FLOOD ASSESSMENT

FOR THE PROPOSED UPGRADE OF THE ROCKY DRIFT WWTW,

MBOMBELA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY, EHLANZENI DISTRICT, MPUMALANGA

Compiled by Compiled for

Dr Bruce Scott-Shaw & Nick Davis Theo Wicks

NatureStamp (Pty) Ltd SLR Consulting (Africa) (Pty) Ltd
Tel 078 399 9139 Tel 033 343 5826
Email bruce@naturestamp.com Email twicks@slrconsulting.com

November 2020
FINAL REPORT

1
Table of Contents
Tables .................................................................................................................................................... 3
Figures ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Annexures ............................................................................................................................................. 3
Specialist Details & Declaration......................................................................................................... 4
1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Project Background and Description of the Activity ....................................................... 5
1.2 Terms of reference ................................................................................................................ 7
1.3 Gauged versus Ungauged Catchments ........................................................................... 7
2. STUDY SITE.................................................................................................................................. 8
2.1 Catchment ............................................................................................................................ 8
3. METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 11
3.1 Site Visit ................................................................................................................................. 11
3.2 Critical Catchment Delineation and River Reach Analysis .......................................... 11
3.3 Design Flood Determination.............................................................................................. 12
3.4 Flood Line Determination................................................................................................... 12
3.5 Flood Line Determination for Minor Channels ................................................................ 13
4. LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS .......................................................................................... 14
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................... 15
5.1 Desktop Assessment ........................................................................................................... 15
4.1 Hydraulic Structures ............................................................................................................ 16
4.2 Design Rainfall ..................................................................................................................... 17
4.3 Design Peak Discharge ...................................................................................................... 17
4.1 Hydraulic Modelling............................................................................................................ 17
6. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 21
7. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 22

2
Tables
Table 1 Details of Specialist ............................................................................................................ 4
Table 2 Mean monthly rainfall and temperature observed near Rocky Drift(derived from
historical data) ................................................................................................................... 8
Table 3 Land cover area for the contributing catchment area .............................................. 9
Table 4 Data type and source for the Rocky Drift assessment ............................................... 11
Table 5 Comparison of values from some of the rainfall stations that were assessed
during the data analysis ................................................................................................. 16
Table 6 Comparison between the various one day design rainfall estimation techniques
available for the study site ............................................................................................. 17
Table 7 Adopted design peak discharge values (m3.s-1) run through HEC-RAS for the
catchment area .............................................................................................................. 17

Figures
Figure 1 Typical setting of the drainage lines and surrounds at Rocky Drift ............................ 5
Figure 2 Locality map of the proposed Rocky Drift expansion .................................................. 6
Figure 3 land cover for the contributing catchment of Rocky Drift .......................................... 9
Figure 4 Exaggerated terrain model for the contributing catchment of Rocky Drift ........... 10
Figure 5 Soil Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) watershed delineation tool for sub-catchment
delineation and stream network creation ................................................................... 12
Figure 6 Longitudinal profile and channel cross sections developed for a section of the
drainage channel ........................................................................................................... 13
Figure 7 GIS model for flood generation in small channels ...................................................... 13
Figure 8 Long term synthesized annual rainfall values with the mean annual precipitation
indicated in blue ............................................................................................................. 16
Figure 9 Flood hydrograph as determined by the SCS method.............................................. 18
Figure 10 1:100 year flood extent for the Rocky Drift drainage channels ............................... 19
Figure 11 Flood risk map for the Rocky Drift drainage channels .............................................. 20

Annexures
ANNEXURE A Design Rainfall
ANNEXURE B Rational Method Results
ANNEXURE C SDF Method Results
ANNEXURE D SCS Method Results

3
Specialist Details & Declaration

This report has been prepared in accordance with Section 13: General Requirements for
Environmental Assessment Practitioners (EAPs) and Specialists as well as per Appendix 6 of GNR 982 –
Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations and the National Environmental Management Act
(NEMA, No. 107 of 1998 as amended 2017) and Government Notice 704 (GN 704). It has been
prepared independently of influence or prejudice by any parties.

The details of Specialists are as follows –

Table 1 Details of Specialist

Qualification and
Specialist Task Client Signature
accreditation

Design,
Bruce Scott-Shaw BSc, BSc Hon, MSc, SLR Consulting
GIS &
NatureStamp PhD Hydrology (Africa) (Pty) Ltd
report
Date: 01/11/2020

Nick Davis
Isikhungusethu Design & BSc, BSc Hon, MSc SLR Consulting
Environmental GIS Hydrology (Africa) (Pty) Ltd
Services
Date: 03/11/2020

Details of Authors:

Bruce is a hydrologist, whose focus is broadly on hydrological perspectives of land use management
and climate change. He completed his MSc under Prof. Roland Schulze in the School of Bioresources
Engineering and Environmental Hydrology (BEEH) at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.
Throughout his university career he has mastered numerous models and tools relating to hydrology,
soil science and GIS. Some of these include ACRU, SWAT, ArcMap, Idrisi, SEBAL, MatLab and
Loggernet. He has some basic programming skills on the Java and CR Basic platforms. Bruce
completed his PhD at the Center for Water Resources Research (UKZN), which focused on
rehabilitation of alien invaded riparian zones and catchments using indigenous trees. Bruce is currently
affiliated to the University of KwaZulu-Natal where he is a post-doctoral student where he runs and
calibrates hydrological and soil erosion models. Bruce has presented his research around the world,
including the European Science Foundation (Amsterdam, 2010), COP17 (Durban, 2011), World Water
Forum (Marseille, 2012), MatLab advanced modelling (Luxembourg, 2013), World Water Week
(Singapore, 2014), Forests & Water, British Colombia, (Canada, 2015), World Forestry Congress (Durban,
2015), Society for Ecological Restoration (Brazil, 2017). Conservation Symposium (Howick, South Africa,
2018) and SWAT modelling in Siem Reap (Cambodia, 2019). As a consultant, Bruce is the director and
principal hydrologist of NatureStamp (PTY) Ltd. In this capacity he undertakes flood studies, calculates
hydrological flows, performs general hydrological modelling, stormwater design, dam designs,
wetland assessments, water quality assessments, groundwater studies and soil surveys.

Nicholas Davis is a hydrologist whose focus is broadly on hydrological perspectives of land use
management, climate change, estuarine and wetland systems. Throughout his studies and
subsequent work at UKZN he has mastered several models and programs such as ACRU, HEC-RAS,
ArcMap, QGIS, Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration software (IHA) and Idrisi. He has moderate VBA
programming skills, basic UNIX and python programming skills.

4
 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background and Description of the Activity

The project area is located approximately 12km north of the city of Nelspruit, Mbombela Municipality,
Mpumalanga Province (Figure 2). The project area is located in the X22F quaternary catchment, within the
Inkomati-Usuthu Water Management Area (Husted, 2017). There are two small watercourses that the
proposed sewer pipeline would traverse. A previous study was undertaken by JG Afrika (2017) but did not
cover the recent addition of the bulk sewer line.

The dimensions of the proposed and existing infrastructure are as follows-

 Proposed 500mm uPVC Bulk Sewer Pipe; and
 Existing 160 Ø Bulk Sewer Pipeline to be upgraded to 500 Ø and realigned.

The key requirements for this study are as follows:

1. Hydrology calculation: catchment delineation, flow peak analysis.

2. Hydraulic calculation: floodline modelling & profile, determination of flood level.
3. Mapping: plot flood lines.
4. Reporting (report & drawing in pdf format, flood lines plot in dwg/dxf format).

The coordinates for the development are:

25.367471 S & 30.970472 E.

The typical site setting can be seen in Figure 1 with the layout of the proposed development and associated
infrastructure in Figure 2.

Figure 1 Typical setting of the drainage lines and surrounds at Rocky Drift

Page | 5
Figure 2 Locality map of the proposed Rocky Drift expansion
Page | 6
 1.2 Terms of reference

NatureStamp has been appointed to conduct a 1:2, 1:5. 1:10, 1:20, 1:50 and 1:100 year flood line assessment
of any significant stream or river system that may impact on the development.

The terms of reference are as follows -

i. Hydrological assessment, undertaken by the:

a. Analysis of rainfall data available;

b. Analysis of streamflow data available;
c. Determination of the catchment characteristics;
d. Determination of the Manning’s n-values;
e. Analysis of the river reach network; and
f. Estimation of the design flood.

ii. Hydraulic analysis, illustrated by the:

a. Compilation of the river reach model and flood line using HEC-RAS and HEC-geoRAS;
b. Determination of the flood risk and flood hazard throughout the study site; and
c. Recommendation of mitigation options associated with the hydraulic analysis.

iii. Consolidate results in a report with:

a. Flood line maps; and

b. A final flood line report.

1.3 Gauged versus Ungauged Catchments

Flood hydrology assessments can be limited if the information available is scant. In the Rocky Drift area (which
has experienced a recent severe drought) most of the smaller tributaries (excluding large rivers) do not flow
all year round as they have done in the past. This can be explained by changes in land use through
intensification and increased areas under crops or commercial forests, an increase in water extraction
(irrigation, dams, industrial needs and human needs), cyclic drought and climate change. Much of the flow
in these rivers is not always accurately recorded by weirs. When a flood hydrology assessment is undertaken,
depending on the data available, either gauged or ungauged catchments can be assessed. Gauged data
are the most accurate approach assuming that the data quality is reliable and over a long period of time. In
the absence of such data, an ungauged catchment is assessed using observed rainfall. This data (assuming
it is of good quality) is used as an input to a rainfall-runoff model. The design flood is determined using a
statistical analysis of the rainfall and the catchment characteristics.

In large catchment areas the antecedent moisture content is important for 1:100 year flood events. If the
catchment is very dry before such an event, dams may fill up first from the flood waters and part of the rainfall
may infiltrate, resulting in a reduced flow through the system, whereas a saturated catchment would result in
a shorter lag time and a larger flow volume in the channel. This can lead to a difference in a simulated flood
using design rainfall (ungauged) and a flood using observed streamflow (gauged). Furthermore, the large
flood events are often poorly recorded in weirs due to poor maintenance and overtopping.

For the study area, no streamflow data was available, as such, a detailed rainfall assessment was undertaken
to determine the design rainfall-runoff events.

pg. 7
 2. STUDY SITE
2.1 Catchment

The site is located 12 km north of Nelspruit in Mpumalanga. The existing development area sits within
Quaternary Catchment (QC) X22F of the Crocodile River catchment (Inkomati-Usuthu).

The site sits on a non-perennial tributary of the Sand, approximately 2.44 km to the north. The site has been
significantly modified for settlements, brick/granite factories and agricultural activities. According to desktop
information (DWS, 2017), the activities in the area and local land uses have impacted the aquatic system,
which have rendered the system as moderately modified. The associated watercourse is predominantly
representative of a wetland system, but a site was selected for the analysis of water (in situ) and to collect a
water sample. However, this study assessed the reach of the watercourse adjacent to the WwTW (JG Afrika,
2017).

According to Mucina and Rutherford (2006), the area is dominated by Legogote Sour Bushveld (SVi 9), which
falls under the lowveld Savanna (SV) bioregion. The vegetation type has been classified as ‘endangered’,
and 1.6 % receives formal protection. Of the remaining 50 % only a small percentage is statutorily protected
in reserves.

Rainfall is not variable throughout the small catchment area (9 km2) with 720 mm occurring during an average
year at the site (Table 2). Temperatures range from an average of 19.3 °C [41 – 9.6 °C max range] in the
summer to 14 °C [30.9 – -3.3 °C min range] in the winter months. The soils within the property boundary range
from Mispah, to Hutton and Clovelly forms, which dominate most of the site. Some Oakleaf forms occur within
the wetland edges. The underlying geological formation is intrusive Mpuluzi Granite of the Archaean Eon and
the Swazian Era.

Table 2 Mean monthly rainfall and temperature observed near Rocky Drift(derived from historical data)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Mean Rainfall (mm) 139.4 107.8 88.4 41.8 15.0 7.0 9.8 7.1 21.6 60.3 100.4 121.9 720.6
Mean Temperature
23.2 23.0 22.1 19.6 16.7 14.1 14.1 15.9 18.7 20.0 21.1 22.5 19.3
(ºC)

The site is largely modified. However, contributing catchment area of 9.1 km2 is partially vegetated with sandy
soils allowing a moderate infiltration rate. The steep drainage lines would have a quick response to a storm
event although they are highly invaded with alien plant species.

Page | 8
 Figure 3 land cover for the contributing catchment of Rocky Drift

Table 3 Land cover area for the contributing catchment area

Land Cover Area (ha) Percentage

Bare Ground 0.10 0.01

Cultivated commercial annual crops non-pivot 8.52 0.93
Cultivated commercial permanent orchards 167.51 18.34
Degraded 2.17 0.24
Grasslands 89.18 9.76
Low shrubland 5.67 0.62
Plantations / Woodlots 133.93 14.66
Settlements 372.22 40.75
Thicket /Dense bush 105.60 11.56
Waterbodies 1.65 0.18
Wetlands 11.75 1.29
Woodland/Open bush 15.21 1.67
Total 913.51 100

Page | 9
 Catchment Area: 9.1 km2

Figure 4 Exaggerated terrain model for the contributing catchment of Rocky Drift
pg. 10
 3. METHODOLOGY

The following methodology was followed in order to meet the objectives as detailed in the terms of reference.
The assessment of these systems considered the following databases where relevant:

Table 4 Data type and source for the Rocky Drift assessment

Data Type Year Source/Reference

Aerial Imagery 2013, 2016 & 2018 Surveyor General

1:50 000 Topographical 2011 Surveyor General
2m Contour 2010 Surveyor General/Msunduzi EMF
River Shapefile 2011 EKZNW
Durban Geological Sheets/National
Geology Shapefile 2011
Groundwater Archive
Land Cover 2014 & Current EKZNW & Site Assessment
Water Registration 2015 WARMS - DWS
*Data will be provided on request

3.1 Site Visit

A site visit was conducted by Bruce Scott-Shaw is of NatureStamp on the 19th October 2020. A pre-
development condition was assumed. The current condition was assessed as follows -

 The vegetation characteristics of the watercourse were assessed for the determination of the Manning’s
n-values;
 The presence and dimensions of any crossings, such as culverts and bridges, that would act as a barrier
to a flood event and that may be damaged during the occurrence of such an event were noted;
 The overall state of drainage channels, streams and rivers was assessed;
 The slope of the study site as well as evidence of flood damage and erosion around the site were noted;
 The state of existing gauging stations (nearby) was assessed to determine if the structure is accurately
recording streamflow (e.g. evidence of under cutting or damaged features); and
 The elevation at the channel level and property level in order to verify contour data.

The watercourse systems were not flowing at the time of the site visit. As a result of low-flow conditions, a river
profile analysis was possible using a high accuracy GPS.

3.2 Critical Catchment Delineation and River Reach Analysis

The critical contributing catchment area was determined for use in both the watershed delineation tool and
HEC-HMS and SWAT models. The sub-catchments were delineated using the 2m contour set as an input. This
was used to create a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) that was then used as an input to the watershed tool
(Figure 5). Data collected during the site visit and from available databases were used as inputs to the models
(Figure 6).

pg. 11
 Figure 5 Soil Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) watershed delineation tool for sub-catchment delineation and stream network creation

3.3 Design Flood Determination

The peak flows for the 1:2, 1:5, 1:10, 1:20, 1:50 and 1:100 flood events were calculated for the catchments
using the rational method, the SCS-SA model and the Standard Design Flood Method as outlined in the
SANRAL Drainage Manual (2013). The SCS-SA model is a hydrological storm event simulation model suitable
ideally for application on catchments that have a contributing catchment of less than 30 km². The model has
been used widely both internationally and nationally for the estimation of flood peak discharges and volume
(Schulze et al., 1992). The type of surface in the drainage basin is also important. The Rational Method
becomes more accurate as the amount of impervious surface, such as pavements and rooftops, increases.
The Rational Method is most often used in urban and suburban areas (ODOT Hydraulics Manual, 2014). Given
the land use and catchment size, the SCS method was adopted as the most appropriate model.

3.4 Flood Line Determination

Modelling of the flood lines was undertaken using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ HEC-RAS v5.05
programme, which is commonly used throughout South Africa. Numerous cross sections were created
throughout the contributing area (Figure 5). Ineffective areas/hydraulic structures were digitized and included
in the model. Land use coverage was used to determine the Manning’s n-values in a GIS platform. Each cross
section may have had numerous values on either side of the channel depending on the site characteristics.
Manning’s N-values were obtained from the HEC-RAS Hydraulic Reference Manual (2010) for the channel
areas (a value of between 0.03 and 0.04 was used depending on the presence or absence of rock features
and debris). Design flood values were used as an input for the relevant reaches.

Given the slope of the catchment and the distance to downstream hydrological infrastructure, no inundation
within the study site would occur from external features on the watercourse. As such, Normal Depth was
selected for the reach boundary conditions. The slope of the channel was used as the value for the
backwater calculation of the initial condition. Some inundation structures were included in the cross sections
where there were structures present (Figure 6).

Page | 12
 Figure 6 Longitudinal profile and channel cross sections developed for a section of the drainage channel

3.5 Flood Line Determination for Minor Channels

As HEC-RAS and HEC-geoRAS are highly sensitive to the resolution of the terrain data used in the model, small
non-perennial channels such as drainage lines are often not captured within the model. In most cases the
flood output is not required for such channels as the flood generated would be negligible. However, it is good
practice to ensure that all channels or drainage lines are adequately covered. As such, the author has
developed a simple model to generate a flood depth through a GIS interface. The model considers the flood
generated for nearby smaller catchments and applies and area weighted correction. The model generates
a flood height based on this estimation within the existing terrain model. Figure 7 provides a schematic of this
model.

Figure 7 GIS model for flood generation in small channels

Page | 13
 4. LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS
In order to apply generalized and often rigid design methods or techniques to natural, dynamic environments,
a number of assumptions are made. Furthermore, a number of limitations exist when assessing such complex
hydrological systems. The following constraints may have affected this assessment:

 Manning’s n - values (the channels roughness coefficient) was estimated. However, n- values in areas
outside of the study area were estimated using a desktop approach due to the extent of the
catchment.

 2 meter contour interval data and Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) were used in the design flood
estimation (development of the elevation model). Within a 1 km radius of the site, a detailed
topographical survey was undertaken. Given the desktop flood proposed, this resolution was
considered to be of sufficient accuracy for the flood line determination.

 Given the setting of the site (no flow during the site visit) it was difficult to determine which channels
would be fully active in a flood and which are remnant channels which have since been bypassed.

Page | 14
 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A detailed desktop assessment was undertaken for the site.

5.1 Desktop Assessment

5.1.1 National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA) Project / Assessment

In accordance with the NFEPA guidelines, the relevant reach of the Sand tributary (and its associated riparian
areas) has not been classified as a FEPA, which indicates that this river system is a not national freshwater
conservation priority. However, the Sand river (2.87 km downstream) has been classified as a Class C
(Moderately Modified) NFEPA system.

FEPA wetlands were not identified within the study site. The nearest FEPA wetland is 3.05 km away. The layer
codes for River FEPAs and associated sub-quaternary catchments, Fish Support Areas and associated sub-
quaternary catchments and Upstream Management Areas.

5.1.2 Terrain, Soils, Geology & Vegetation

Contour lines (2 meter) were used to calculate the slope of each of the banks. The soils and geology were
obtained from GIS layers obtained from national databases and site samples. Various vegetation databases
were used to determine the likely or expected vegetation types (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006; Scott-Shaw &
Escott, 2011). A number of recognized databases were utilized in achieving a comprehensive review, and
allowing any regional or provincial conservation and biodiversity concerns to be highlighted.

This site is dominated by Legogote Sour Bushveld (SVl 9, Mucina and Rutherford, 2006). This occurs within the
lowveld savanna biome. The desktop analysis revealed that the area is endangered, with the potential for
some flagged fauna and flora (e.g. red data species and endangered wildlife) being found from the C-plan,
SEA and MINSET databases. The following information was collected for the vegetation unit SVl 9 (Mucina &
Rutherford, 2006). The characteristics of this grassland are described as:

 The vegetation type occurs on gently to moderately sloping upper pediment slopes with dense woodland
including many medium to large shrubs often dominated Parinari curatellifolia and Bauhinia galpinii with
Hyperthelia dissolute and Panicum maximum in the undergrowth.
 Short thicket dominated by Acacia ataxacantha occurs on less rocky sites.
 Exposed granite outcrops have low vegetation cover, typically with Englerophytum magalismontanum,
Aloe petricola and Myrothamnus flabellifolia.
 It has been greatly transformed, mainly by plantations and also cultivated areas and urban development.
 Scattered alien plants include Lantana camara, Psidium guajava and Solanum mauritianum.
 Important taxa includes:
o Tall trees: Pterocarpus angolensis (d), Sclerocarya birrea subsp. caffra (d);
o small trees: Acacia davyi (d), A. sieberiana var. woodii (d), Combertum zeyheri (d), Erythrina
latissima (d), Parinari curatellifolia (d), Terminalia sericea (d), Trichilia emetica (d), Verononia
amygdalina (d), Acacia caffra, Antidesma venosum, Erythroxylum emarginatum, Faurea
rochetiana, F. saligna, Ficus burikei, F. glumosa, F. glumosa, F. ingens, F. petersii, Heteropyxis
natalensis, Peltophorum africanum, Piliostigma thonningii, Pterocarpus rotundifolius, Schotia
brachypetala;
o succulent tree: Euphorbia ingens;
o tall shrubs: Diospyros lycioides subsp. sericea, Erythroxylum delagoense, Olea europaea subsp.
africana, Pachystigma macrocalyx, Pseudarthria hookeri var. hookeri, Rhus pentheri;
o low shrubs: Diospyros galpinii (d), Flemingia grahamiana (d), Agathisanthemum bojeri, Eriosema
psoraleoides, Gymnosporia heterophylla, Hemizygia punctata, Indigofera filipes, Myrothamnus
flabellifolius, Rhus rogersii; succulent shrubs: Aloe petricola, Euphorbia vandermerwei, Huernia kirkii;
o woody climbers: Acacia ataxacantha (d), Bauhinia galpinii (d), Helinus intergrifolius,
Sphedamnocarpus pruriens subsp. Pruriens;
o graminoids: Bothriochloa bladhii (d), Cymbopogon caesius (d), C. nardus (d), Hyparrhenia
cymbaria (d), H. poecilotricha (d), Hyperthelia dissolute (d), Panicum maximum (d), Andropogon
schirensis, Paspalum scrobiculatum, Schizachyrium sanguineum;

Page | 15
 o herbs: Gerbera ambigua, G. viridifolia, Hemizygia persimilis, Hibiscus sidiformis, Ocimum
gratissimum, Waltheria indica; succulent herbs: Orbea carnosa subsp. carnosa, Stapelia
gigantean; and geophytic herbs: Gladiolus hollandii, Hypoxis rigidula.
o Endemic Taxon: Succulent herb: Aloe simii.

5.1.3 Desktop Hydrological Assessment

A detailed assessment of the climate was undertaken. Rainfall stations were considered based on their
proximity to the site, altitude and length/reliability of the data record. The long term mean annual rainfall of
the site that was used in the design was 712 mm (Figure 8).

Table 5 Comparison of values from some of the rainfall stations that were assessed during the data analysis
Station No. Estimated MAP (mm) Years Reliable Altitude (m) Station Name
0555799 W 935 96 7.9 807 Heidelberg
0555837 A 708 96 51.6 660 Nelspruit Res
0555837 W 708 96 52.3 660 Nelspruit
0555866 W 632 96 21.3 756 Friedenheim
0555889 W 851 96 14.4 934 Dipgate
05556020 W 852 96 34.3 962 Witrivier (Pol)

1600

1400

1200
Rainfall (mm)

1000

800

600

400

200

0
1915

1933
1903
1906
1909
1912

1918
1921
1924
1927
1930

1936
1939
1942
1945
1948
1951
1954
1957
1960
1963
1966
1969
1972
1975
1978
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
Rainfall (mm) MAP (mm)
Figure 8 Long term synthesized annual rainfall values with the mean annual precipitation indicated in blue

4.1 Hydraulic Structures

An assessment was undertaken on the small channel obstructions. These were modelled as ineffective areas.
According to SANRAL (2016), the discharge capacity of the Rocky Drift obstruction areas would be
determined by the following equation:

𝑄𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑙 = 𝐶𝑏𝐻1.5

where: Q = Discharge (m3.s-1)

C = Discharge Coefficient
G = Gravitational Constant (9.81 m.s-1)
b = Side Width (m)
H = Headwater Depth (m)

Page | 16
 4.2 Design Rainfall

Design rainfall differs from mean annual rainfall as it is rainfall associated with an events rainfall depth for a
specified storm duration and a recurrence interval (frequency of occurrence). The design rainfall used is
dependent on the method used to determine the peak discharge. The SCS-SA method use 1 day-rainfall for
various return periods while the Rational and SDF Methods use rainfall intensity linked to the catchments Time
of Concentration (Tc) and Storm Duration. The Design Rainfall Estimation (DRE) tool which uses observed
rainfall data has been included for comparison.

The results of the design rainfall analysis are summarised below:

Table 6 Comparison between the various one day design rainfall estimation techniques available for the study site
Design Rainfall Depth (mm)
Return Period
SDF DRE SCS-SA Rational
10 Year Return Period 72.36 106.8 136 106.8
50 Year Return Period 111.93 156.6 210 156.6
100 Year Return Period 128.97 181.6 249 181.6

4.3 Design Peak Discharge

The design runoff results obtained for the 1:20, 1:50 and 1:100 year flood events for the various river reaches
are summarized in Table 7. The populated calculation sheets for the Rational, SDF and SCS methods can be
seen in Annexure B, C & D. The high contrast in values is due to the catchment size limitations of the design
approaches. It is expected by the authors that the estimates from the rational and SDF are over designed.
This is likely due to smaller catchment areas and rainfall value that may not be representative of the entire
catchment (the area is known for localised storm events). Furthermore, the lack of vegetation and the
presence of eroded channels has resulted in a much shorter time of concentration than what would have
occurred in past decades. The design values indicate that the larger design events were vastly different
between models whereas the smaller more frequent events were similar between models. This is likely due to
the recommended catchment areas that these models are designed for. Given the results, the SCS model
was considered to be the most appropriate model if design rainfall were to be used, based on the small
catchment area.

Table 7 Adopted design peak discharge values (m3.s-1) run through HEC-RAS for the catchment area
Peak Return Period
Discharge
(m3.s-1) 2 5 10 20 50 100 200
Rational 69.210 100.101 126.201 157.919 216.849 278.725 321.240
SDF 14.61 45.37 73.56 105.24 152.23 191.52 233.11
SCS-SA 28.4 50.7 70.8 93.4 129.8 162.2 199.3

4.1 Hydraulic Modelling

Various hydraulic models were produced in HEC-RAS and exported to HEC-geoRAS by importing river
centreline, cross sections, water surfaces and flow data from GIS layers and the hydrologic model. This
allowed for inundation mapping and flood line polygons to be generated. The water surface TIN was
converted to a GRID, and then actual elevation model was subtracted from the water surface grid. The area
with positive results (meaning the water surface is higher than the terrain) illustrated the flood area (Figure 10),
whereas the area with negative results illustrated the dry areas not inundated by the flood. Inundation can
be seen along the watercourse (Figure 10). Further results are provided in Annexure B, C and D.

No comparison between pre and post development peak flows was undertaken for this assessment. Once
the proposed development is finalised, stormwater management interventions should ensure that post-
development flows do not exceed pre-development flows.

Page | 17
The 1:100 year flood lines (Figure 9) indicated that a small section of the proposed bulk line would be
inundated during such an event. However, given the layout of the site, the inundation risk is low (Figure 11).
The flood hydrograph shows a quick response and a short lag time (Figure 9). There is also a significant
difference between return periods due to the exponential increase in stormflow under such conditions, largely
due to the settlement areas.

250

200
Discharge (m3.s-1)

150

100

50

0
0:00
0:30
1:00
1:30
2:00
2:30
3:00
3:30
4:00
4:30
5:00
5:30
6:00
6:30
7:00
7:30
8:00
8:30
9:00
9:30
10:00
10:30
11:00
11:30
12:00
12:30
13:00
13:30
14:00
14:30
15:00
15:30
16:00
16:30
17:00
17:30
18:00
18:30
19:00
19:30
20:00
20:30
21:00
21:30
22:00
22:30
2 Year RP 5 Year RP 10 Year RP 20 Year RP 50 Year RP 100 Year RP 200 Year RP

Figure 9 Flood hydrograph as determined by the SCS method

Page | 18
Figure 10 1:100 year flood extent for the Rocky Drift drainage channels
pg. 19
Figure 11 Flood risk map for the Rocky Drift drainage channels
Page | 20
 6. CONCLUSION
The assessment of Rocky Drift site has taken cognisance of watercourses and associated crossings that may
impact on the inundation areas. The catchment has been heavily transformed through settlements (largely
illegal) and agriculture. The site visit identified many illegal plots that have recently been cleared and levelled.
These plots cross the proposed bulk line and are steadily changing the flood response of the catchment. This
is a big concern for the area and should be addressed through the municipalities.

Flow volumes below the site and at other nearby gauges were not usable for the site, resulting in design rainfall
being utilised to obtain the flood event. The resultant flood extent shows that most of the proposed
infrastructure is outside of the flood extent, except for the channel crossings and the northern extent of the
bulk line. Downstream users would not be at increased risk due to the small footprint and the small size of the
catchment. However, there may be an increased risk of contamination through leaks although the
contaminants are already entering the watercourse.

The findings and recommendations are:

1. The nearby watercourses are in a modified condition due to historical and present modifications.
Similarly, the wetlands are in a moderate to poor condition but do function reasonably in attenuating
peak flows.
2. The crossing points are partially blocked by debris indicating a slight risk of damage in the event of a
flood.
3. Strict adherence to best practice guidelines, spill management and erosion control must be
undertaken during any construction and operation.
4. Regular maintenance of culverts and road crossings on the site must be undertaken to ensure that
the flood risk is not increased due to blockages by debris.
5. The risk of the site is low due to the very small catchment area. However, the risk should still be
managed through general maintenance.
6. The northern channel would experience a 162.2 m3.s-1 discharge during a 100 year flood event.

pg. 21
 7. REFERENCES

1. Drainage Manual, The South African Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL), 6th edition, 2013
2. Drainage Manual, The South African Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL), 5th edition, 2006
3. Lynch, SD. 2003: Development of a Raster Database of Annual, Monthly and Daily Rainfall for Southern
Africa, WRC Report No. 1156/1/03, Water Research Commision, Pretoria, RSA.
4. SCHULZE, RE. (2011) Atlas of Climate Change and the South African Agricultural Sector: A 2010
Perspective. Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Pretoria, RSA. pp 387.
5. SCHULZE, RE. (2012) Climate Change and the South African Water Sector: Where from? Where now?
Where to in future? University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg Campus, South Africa.
6. US Army Corps of Engineers, HEC-GeoRAS version 4.3.93 for ArcGIS 9.3
7. US Army Corps of Engineers, HEC-RAS version 4.1
8. Visual SCS-SA, R.E. Schulze, E.J. Schmidt and J.C. Smithers, University of Natal

Page | 22
ANNEXURE A Design Rainfall

Design Rainfall in South Africa: Ver 3 (July 2012)

User selection has the following criteria:

Coordinates: Latitude: 25 degrees 21 minutes; Longitude: 30 degreess 59 minutes
Durations requested: 30 m, 1 h, 2 h, 24 h, 1 d
Return Periods requested: 2 yr, 5 yr, 10 yr, 20 yr, 50 yr, 100 yr, 200 yr
Block Size requested: 0 minutes

Data extracted from Daily Rainfall Estimate Database File

The six closest stations are listed

Station Name SAWS Distance Record Latitude Longitude MAP Altitude Duration Return Period (years)
Number (km) (Years) (°) (') (°) (') (mm) (m) (m/h/d) 2 2L 2U 5 5L 5U 10 10L 10U 20 20L 20U 50 50L 50U 100
100L 100U 200 200L 200U

WITRIVIER (POL) 0556020_W 5.1 96 25 19 31 1 930 893 1 d 63.3 63.0 63.6 88.0 87.6 88.4 106.8 105.9 107.9 127.0 125.2 128.9 156.6 153.3
161.1 181.6 177.3 188.7 209.3 203.4 220.3
LOCHABAR 0555797_W 8.0 53 25 17 30 57 914 900 1 d 69.2 68.8 69.5 96.2 95.7 96.7 116.8 115.7 118.0 138.9 136.9 140.9 171.2
167.6 176.1 198.5 193.9 206.2 228.8 222.3 240.8
THE KNOLL 0556143_W 9.2 53 25 22 31 4 772 771 1 d 74.1 73.7 74.5 103.1 102.6 103.5 125.1 124.0 126.4 148.8 146.6 151.0 183.4
179.6 188.6 212.7 207.7 220.9 245.1 238.1 258.0
JATINGA 0556110_W 9.7 58 25 19 31 4 868 800 1 d 75.1 74.7 75.4 104.4 103.9 104.9 126.7 125.5 128.0 150.7 148.5 152.9 185.7 181.8
191.0 215.4 210.3 223.7 248.2 241.2 261.3
UMGENYANA 0556141_W 10.8 36 25 21 31 5 870 860 1 d 70.3 69.9 70.6 97.8 97.3 98.2 118.7 117.6 119.9 141.1 139.1 143.2 174.0
170.4 179.0 201.8 197.0 209.6 232.5 225.9 244.8
NELSPRUIT RES. 0555837_A 10.9 87 25 27 30 58 750 648 1 d 59.0 58.6 59.2 81.9 81.6 82.3 99.5 98.6 100.5 118.3 116.6 120.1 145.8 142.8
150.0 169.1 165.1 175.7 194.9 189.4 205.2

Gridded values of all points within the specified block

Latitude Longitude MAP Altitude Duration Return Period (years)
(°) (') (°) (') (mm) (m) (m/h/d) 2 2L 2U 5 5L 5U 10 10L 10U 20 20L 20U 50 50L 50U 100 100L 100U 200 200L 200U

25 21 30 59 906 865 30 m 25.5 19.4 31.5 35.4 27.0 43.8 43.0 32.6 53.5 51.1 38.6 63.9 63.0 47.3 79.8 73.1 54.7 93.5 84.2 62.7 109.1
1 h 36.0 28.5 43.4 50.0 39.7 60.4 60.7 48.0 73.7 72.2 56.7 88.0 89.0 69.5 110.0 103.3 80.4 128.8 119.0 92.2 150.4
2 h 50.9 41.9 59.8 70.7 58.3 83.2 85.9 70.5 101.5 102.1 83.4 121.3 125.8 102.2 151.6 146.0 118.1 177.5 168.2 135.5 207.3
24 h 91.1 77.3 105.0 126.7 107.5 146.0 153.8 130.0 178.2 182.9 153.8 212.9 225.4 188.3 266.0 261.5 217.8 311.5 301.3 249.7
363.8
1d 75.6 64.1 87.1 105.1 89.2 121.1 127.6 107.8 147.8 151.7 127.6 176.6 187.0 156.2 220.7 216.9 180.7 258.4 249.9 207.2 301.8

pg. 23
ANNEXURE B Rational Method Results

Description of Catchment Sand

River detail Sand Tributary
Calculated by B. Scott-Shaw Date 20/09/2020
Physical characteristics
Rainfall
Size of catchment (A) 9.1 km²
Region
Longest Watercourse 5.5 km Area Distribution Factors
Lakes(
Average slope (Sav) 0.04 m/m Rural (α) Urban (β)
γ)
Dolomite Area (D%) 0 % 0.6 0.4 0
Mean Annual Rainfall (MAR) 830 mm
Catchment Characteristics Flat/permeable %
Medium grass
r - look up from Table 3C.3 0.4
cover
Rural (1) Urban (2)
Facto
Surface Slope % Factor Cs Description % C2
r
Vleis and Pans 5 0.05 0.003 Lawns
Flat Areas 60 0.11 0.066 Sandy, flat (<2%) 0.075 -
Hilly 30 0.2 0.060 Sandy, steep (>7%) 0.175 -
Steep Areas 5 0.3 0.015 Heavy soil, flat (<2%) 0.15 -
Total 100 - 0.144 Heavy soil, steep (>7%) 0.3 -
Permeability % Factor Cp Residential Areas
Very Permeable 5 0.05 0.003 Houses 65 0.4 0.260
Permeable 55 0.1 0.055 Flats 0.6 -
Semi-permeable 35 0.2 0.070 Industry
Impermeable 5 0.3 0.015 Light industry 0.65 -
Total 100 - 0.143 Heavy Industry 0.75 -
Vegetation % Factor Cv Business
Thick bush and plantation 0 0.05 - City Centre 0.825 -
Light bush and farm-lands 42 0.15 0.063 Suburban 0.6 -
Grasslands 55 0.25 0.138 Streets 35 0.825 0.289
No Vegetation 3 0.3 0.009 Maximum flood 1.00 -
Total 100 - 0.210 Total 100 - 0.549
Time of concentration (Tc) Defined Watercourse Notes:
Overland flow Defined watercourse Pre-development Run-off
Latitude: 29°38'
Longitud
Tc = 30°17'
e:
0.851140
17

Hour
1.9 0.9 Hours
s
Run-off coefficient
Return period (years), T 2 5 10 20 50 100 Max
Run-off coefficient, C1
0.496 0.496 0.496 0.496 0.496 0.496 0.4955
(C1 = Cs + Cp + Cv)
Adjusted for dolomitic areas,
C1D 0.495
0.4955 0.4955 0.4955 0.4955 0.4955 0.4955
5
(= C1(1-D%)+C1D%(Σ(Dfactor x Cs%))
Adjustment factor for initial saturation,
0.5 0.55 0.6 0.67 0.83 1 1
Ft
Adjusted run-off coefficient, 0.2477 0.27252 0.41126 0.495
0.2973 0.331985 0.4955
C1T 5 5 5 5

Page | 24
( = C1D x Ft)
Combined run-off coeffiecient
CT 0.3681 0.38301 0.46625 0.516
0.39788 0.418691 0.5168
5 5 9 8
(= αC1T + βC2 + γC3)
Rainfall
Return period (years), T 2 5 10 20 50 100 Max
Point Rainfall (mm), PT 63.3 88.0 106.8 127.0 156.6 181.6 209.3
Point Intensity (mm/hour), PiT (=PT/TC) 74.4 103.4 125.5 149.2 184.0 213.4 245.9
Area Reduction Factor (%), ARFT 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Average Intensity (mm/hour),
IT 74.4 103.4 125.5 149.2 184.0 213.4 245.9
(= PiT x ARFT)
Return period (years), T 2 5 10 20 50 100 Max
278.7 321.24
Peak flow (m³/s), 69.210 100.101 126.201 157.919 216.849
25 0

Page | 25
ANNEXURE C SDF Method Results

Description of catchment Sand

River detail Sand Tributary
Calculated by BCSS Date 27 October 2020
Physical characteristics
Size of catchment (A) 9.1 km² Time of
Longest watercourse (L) 5.5 km Concentration 0.85 hours
Average slope (Sav) 0.04 m/m (TC)
SDF basin (0)# 29 Time of concentration, t (= 60 TC) 51 minutes
2-year return period rainfall (M) 66 mm Days of thunder per year (R) 11 days/year
TR102 n-day rainfall data
Weather Service station Mayfern Mean annual precipitation (MAP) 740 mm
Weather Service station number 556 088 Coordinates
Return period (years)
Duration (days)
2 5 10 20 50 100 200
1 66 93 113 135 168 196 227
2 78 108 130 154 189 218 250
3 89 125 153 183 227 265 306
7 113 159 194 232 286 331 380
Rainfall
Return period (years), T 2 5 10 20 50 100 200
Point precipitation depth (mm) Pt,T 32.79 55.32 72.36 89.40 111.93 128.97 146.02
Area reduction factor (%), ARF (=
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
(90000-12800lnA+9830lnt)0,4)
Average intensity (mm/hour), IT (= Pt,T x
38.53 65.00 85.02 105.04 131.51 151.53 171.55
ARF / TC)
Run-off coefficients
Calibration factors C2 (2-year return period) (%) 15 C100 (100-year return period) (%) 50
Return period (years) 2 5 10 20 50 100 200
Return period factors (YT) 0 0.84 1.28 1.64 2.05 2.33 2.58

0.15 0.28 0.34 0.40 0.46 0.50 0.54

Run-off coefficient (CT),

Peak flow (m³/s), QT = 0.278 x CTITA 14.61 45.37 73.56 105.24 152.23 191.52 233.11

Page | 26
ANNEXURE D SCS Method Results

CATCHMENT NAME : Sand

PROJECT NO : Rocky
RUN NO : 1
TOTAL CATCHMENT AREA (km^2) : 9.10
STORM INTENSITY DISTRIBUTION TYPE : 3
CATCHMENT LAG TIME (h) : 1.37
COEFFICIENT OF INITIAL ABSTRACTION: 0.10

CURVE NUMBERS: Initial Final

Sub-catchment 1 88 88.0
Sub-catchment 2 69 69.0

RETURN PERIOD (YEARS) 2 5 10 20 50 100 200

DESIGN DAILY RAINFALL DEPTH (mm) 76 109 136 165 210 249 293

DESIGN STORMFLOW DEPTH (mm)

Sub-catchment 1 49.1 79.5 105.1 133.0 176.9 215.2 258.6
Sub-catchment 2 23.3 45.0 65.0 88.1 126.1 160.5 200.4

TOTAL RUNOFF DEPTH (mm) 32.6 57.4 79.4 104.3 144.4 180.2 221.3

DESIGN STORMFLOW VOLUME

(millions m^3)
Sub-catchment 1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.8
Sub-catchment 2 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.2

TOTAL STORMFLOW VOLUME 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.3 1.6 2.0
(millions m^3)

COMPUTED CURVE NUMBER 77.1 76.6 76.4 76.2 75.9 75.8 75.7

PEAK DISCHARGE (m^3/s) 28.4 50.7 70.8 93.4 129.8 162.2 199.3

*******************************************************************
RETURN PERIOD (years) = 2
DESIGN RAINFALL (mm) = 76
STORM DISTRIBUTION TYPE = 3
CURVE NUMBER (computed) = 77.1
LAG TIME (h) = 1.4
PEAK DISCHARGE (m^3/s) = 28.41
*******************************************************************
TIME DISCHARGE
(minutes) (cubic metres/sec) (litres/sec)

608. 0.000 0.
623. 0.003 3.
638. 0.012 12.
653. 0.033 33.
668. 0.078 78.
683. 0.173 173.
698. 0.386 386.
713. 1.048 1048.
727. 4.471 4471.
742. 8.898 8898.
757. 13.744 13744.
772. 18.784 18784.
787. 23.811 23811.
802. 28.268 28268.
817. 28.414 28414.
832. 26.999 26999.
847. 24.953 24953.
861. 22.549 22549.
876. 19.911 19911.
891. 17.107 17107.
906. 14.184 14184.
921. 11.183 11183.
936. 8.165 8165.
951. 5.343 5343.
966. 4.116 4116.
981. 3.453 3453.
995. 3.008 3008.
1010. 2.680 2680.
1025. 2.424 2424.
1040. 2.218 2218.
1055. 2.047 2047.
1070. 1.903 1903.
1085. 1.779 1779.
1100. 1.672 1672.
1115. 1.577 1577.
1130. 1.494 1494.
1144. 1.419 1419.
1159. 1.353 1353.
1174. 1.292 1292.
1189. 1.237 1237.
1204. 1.187 1187.
1219. 1.141 1141.
1234. 1.099 1099.
1249. 1.059 1059.
1264. 1.023 1023.
1278. 0.990 990.
1293. 0.958 958.
1308. 0.929 929.
1323. 0.901 901.
1338. 0.875 875.
1353. 0.851 851.
1368. 0.828 828.
1383. 0.807 807.
1398. 0.786 786.
1412. 0.767 767.

Page | 27
 1427. 0.748 748.
1442. 0.729 729.
1457. 0.697 697.
1472. 0.654 654.
1487. 0.599 599.
1502. 0.532 532.
1517. 0.454 454.
1532. 0.367 367.
1546. 0.291 291.
1561. 0.223 223.
1576. 0.165 165.
1591. 0.116 116.
1606. 0.076 76.
1621. 0.045 45.
1636. 0.022 22.
1651. 0.007 7.

*******************************************************************
RETURN PERIOD (years) = 5
DESIGN RAINFALL (mm) = 109
STORM DISTRIBUTION TYPE = 3
CURVE NUMBER (computed) = 76.6
LAG TIME (h) = 1.4
PEAK DISCHARGE (m^3/s) = 50.74
*******************************************************************
TIME DISCHARGE
(minutes) (cubic metres/sec) (litres/sec)

534. 0.000 0.
549. 0.002 2.
564. 0.007 7.
579. 0.018 18.
593. 0.037 37.
608. 0.070 70.
623. 0.122 122.
638. 0.200 200.
653. 0.318 318.
668. 0.498 498.
683. 0.792 792.
698. 1.340 1340.
713. 2.784 2784.
727. 9.113 9113.
742. 17.084 17084.
757. 25.697 25697.
772. 34.552 34552.
787. 43.257 43257.
802. 50.736 50736.
817. 50.525 50525.
832. 47.704 47704.
847. 43.846 43846.
861. 39.410 39410.
876. 34.600 34600.
891. 29.532 29532.
906. 24.290 24290.
921. 18.949 18949.
936. 13.629 13629.
951. 8.742 8742.
966. 6.704 6704.
981. 5.614 5614.
995. 4.884 4884.
1010. 4.347 4347.
1025. 3.929 3929.
1040. 3.592 3592.
1055. 3.313 3313.
1070. 3.078 3078.
1085. 2.876 2876.
1100. 2.702 2702.
1115. 2.548 2548.
1130. 2.413 2413.
1144. 2.291 2291.
1159. 2.183 2183.
1174. 2.084 2084.
1189. 1.995 1995.
1204. 1.914 1914.
1219. 1.839 1839.
1234. 1.770 1770.
1249. 1.707 1707.
1264. 1.648 1648.
1278. 1.593 1593.
1293. 1.543 1543.
1308. 1.495 1495.
1323. 1.450 1450.
1338. 1.409 1409.
1353. 1.369 1369.
1368. 1.332 1332.
1383. 1.297 1297.
1398. 1.264 1264.
1412. 1.233 1233.
1427. 1.203 1203.
1442. 1.171 1171.
1457. 1.121 1121.
1472. 1.051 1051.
1487. 0.962 962.
1502. 0.854 854.
1517. 0.728 728.
1532. 0.590 590.
1546. 0.467 467.
1561. 0.359 359.
1576. 0.266 266.
1591. 0.187 187.
1606. 0.122 122.
1621. 0.072 72.
1636. 0.035 35.
1651. 0.011 11.

Page | 28
 *******************************************************************
RETURN PERIOD (years) = 10
DESIGN RAINFALL (mm) = 136
STORM DISTRIBUTION TYPE = 3
CURVE NUMBER (computed) = 76.4
LAG TIME (h) = 1.4
PEAK DISCHARGE (m^3/s) = 70.79
*******************************************************************
TIME DISCHARGE
(minutes) (cubic metres/sec) (litres/sec)

474. 0.000 0.
489. 0.001 1.
504. 0.004 4.
519. 0.010 10.
534. 0.023 23.
549. 0.043 43.
564. 0.075 75.
579. 0.121 121.
593. 0.185 185.
608. 0.271 271.
623. 0.386 386.
638. 0.543 543.
653. 0.760 760.
668. 1.075 1075.
683. 1.565 1565.
698. 2.441 2441.
713. 4.636 4636.
727. 13.585 13585.
742. 24.709 24709.
757. 36.650 36650.
772. 48.853 48853.
787. 60.753 60753.
802. 70.794 70794.
817. 70.159 70159.
832. 66.019 66019.
847. 60.504 60504.
861. 54.226 54226.
876. 47.460 47460.
891. 40.365 40365.
906. 33.055 33055.
921. 25.637 25637.
936. 18.287 18287.
951. 11.602 11602.
966. 8.877 8877.
981. 7.426 7426.
995. 6.456 6456.
1010. 5.743 5743.
1025. 5.188 5188.
1040. 4.741 4741.
1055. 4.372 4372.
1070. 4.061 4061.
1085. 3.794 3794.
1100. 3.562 3562.
1115. 3.359 3359.
1130. 3.180 3180.
1144. 3.020 3020.
1159. 2.876 2876.
1174. 2.746 2746.
1189. 2.628 2628.
1204. 2.520 2520.
1219. 2.422 2422.
1234. 2.331 2331.
1249. 2.247 2247.
1264. 2.169 2169.
1278. 2.097 2097.
1293. 2.030 2030.
1308. 1.967 1967.
1323. 1.908 1908.
1338. 1.853 1853.
1353. 1.801 1801.
1368. 1.752 1752.
1383. 1.706 1706.
1398. 1.662 1662.
1412. 1.621 1621.
1427. 1.582 1582.
1442. 1.540 1540.
1457. 1.473 1473.
1472. 1.381 1381.
1487. 1.264 1264.
1502. 1.123 1123.
1517. 0.957 957.
1532. 0.775 775.
1546. 0.613 613.
1561. 0.471 471.
1576. 0.349 349.
1591. 0.246 246.
1606. 0.161 161.
1621. 0.094 94.
1636. 0.046 46.
1651. 0.014 14.

*******************************************************************
RETURN PERIOD (years) = 20
DESIGN RAINFALL (mm) = 165
STORM DISTRIBUTION TYPE = 3
CURVE NUMBER (computed) = 76.2
LAG TIME (h) = 1.4
PEAK DISCHARGE (m^3/s) = 93.39
*******************************************************************
TIME DISCHARGE
(minutes) (cubic metres/sec) (litres/sec)

430. 0.000 0.

Page | 29
 445. 0.001 1.
459. 0.004 4.
474. 0.012 12.
489. 0.025 25.
504. 0.045 45.
519. 0.077 77.
534. 0.120 120.
549. 0.177 177.
564. 0.251 251.
579. 0.344 344.
593. 0.461 461.
608. 0.610 610.
623. 0.801 801.
638. 1.051 1051.
653. 1.387 1387.
668. 1.864 1864.
683. 2.591 2591.
698. 3.861 3861.
713. 6.943 6943.
727. 18.866 18866.
742. 33.536 33536.
757. 49.202 49202.
772. 65.133 65133.
787. 80.567 80567.
802. 93.391 93391.
817. 92.199 92199.
832. 86.530 86530.
847. 79.118 79118.
861. 70.745 70745.
876. 61.765 61765.
891. 52.382 52382.
906. 42.743 42743.
921. 32.997 32997.
936. 23.380 23380.
951. 14.703 14703.
966. 11.229 11229.
981. 9.387 9387.
995. 8.157 8157.
1010. 7.252 7252.
1025. 6.550 6550.
1040. 5.985 5985.
1055. 5.517 5517.
1070. 5.123 5123.
1085. 4.786 4786.
1100. 4.493 4493.
1115. 4.236 4236.
1130. 4.009 4009.
1144. 3.807 3807.
1159. 3.625 3625.
1174. 3.461 3461.
1189. 3.312 3312.
1204. 3.176 3176.
1219. 3.051 3051.
1234. 2.936 2936.
1249. 2.830 2830.
1264. 2.732 2732.
1278. 2.641 2641.
1293. 2.556 2556.
1308. 2.477 2477.
1323. 2.403 2403.
1338. 2.333 2333.
1353. 2.267 2267.
1368. 2.206 2206.
1383. 2.147 2147.
1398. 2.092 2092.
1412. 2.040 2040.
1427. 1.991 1991.
1442. 1.938 1938.
1457. 1.854 1854.
1472. 1.738 1738.
1487. 1.591 1591.
1502. 1.413 1413.
1517. 1.205 1205.
1532. 0.975 975.
1546. 0.772 772.
1561. 0.593 593.
1576. 0.439 439.
1591. 0.309 309.
1606. 0.202 202.
1621. 0.119 119.
1636. 0.057 57.
1651. 0.018 18.

*******************************************************************
RETURN PERIOD (years) = 50
DESIGN RAINFALL (mm) = 210
STORM DISTRIBUTION TYPE = 3
CURVE NUMBER (computed) = 75.9
LAG TIME (h) = 1.4
PEAK DISCHARGE (m^3/s) = 129.81
*******************************************************************
TIME DISCHARGE
(minutes) (cubic metres/sec) (litres/sec)

370. 0.000 0.
385. 0.001 1.
400. 0.004 4.
415. 0.012 12.
430. 0.025 25.
445. 0.046 46.
459. 0.077 77.
474. 0.119 119.
489. 0.173 173.
504. 0.241 241.
519. 0.323 323.

Page | 30
 534. 0.423 423.
549. 0.542 542.
564. 0.685 685.
579. 0.857 857.
593. 1.065 1065.
608. 1.321 1321.
623. 1.640 1640.
638. 2.049 2049.
653. 2.594 2594.
668. 3.354 3354.
683. 4.496 4496.
698. 6.452 6452.
713. 11.037 11037.
727. 27.782 27782.
742. 48.154 48154.
757. 69.780 69780.
772. 91.646 91646.
787. 112.663 112663.
802. 129.808 129808.
817. 127.605 127605.
832. 119.405 119405.
847. 108.891 108891.
861. 97.114 97114.
876. 84.548 84548.
891. 71.470 71470.
906. 58.086 58086.
921. 44.603 44603.
936. 31.365 31365.
951. 19.533 19533.
966. 14.890 14890.
981. 12.436 12436.
995. 10.801 10801.
1010. 9.599 9599.
1025. 8.667 8667.
1040. 7.916 7916.
1055. 7.296 7296.
1070. 6.774 6774.
1085. 6.326 6326.
1100. 5.938 5938.
1115. 5.598 5598.
1130. 5.297 5297.
1144. 5.029 5029.
1159. 4.788 4788.
1174. 4.571 4571.
1189. 4.373 4373.
1204. 4.193 4193.
1219. 4.028 4028.
1234. 3.876 3876.
1249. 3.736 3736.
1264. 3.606 3606.
1278. 3.486 3486.
1293. 3.373 3373.
1308. 3.268 3268.
1323. 3.170 3170.
1338. 3.078 3078.
1353. 2.991 2991.
1368. 2.910 2910.
1383. 2.833 2833.
1398. 2.760 2760.
1412. 2.691 2691.
1427. 2.625 2625.
1442. 2.556 2556.
1457. 2.444 2444.
1472. 2.291 2291.
1487. 2.097 2097.
1502. 1.863 1863.
1517. 1.588 1588.
1532. 1.286 1286.
1546. 1.017 1017.
1561. 0.782 782.
1576. 0.579 579.
1591. 0.407 407.
1606. 0.267 267.
1621. 0.156 156.
1636. 0.076 76.
1651. 0.024 24.

*******************************************************************
RETURN PERIOD (years) = 100
DESIGN RAINFALL (mm) = 249
STORM DISTRIBUTION TYPE = 3
CURVE NUMBER (computed) = 75.8
LAG TIME (h) = 1.4
PEAK DISCHARGE (m^3/s) = 162.19
*******************************************************************
TIME DISCHARGE
(minutes) (cubic metres/sec) (litres/sec)

340. 0.001 1.
355. 0.003 3.
370. 0.010 10.
385. 0.022 22.
400. 0.041 41.
415. 0.071 71.
430. 0.112 112.
445. 0.165 165.
459. 0.231 231.
474. 0.311 311.
489. 0.405 405.
504. 0.516 516.
519. 0.646 646.
534. 0.798 798.
549. 0.974 974.
564. 1.181 1181.
579. 1.425 1425.

Page | 31
 593. 1.717 1717.
608. 2.074 2074.
623. 2.517 2517.
638. 3.083 3083.
653. 3.830 3830.
668. 4.863 4863.
683. 6.402 6402.
698. 9.005 9005.
713. 14.978 14978.
727. 36.028 36028.
742. 61.457 61457.
757. 88.347 88347.
772. 115.431 115431.
787. 141.326 141326.
802. 162.189 162189.
817. 159.006 159006.
832. 148.509 148509.
847. 135.206 135206.
861. 120.382 120382.
876. 104.616 104616.
891. 88.249 88249.
906. 71.537 71537.
921. 54.745 54745.
936. 38.313 38313.
951. 23.716 23716.
966. 18.058 18058.
981. 15.075 15075.
995. 13.088 13088.
1010. 11.630 11630.
1025. 10.498 10498.
1040. 9.587 9587.
1055. 8.835 8835.
1070. 8.201 8201.
1085. 7.658 7658.
1100. 7.188 7188.
1115. 6.776 6776.
1130. 6.411 6411.
1144. 6.086 6086.
1159. 5.794 5794.
1174. 5.530 5530.
1189. 5.291 5291.
1204. 5.073 5073.
1219. 4.873 4873.
1234. 4.689 4689.
1249. 4.519 4519.
1264. 4.362 4362.
1278. 4.216 4216.
1293. 4.080 4080.
1308. 3.953 3953.
1323. 3.834 3834.
1338. 3.722 3722.
1353. 3.617 3617.
1368. 3.518 3518.
1383. 3.425 3425.
1398. 3.336 3336.
1412. 3.253 3253.
1427. 3.174 3174.
1442. 3.090 3090.
1457. 2.955 2955.
1472. 2.770 2770.
1487. 2.535 2535.
1502. 2.251 2251.
1517. 1.920 1920.
1532. 1.554 1554.
1546. 1.230 1230.
1561. 0.945 945.
1576. 0.700 700.
1591. 0.492 492.
1606. 0.322 322.
1621. 0.189 189.
1636. 0.091 91.
1651. 0.029 29.

*******************************************************************
RETURN PERIOD (years) = 200
DESIGN RAINFALL (mm) = 293
STORM DISTRIBUTION TYPE = 3
CURVE NUMBER (computed) = 75.7
LAG TIME (h) = 1.4
PEAK DISCHARGE (m^3/s) = 199.26
*******************************************************************
TIME DISCHARGE
(minutes) (cubic metres/sec) (litres/sec)

296. 0.000 0.
310. 0.002 2.
325. 0.006 6.
340. 0.016 16.
355. 0.033 33.
370. 0.059 59.
385. 0.097 97.
400. 0.148 148.
415. 0.212 212.
430. 0.290 290.
445. 0.382 382.
459. 0.490 490.
474. 0.613 613.
489. 0.755 755.
504. 0.917 917.
519. 1.102 1102.
534. 1.314 1314.
549. 1.557 1557.
564. 1.840 1840.
579. 2.174 2174.
593. 2.571 2571.

Page | 32
 608. 3.054 3054.
623. 3.650 3650.
638. 4.407 4407.
653. 5.400 5400.
668. 6.766 6766.
683. 8.782 8782.
698. 12.156 12156.
713. 19.761 19761.
727. 45.748 45748.
742. 76.951 76951.
757. 109.833 109833.
772. 142.839 142839.
787. 174.243 174243.
802. 199.262 199262.
817. 194.894 194894.
832. 181.730 181730.
847. 165.209 165209.
861. 146.880 146880.
876. 127.441 127441.
891. 107.306 107306.
906. 86.790 86790.
921. 66.222 66222.
936. 46.154 46154.
951. 28.422 28422.
966. 21.621 21621.
981. 18.043 18043.
995. 15.661 15661.
1010. 13.913 13913.
1025. 12.557 12557.
1040. 11.466 11466.
1055. 10.565 10565.
1070. 9.806 9806.
1085. 9.157 9157.
1100. 8.593 8593.
1115. 8.100 8100.
1130. 7.663 7663.
1144. 7.274 7274.
1159. 6.925 6925.
1174. 6.610 6610.
1189. 6.323 6323.
1204. 6.062 6062.
1219. 5.823 5823.
1234. 5.603 5603.
1249. 5.400 5400.
1264. 5.212 5212.
1278. 5.037 5037.
1293. 4.874 4874.
1308. 4.722 4722.
1323. 4.580 4580.
1338. 4.446 4446.
1353. 4.321 4321.
1368. 4.202 4202.
1383. 4.091 4091.
1398. 3.985 3985.
1412. 3.885 3885.
1427. 3.790 3790.
1442. 3.690 3690.
1457. 3.529 3529.
1472. 3.308 3308.
1487. 3.027 3027.
1502. 2.689 2689.
1517. 2.293 2293.
1532. 1.856 1856.
1546. 1.468 1468.
1561. 1.129 1129.
1576. 0.835 835.
1591. 0.588 588.
1606. 0.385 385.
1621. 0.226 226.
1636. 0.109 109.
1651. 0.034 34.

Page | 33