FLOOD08888 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.( TIle environmental assessment indicates that a levee plan would eliminate a serious public health hazard, reduce potential pollution sources and protect human life. It would not impact upon any nation;'l park, wildlife refuge, or migration route, nor have an adverse affect on any rare or endangered plant or animal species. The plan would not lead to the rp.location of any residents, nor produce a discernible change in local life patterns. Aes thetic alterations would accrue to the construction of a levee" however, these impacts are no more un- acceptable than the periodic visual degradations produced by floodwater, mud, gravel, and silt on natural as well as man-made resources. There- fore, this plan is cons idered worthy of further inves tigation. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FURTHER As a result of preliminary investigations and cost estimates, the only alternative selected for further consideration was a levee system to protect the town of Holly from the sources of flooding. Table 6 displays a summary of alternatives along with the selected plan. Al- thou~l this project is not required to meet the WRC Principles and Standards this table provides a ready reference summary. Further inves- tigation of a levee system to establish the optimum scale of develop- ment is presented in the section "Selecting a Plan". SELECTING A PLAN Selecting the best levee plan of improvement to protect the town of Holly involved developing levee plans to protect against the dif- ferent sources of flooding and analyzing'them incrementally to arrive at the optimum scope of development. A levee plan to provide protection against floods originating on the Arkansas River and Two Hutte Creel\ was considered as s first added increment. This pIon, shown on Plote 4, as Plan I, comprises a levee located on the left bank of the Arkansas River and extending up the existing left bank levee on wild Horse Creek to an appropriate elevation. At tbe lower end an alternate levee alignment that would tie to high ground was also considered. Although this alignment, shown on Plate 4, as Plan lB, would provide flood pro- tection for additional crop land, the costs exceed the benefits for all degrees of protection. Therefore, this alignment was dropped from further consideration. Cost and benefit estimates for various degrees of protection were prepared, the results of which are presented in Table 2. Review of Table 2 reveals that costs exceed benefits for all degrees of protection; therefore, this plan is not economically feasible on a first-added basis. 12 ~