Laserfiche WebLink
INSERT Not contiguous text <br />Using summary tables 5-28 and 5-29, the alternatives were ranked with respect to each other; in <br />table 530, at each reach in the Cooperative Agreement study area. The highest-ranked <br />alternative had consistently large volumes of net deposition, or aggrading conditions, across <br />more reaches. <br />Table 5-30.-Comparative Ranking of Alternatives by Net Deposition in the Central Platte Habitat <br />Ranking (1 Equals Greatest <br />Deposition) After 13 Years After 61 Years <br />1 Water Leasing Water Leasing <br />2 Governance Committee, Scenario 2 Wet Meadow <br />3 Water Emphasis Governance Committee, Scenario 2 <br />4 Wet Meadow Water Emphasis <br />5 Present Condition Governance Committee, Scenario 1 <br />6 Governance Committee, Scenario 1 Present Condition <br />Insert Not contiguous text <br />Table 5-32.-Summary of Differences in Width of Total Water From the Present Condition (Feet) <br /> River Mile <br /> Weighted Average <br /> for the Central <br />Alternative 310 to 247 247 to 234 234 to 206 206 to 167 167 to 160 <br /> Platte Habitat <br /> Area* <br />Width of Total Water at 13 Years** <br />Width of the Present 660 736 954 1455 1347 1149 <br />Condition <br />Governance <br />Committee, Scenario <br />1 15 -33 23 31 -84 7 <br />Governance <br />Committee, Scenario 49 79 109 70 -76 71 <br />2 <br />Water Emphasis 63 130 30 145 -77 86 <br />Wet Meadow 26 84 ] 09 68 -77 71 <br />Water Leasing 45 113 111 82 -70 83