Shasta Lake WWTF Floodplain Analysis-Final
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
APPENDIX I FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Date: June 11, 2014 To: Bibiana Alvarez and Ryan Lee Sawyer, Analytical Environmental Services From: Melanie Carr, MS, PE, Tarick Abu-Aly, MS, PE, Rafael Rodriguez, cbec Reviewed by Kevin Coulton, CFM, PE Project: 14-1008 Subject: City of Shasta Lake WWTF – Floodplain Analysis cbec, inc. eco engineering (cbec) was contracted by Analytical Environmental Services (AES) on behalf of the City of Shasta (City) to perform a floodplain analysis for the Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF). The purpose of this floodplain analysis is to evaluate the effect, if any, of proposed additional WWTF flows on localized floodplains by determining whether the proposed flows would contribute to either an increase in Water Surface Elevation (WSE) in Churn Creek or its unnamed tributary or expansion of the existing floodplain. cbec performed data collection and review, hydrologic analysis, and hydraulic modeling in support of this analysis. The results of the floodplain analysis indicate that the proposed additional WWTF flows will cause no increases to WSEs and floodplain extents at nearly all locations along the creeks and negligible increases (0.01- foot, 0.12-inch) at a limited number of locations. The following information has been developed in support of the floodplain analysis: • Background • Assumptions • Methods • Results and Discussion • Conclusion 1 Background The background section is comprised of Study Area Extents and WWTF Discharges. Study Area Extents The WWTF is located southwest of the City of Shasta Lake, on the right bank (western) side, downstream of the confluence of Churn Creek and Nelson Creek. The floodplain analysis was developed for Churn Creek and an unnamed tributary to Churn Creek proximal to the WWTF. The study area is shown in Figure 1. The WWTF has two discharge points: Discharge Point 001, located on the right bank approximately 100 feet downstream of the bridge on Churn Creek, and Discharge Point 002, which is located at the upstream end of the unnamed tributary to Churn Creek. The study was limited to approximately 500 feet upstream of the Discharge point 001, or 400 feet upstream of the bridge over Churn Creek near the WWTF. The downstream extent of the study is approximately 500 feet downstream of the confluence between Churn Creek and the unnamed tributary to Churn Creek. WWTF Discharges The WWTF treats and discharges effluent to Churn Creek at two locations: Discharge Point 001 and 002. Additional information regarding the WWTF is found in the WWTF Development Design Report (DDR) (Waterworks, 2013). The WWTF currently discharges at 10:1 dilution at Discharge Point 001, which is shown in Figure 1. WWTF staff read a stage gauge on the bridge pier upstream of Discharge Point 001 and use a rating curve to determine if sufficient flow is available for WWTF discharges to achieve the 10:1 dilution. If Churn Creek flows do not provide 10:1 dilution at the time of discharge, then flow is routed to effluent storage, until it can be land applied or discharged at Point 002. The City proposes to increase discharge flows at Discharge Point 001, and also cease discharge at Discharge Point 002. The concern is that the increased discharge flows might impact the floodplain. Additionally, infiltration and inflow (I&I) is a significant issue at the WWTF. When substantial rainfall occurs, runoff flows into the wastewater collection system to a large extent, thus exacerbating the effect of increased flows. ASSUMPTIONS The following assumptions were used in development of the WWTF Floodplain Analysis. The analysis would need to be revised upon changing any of the following assumptions: • Proposed discharge 001 will be located at the existing discharge 001 location • Discharge at 002 will be abandoned under the proposed condition 2 • The flow scenarios studied are based on regression equations derived from streamflow data for 10-year, 50-year, and 100-year return periods. • WWTF has minimal storage available. For purposes of this analysis, additional storage was assumed to be zero because during extreme wet years, antecedent moisture conditions would be saturated and it is likely that no storage would be available. This adds to the conservative nature of this analysis. • Hydraulic model output is valid only within the extent of the study area. • The effect of the WWTF flow on localized flooding is proximal to the WWTF. • The study does not include any upstream analysis near Lake Shasta. • This study does not include catastrophic levee failure of the storage pond, which is addressed elsewhere (SHN Consultants, 2001). It should be noted that the storage basin will be abandoned as part of the proposed project. METHODS Methods for developing the following components of the floodplain analysis are provided as follows: • WWTF Flows • Hydrology • Precipitation Analysis • Field Data Collection • HECRAS Model Development WWTF Flows The WWTF DDR and WWTF discharge data were reviewed to develop the existing and proposed WWTF discharges for the floodplain analysis. The WWTF Design Report summarized WWTF flows from 2006 to 2012, while the WWTF discharge data was from 1995 to 2014. Additional discharge data was reviewed based on the relatively dry years that have occurred in the past five or so years to obtain variation in I&I flows into the WWTF during wet years. Table 1 displays the existing and proposed WWTF flows. Existing condition flows were identified using historical WWTF data. The proposed condition flows were identified in the WWTF DDR. It should be noted that the maximum influent pump capacity is 10.4 mgd; however, this flowrate has never been measured at the WWTF, and it is an instantaneous maximum and would only occur for short durations of time, on the order of an hour or so. Therefore, this value was not used as the maximum daily flow through the WWTF. 3 Table 1. Existing and Proposed WWTF Discharge Flows Item Existing/ Proposed Type mgd cfs Condition Discharge 001 Existing Maximum daily 4.02 6.22 Flow flow Discharge 002 Existing Maximum daily 6.67 10.32 Flow flow Discharge 001 Proposed peak hourly flow 7.87 12.18 Flow (5,464 gpm for 24 hours) Discharge 002 Proposed Maximum daily 0 0 Flow flow Hydrology Hydrology was developed for both Churn Creek and the unnamed tributary to Churn Creek proximal to the WWTF. Hydrology was developed using Streamstats (USGS), which determines watershed area using GIS and uses regional regression equations based on local stream gauges to yield peak discharge. Table 2 provides the peak discharge for the 10-, 50-, and 100-year events. Table 2. Peak discharge for Churn Creek and Unnamed Tributary Watershed Watershed Percent Mean Peak Discharge, cfs Name Area Impervious Annual Precipitation (MAP) Sq. miles % inches 10-Year 50-Year 100-Year Churn Creek 7.8 3.5 57.3 2,290 3,990 4,990 Unnamed 0.8 4.5 50.1 364 662 840 Tributary The peak flows are estimates, and there is potential for error in these values. Therefore, two comparisons were made to verify the peak flows. Upon review of the FEMA Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for the City of Shasta Lake, the FEMA 100-year flow is 6,400 cfs at 8.1 square miles, or 790 cfs/sq. mile. Our estimate of peak flow is 4,990 cfs at 7.8 square miles if 640 cfs/sq. mile, which is within the reasonable range of flows. Additionally, an historical USGS streamflow gauge that is no longer active (USGS11372050) was evaluated. The minimal available data included an historic peak flow of 4,860 cfs, measured in 1959, which is very similar to our estimates. In summary, the hydrology developed for this analysis has been verified as reasonable by two independent sources. 4 It should also be noted that the focus of this study is to quantify the relative difference between existing and proposed conditions, and not absolute values. Precipitation Analysis The WWTF DDR included discharge flows from 2006 to 2012. An additional precipitation analysis was performed to determine whether the flows from 2006 to 2012 used in the WWTF design report were representative of flow conditions during a wet year. The Shasta Dam Precipitation Gauge (CDEC, SHA) and Redding Municipal Airport Precipitation Gauge (NOAA/ KRDD) data were evaluated. Mean annual precipitation (MAP) from these gauges was 61 inches (SHA) and 31.75 inches (KRDD), respectively. MAP from the Churn Creek watershed is 57.3 in, and therefore is more similar to Shasta Dam data. Data from the KRDD station were also used in the DDR report. KRDD data from the Redding airport exhibits drier conditions than Shasta Dam, and each are relatively the same distance from the area of interest. There are other nearby additional gauges that have started in recent years; however, these data were not used in the analysis due to their short length of record. Based on a review of the Shasta Dam rainfall data, 2010 rainfall was approximately a 10- Year Rainfall year, which means that substantial rainfall occurred that year. The remaining years used in the DDR report are some of the driest years on record. A 50- year rainfall year occurred during 1998; therefore, flow records from 1995 to present were evaluated to determine peak flow because they included high precipitation years that would have substantial I&I. However, it should be noted that the WWTF inflow might have been less during that time (15 years ago), and in future rainfall events, I&I could be slightly greater than historical data suggests. Field Data Collection Topographic and bathymetric data were collected to inform one-dimensional (1D) hydraulic modeling efforts for the proposed project. A detailed topographic survey was undertaken so that the existing conditions model and subsequent design iterations reflected current site conditions.