Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-4 - <br /> <br />. Sediment transport and grain size are linked to channel degregadation, incision, and channel . <br />narrowing, The DEIS found the following: <br /> <br />Table 5-30.-Comparative Ranking of Alternatives by Net Deposition in the Central Platte Habitat <br /> <br />Ranking (1 Equals Greatest <br />Deposition) <br /> <br />After 13 Years <br /> <br />After 61 Years <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />5 <br />6 <br /> <br />Water Leasing <br />Governance Committee, Scenario 2 <br />Water Emphasis <br />Wet Meadow <br />Present Condition <br /> <br />WateT Leasing <br />Wet Meadow <br /> <br />Governance Committee, Scenario 1 <br /> <br />Governance Committee, Scenario 2 <br />WateT Emphasis <br />Governance Committee, Scenario 1 <br />Present Condition <br /> <br />. The DEIS estimated channel width using the Sed Veg model results and the results are <br />presented below: <br /> <br />Table 5-32.-Summary of Differences in Width ofTotal Water From the Present Condition (Feet) <br /> <br />. <br /> <br /> River Mile <br /> Weighted Average <br />Alternative 310 to 247 247 to 234 234 to 206 206 to 167 167 to 160 for the Central <br />Platte Habitat <br /> Area* <br />Width oITatal Water at 13 Years** I <br />\Vidth of the Present 660 736 954 1455 1347 1149 <br />Condition <br />Governance <br />Conunittee, Scenario 15 -33 23 31 -84 7 <br />I <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 84 109 68 -77 71 <br />Water Leasing 45 ll3 III 82 -70 83 <br /> <br />Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Finance. Stream and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning <br />