vertical drops has to be designed .
For vertical drops & steps we consider
Chanson(1994)
y1/n= 0.625 (yc/h)1.326
Ld= 2.171 (yc/h)0.525
y2 = y1/2 ( • (1+8Fr2)-1)
L = 220*y1*tanh ((Fr-1)/22)
Fig.5.3 : Vertical Drop
Rectangular Stilling Basin Design

Length=0.75y2
Width=same as channel
Height=0.8y2.
16. In case of junctions when two or more channels meets, the peak discharge is calculated
which may be smaller than the peak discharge upstream in some cases , if so we consider
the design criteria of the upstream channel having larger peak discharge for that junction.
28 | P a g e
Delineated Map (WMS File) of the Pilot Area along with Basin IDs:
Fig. 5.4: Delineated Map (WMS File) of the Pilot Area along with Basin IDs:
29 | P a g e
5.3 Design of drainage
• For individual basins (Watershed 1):
8B
Length Slo Draina Duration Intensi Peak Flo Chann Veloci Free Width
of pe ge ,Tc (in ty, I Dischar w el ty (in boar taken
overla Area hours) (in ge (in Dep Width m/s) d (to
nd (in sq. mm/hr cumec) th (in m) (in limit
flow m) ) (in m) veloci
(feet) m) ty <3
m/s )
1630.6 0.21 83950. 0.0699 50.531 0.471 0.19 0.382 6.52 0.45 0.9
92 5 92 45 1
Table 5.1: Calculation of different parameter (8B)
Analysis of the Delineated map in WMS and designing for a basin 153B
Fig.5.5: Elevation vs. Distance plot (8B)
In the section A-B (0-20m), C-D (85-105m), E-F (135-185m), we provide stepped chutes for
safe dissipation of energy downstream of the slope
30 | P a g e
Design of energy dissipators:
a.
Fig.5.6: Stepped Chute (from A to B, length = 20m) of 8B
b.
Fig.5.7: Stepped Chute (from C to D, length = 10m) of 8B
c.
Fig.5.8: Stepped Chute (from E to F, length = 50m) of 8B
31 | P a g e
6B
Length Width
Peak Free
of Drainage Intensit Flow Channel taken
Duration,Tc Discharge Velocity board
overland Slope Area (in y, I (in Depth Width (to limit
(in hours) (in (in m/s) (in
flow sq. m) mm/hr) (in m) (in m) velocity
cumec) m)
(feet) <3 m/s )
1702.07 0.151 82906 0.0827 50.3899 0.464 0.203 0.406 5.63 0.45 0.8
1
Analysis of the delineated map in WMS
In the section A-B (0-28m), we provide stepped chutes for safe dissipation of energy
downstream of the slope. Also we provide culvert C-D (32-60m) for the crossing.
a. Stepped Chutes Dimensions : Height= 0.2m, Length=0.58m, Number of Steps=52, EL /Eo

= 0.80
b. Rectangular Culvert Dimensions : Length = 28m, Width= 0.8m, Depth = 1m.
32 | P a g e
4B
Length Slope Drainage Duration,Tc Intensity, Peak Flow Channel Velocity Free Width
of Area (in (in hours) I (in Discharge Depth Width (in m/s) board taken
overland sq. m) mm/hr) (in (in m) (in m) (in m) (to
flow cumec) limit
(feet) velocity
<3 m/s
)
903.87 0.113 41647 0.056847 50.67538 0.2345 0.165 0.33 4.3 0.45 0.5
No such slopes sections were found, but due to intersections culvert A-B (25.67-36.47) is needed
with a vertical drop at C.
Culvert Dimensions: Length=10.8 m, Depth=0.8 m, Width=0.5m
33 | P a g e
Fig.5.11: Flow Channel design along downstream(4B)
Fig.5.12: Vertical drop at 10.617 m from upstream(4B)
Length=10.8m
Width=0.7m
Depth=1 m
34 | P a g e
1B
overland sq. m) mm/hr) (in (in m) (in m) (in m) (to limit
flow cumec) velocity
(feet) <3 m/s
)
650.624 0.164 16842.41 0.038238 50.88129 0.095218 0.110317 0.22 3.92 0.3 0.3
No such slope section found for which stepped chutes may be needed.
35 | P a g e
2B
flow cumec) limit
(feet) velocity
<3 m/s
)
557.448 0.183 11619.95 0.032544 50.94445 0.065775 0.094 0.188 3.72 0.3 0.25
No such slope section found for which stepped chutes may be needed, but due to intersections
Culvert A-B(29-35m)
Length=6m
Width=0.25m
Depth=0.6m
36 | P a g e
3B
flow cumec) limit
(feet) velocity
<3 m/s
)
860.109 0.121 38123.89 0.053294 50.71463 0.214827 0.16 0.32 4.2 0.45 0.5
Culvert A-B (17-25m)
Length=8m
Width=0.5m
Depth=1m
37 | P a g e
5B
flow cumec) limit
(feet) velocity
<3 m/s
)
606.672 0.022 10444.9 0.0785 50.43662 0.058534 0.134 0.268 1.63 0.3 0.268
No such slope section found for which stepped chutes may be needed
38 | P a g e
9B
flow cumec) limit
(feet) velocity
<3 m/s
)
904.974 0.189 31073.59 0.046678 50.78779 0.175 0.135 0.27 4.8 0.45 0.45
Culvert A-B (56.5-64.5).
Length=8m
Width=0.45m
Depth=1m
39 | P a g e
7B
flow cumec) limit
(feet) velocity
<3 m/s
)
667.418 0.016 10183.78 0.095531 50.25002 0.056859 0.14 0.28 1.43 0.3 0.28
40 | P a g e
10B
flow cumec) limit
(feet) velocity
<3 m/s
)
833.468 0.183 18017.46 0.044359 50.81346 0.101725 0.11 0.22 4.2 0.3 0.35
41 | P a g e
11B
flow cumec) limit
(feet) velocity
<3 m/s
)
745.124 0.161 22195.42 0.04275 50.83129 0.125358 0.122 0.244 4.21 0.3 0.35
42 | P a g e
12B
flow cumec) limit
(feet) velocity
<3 m/s
)
422.364 0.007 13708.94 0.092334 50.28504 0.076595 0.18 0.36 1.135 0.3 0.36
43 | P a g e
13B
flow cumec) limit
(feet) velocity
<3 m/s
)
544.397 0.008 16972.97 0.106637 50.12856 0.094537 0.19 0.38 1.258 0.3 0.38
Culvert A-B (0-10m)
Length=10m
Width=0.38m
Depth=0.8m
44 | P a g e
• For junctions (Watershed 1):
AB
Length Slope Drainage Duration,Tc Intensity, Peak Flow Channel Velocity Free Width taken
of Area (in (in hours) I (in Discharge Depth Width (in m/s) board (to limit
overland sq. m) mm/hr) (in (in (in m) (in velocity <3
flow cumec) m) m) m/s or width
(feet) corresponding
to lower
discharge)
856.71 0.0565 10902 0.0713 50.516 0.062 0.115 0.23 2.34 0.30 0.3
Table 5.14: Calculation of different parameter (AB)
Analysis of the delineated map
Fig.5.22: Elevation vs. Distance plot (AB)
45 | P a g e
BB
Length Slope Drainag Duration,T Intensity Peak Flow Channe Velocit Free Width taken
of e Area c (in hours) , I (in Discharg Dept l Width y (in boar (to limit
overlan (in sq. mm/hr) e (in h (in (in m) m/s) d (in velocity <3
d flow m) cumec) m) m) m/s or width
(feet) correspondin
g to lower
discharge)
1076.08 0.0474 24396 0.091 50.3018 0.136 0.16 0.32 2.65 0.45 0.5
6 5
Table 5.15: Calculation of different parameter (BB)
Fig.5.23: Elevation vs. Distance plot (BB)
46 | P a g e
CB
to lower
discharge)
1162.86 0.04 44921.48 0.10287 50.16973 0.25 0.206 0.412 2.94 0.45 0.5
Table 5.16: Calculation of different parameter (CB)
Fig.5.24: Elevation vs. Distance plot (CB)
47 | P a g e
DB
to lower
discharge)
1220.91 0.0346 49104.28 0.1129 50.0602 0.27 0.22 0.44 2.79 0.45 0.5
Table 5.17: Calculation of different parameter (DB)
Fig.5.25: Elevation vs. Distance plot (DB)
48 | P a g e
EB
Length Slope Drainage Duration,T Intensity Peak Flow Channe Velocit Free Width taken
of Area (in c (in hours) , I (in Discharg Dept l Width y (in boar (to limit
overland sq. m) mm/hr) e (in h (in (in m) m/s) d (in velocity <3
(feet) correspondin
g to lower
discharge)
1714.71 0.0782 80346.12 .1072 50.1224 0.44746 0.226 0.452 4.38 0.45 0.8
4 6 9
Table 5.18: Calculation of different parameter (EB)
Fig.5.26: Elevation vs. Distance plot (EB)
49 | P a g e
FB
Length of Slope Drainag Duration,T Intensity Peak Flow Channe Velocit Free Width taken
overland e Area c (in hours) , I (in Discharg Dept l Width y (in boar (to limit
flow (in sq. mm/hr) e (in h (in (in m) m/s) d (in velocity <3
(feet) m) cumec) m) m) m/s or width
correspondin
g to lower
discharge)
1881.601 0.177 47568 0.084 50.3764 0.2663 0.16 0.32 5.20 0.45 0.9
1 5 4
Table 5.19: Calculation of different parameter (FB)
Fig.5.27: Elevation vs. Distance plot (FB)
50 | P a g e
GB
of Area (in c (in hours) , I (in Discharg Dept l Width y (in boar (to limit
overlan sq. m) mm/hr) e (in h (in (in m) m/s) d (in velocity <3
d flow cumec) m) m) m/s or width
(feet) correspondin
g to lower
discharge)
1902.89 0.177 132435.5 0.0847 50.3687 0.741 0.235 0.47 6.71 0.45 1.10
5 3 5
Table 5.20: Calculation of different parameter (GB)
Fig.5.28: Elevation vs. Distance plot (GB)
51 | P a g e
HB
Length Slope Drainag Duration,T Intensity Peak Flow Channe Velocit Free Width taken
of e Area c (in hours) , I (in Discharg Dept l Width y (in boar (to limit
overlan (in sq. mm/hr) e (in h (in (in m) m/s) d (in velocity <3
d flow m) cumec) m) m) m/s or width
(feet) correspondin
g to lower
discharge)
895.67 0.0613 40220 0.07 50.53 0.2258 0.18 0.36 3.36 0.45 0.45
6
Table 5.21: Calculation of different parameter (HB)
Fig.5.29: Elevation vs. Distance plot (HB)
52 | P a g e
IB
to lower
discharge)
2034.12 0.15 174373.29 0.0939 50.2678 0.974 0.268 0.536 6.78 0.60 1.25
Table 5.22: Calculation of different parameter (IB)
Fig.5.30: Elevation vs. Distance plot (IB)
53 | P a g e
JB
Length Slop Drainage Duration,T Intensity Peak Flow Channe Velocit Free Width taken
of e Area (in sq. c (in hours) , I (in Discharg Dept l Width y (in boar (to limit
overlan m) mm/hr) e (in h (in (in m) m/s) d (in velocity <3
d flow cumec) m) m) m/s or width
(feet) correspondin
g to lower
discharge)
2454.06 0.125 185684.18 0.11628 50.0233 1.032 0.28 0.56 6.58 0.60 1.25
9
Table 5.23: Calculation of different parameter (JB)
Fig.5.31: Elevation vs. Distance plot (JB)
No such slope section found for which stepped chutes may be needed, but due to intersection A-
B(0-5.5m)
Length=5.5m
Depth=1m
Width=1.25m
54 | P a g e
KB
of Area (in c (in hours) , I (in Discharg Depth l Width y (in boar (to limit
overlan sq. m) mm/hr) e (in (in m) (in m) m/s) d (in velocity <3
d flow cumec) m) m/s or width
(feet) correspondin
g to lower
discharge)
2758.53 0.099 199992.9 0.13865 49.78 1.1062 0.303 0.6077 5.99 0.60 1.25
6 1 8
Table 5.24: Calculation of different parameter (KB)
Fig.5.32: Elevation vs. Distance plot (KB)
55 | P a g e
• For individual basins (Watershed 2):
14B
flow cumec) limit
(feet) velocity
<3 m/s
)
1199.284 0.127 51832.84 0.067569 50.55712 0.291169 0.176 0.352 4.7 0.45 0.6
This basin has 3 open channel flows
Analysis of the delineated map using WMS
a.
Fig.5.33: Elevation vs. Distance plot (14B), a
56 | P a g e
b.
Fig.5.34: Elevation vs. Distance plot (14B), b
c.
Fig.5.35: Elevation vs. Distance plot (14B), c
57 | P a g e
15B
flow cumec) limit
(feet) velocity
<3 m/s
)
856.392 0.148 24545.52 0.0491 50.76041 0.138438 0.13 0.26 4.13 0.3 0.4
Analysis of the delineated map using WMS
58 | P a g e
16B
flow cumec) limit
(feet) velocity
<3 m/s
)
1220.765 0.007 63583.35 0.209068 49.0221 0.346332 0.32 0.64 1.65 0.45 0.64
59 | P a g e
• For junctions (Watershed 2):
LB
overland sq. m) mm/hr) (in (in m) (in m) (in velocity <3
flow cumec) m) m/s or width
to lower
discharge)
1412.29 0.03 29349.342 0.13356 49.8353 0.1625 0.185 0.37 2.3739 0.45 0.6
Table 5.28: Calculation of different parameter (LB)
Fig.5.38: Elevation vs. Distance plot (LB)
No such slope section found for which stepped chutes may be needed., but due to intersections
culvert A-B from(32.5-40m)
Length=7.5m
Depth=0.8m
Width=0.37m
60 | P a g e
MB
overland sq. m) mm/hr) (in (in m) (in m) (in velocity <3
flow cumec) m) m/s or width
to lower
discharge)
1483.32 0.028 42021.139 0.14244 49.739 0.23223 0.215 0.43 2.512 0.45 0.64
Table 5.29: Calculation of different parameter (MB)
Fig.5.39: Elevation vs. Distance plot (MB)
61 | P a g e
5.4 Conclusion
To maintain the flow from upstream of the watershed to downstream, open channels are
provided so as to regulate and not result in logging of water at any point ,which may result to a
hazardous condition. Provisions have been made so as to regulate a velocity of flow within a
limit (less than 3 m/s) so as to maintain a flow and also not result in sediment transport. At
higher slopes energy dissipators have been provided to lower the velocity to certain extent.
While on crossings and roads, culverts have been designed to regulate the flow.
62 | P a g e
Ecological Management Practices for Urban Hilly
Chapter 6 Areas
6.1 Introduction to EMPs

Through detailed study during the research, a number of measures for proper land use was found
out. Appropriate and sustainable management practices for controlling undesirable sediment and
water yield at an optimal cost was dealt in detail in the earlier report.
6.2 EMP for Watershed with detailed study
6.2.1 Ecological Management Practices

On an overall basis, hill protection measures would vary with changes in slope. A pictorial
depiction of the measures has been showed in the Figure 6.1. The slope lines in this illustration
are used to portray the actual steepness of the ground along with the recommended slope
stabilization methods for each.
Slope
Slope wisewise Suggested
Suggested Measures
Measures
Fig.6.1: Ecological Management Practices as per slopes
63 | P a g e
Chapter 6 Areas
After detailed study, measures to develop the urban hilly areas can be stated as under:
a) For a very steep slope, where the angle is greater than 75°: Geogrids, geosynthetics, geo
mats etc. needs to be used in addition to vegetative cover. The roots of the vegetative
cover aid the geosynthetic materials to control erosion.
Fig. 6.2: Geogrids laid on a steep slope.
64 | P a g e
Chapter 6 Areas
b) For a steep slope with angle ranging from 55° to 75°: Climbers, creepers and grasses such as
vetivers etc. can be grown. Deep rooted vegetations such as the vetiver grass that is native to
India can withhold the soil upto considerable lengths.
Vetiver grass planted in rows
Fig.6.3: Vetiver Grass on a steep slope
c) For a slope greater than 35° but less than 55°: Shrubs and grasses are enough and can be
economically used to tackle problems of erosion and sedimentation.
d) For a gentle/ mild slope, where the angle of slope is less than 35°: Grass coverings are enough
to deal with sediment control.
65 | P a g e
Chapter 6 Areas
6.2.2 Existing problems in the Pilot Watershed

Recent field surveys were conducted to study the existing condition of the hilly area in the
Games Village watershed. Several settlements have come up in very unscientific way. The
overall observation of the field survey can be summarized as follows:-
(1)There’s been unscientific earth cutting at most portions of the watershed .The pattern of earth
cutting at various portions are similar in nature. This marks a question on the stability of the
slopes.
(2) Very little slope protection measures are taken. These slope protection measures in the form
of boulders, gunny bags, planting trees/plants etc. seem inadequate.
(3) The boundary of most settlements are steep cut slopes with very little or no slope protection
measures.
(4) Some drains have got stagnant water in them .These have resulted in foul smell and breeding
places for germs.
(5) Most slopes are treated as garbage dumps. And garbage is also thrown into the drains
directly.
(6) Since most roads are not metalled, they have the chance of contributing hugely to sediment
load on the river during monsoons.
66 | P a g e
Chapter 6 Ecological Management Practices for Urban Hilly Areas
6.3 Measures in existing settlements

As per observations in field survey, numerous measures have been suggested keeping in mind the existing settlements. Against each photograph
taken during a recent field survey, suggestions for betterment of the existing conditions are provided. Animated pictures have been used to make
the understanding better.
Fig.6.4 Steps cut out of earth Fig.6.5 Measures to control erosion
67 | P a g e
Fig.6.6 Slopes cut unscientifically Fig.6.7 Measures to control sediment
68 | P a g e
Fig.6.9 Slope protection measures

Fig.6.8 Slope without protection
69 | P a g e
Fig.6.10 Perished Steep Slope Fig.6.11 Geogrids to control erosion
70 | P a g e
Fig.6.12: Gunny bags used to protect slopes

Fig.6.13: Correct methods of Landuse
71 | P a g e
Fig.6.15: Measures to control erosion

Fig.6.14: Unmettaled road washed out by a drain
72 | P a g e
Chapter 6 Areas
6.4 EMP Map
In figure 6.16, a trial area from the pilot watershed is taken up for suggesting
modifications that need to be carried out in the area. There is a variation of the natural slope in
the area as well as inhabitants have developed the slopes as per their convenience. Keeping in
mind the present deteriorating conditions, the aforesaid measures are adopted. The area taken
into consideration can be represented in map as follows:-
Fig.6.16 Ecological Management Practices Map
73 | P a g e
Chapter 6 Areas
6.5 Prospects Ahead
At the time of implementation, certain case specific studies would need to be dealt with.
This chapter provides in overall a general picture of how the implementation measures looks
like.
74 | P a g e
Formation of Pilot Project
Chapter 7 Implementation Committee
7.1 Introduction and Objective

Having sorted out the clues to solving the ever deteriorating health of hilly urban areas
now is the turn to go ahead and experiment its implementation. To implement such reforms is a
herculean task. This calls for efforts from various teams within the Government. The objective
behind forming a Pilot Project Implementation Committee (PPIC) is to demonstrate the scope of
mitigating water related hazard of Guwahati City through application of Ecological Management
Practices (EMP).
7.2 Components of PPIC
Conceptually, this kind of project requires horizontal coordination among different relevant
departments. Hence, proposal regarding PPIC formation has been made. It is strongly felt and
suggested to consist of one Administrator (preferably at Secretary/Director level) and one
Engineer/Planner from the following organizations viz.,
1. Guwahati Development Department

2. Urban Development Department
3. Water Resources Department
4. Deputy Commissioner – Kamrup Metropolitan
5. Guwahati Municipal Corporation
6. Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority
7. Soil Conservation Department
8. Environment and Forest Department
9. PWRD
10. PWD (Buildings)
11. ASMDA.
75 | P a g e
Formation of Pilot Project
Chapter 7 Implementation Committee
7.3 Terms of Reference
As per the submitted proposal, the Terms of Reference of the committee can be in the following
lines:-
1. Coordination of tasks between their respective department, IIT Guwahati and other involved
departments.
2. Helping CoE ILPWRM in the preparation of the Conceptual DPR of a holistic proposal for
implementation in the pilot area by clearly identifying activities of each involve department.
3. Guiding and coordinating within their respective department to prepare the DPR for their
respective project component with technical support of CoE ILPWRM.
4. Working in collaboration with all concerned departments to have necessary funds for the
implementation of the measure.
7.4 Lump Sum Costs
While actual cost for project will be estimated during DPR preparation, a preliminary
estimates shows that the cost of EMP applications for a pilot area of around 20 hectares will be
around Rs.1.5 crores and the total cost including construction of roads, drains, retaining wall etc. may
sum up to a tune of Rs.8 crores. A loud thinking from our side is that while all involve departments
can explore the scope of providing/obtaining necessary fund for implementation of their component,
SDMA may explore the possibility of funding those components which are not related to any
particular department. Of course, as the cost of pilot project will be less that 10crore, one department
may also come forward to finance the project. Possibility of getting support from Industry can also be
explored.
76 | P a g e
Chapter 8 General Discussions and Conclusions
8.1 General Discussions
This conceptual DPR has been constructed with the aim of developing hazard free hilly
urban areas. The report has been worked out as an example for ideal development of urban hilly
areas considering hydrological response, socio-economic scenario of the urban hilly regions in
Guwahati city.
8.2 Challenges ahead
For proper and efficient implementation of the measures suggested as per the report, the
Centre of Excellence is eveready to provide a helping hand. From the very beginning of the
research project, various Government departments were involved by the Centre. This conceptual
DPR would very much assist the concerned departments in creating healthy atmosphere in the
urban areas. The Government departments involved in the process can of course engage
consultants for carrying out activities in relation to implementation and also seek technical
support from the Centre nonetheless.
8.3 Future Tasks
Execution DPR needs to be constructed as discussed for the implementation of

Ecological Management Practices (EMPs). The contents of the conceptual DPR contains such
EMPs. The Government can take up the construction of its own execution DPR for
implementing the measures to solve the water related hazards in the Urban hilly areas.
Otherwise, it can also take up the formulation of DPR through Pilot Project Implementation
Committee (PPIC). Also, help from other agencies can be used in this regard.
77 | P a g e
REFERENCES:
Chanson, H. (1996). "Energy Loss at Drops - Discussion." Jl of Hyd. Res., IAHR, Vol. 34, No. 2,
pp. 273-
278.
Chanson, H., Yasuda, Y., and Ohtsu, I. (2002). “Flow resistance in skimming flows in stepped
spillways and its modelling.” Can. J. Civ.Eng., 29(6), 809819.
Chinnarasri, C.and Wongwises' S. (2006) “Flow Patterns and Energy Dissipation over Various
Stepped Chutes”.ASCE.0733-9437-132:1(70)
Gill, M. A. (1979). “Hydraulics of rectangular vertical drop structures.” J.Hydraul. Res., 17(4),
289302. Iowa Stormwater Management Manual .2008.Version 2
Modi, P.N (2009). “Hydraulics and Fluid mechanics.”Standard Book House.
Moore, W. L. (1943). “Energy loss at the base of free over fall.” Trans. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 108,
13431360.
Pegram, G. G. S., Officer, A. K., and Mottram, S. R. (1999). “Hydraulics of skimming flow on
modelled
stepped spillways.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 125(5), 500510.
Rajaratnam, N. and Chamani, M.R.“Energy Loss at Drops”. Journal of Hyd. Res., IAHR, Vol. 33,
No. 3,
pp. 373-384.
Rajaratnam, N., Chamani, M.R., and. Beirami, M. K. (2008). “Turbulent Jet Energy Dissipation at
Vertical Drops”ASCE.0733-9429-134:10(1532)
Rand, W. (1955). “Flow geometry at straight drop spillways.” Proc. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 81(791),
113.
Sarma A.K. and Goswami P.,(2006). “Developing Intensity Duration Curve with Limited Rainfall
Data”, In the Book Predictions in ungauged Basins for Sustainable Water Resource and
Management, Jain Brothers, New Delhi.. 187-194, ISBN: 81-8360-044-1
Sarma A.K., Giraud G., and Baishya M.D., (2006). “Rainwater Harvesting for Urban Flood Peak
Reduction”, My Green Earth. Journal of Society for Socio Economic Awareness and Environment
Protection, SSEAEP. 3(2).14-21.
Sarma, A.K., Chandramouli, V., Singh, B., Goswami, P. and Rajbangsi, N. (2005). “Urban Flood
Hazard Mitigation of Guwahati city by Silt monitoring and watershed modelling”, Report
submitted to Ministry of Human Resources Department (MHRD) by Dept. of Civil Engg., IIT
Guwahati.
Vinnarasi R. and A. K. Sarma (2012) “Statistical downscaling of GCM for predicting seasonal
rainfall
with short duration historical data”, Proceedings of 2nd International Conference ICAMB 2012,
9th-11th January 2012, 1622-1626.
http://www.plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov/pubs/stpmcbr1452.pdf
http://www.austieca.com.au/region2
http://www.theodorepayne.org/plants/plants_for_erosion_control.htm
vii
Project Working Group
1. Prof. Arup Kumar Sarma, Principal Investigator, Civil

EngineeringDepartment, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati
2. Prof. Chandan Mahanta, Co-Investigator, Civil Engineering
Department, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati
3. Prof.S. Dutta , Co-Investigator, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian
Institute of Technology Guwahati
4. Dr.Rajib Bhattacharjya, Co-Investigator, Civil Engineering
Department, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati
5. Dr.S. Kartha, Co-Investigator, Civil Engineering Department, Indian
Institute of Technology Guwahati
6. Mr.Madhurjya Changmai, Junior Research Fellow
7. Miss Neelnayana Kalita, Junior Research Fellow
viii

Conceptual DPR Coe Ilpwrm

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Conceptual DPR Coe Ilpwrm

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

MoUD, GoI, sponsored Center of Excellence (COE)

(Arup Kumar Sarma)

Chapters Title Page No.

2. Formation of Technical Core Committee 4

4. Computation of Carrying Capacity 17

Chapters Title Page No.

5. Design of Drainage in Hilly Areas 23

8. 8.1 General Discussions and Conclusions 77

Figure No. Description Page No.

4.1 DEM map of the study area 20

5.1 Urban Storm Water Master Plan as a part of the Catchment 25

5.31 Elevation vs. Distance plot (IB) 53

6.1 Ecological Management Practices as per slopes 63

Table No. Description Page No.

5.1 Calculation of different parameter (8B) 30

1.2 Organization of Work

1.2.1 Formation of Technical Core Committee (TCC)

• Urban Development Department

1.2.2 Field Survey and Identification of Watershed

1.2.3 Carrying Capacity Calculation

1.2.4 Drainage System

1.2.5 Ecological Management Practices for Hilly Urban Areas

1.2.6 Proposal for PPIC Formation

Formation of Pilot Project Implementation Committee (PPIC) have been proposed in

1.3 Problem Visualization and way forward

• Urban Development Department

2.3 Brief History of TCC

3.2 Filed Survey

Figure 3.1 : The 10 watersheds studied for pilot project

Figure 3.2: The TIN model of the 10 watersheds

3.3 Acquiring of Images

Figure 3.3: Major Stream Network of Guwahati

Figure 3.4: Settlement on Hills in Guwahati (1972)

Figure 3.5: Settlement on Hills and Plain Areas in Guwahati (2000)

Figure 3.6: Settlement on Hills in Guwahati (2000)

Figure 3.7: TIN Model of Guwahati ( Sarma et al., 2005)

Figure 3.8: Slope Map of Hilly Areas of Guwahati

Figure 3.9: Aspect Map of Major part of Guwahati

3.4 Identification of Watershed

Figure 3.10: The TIN model of the Pilot watershed

3.5 Final Selection of Pilot Watershed

4.2 FRAMEWORK FOR CALCULATION OF CARRYING CAPACITY USING

To elaborate the steps involved in calculation of carrying capacity by the proposed

Step 1: Delineation of the urban watershed:

Step 2: Demarcation of the developable & non-developable area:

So, AU= AD+AND ...……… (i)

Step 3: Determination of area required for different infrastructure and facilities:

Step 4: Calculation of the available residential area:

FAR need to be determined by considering various aspects like, provision of intended

i. Apply possible Ecological Management Practices or any other technological

4.3 APPLICATION OF THE CONCEPT TO THE PRACTICAL FIELD: A CASE

Fig.4.1: DEM map of the study area

4.3.1 COMPUTATION OF CARRYING CAPACITY

• Water treatment plant

• Park /Open area

Slope: >30% with 5m buffer

Table 4.1: Calculation of land requirement for infrastructural facilities

Components Model Results

Urban drainage system as a part of integrated river basin water

5.2 Steps for designing

Fig. 5.2: Delineated Map

1. Selecting various outlets, sub watersheds are formed.

5. Assume run-off coefficient = 0.4