Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- <br />~ <br />~ <br /> <br />,- <br />'- <br /> <br />TABLE 3 <br /> <br />DITCH CAPACITY IN COMPARISON TO CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA <br /> <br /> Proportion Required Estimated <br /> Drainage Area Contribution Capacity <br />Location (-) (efs) (efs) <br />Above Chute: <br />DIS East Beaver 0.09 52 85 <br />U IS Craver Creek 0.46 280 230 <br />Bwtn Craver & W. Beaver 0.54 320 220 <br />DIS West Fork 0.83 500 400 1) <br />Below Chute: <br />W. Beaver Highline - 100 3) 100 4) <br />Goat Creek 0.132) 75 2) 50-75 4) <br />Galloway Creek 0.042) 25 2) 25-50 4) <br /> <br />Total <br />Potential <br />Flow <br />(efs) <br /> <br />400 <br /> <br />500 <br />575 <br />600 <br /> <br />1) Estimated capacity of 360 cfs, but reported capacity of 400 efs used as central <br />assumption. <br /> <br />2) Incremental contribution. <br /> <br />3) Diversion structure and highline canal capable of delivering 100 cfs based on measured <br />geometric data and hydraulic calculations. <br /> <br />4) Experience of ditch rider. <br /> <br />Examination of the results presented in Table 3 lead to the following conclusions: <br /> <br />o . The Gurley Intake Ditch is roughly sized proportionately from beginning to end to <br />accommodate the flows one could expect at each location if all watersheds were <br />running simultaneously with a total runoff rate of 600 cfs. <br /> <br />o The limiting section identified upstream of the Craver Creek diversion appears to <br />be a fairly minor constriction in the system which will probably be eliminated <br />through routine maintenance efforts. <br /> <br />6 <br />