Laserfiche WebLink
<br />NATURE AND ESTIMATE OF COST AND IMPROVEMENT <br /> <br />USGS topographic maps as well as aerial photos wen, <br />used in making field reconnaissance of the proposed study <br />area and in determining problem are~IS. <br /> <br />Quantities, along with present costs, were used to <br />develop an estimated engineers cost, Two percent was added <br />for mob i I i zati on, and 15 percent ',iiI'" added for. cClnt i ng''''c ,,'s <br />to obtain estimated construction cost, Engineering servicBs <br />and project administration are 14 and 17 percent, <br />respectively, of the construction cost. The estimated <br />i nsta I I at i on cost is the tota I of Uese costs [SEE TABL.ES <br />2~\, 2B, 2C, 20, 2E, 2F., 2GJ. Avera,;le annua I cost i nc I udes <br />operation and maintenance costs. <br /> <br />STRUCTURAL EFFECTS AND ECOI\IOMIC FEASIBILITY <br /> <br />The use of rock riprap, anchored trees, rock Jetties, <br />Jacks, vegetated buffer strips, vegetative sprig revetment, <br />and riparian zones are some of the treatment measures that <br />would be used to help stabi I ize the river banks, This 101' <br />allo\oo' continued production on hayl"nds, rangeland, and <br />pasture lands. These measures coula aiso protect <br />establ ished riparian areas from b,,;nq destroyed. Bridges <br />and diversion areas could be protected from the encroachment <br />of the eroding riverbeds. <br /> <br />Feasibi I ity analysis indicate that no alternatives ",ere <br />economioally feasible for proJect-..type action on any of thE! <br />sites in which agricultural land alone was being protected. <br />The costs to protect the sites were too excessive when <br />compared with the benefits received using proJect-type <br />methods of evaluation. Landowners ,;q- groups of landowners <br />I"ould not recoup their expendltur",s. Feasibility is shown <br />by comparing the annual benefits to the annual cost for each <br />alternative and for each site, <br /> <br />13 <br />