MALINDI SOLAR PV - KENYA

FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT

CONFIDENTIAL

AUGUST 2018
 MALINDI SOLAR PV - KENYA
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT
REPORT
Globeleq Advisors UK Ltd

Type of document
Confidential

Project no: 70038867

Date: August 2018

–
WSP
6 Devonshire Square
London
EC2M 4YE

Tel: +44 (0) 20 7337 1700

www.wsp.com
QUALITY MANAGEMENT
Issue/revision First issue Revision 1 Revision 2 Revision 3
Remarks

Date 16/03/2018 07/08/2018 22/08/2018

Prepared by J Pickering J Pickering J Pickering

Signature

Checked by T Jolley T Jolley T Jolley

Signature

Authorised by P Swift P Swift P Swift

Signature

Project number 70038867 70038867 70038867

Report number R04 R04 R05

File reference
 ii

PRODUCTION TEAM

WSP

Author Jack Pickering

Checked By Tim Jolley

Authorised By Paul Swift

Gobeleq Malindi Solar PV - Kenya WSP

Project No 70038867
Month Year Confidential
 iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................6

1.1 PROJECT BRIEF............................................................................................ 6

1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................... 6

1.3 AVAILABLE DATA ......................................................................................... 7

RAINFALL DATA............................................................................................. 7
CATCHMENT DATA ....................................................................................... 8
DIGITAL ELEVATION MODEL (DEM) ............................................................. 8
FLOW DATA ................................................................................................... 8

1.4 CLIMATE ........................................................................................................ 8

1.5 HYDROLOGY ................................................................................................. 9

2 POTENTIAL SOURCES OF FLOOD RISK ................................10

3 SURFACE WATER FLOOD RISK..............................................12

3.1 APPROACH.................................................................................................. 12

3.2 CATCHMENT DELINEATION ....................................................................... 12

3.3 DESIGN STORM RAINFALL ........................................................................ 13

24 HOUR RAINFALL ..................................................................................... 13
24 HOUR RAINFALL CHECKS ..................................................................... 14
STORM PROFILES....................................................................................... 15

3.4 EFFECTIVE RAINFALL ................................................................................ 16

3.5 HYDRAULIC MODEL ................................................................................... 19

MODEL GRID SIZE....................................................................................... 20

4 RESULTS AND FLOOD MAPS ..................................................21

4.1 RESULTS ..................................................................................................... 21

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...........................28

5.1 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................ 28

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. 28

FLOOD MITIGATION .................................................................................... 28
DRAINAGE DESIGN ..................................................................................... 28

Gobeleq Malindi Solar PV – Kenya WSP

Project No 70038867
Month Year Confidential
 iv

5.3 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................... 28

6 APPENDIX 1 ...............................................................................29

7 APPENDIX 2 ...............................................................................30

8 APPENDIX 3 ...............................................................................34

TABLES
TABLE 2-1 – HIGH LEVEL FRA SCREENING ASSESSMENT...................................... 11
TABLE 3-1 - EXAMPLE SUB-CATCHMENT AREAS ..................................................... 13
TABLE 3-2 - 24 HOUR RAINFALL TOTALS .................................................................. 14
TABLE 3-3 - TRRL DESIGN STORM PARAMETERS ................................................... 14
TABLE 3-4 - COMPARISON BETWEEN TRRL AND KMD 24 HOUR RAINFALL TOTALS14
TABLE 3-5 - CN FIGURES FROM UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT FOR
AGRICULTURE ........................................................................... 17
TABLE 4-1 - MAXIMUM FLOW FOR CHECK HYDROGRAPHS.................................... 23
TABLE 4-2 – DETAILED RESULTS FOR HYDROLOGICAL PARAMETERS WITHIN
PROPOSED SITE ........................................................................ 27

FIGURES
FIGURE 1-1 SITE LOCATION.........................................................................................7
FIGURE 1-2 – AVERAGE ANNUAL RAINFALL DEPTHS. ...............................................9
FIGURE 3-1 - SURFACE WATER CATCHMENT .......................................................... 13
FIGURE 3-2 – EXAMPLE SUB-CATCHMENT AREAS .................................................. 13
FIGURE 3-3 – ANNUAL RAINFALL AT MALINDI .......................................................... 15
FIGURE 3-4 – TYPICAL 24 HOUR DESIGN STORM PROFILE .................................... 15
FIGURE 3-5 – SITE VEGETATION COVER .................................................................. 18
FIGURE 3-6 - CUMULATIVE PRECIPITATION, PRECIPITATION LOSSES AND
EFFECTIVE PRECIPITATION...................................................... 19
FIGURE 3-7 – ICM 2D HYDRAULIC MODEL EXTENT ................................................. 20
FIGURE 4-1 - SUB-CATCHMENTS OF CHECK HYDROGRAPHS................................ 21
FIGURE 4-2 - CHECK HYDROGRAPHS....................................................................... 22
FIGURE 4-3 – 100 YEAR FLOOD MAPPING OUTPUT ................................................. 24
FIGURE 4-4 - 100 YEAR FLOOD MAPPING ZOOMED IN ON SITE ............................. 24
FIGURE 4-5 - 100 YEAR FLOOD DEPTHS CN80 ......................................................... 26

APPENDIX 1 – DEM REVIEW

Gobeleq Malindi Solar PV - Kenya WSP

Project No 700038867
Month Year Confidential
 v

APPENDIX 2 – DESIGN STORMS

APPENDIX 3 – FLOOD MAPS

Gobeleq Malindi Solar PV - Kenya WSP

Project No 700038867
Month Year Confidential
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT BRIEF
WSP were appointed by Globeleq Advisors UK Ltd (the Client) to prepare a flood risk assessment for
the 40MWac Malindi Solar PV plant (the Development). This report presents the findings of the flood
risk assessment which was undertaken using the following three stage approach:-

à A high level screening assessment was used to identify the principal sources of flood risk,
à Hydrological and hydraulic modelling was carried out to quantify the principal flood sources,
à A flood risk impact assessment was carried out to assess the significance of the principal flood
sources,
The findings are presented in this report. Supporting information and detailed results and flood maps
are given in the appendices.

1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION

The site is located in Malindi District, Kilifi County. Malindi district borders Kilifi to the south, the River
Tana to the north and the northwest and the Indian Ocean to the east. It lies between latitude 2 degrees
20’ and 4 degrees south and longitude 39 degrees and 4 degrees 14’ east (Error! Reference source
not found.).

6
 Figure 1-1 Site Location

The site has an area of 1.86 km2 and the proposed layout is shown in drawing 70038867-D07. The
proposed Development includes an array of 5m solar PV cells, a connection to an existing 220KV HT
line, a new access road from Murram Road and security fencing.

1.3 AVAILABLE DATA

This section gives details of information that is was available for this assessment and information that
is generally available for flood risk assessments but was not available for this site.

RAINFALL DATA

The Kenyan Meteorological Department (KMD) provided scanned copies of intensity-duration-

frequency charts for 3 rainfall stations and information on their rainfall monitoring stations network. The
charts were available for Voi, Mombasa and Malindi. Voi is located 133 km 2 inland from the site where
conditions are drier,

Intensity-duration-frequency data covering the area, as well as the rainfall frequency Atlas for 12 hour
and 24 hour storm durations were also available from the publication Practice Manual for Small Dams,
Pans and Other Water Conservation Structures in Kenya.

Annual rainfall totals were available for KMD rainfall stations at Lamu, Mombasa and Malindi from 1970
to 2010. Lamu is located 160 km2 north of Malindi on the coast of Kenya and is not representative of
conditions at the site.

7
 CATCHMENT DATA
The United States Soil Conservation Service (SCS) method1 uses a parameter called the Curve Number
(CN) to define the physical characteristics of a catchment. This was calculated using available
catchment data in the form of site photos provided in the Malindi Sub Hydrological and Meteorological
Report compiled by CAMCE2. Site photos used in conjunction with data available within the literature3
for adjusting curve numbers allowed appropriate values to be calculated for the hydrological
assessment.

DIGITAL ELEVATION MODEL (DEM)

ASTER4 and SRTM5 DEM were assessed for defining catchment boundaries and hydrological
characteristics. Although ASTER is available at a finer resolution (approximately 30m at the equator
compared to 90m for SRTM), it was found that catchment boundaries could not be defined from it using
standard tools, whereas the 90m SRTM DEM gave well defined catchment boundaries that were also
consistent with available mapping.

FLOW DATA
There is no runoff or flow data available for the site or for channels within the catchment draining
towards the site.

A search of publications on flooding in Kenya resulted in no information on floods at the site location.
General information on recent flood events in Kenya is reported in various publications and was used
in the high level risk assessment discussed in section 2.

1.4 CLIMATE
Kenya lies across the equator, located in the tropical monsoon area, however it has a high average
altitude, it is of tropical savanna climate. The average annual temperatures for the site are
approximately 26 deg centigrade, with a maximum of approximately 40 degs centigrade and minimum
12 degs centigrade. There are two monsoons thorough the year in the area of the proposed site, of
which the long monsoon is from April to July, while the short monsoon is from October to November
annually. The maximum daily rainfall recorded at the Malindi weather station is 255.4mm. The average
annual rainfall depth for the proposed site area is approximately 750mm to 900mm as shown in the
figure below:

1
Estimation of Direct Runoff from Storm Rainfall. NEH Notice k-102, August 1972United States Department for
Agriculture
2
KE03E-B1-CAMCE-YHP0131 Malindi Sub Hydrological and Meteorological Report, CAMCE, 2011
3
Ward, Andy D.; Trimble, Stanley W. (2004). Environmental Hydrology. Boca Raton, Florida 33431: CRC Press
LLC. ISBN 9781566706162.
4
https://asterweb.jpl.nasa.gov/gdem.asp
5
http://www.cgiar-csi.org/data/srtm-90m-digital-elevation-database-v4-1

8
 Figure 1-2 – Average Annual Rainfall Depths.
Red dot indicates proposed site area. Malindi located east. .

1.5 HYDROLOGY
The coastal region is crossed by two major river systems: the River Tana and River Sabaki. The River
Tana is the most significant basin having a catchment area of 132,000 km 2 and a length of 850km. It
enters the ocean at Kipini. The River Sabaki originates from the River Athi in the central highlands
around Nairobi. When joined by the River Tsavo in its lower basin the river is known as Galana. The
river is known as Sabaki when it drains into the Indian Ocean, a few kilometers north of Malindi Town.

In addition to the major watercourses, site photos and the DEM indicate a network of tributaries that
are most likely ephemeral only, conveying water during and shortly after storm events.

9
2 POTENTIAL SOURCES OF FLOOD RISK
A high level screening assessment of all potential sources of flood risk was undertaken to focus the
assessment on the most likely sources of flooding. The approach and findings are presented in Table
2-1.

SOURCE FLOOD RISK REASONING

– YES OR NO

No An initial assessment of available information on the site location,

the EIA6 and DEM indicates that the site is located within the
catchment of the Sabaki which flows approximately 5 km south of
the Site. The EIA did not identify fluvial flooding as a potential risk
from this major river. Further checks using the United States
Geological Society Global Digital Elevation model (USGS ASTER
data), indicate that the watercourse is expected to have an
elevation 40 to 60 m lower than that of the Site.

Opere7 reports that flood events occurred in 1963/1964, 1968,

1977/1978, 1982, 1985 and 1990. These floods mainly hit the Lake
Fluvial/River Victoria basin and the coastal areas of the Athi, Lamu and Tana
River basins; however, the detailed features are not well
documented.

The El Nino floods of 1997/98 caused the loss of life of human and
livestock, disrupted socio-economic activities due to the extensive
damage to property, infrastructure and communication facilities8.

Flood maps risk maps developed by Maina, Ochola and Onywere9

and made available by the World Resources Institute10 indicate
that the site is at low risk from fluvial flooding.

No The site is over 40km from the coast and 170m above sea level,
Coastal so therefore the site is not considered at risk of flooding from
coastal flooding.

Yes The presence of a network of ephemeral channels, shallow soils

Surface exposed rock and sparse vegetation indicate that surface runoff
Water occurs in response to storm events and the resulting risk of
flooding to the site should be included in the assessment.

6
Environmental Impact Assessment Study report, for the Proposed Malindi Solar Power Plant (40MW), Located
at Weru Group Ranch – No. 19 in Lango Baya Location, Malindi District in Kilifi County. November 2015.
7
Floods in Kenya, Alfred Opere. Department of Meteorology, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya
8
Coping with Floods in Kenya: Vulnerability, Impacts and Adaptation Options for the Flood Prone Areas of
Western Kenya, DMCN-UNEP project report, 2004.
9
GIS-Based Flood Risk Mapping for Kilifi county, Kenya. A Paper Presented by Maina P. M., Ochola S and
Onywere. ESRI Eastern Africa Education GIS User Conference 10th-11thSeptember, 2015 –JKUAT-Nairobi,
Kenya.
10
http://www.wri.org/resources/data-sets/kenya-gis-data

10
 SOURCE FLOOD RISK REASONING
– YES OR NO

No The EIA states that groundwater is at a depth of 20-30m at the

coast (40km away). There is no mention of groundwater
Groundwater emergence at the site or within the catchment. Therefore,
groundwater flooding is excluded from the assessment for these
reasons.
No A general search for potential sources that include site specific
features such as dam breach, canals, reservoirs and other features
Other within the catchment that were not apparent from the information
available at the proposal, did not identify any additional sources
flood risk.
Table 2-1 – High Level FRA Screening Assessment

The outcome from the high level risk assessment was that only surface water flood risk requires a
more detailed assessment.

11
3 SURFACE WATER FLOOD RISK
3.1 APPROACH
A rainfall-runoff model was developed using industry standard software to route surface water runoff
generated from rainfall, identifying potential flood routes, flood depths and rates of flow which may pose
flood risk to the site.

In this approach, a design storm is derived for the catchment area which contains the site. Losses are
applied to the storm rainfall before it is applied to a hydraulic model that simulates the routing of runoff
across the catchment (both across the surface and within channels). These losses represent processes
that include depression storage, interception and infiltration.

3.2 CATCHMENT DELINEATION

The catchment in which the proposed site is located was delineated from the SRTM DEM using the
software QGIS. This allowed the catchment area to be calculated and a ground model to be built for the
hydraulic model (see Section 3.5).

The surface water catchment is shown in Figure 3-1 superimposed on the site boundary and also
showing the SRTM DEM. The total catchment area was calculated to be 95.58 km 2. The areas draining
towards the site boundaries are substantially less than this as shown in Error! Reference source not
found. and Table 3-1.

12
 Figure 3-1 - Surface Water Catchment

Figure 3-2 – Example Sub-Catchment Areas

LOCATIONS Longitude Latitude Catchment Area (km2)

Outlet of Main Catchment (Point 2) 39.810 -3.200 95.58

Upstream of Site (Point 1) 39.755 -3.200 2.95

Upstream Main Channel (Point 3) 39.744 -3.219 49.88

Table 3-1 - Example Sub-Catchment Areas

3.3 DESIGN STORM RAINFALL

24 HOUR RAINFALL
Design storm rainfall profiles have been created for the 1 in 2 year, 1 in 5 year, 1 in 10 year, 1 in 25
year, 1 in 50 year and 1 in 100 year return periods for a 24 hours duration using the TRRL method11.

The TRRL method was based on a comprehensive analysis of rainfall data in East Africa which
covers the coastal region of Kenya. The method is based on daily rainfall records for the years 1957-
68 and selected stations for 1926-56.

11
The Prediction of Storm Rainfall in East Africa. D. Fiddes, J. A. Forsgate, and A. O. Grigg. Environment
Division. Transport Systems Department, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, Berkshire.
1974

13
The 24 hour point and catchment rainfall values are given in Table 3-2.

RETURN PERIOD RAINFALL

(YEAR) (MM)
2 81.3
5 113.8
10 136.6
25 158.5
50 178.9
100 195.1
Table 3-2 - 24 Hour Rainfall Totals

The full set of parameters used in the application of the TRRL are given in Table 3-3.

PARAMETER VALUE UNIT TRRL SOURCE

Zone Kenya Coast (3)
Area 95.58 km2
Area Reduction Factor (ARF) 0.846 Appendix 1 Figure 4
2 year 24hr 81.3 mm (Appendix 1 Figure 1)
10 Year: 2 Year ratio 1.68 (Appendix 1 Figure 2)
Rainfall Factor (n) 0.75 (Table 1 Appendix 1)
Table 3-3 - TRRL Design Storm Parameters
The rainfall catchment ARF calculated using the TRRL method was 0.846. However, as the site of
interest is relatively small in this study a value of 1 was used to calculate the design rainfall depths.

24 HOUR RAINFALL CHECKS

The daily rainfall values calculated using TRRL were compared with values derived from the KMD
intensity-duration-frequency curves to give confidence in the estimates. The results are summarised
in Table 3-4.

RETURN TRRL VOI MOMBASA MALINDI

PERIOD (MM) (%) (%) (%)
(YEAR)
5 113.8 158.1 86.2 94.8
10 136.6 118.6 87.6 94.9
25 158.5 110.1 82.6 88.1
50 178.9 111.3 - 87.7
100 195.1 108.4 81.3 85.6
Table 3-4 - Comparison between TRRL and KMD 24 Hour Rainfall Totals

The TRRL values are consistent with the spatial pattern shown in rainfall shown in the TRRL report
(Appendix 1. Fig. 1) in that totals decrease away from the coast. The TRRL rainfall estimates range
from 95% of the 5 year 24 hour storm to 86% of the 100 year 24 hour storm.

An assessment of recent trends in annual rainfall was also carried out in order to determine whether
to apply an adjustment to the TRRL rainfall to allow for the age of analysis. Annual rainfall at three
KMD coastal rainfall stations was available for the period 1970 to 2010 and therefore indicates the
rainfall trend following the period used to derive the TRRL method which used records between 1926
and 1968.

14
The data at Malindi indicates that there has been a small positive trend in the annual rainfall total
since 1970 (Figure 3-3) although it’s is not statistically significant. There is substantial inter-annual
variability, with 1982 and 1997 being particularly wet years.

Figure 3-3 – Annual Rainfall at Malindi

The TRRL design rainfall was accepted based on the validation with the KMD idf data and annual
trend assessment.

STORM PROFILES
The TRRL approach uses a nested approach to derive the storm profile to ensure that the rainfall at all
durations, less than 24 hours, has the same return period. The profiles are symmetrical with the peak
rainfall applied across the central 45 minutes.

The final step is to multiply the rainfall by the area reduction factor (ARF) to convert it from a point
rainfall to catchment average rainfall. The design storms are shown in Figure 3-4 and given in
Appendix 1.

Typical 24 Hour Design Storm Profile

50

45

40

35
Rainfall (mm)

30

25

20

15

10

0
0 1.25 2.5 3.75 5 6.25 7.5 8.75 10 11.25 12.5 13.75 15 16.25 17.5 18.75 20 21.25 22.5 23.75
Duration (hrs)

Rainfall

Figure 3-4 – Typical 24 Hour Design Storm Profile

15
3.4 EFFECTIVE RAINFALL
Effective rainfall profiles have been created for each of the design storm profiles previously generated.
Effective rainfall is the amount of rainfall which is converted to effective runoff in the form of surface
water.

Effective rainfall was generated using the SCS Method, which requires a catchment specific curve
number (CN) which represents the combined influence of soil type, land management practices,
vegetation cover, urban development and antecedent conditions. CN varies between 0 and 100, 0
giving no runoff and 100 giving 100 percent runoff. The CN number was identified by using existing site
photos as well as satellite imagery and local climate conditions. This enabled an appropriate CN value
to be read from the CN tables12. The CN hydrologic soil group was identified as B base on the presence
of red soils, alluvial deposits are expected to make up the superficial deposits based on the large alluvial
valleys. Hydrologic conditions are likely to be Poor based on the percentage of exposed soil in satellite
imagery.

Site conditions indicate upper and lower CN values of 80 and 60 with a mean value of 67 (Table 3-5
and Figure 3-5). A value of 80 was used for the analysis to ensure that flow estimates are precautionary.

12
E.g. Design of Small Dams. Water Resources Technical Publication.--3rd edition. US Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 1987.

16
Table 3-5 - CN figures from United States Department for Agriculture

17
Figure 3-5 – Site vegetation cover13

The SCS CN model was applied using the industry standard HEC-HMS software 14. The design storm
for each return period was applied as time series data to a sub-basin with the appropriate CN value.

The results for the 100 year design storm and CN value of 80 show how the model cumulative losses
vary during the storm event. It is evident that using this approach the SCS infiltration losses decrease
as the storm develops.

13
KE03E-B1-CAMCE-YHP0131 Malindi Sub Hydrological and Meteorological Report, CAMCE, 2011
14
HEC-HMS. Version 4.0 December 2013

18
 .
Figure 3-6 - Cumulative Precipitation, Precipitation losses and Effective Precipitation

3.5 HYDRAULIC MODEL

A two dimensional (2D) hydraulic model of the surface water catchment was developed using Infoworks
ICM v8.0.3. The model uses a 2D mesh made up of triangular elements, which are a product of elevation
sampled from the SRTM DEM and cover the entire watershed.

As discussed in section 1.3 the SRTM DEM was compared with the lower resolution ASTER DEM and
found to be a better representation of the surface for hydraulic modelling as:

- It does not contain as many pits/troughs and issues as ASTER

- It is fit for defining catchment areas

A more detailed review was carried out to compare it with the topographic survey of the site area that
showed that the SRTM levels are extremely close to the surveyed levels as a result the SRTM data was
replaced with the site topography survey where it existed to ensure that the best available DEM was
used for the analysis. The results of this review are presented in Appendix 1.

19
 2D Mesh Grid

Proposed Site

Figure 3-7 – ICM 2D Hydraulic Model Extent

The effective rainfall, which accounts for all rainfall losses, was applied to the 2D mesh for each return
period using a 5 minute time step. The effective rainfall for each time step was defined using the variable
SCS CN loss model as described in section 3.4.

MODEL GRID SIZE

The 2D model domain was constructed using a flexible mesh with a maximum triangle size of 600m 2
and minimum element size of 200m 2. These are large values, yet are appropriate based on the limited
resolution provided by the SRTM data. This is adequate for generating flow paths. A roughness value
of 0.05 was applied to the mesh to represent the surface vegetation. A mesh zone has been used to
represent the specific site area with a finer resolution of 100m 2 and 25m2.

20
 4 RESULTS AND FLOOD MAPS
4.1 RESULTS
HYDROGRAPH CHECKS

Given the recognised issues with routing surface water over the SRTM DEM further checks were
carried out following the improvements to the DEM described in Appendix 1.

Hydrographs were checked at three locations (see Figure 4-1) for a range of return periods to confirm
that the flood peaks are consistent there are not anomalies in the flow paths from the DEM.

1 2

Figure 4-1 - Sub-catchments of Check Hydrographs

The comparison was carried out for the 2, 5 and 100 year return period storms and a CN value of 80
and is shown in Figure 4-2. The peak flows for locations 3 and 2 are given in Table 4-1.

21
 RETURN POINT 1 POINT 2 POINT 3
PERIOD
(YEARS)

100

Figure 4-2 - Check Hydrographs

22
 Return Period Proposed site flood risk average (CN 80)

Point 2 Max Flow (m3/s) Point 3 Max Flow (m3/s)

1 in 2 Year 49.18 33.81

1 in 5 Year 126.18 84.60

1 in 10 Year 199.37 139.12

1 in 25 Year 284.49 202.42

1 in 50 Year 373.94 268.71

1 in 100 Year 448.09 322.61

Table 4-1 - Maximum Flow for Check Hydrographs

The hydrographs show that the model is stable even at low return periods. Any fluctuations in the 2
and 5 year floods are not evident in the 100 year flood reflecting the relatively flat and undulating
nature of the natural topography and uncertainties in the SRTM DEM.

The 2 year flow at point 3 is less than at point 2 due to the resolution of the DEM and the flat
topography as discussed in Appendix 1. This is not the case at higher return periods.

As the focus of the flood risk assessment is the 100 year flood the analysis confirms that the DEM is
suitable for defining the catchment boundary draining to the site and that the SRTM DEM combined
with the site topographic survey data gives the best representation of elevation. The check
hydrographs show that surface water is routed over the DEM continuously.

The surface water flows simulated in the main catchment (points 2 and 3) are less certain having a
greater proportion if SRTM data in the DEM but the hydrographs still show consistency.

FLOOD DEPTHS

Flood maps for each return period have been provided in Appendix 1. Figure 4-3 below shows the full
surface water catchment extent for the 1 in 100 year event, including flow paths (red arrows)
throughout the catchment and the flow path proximity and interaction with the proposed site.

23
Figure 4-3 – 100 Year flood mapping output

Figure 4-4 - 100 Year flood mapping zoomed in on site

Figure 4-3 shows the overall extent of the catchment as well as the direction of flow from different parts
of the catchment. Figure 4-4 shows the distribution of the surface flood depth across the site in more

24
detail. It is evident that surface water drains in a south easterly direction across the site and flows
towards an ephemeral channel that lies to the south of the site. Flood maps are given in Appendix 3.

The modelling shows that flood depths are greater in the east of the site and that there is an ephemeral
channel which could impact the north-east corner of the site.

A more detailed plot of the 100 year depths (Figure 4-5) shows that maximum water depth varies from
a few millimetres to a maximum of 0.7m. The maximum depth on much of the site decreases
significantly for lower return periods with only a few millimetres of water simulated away from ephemeral
channels.

25
Figure 4-5 - 100 Year Flood Depths CN80

The highest depths fall

along this flow path.

26
Table 4-2 gives the maximum depth velocity and flow at the site boundary. It shows that the maximum
flow crossing the site boundary for the 100 year event is 18.51 m 3/s. This flow is channelled through the
centre of the site draining in a northwest-southeast direction. There is a dominant west-east flow path
that passes just to the south of the site clipping the south-east corner of the site boundary.

The maximum depth predicted by the modelling is 0.697m for the 100 year event and the maximum
velocity is 0.582 m/s. The limitations of the analysis are discussed in section 5.3.

Return Period Proposed site flood risk average (CN 80)

Max Depth (m) Max Velocity (m/s) Max Flow (m3/s)

1 in 2 Year 0.274 0.175 1.11

1 in 5 Year 0.428 0.327 4.12

1 in 10 Year 0.510 0.420 7.10

1 in 25 Year 0.578 0.462 10.53

1 in 50 Year 0.648 0.532 14.64

1 in 100 Year 0.697 0.582 18.51

Table 4-2 – Detailed Results for Hydrological Parameters within Proposed Site

27
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 CONCLUSIONS

The initial screening exercise showed that the risk of surface water flooding should be assessed in
detail to quantify the impact of storm rainfall on the site. The risk of coastal, fluvial and groundwater
flooding were scoped out and no other sources of flooding were identified during the study.

The assessment shows that the surface water flows in a north-west to south-easterly direction across
the site and is concentrated in an ephemeral channel that cuts across the centre of the site. The eastern
part of the site is at greater risk than the western part of the site in terms of depth and concentration of
flow. The maximum flow simulated on the site in the ephemeral channel during the 100 year event is
18.51 m3/s and the maximum velocity is 0.582 m/s velocity.

The maximum depth of flood water is 0.697 m for the 100 year event. This occurs in a channel
depression through the centre of the site that drains in a northwest-southeast.

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

FLOOD MITIGATION
It is important that surface water flow arriving at the boundary of the site can either be safely conveyed
around the site or across it.

DRAINAGE DESIGN
Site drainage will be required to ensure that rain falling directly on the site is safely routed off site and
discharged to agreed outlets or soakaways. The design storms, with no area reduction factor applied,
should be used for drainage design.

5.3 LIMITATIONS
Recent sub-daily rainfall data was not available for analysis. The TRRL method uses old data (1926-
1968) which has been validated as far as possible. The 24 hour rainfall totals are consistent with KMD
data but should still be treated with some caution.

SRTM and ASTER DEM are available for this location. Both were reviewed (Appendix 1) and compared
with site topographic data. As a result the SRTM DEM was combined with the site topographic data ad
used for flood modelling. The DEM has limitations which are discussed in this report but remains the
best available.

The hydraulic model uses the SRTM DEM which has a resolution of approximately 90m. Drainage
design should be based on site topographic survey.

28
6 APPENDIX 1
DEM coverage for the area was limited to SRTM and ASTER 30m. A comparison was completed to
check for similarities against ground investigation survey data. The ground survey data provided an
excellent match to the SRTM when overlaid, and was subsequently merged with the wider STRM
catchment coverage to improve the detail and confidence of flow routing through the specific site. The
30m ASTER was also overlaid with the ground survey data, however, a discrepancy of approximately
5m was found. This provided problems for attempting to merge the ground survey data with the
ASTER 30m as the step between the datasets would not allow conveyance of flow into the proposed
site. Further analysis of the 30m ASTER found incontinences in depth across the wider catchment,
with many pits/troughs in the data which act to hold up and store flow at inconceivable depths.

The SRTM data has been agreed that it is appropriate for catchment delineation, by overlaying this
within the proposed site with the ground investigation data, the confidence and accuracy of channel
routing is improved. 0.455km 2 (15%) of the 2.955km2 catchment draining to the proposed site has
been surveyed.

29
7 APPENDIX 2
This appendix contains the 2, 5, 10, 25, 50 and 100 year design storm data for the catchment that
drains towards the site. The TRRL 24 hour storm profiles are symmetrical so only values up to time
step 144 have been included.

Time Time R2 R5 R10 R25 R50 R100

step (h) (mm)/h) (mm/h) (mm/h) (mm/h) (mm/h) (mm/h)
1 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.0
2 0.083 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
3 0.167 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
4 0.250 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
5 0.333 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
6 0.417 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
7 0.500 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
8 0.583 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
9 0.667 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
10 0.750 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
11 0.833 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
12 0.917 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
13 1.000 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
14 1.083 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
15 1.167 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
16 1.250 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
17 1.333 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
18 1.417 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
19 1.500 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
20 1.583 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
21 1.667 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
22 1.750 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
23 1.833 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
24 1.917 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
25 2.000 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
26 2.083 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
27 2.167 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
28 2.250 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
29 2.333 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
30 2.417 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
31 2.500 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
32 2.583 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
33 2.667 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
34 2.750 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
35 2.833 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8

30
Time Time R2 R5 R10 R25 R50 R100
step (h) (mm)/h) (mm/h) (mm/h) (mm/h) (mm/h) (mm/h)
36 2.917 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
37 3.000 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
38 3.083 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
39 3.167 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
40 3.250 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
41 3.333 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
42 3.417 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
43 3.500 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
44 3.583 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
45 3.667 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
46 3.750 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
47 3.833 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
48 3.917 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
49 4.000 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
50 4.083 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
51 4.167 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
52 4.250 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
53 4.333 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
54 4.417 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
55 4.500 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
56 4.583 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
57 4.667 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
58 4.750 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
59 4.833 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
60 4.917 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
61 5.000 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
62 5.083 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
63 5.167 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
64 5.250 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
65 5.333 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
66 5.417 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
67 5.500 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
68 5.583 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
69 5.667 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
70 5.750 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
71 5.833 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
72 5.917 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
73 6.000 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
74 6.083 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
75 6.167 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
76 6.250 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
77 6.333 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8

31
Time Time R2 R5 R10 R25 R50 R100
step (h) (mm)/h) (mm/h) (mm/h) (mm/h) (mm/h) (mm/h)
78 6.417 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
79 6.500 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
80 6.583 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
81 6.667 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
82 6.750 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
83 6.833 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
84 6.917 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
85 7.000 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
86 7.083 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
87 7.167 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
88 7.250 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
89 7.333 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
90 7.417 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
91 7.500 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
92 7.583 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
93 7.667 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
94 7.750 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
95 7.833 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
96 7.917 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
97 8.000 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
98 8.083 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
99 8.167 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
100 8.250 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
101 8.333 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
102 8.417 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
103 8.500 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
104 8.583 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
105 8.667 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
106 8.750 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
107 8.833 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
108 8.917 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
109 9.000 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
110 9.083 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
111 9.167 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
112 9.250 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
113 9.333 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
114 9.417 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
115 9.500 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
116 9.583 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
117 9.667 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.8
118 9.750 4.0 5.5 6.7 7.7 8.7 9.5
119 9.833 4.0 5.5 6.7 7.7 8.7 9.5

32
Time Time R2 R5 R10 R25 R50 R100
step (h) (mm)/h) (mm/h) (mm/h) (mm/h) (mm/h) (mm/h)
120 9.917 4.0 5.5 6.7 7.7 8.7 9.5
121 10.000 4.0 5.5 6.7 7.7 8.7 9.5
122 10.083 4.0 5.5 6.7 7.7 8.7 9.5
123 10.167 4.0 5.5 6.7 7.7 8.7 9.5
124 10.250 4.0 5.5 6.7 7.7 8.7 9.5
125 10.333 4.0 5.5 6.7 7.7 8.7 9.5
126 10.417 4.0 5.5 6.7 7.7 8.7 9.5
127 10.500 4.0 5.5 6.7 7.7 8.7 9.5
128 10.583 4.0 5.5 6.7 7.7 8.7 9.5
129 10.667 4.0 5.5 6.7 7.7 8.7 9.5
130 10.750 4.0 5.5 6.7 7.7 8.7 9.5
131 10.833 6.9 9.6 11.5 13.4 15.1 16.4
132 10.917 6.9 9.6 11.5 13.4 15.1 16.4
133 11.000 6.9 9.6 11.5 13.4 15.1 16.4
134 11.083 6.9 9.6 11.5 13.4 15.1 16.4
135 11.167 6.9 9.6 11.5 13.4 15.1 16.4
136 11.250 6.9 9.6 11.5 13.4 15.1 16.4
137 11.333 11.2 15.7 18.9 21.9 24.7 27.0
138 11.417 11.2 15.7 18.9 21.9 24.7 27.0
139 11.500 11.2 15.7 18.9 21.9 24.7 27.0
140 11.583 20.8 29.2 35.0 40.6 45.8 50.0
141 11.667 20.8 29.2 35.0 40.6 45.8 50.0
142 11.750 20.8 29.2 35.0 40.6 45.8 50.0
143 11.833 47.2 66.1 79.3 92.1 103.9 113.3
144 11.917 47.2 66.1 79.3 92.1 103.9 113.3

33
8 APPENDIX 3
· Figure 5 – 1 in 50 year Flood Map

· Figure 6 – 1 in 100 year Flood Map

34