WSP06675 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

for recreation purposes and the ability to store irrigation waters at the tributary sites is questionable. Although irrigation storage is possible in the main stem reservoir, only the area downstream from Holly would derive benefits, Based on the above reasons, reservoirs are not considered to be a feasible solution, Increased protection could be provided by improving the existing channel capacities of Two Butte and Wild Horse Creeks and the Arkansas River. Channel improvement for the Arkansas River would cause severe negative environmental impacts including a reduction of wildlife habitat and populations, and an alteration of present ecosystems. Improvement of the existing Two Butte Creek channel would not reduce flooding in the town of Holly, Improvement of the Wild Horse Creek channel as shown on Plate 2, to provide Standard ProJect Flood protection to Holly would require excavation of a channel about 1,000 feet wide and lengthening two railroad bridges and highway bridge about 750 feet, AIno, ev,",n tholl/l,h 1.11" irnpr'ovemrmt was ,",onstructed, llol.Ly would rl'nlldn vulnerable to flooding from the Arkansas River, Conse'luently, chmulel improvement is not considered to be a practicable solution, Increased protection could be provided by diverting the source of flooding away from Holly, Since diversion of the Arkansas is imprac- tical, only the tributaries were considered. Diversion schemes in- vestigated for both Wild Horse and Two Buttes Creeks are shown on Plate 2. Preliminary investigations revealed that excessive costs would be encountered for all frequencies. To provide protection of standard pro,Ject magnitUde, the first costs of dJ.vert.ing Wild Horse and 'l'wo Blltte Cre"l,1100,000 and $,':),600,000, respecLlvcly, 16 . .