Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Increased protection could be provided by diverting the source <br />of flooding away from Holly. Since diversion of the Arkansas is im- <br />practical, only the tributaries were considered. Diversion schemes <br />inves tigated for both Wild Horse and Two Buttes Creeks are shown on <br />Plate 3. Preliminary investigations revealed that excessive costs <br />would be encountered for all frequencies. To provide protection <br />of standard project magnitude, the first costs of diverting wild Horse <br />and Two Butte Creeks would be $15,000,000 and $28,500,000, respectively. <br />Also, even though both diversions were implemented, Holly would remain <br />vulnerable to flooding from the Arkansas River. In view of this and <br />the high costs involved, diverting the source of flooding is not con- <br />sidered a feasible solution. <br /> <br />. Increased protection can be provided by constructing a barrier to <br />control the flooding at the point where damage occurs. Preliminary <br />investigations indicated that provision of a levee along the west bank <br />of Wild Horse Creek and the north bank of the Arkansas River would <br />effectively isolate Holly from flooding from all three sources of <br />flooding. preliminary costs es timates revealed this solution to be <br />feasible and worthy of further consideration. <br /> <br />Because of the nature of possible flooding that can occur in Holly, <br />there does not appear to be a practical combination of nonstructural <br />and structural solutions. It has been shown earlier in this section <br />that non-structural measures do not provide an economical solution to <br />the problem at Holly. Studies indicate that combining these measures <br />with structural improvement have essentially the same result. However, <br />if the flood plain area in the town of Holly cannot be provided with <br />a high degree of flood protection by structural measures, appropriate <br />flood plain regulations should be considered. <br /> <br />The "no improvement" alternative would forego any additional flood <br />protection for Holly. If no improvements were developed for flood <br />protection, the ever present threat of floods will have a negative impact <br />on the social well-being of the people and the economy of Holly. In <br />the face of the indicated problems and needs as well as local support <br />for improvement, the realism of this alternative is not appsrent. <br /> <br />Assessment of the social, economic, and environmental effects of <br />all the alternative measureS are presented in Tanle 1. <br /> <br />ENVIRONMENTAL . QUALITY PLAN <br /> <br />The environmental quality plan must meet the planning objective, <br />prevention or reduction of flood damages at Holly, while making the <br />most significant contribution to preserving, maintaining, restoring, or <br />enhancing the cultural and natural resources of the study area and <br />cause the least adverse environmental impact. These parameters have <br />been studied carefully for the Holly project and a levee plan would <br />qualify as the Environmental Quality Plan. <br /> <br />11 <br />