Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Table 2 reveals that costs exceed benefits for all degrees of protection. <br /> <br />therefore. this plan is not economicall~ feasible on a first added basis, <br /> <br />TABLE 2 <br /> <br />PLAN I <br /> <br />PROTECTION AGAINST FLOODS ON ARKANSAS RIVER & TWO BUTTE CREEK <br /> <br />FIRST ADDED INCREMENT <br /> <br /> Total Total <br /> Average Average <br /> Annual Annual Excess <br />Frequency Benefits Cost* Benefits B/C Ratio <br />25 4,200 29,300 -25,100 .14 <br />50 7,000 33.'700 -26,700 .21 <br />100 11,600 40,000 -28,400 .29 <br />SPF 30,300 54,500 -24,200 .55 <br /> <br />*Includes annual cost for operation and maintenance <br /> <br />A levee plan was also investigated to provide protection against <br /> <br />floods originating on Wild Horse Creek with coincident flows in the <br /> <br />Arkansas River as a first added increment, This plan, shown on Plate <br /> <br />4 as Plan II, comprises a levee located on the east bank of the Wild <br /> <br />Horse Creek and extending along the north bank of the Arkansas River <br /> <br />the same as Plan I. The levee along the Arkansas River is necessary <br /> <br />to preclude the combined flows from entering Holly from the south, <br /> <br />Provision of this levee also provides incidental protection against <br /> <br />the Arkansas and Two Butte Creek flows, The analysis of this plan <br /> <br />for various degrees of protection is presented in Table 3. Table 3 <br /> <br /> <br />shows maximwn excess benefits occurring at 100-year flood . <br /> <br /> <br />protectIon with a benefit cost ratio equal 1.85. <br /> <br />21 <br />