3
AUG
1972
YTT
ENGINEERING
TECHNICAL
FI
REPORTS
jOS_.J1ECPffitPIL
INFORMATION
SYSTEM
DATA
RET
RENT
I
TEXTS
AWARENESS
Notes
Field
Numbers
5
6
May-June
1972
Proceedings
Divisions
Engineering
Meeting
Washington
I
September 27
L
ýpEST
Sfm..U$
-
October 11971
-
FOREST
SERVICE
U.S.
DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
ENGINEERING FIELD NOTES
This
publication
The
is
a monthly
among Forest
ideas
is
publication
in the
material
newsletter
Service
not
intended
be exclusive
to
all
publication
published
to
exchange
and
Engineering information
personnel.
engineers
However
for engineers.
technicians
and engineering
because
of
the type
of
read each monthly
should
issue.
The
publication
Center
provide
to
would
the
It
all
like
number
issues
Office
directly
Offices
all
to
Adequate
Forest
Regional
are printed
copies
If you are not now receiving
a personal copy.
a personal copy and
Coordinator to increase
ask your Office Manager or the Regional Information
Use form 7100-60
for this purpose.
copies sent to your office.
Copies of back
of
that the
from the Washington
material
Office
and
can be ordered
on
form 7100-60.
Field Notes be primarily written
and used by Forest
material from other publications may be used.
the
in
however
Engineers
Field
from the Washington
and Research
Laboratory
who wish
one
intended
is
distributed
Area
also available
are
Service
is
Station
and cannot
contain mandatory instructions
always be informative
from
several
an
article
sentences
to several
policy.
length
may vary
typewritten
Material
need
not
be
written
or
is
or edited before
typed
neatly
acceptable
printed
pages.
Field
Note material should
The
or
being
submitted
camera
Each
copy
Region
to
of
to
has
Office.
The Washington Office will edit and prepare
format and allowable
space.
the Washington
accommodate
our
an Information
Coordinator
and material for publication.
questions
The
whom field personnel
Coordinators are
R-1
R-2
R-4
R-5
Information
contained
in
R-6
Kjell Bakke
Dan Roper
R-8
R-9
Ernest Quinn
Fleet
R-10
Gerald Coghian
Alfred
R-3
interpretation
or use
of
WO
Paletti
Clifford Hill
Stan
Bean
has been developed for the guidance
Forest Service
its contractors
and
report
Department of Agriculture
The
Federal and State agencies.
U.S.
the
Buerger
Stanton
Chuck
this
submit both
should
to
this
-
Department
information
of
assumes
Agriculture
by other than
its
the
of
its
employees
of
the
cooperating
no responsibility
for
own employees.
names is for the information and convenience
of
trade firm or corporation
Such use does not constitute an official evaluation conclusion
recommendation
endorsement or approval of any product or service to the exclusion of others which may
The
the
be
use
of
reader.
suitable.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
FOREST SERVICE
WO
REPLYTO
SUBJECT
1360 Meetings
7100
WO
RO
and
-
Area Directors
wish
of
Forest
in a
trust
will
facing
of
Enclosure
Proceedings
of
the
in
Washington
and
D.C.
Washington
and
to
identify
receive
our
these
between
problem
Office
Regional
during
the week
of
in
Engineering
and
areas
among
top management
and Regional
the
action
related
Divisions of
Washington
plans
that
and
should
organization.
Proceedings
organization. Where
Engineering
information
share
of the Washington
representatives
communication
improve
HOWLETT
Director
of the Meeting
Participants
which was held
Meeting
and
and appreciated.
M. R.
the
and
more responsive engineering
you
problems
you
Foresters Directors
Regional
of this meeting were to
Service
Offices
Regional
result
Uý$
1971.
primary purposes
the
Engineering
I
with
Meeting
1971
Supervisors
Engineering
27
September
in
Forest
share
to
Divisions
The
1
October
Chief Division Directors
Deputy
I
of Engineering
Divisions
27
September
ro.
May 15 1972
in
action
order
is
to
gain
suggested
a better
insight
your support
is
to
key
requested
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
FOREST SERVICE
WO
REPLY
TO.
SUBJECT
1360 Meetings
May 22 1972
_7100
WO
RO
and
TO.
and
quality
decisions
while
objectives
at
minimum
produce
however
I
that
this
suggest
JOHN
Chief
confident
R.
us
which
see
carry out
that
that
We
Forest
quality programs
that
have
establishment
redeem
to
key assignments
To do
Service
of priority
our
total
relating
public
increased
to
this our engineers with full support
works
resources
financial
meet public needs
the
the
require
engineered
all
and
personnel
will
will
of balance.
time
established
Service.
are
and
once
the
at
and demands. This
will
out
carried
is
with
same
no easy
task
itself
again distinguish
a
time
by
challenge.
we
by the following
reported
interested
Engineerings
a
must
officers
end products
am
of
Forest
the
sense
same
the
of
meeting
deeply
ahead
expenditure
I
meeting
The
line
to
and pollution abatement.
timber production
their
lie
maintaining
and
responsibilities
from
UýS
ýJ
Recipients
are essential
projects
hard
Meeting
1971
demands on our limited resources have
increasing
Some
1
and Proceedings
Participants
Ever
of Engineering
Divisions
27 -October
September
in
the issues
devote
efforts
McGUIRE
the
to
covered
necessary
resolve
proceedings
and look
time
the identified
to
was well timed
forward
review
issues.
and
essential.
to
their satisfactory
these
proceedings
I
am
resolution.
and
support
F
E
I
D
L
N
0
E
T
S
FOREWORD
From
modest
its
become
engineering
for the
engineering
and better
This
been more
In
years the
previous
WASHO
Officials
engineering.
no longer
thin
exceedingly
abatement
involving
quality
the
adequate.
whereby
At the
Regions and the
of
time
The
a .meetin agenda.
leading
panels
mission
been a
identified
agenda was drawn
in
up
create
Service.
and problems were
In an effort
areas of mutual
these concerns
a
way
concern.
A
concerns
were
or action
plans
held as planned.
were
statements
and to
and problems into
that selected
The meeting was
problem
Concise
identified.
growing
a
called.
for definitions of the problems and recommendations
towards solutions of these problems.
others
and proper
rightful
to
the Forest
certain
such
pollution
many
and land managers for more
meeting was
Office structured
for
have been
improve communications
to
a Service-wide
Office
in
and
Service
vehicle
or
construction
combined
have
Forest
forum
facilities
Service engineers
and problems
to the Washington
detailers
assigned to
Washington
as road
Highway
State
time and budgets
there has
conditions
for problem solutions
avenues
explore
talent
this
campground
same
part of the public Forest
understand these concerns
that
programs such
and uneasiness about the engineering
better
of
Office and Regional
Washington
apparent
buildings
These
changes.
Association
Western
apparent.
and sideways
upwards downwards
Engineering
by on-going
facilities.
become
has
these
need for
the
specialized
engineers
Service
Forests. As
and discuss problems regarding
increasingly
facilities.
engineered
concern
group
as
Forest
of the Services
support
National
of rapid technological
a forum
concerns
permits
use
special
engineered
demand on
The
is
among
meeting of the
become
has
It
communication
stretched
annual
been used
has
the
and more
of information
exchange
of
diversified
than in these days
communicate
could
engineers
to
vital
in
Service has
Forest
1970s
the
In
activities
and development
communication
Service-wide
the
and complex.
the
in
engineering
diversified
become more
have
communication
has never
of widely
administration
activities
1900s
early
sophisticated
a multitude
covers
objectives
more
more
significantly
the
in
beginning
Concerns
and action
prepared
plans recommended.
It
is
intended
that
recommendations
Engineering
analysis
making
Beyond
these proceedings
expressed
meeting.
It
is
and synthesis of the
specific
all
developing
this
commitments
it
is
at
also
this
Office
Washington
intended
findings
that
of the
various
hoped that these proceedings
mission
of the Forest
v
Regional
panels
Office
record
and
problems
give
and
Divisions of
the post-meeting
the
rationale
for
the panels recommendations.
will serve
so vitally
Service.
-
the concerns
these proceedings
and decisions regarding
and improving communications
the engineering
and document
record
needed
as
a bridge
in effectively
and
a
vehicle
for
accomplishing
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Transmittal
of Proceedings
Memorandum from
i
Chief
iii
Foreword
Table
List
v
of Contents
vii
of Attendees
ix
xi
Agenda
Summary
The
of Remarks
Managerial
Summary
Impacts
by C.A. Shields
1-4
Environment
of Remarks
of Recent
by L.M. Whitfield
5-10
Legislation
11-12
Discussion
Summary
of Remarks
by J.R. McGuire
Message from the Chief
13-14
15-22
Discussion
Summary of Remarks
Multiple-Use
by C.W. Rupp
23-31
Planning
32-35
Discussion
Summary of Remarks by M.R. Howlett
Direction for Engineering
Summary
of Remarks
Discussion
Forest
Service
37-42
by R.P. McRorey
Public Works Construction
General
in
Monday
and Management
September
43-46
47-57
27
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- Continued
Page
Summary of Remarks
V.M. DeKalb
M.J.
Multidiscipline
by C.W.
Rupp
T.B.
Glazebrook
Hassell
Planning
Teams
59-89
.
90-94
Discussion
Panel.
Reports
-
Panel
1
FRT
Panel
2
Pollution
Panel
3
Engineering
Panel
4
Geometronics
Panel
5
Inspector
Panel
6
Equipment
Panel
7
Special
Panel
8
Transportation
Panel
9
Materials Engineering
Panel
10
Training and
Panel
11
Construction
General
Discussion
95-96
Programming
..
Abatement
97-98
99-100
Quality
Technological
101-102
Improvements
Certification
Development
103
and Equipment Management
105-106
107-108
Use Impacts
..
113-114
Manpower Development
115-116
Impact of Pollution Abatement
117-118
Thursday
September
Panel
Reports
-A
Panel
Reports
- Priorities Decisions
Review
109-111
System Operation
30
119
and Discussion
120-137
and Follow-up Action
viii
.
138-139
LIST
A.
Chiefs Office
H.R. Bryant
R. Carder
C.C. Chandler
Watershed
Management
Legislative
Affairs
Administrative
Management
J.W.
Deinema
Associate
T.B.
Glazebrook
Watershed Management
M.J.
Hassell
S.P.
Hughes
G.M.
Leonard
R.P.
McRorey
J.R. McGuire
C.W. Rupp
C.A.
Shields
L.M. Whitfield
B.
OF ATTENDEES
Division
M.R.
of Engineering
Howlett
Chief
Deputy
Affairs
Legislative
Watershed Management
Timber Management
Associate
Deputy
Associate
Chief
National
Forest
Associate
System
Chief
Deputy
Affairs
Legislative
- Washington
Chief
Office
Director
Division of Engineering
R.P. Allison
Geometronics Cartographer
O.D. Bockes
Systems Development Geometronics
O.A. Broadway
Equipment
Management
L.D.
Bruesch
Chief Highway
H.L.
Cappleman
Water Resource
A.L.
Colley
Management
H.
Coorsh
J.H. Daly
J.F.
C.F.
D.L.
F.J.
Dixon
Dwyer
Hahn
Hammond
Electrical
Engineer
Engineer
Engineer
Recruitment
Engineer Technical
Aerial
Tramways
Solid Waste
Management
Management
Engineer
Engineer
Systems Development
D.L.
Materials Engineer
Engineer
- Computers
R.O. Mahan
Geometronics Engineer
L.E. Matson
Equipment Management Engineer
E.C.
Neumann
Highway
T.R.
Nielsen
Chief Highway
A. Pelzner
Development
Geometronics Cartographer
J.D. Hogan
Jones
Engineer
Structures Engineer
Safety
Engineer
Design
Chief Materials Engineer
B.Y.
Richardson
Equipment Development
R.W.
Rhodes
Landscape Architect
ix
-
Engineer
Roadside
Controls
LIST
P.W. Simmons
J.M.
Sirmon
D.L.
Sirois
H.L.
Strickland
Continued
Geometronics Engineer
-
Operations
Engineer
Mechanical
Engineer
Assistant Director
of Engineering
J.R. Swinnerton
Chief Geometronics Engineer
H.T.
Taylor
Assistant Director
D.B.
Trask
Chief Transportation
S.J.
Wilcox
Chief Construction
Weller
Assistant Director
C.R.
C.
-
OF ATTENDEES
of Engineering
Division
Region
- C.A.
1
Miller Regional
F.M. Burbank
R.
- Regional
of Engineering
Analysis Engineer
and Maintenance
Engineer
of Engineering
Office
Engineer
Equipment Development
Center
Landman
B. Meinders
G.W.
Region
L.A.
Region
Roberts
2
-
R.W.
Hepfl
Wilke
Regional
Engineer
Jr.
3
C.E. Carnahan
D.
Logan
D.F.
Roper
D. Jordon
Region
R.
4
- J.M.
Usher
Regional
Engineer
Larse
D. Loff
Region
C.
5
-
D.C.
Turner
Howard
J.D.
Regional
Engineer
Equipment Development
Center
Kennedy
W.E. Furen
W.R.
L.J.
Kinworthy
Stern
V.M. DeKalb
Region
6
-
W.W.
Transportation
Gano
Regional
Engineer
R.R. Chamard
B.B. Plath
T.E.
Utterback
x
System Planning
Project
LIST
Region
J.W.
8
- J.A. Adams
OF ATTENDEES
Regional
Lamb
- Continued
Engineer
F. Ferrarelli
Region
9
-
F.E. Curfman
G.R. Scherrer
N.G. Sears
Region
10
C.C.
Ketcham
Regional
Engineer
AGENDA
Regional
and Washington
-
October
SPEAKER
TOPIC
Monday
27
9/27
-
Conference
Room South
Chet Shields
Impacts of Recent
Larry Whitfield
Message from the Chief
Use Planning
Multiple
Direction
in
1971
and/or
Building
Associate
McGuire
Craig
Rupp NFS
Room
Deputy
Director
John
LEADER
DISCUSSION
3840-46
Chief
of Legislative
Affairs
Chief
for Engineering
Forest
Public
1
Agriculture
Management Environment
Legislation
Meeting
D.C.
Washington
September
of Engineering
Divisions
Service
Myles R. Howlett Director
of
Engineering
Works Construction
Management
General
Russel P.
Discussion
xi
McRorey
Associate
Deputy
Chief
AGENDA - Continued
SPEAKER
TOPIC
Tuesday 9/28
- Conference
Multidiscipline Planning
Room. South
Teams
Craig
Tom
Vic
M.J.
Multidiscipline Planning
and/or
Agriculture
LEADER
DISCUSSION
Building
Room
3840-46
Rupp NFS
Glazebrook
DeKaib
Hassell
Director Watershed
Project Leader
Programs
Management
TSPP
Legislation
Teams
continued
Panel
Sessions see panel
schedule
meeting
session
for assignments
and
room
Wednesday 9/29
Panel
Sessions
Thursday 9/30
Panel
Sessions
Panel
Reports
Room 813
Frida
Panel
Plaza C. Rosslyn
Harold Strickland
Assistant Director
of Engineering
Harold Strickland
Assistant Director
of Engineering
10/1
Reports
-A
and Discussion
Review
xii
SCHEDULE
130-430
9/28 Tuesday
R
T
Programing
FOR PANEL
SESSIONS
Geometronics
-
Technological
R.
Larse Chairman R-4
J.
F.
Ferrarelli R-8
R.
Swinnerton
R.
Chamard R-6
O.
Bockes
F.
Hammond WO
Rm
C.
Hogan Chairman
Abatement
WO
WO
Adm.
Chandler
Rm
702-703 Rosslyn
Pollution
830-1230
9/29 Wednesday
813 Plaza
C
WO
WO
Rosslyn
and Inspector
Contracting
Improvements
Certification
Program
J.
Kennedy
Chairman R-5
Chairman R-1
G. Roberts
J.
Lamb R-8
D.
J.
Meade
Admin. Services Rep.
R-2
H. Smallwood
D.
Hahn
Rm
WO
WO
D. Jones
Rm
704 Rosslyn
Quality
Roper R-3
of Results
in
Engineering
WO
WO
702-703 Rosslyn
Equipment Development
and Equipment
Management
T. Utterback
Chairman R-6
R-9
G.
Scherrer
D.
Jordon R-3
Rm
WO
100-430
9/29 Wednesday
B.
Use Impacts
Winders Chairman R-1
WO
WO
Cappleman
S. Hughes WM WO
C. Dwyer WO
Recreation
Rep.
H.
Rm
813 Plaza
F.
Burbank
WO
3840 So. Building
Special
Howard Chairman
O.
Timber Management Rep.
T. Nielsen
C.
C
Rosslyn
EDC San
Dimas
EDC Missoula
Broadway WO
Rm
704 Rosslyn
9/30 Thursday 830-1200
Training
Manpower Development
D.
Loff Chairman R-4
E.
Kinworthy R-5
N.
Sears R-9
R.
Landman
R-1
J. Sirmon WO
Rm 702
Xiii
703 704
Rosslyn
SCHEDULE
Transportation
FOR PANEL
System Operation
SESSIONS
- Continued
Impact of Pollution
Construction
Abatement
D. Trask
Chairman
F.
Ferrarelli R-8
E.
Neumann
S.
Wilcox
Rm
WO
WO
WO
702-703 Rosslyn
B.
Plath Chairman R-6
A. Colley
Recreation
Rm
W. Furen Chairman R-5
Stern R-5
WO
WO
A. Pelzner
D. Jones
Rm
Rep.
813 Plaza
Materials Engineering
L.
WO
Admin. Services Rep.
704 Rosslyn
xiv
WO
WO
C Rosslyn
THE MANAGERIAL ENVIRONMENT
this
appreciate
I
about
the
facing
use
in
longer
roads
-
Administration
Regional
Deputy
Associate
Shields
Office
Chief for
Washington
27 1971
pollution
not
will
up
alternatives
land
unacceptable
Neither
such
well
clean
will
setting
or
capitalism
as
The System
we
because
are
here and in other countries.
and
Office
of
Divisions
to plan
may be
cetera
or
practices.
or
about
or find suitable
big polluters
all
no
are
adequate
alone
unaccepted
scapegoats
technology
A.
C.
et
but alarm
management
up
systems
problems we
the
solve
alarm
environment
current
concerns
so
or
have
tomorrows problems.
clear-cutting
to
to
growing
the
10 years
only
and surely not
solutions to
justified
of the
of our managerial
adequate
today
The
of some
light
Many
us.
some
face
the
in
today
we
climate
management
to you
to talk
opportunity
mans
Western
Engineering
on a
concentrate
to
ability
concen-trate
Meeting
September
Washington
and
problem
D.C.
But
progress.
has
produced
officials
government
The
the
scientists
who
contributes
result
painful
process
broad context
house
will
will
have
been
the
successful
way we
in
using
which
focuses
collide
with the principle of unity.
aims by
their
attention
own
count the
who
total
can
their
to
and
focus
their jurisdiction.
of
society.
We
are
in
costs of our inventions
consider
problems
early warning of unintended
give
has
material
a
in
harmful
side
advances.
management
us.
We
cannot
shaped
escape our
to influence
to
need integrators
be able to
is
of
ability
outside
and fragmentation
growing disunity
the big problems facing
that
continue
We
and who
we
ignore
solved
is
way
this
precisely
what
it
the
in
about problems outside
care enough
of expanding our horizons
of technological
One of
do not
to the
and systems. Increasingly
effects
and managers who
persist
much
contributed
until
on
see
an
individual
We
in
the Forest
earlier
ourselves
have
is
that
we
are
in
the
development and experiences they
and the way we deal with one another.
organization
or
Service
groups
based
of
on functional
activities
but
it
specialization
is
beginning
been allowing functions to pursue
their
to
own
lights.
1
y
One
result
the
predict
impacts
will
Your
we
-
and
our
optimize
since
specifying
we
a group
goals
the
span
to
trying
professionalism and
not
or
it
statement.
are
in
Im
organization.
and actions
concerns
-
of a professional
a noble
is
of the
rest
range
you
sure
to
difficult
it
see
this
of our functions
and
management
provide
systems
efforts.
to admit
like
definition
service
the
share some of our
you no doubt
Whether
on
since your responsibilities
happening
which
of one
of what
paint the correct picture
to
struggling
our organization. Worse yet we find
and operate
finance
to
required
is
today we find ourselves
that
is
the
It invites
pursuit
to
you
and
criteria
behooves
it
determine
to
on
is
trial.
a spirit of public
in
art
count the costs of your proposed actions
of many professions
objectives
use of technology
its
of a learned
the
us
work
to
good for the
greatest
in
together
greatest
number.
experimenta-tion
Managements
in
job
and systems which
with
several
end that a
own
the
Forest
Service
enhance
will
this
organizational
engineering
you
organizations
put
to land
have
of job combinations
the kinds
together
A
example
current
to improve
concepts
fragmented approach
less
to
is
teamwork.
is
and planning
coordination
management
the latitude
will
Even
result.
break out
to
our
the
to
within
your
of inter-professional
functionalism.
The
solution
many of
to
our
toward quality management
must
to ensure that
arrangements
The McKinsey
the
better
was
since
specialists
decision-making
then
first
and have
at
but
not
less
of the
use
and
organizational
necessary
some
the job
to
that
recognition
organizational
Ahead
still
your Regional
path
communications
have
a
long
were a
level
to go.
Service must
in
make
have added thousands of
changes
way
move
which was made
the Forest
gone a long way toward integrating
we
Our
specialist.
and certainly our management
the best use of our specialists.
substantial
We made
process
you made
changes
our
of specialists.
use
the
we make
report Gearing the Organization
1950s
late
more
is
more specialization
for
make
and
fact
this
accept
problems
calls
The
their
recent
to encourage
into the
talents
organizational
a higher
degree
of
expertise and technical leadership.
An
change
organizational
shapes
us
needed.
In
and grow
the
people
selecting
or
is
not
enough
recruit
meantime work
-
but
if
much
We
development
plateau
current
stop
the
of technical
- maybe
to
talent
on
-
provide
and we
change
takes time to
will
the
level
of
skill
the house that
and leadership
no doubt make some
mistakes
in
we keep them in focus tomorrows
better manned.
leadership.
a kind
goes
It
itself.
our objectives are good and
organization will be
cant
the
in
process
We
of our
must
of senior engineers
specialists
provide
them
update program
careers.
2
when
with
at
they
reach
opportunities
various
intervals
the
to
first
keep
in their
We
must improve our system of
we
that
encourage
controlled
mans
by the
evaluate
adequately
our best men.
We
supervisor.
and
talent
of
identification
and advance
not
these
we
lines
are
currently
more
our
if
be
left
to chance
so
or totally
feedback
effective
who
on the
promote
to be meaningful.
Along
cant
This
must have
must be improved
system for accountability
and selection for promotion
talent
knows who system.
Our
manpower development programs
the
investigating
to
systems
are
of technical information
kinds
recommenda-tions
needed
systems
awareness
for
all
A
program.
on the kind
One
our professionals.
task
force was
about a one-year
and could
study
Chief to develop
by the
appointed
of technical information
a system would be a current
aspect of such
system the Forest
constitute
a major step
Service needs. This will be
forward
improving the
in
quality of decisions.
Another
When
we
realities.
cetera
to
challenge
say
The
talents
This
The
who
earlier
doing
the
cant
much
much
new
job
keep
many
asking
within
we
flak
do
advice
criticism
have
attitude
of despair
out
of
legal
What
these
now
are
the hallmark
local
points
of our Rangers
for
a subsidiary of a Boise-Cascade
and
by the best executive
is
now
represented
but
by
legal talent
full-time
top
with the
deal directly
government.
of the
There
We
on the part of management.
or Supervisors
Rangers
et
the ranks so that
has been one of our strong
This
is
the
this.
shoes
tennis
to involve
desire.
latitude
sawmill
in
involvement
through
of our
or more
do
concerns.
chambers
requirements
ways to operate
see
know
even
voluntary
decision-making
We
and imagination
and managed
Districts
old lady
the highest
in
administrative
involvement.
public
order within
cant
a
kind of closeness to the people was
little
dont
policymakers
Our
and mutual
on many Ranger
America.
this
all
time maintain
order to
The once home-owned
years.
operating
in
on general
ages.
to monitor
and develop
take creativity
with
the phrase sounds a lot simpler than
been proud of our working relationships with our constituents and
have always
many
will
is
the same
at
expertise of the highest
communities
the
management
and
of dealing
the question
is
the people
to self-flagellation
This
frustration.
over
for
against fact
it
must develop
We
to listen to
challenge
weigh
we dont succumb
and
management
we want
public
such
others
hasnt
as
afoot
Our
adequate.
environmental
moves
strong
been
to
current
statements
include
the
arent
public
in
processes.
we done
have
new
arrangements.
for independent
frustration than
to deserve
any
It
action
this We
isnt going
taken
must instead
to be easy
away. Engineers
other profession in the Service as
we
explore
or painless
to
will
as
suffer
adjust to these
influences.
Maybe you
preached
can
also
be our strongest
that our actions
have
leaders
pronounced
in
adjusting to
impacts
3
this
change.
You
have
always
and influence on an economy bigger
immediate
our
than-
the
understanding
employees
them
use
statements
we
yet as
not
is
your
of a
from
input
We
intended.
have
all
We
to learn concerning
a lot
of our
is
only
every
to be
and administration.
policy
a process to allow public involvement.
are
not
skills
to
applied
few but
select
analytical
concerning
be
also
the final outcome
into influencing
a responsibility
to matters
also
can
insight
processes must allow meaningful
management
Service
Environmental
to.
matters but
technical
move
they
as
Service
and the Service needs
responsibility
appliedto
Forest
Forest
same
This
operation.
stand
publics
the
Managing
actions.
of
areas
of
us.
havent learned
and timely
effective
public involvement.
USDA
Our the
ects
projects
or organizations
Iowa
have
we
because
wildlife
facilitate
this
us
shapes
on the contrary we
engineers
advise
can
could
originator
are
architects
biologists landscape
which
interest
have
not
broader
and
see
the
The
see.
look-see
our
on other agencies
statements
countrys way of broadening the context by which the
We are not asked to review a road job in Podunk
weighed.
this
is
of these projects
impacts
environmental
responsibility in reviewing
actions
our works
a
We
about
much
in
other
broader
effects
the
Forest
fields
the
of
project
Service
is
to
of the house that
get out
and
both environmentally
context
we
because
it
skills in certain
side
in
words
review
to
have
of management
challenge
in
cetera.
decision-maker
final
at
et
asked
are
economically.
More
be
will
to develop
it
In
this
closing
Managerial
systems
products
process
ways
procedure
criticism
of
resulting
come
arrange
ourselves
out
to
the
Forest
We
suggestions
but
I
urge
tool and not
coordinating
to get
a
is
much
like
a job
you
curse
are
for
Service
in
hard
working
are
still
in
the evolutionary
overall
progress and
the
solution
every
to
area.
improve.
to
all
We
all
our
ills
seek
nor can
a
better
Lets turn the energy
point
to
product
we
use in
improvements.
your work groups
improve our management
Mans
ourselves.
knows
ourselves
revolution.
social
of himself. The same can be
We
done.
our
values and concerns.
our social
reflection
concerned
with
investigation
your meeting is
recommendations
for
in
improvement. I know
of
your meeting
a few may be more advanced than others our
of managing
or design.
than
are but
determined by forces bigger than
improved
to
way we
in
in
this
environment
managerial
arts his systems et cetera
one person
Most
the
are on a whole no better
and although
are
pace
No
his
for the
said
later
tape.
would-say
I
statements
and help to properly use
philosophy
name of red
the
in
about environmental
said
and
systems.
I
of problem
some
welcome any recommendations
The environment
4
is
ripe
for
areas
concrete
hopefully
proposals
concerning
suggestions.
will
ways
IMPACTS OF RECENT LEGISLATION
The
ý
on your
of
Recent
Impacts
x
about the
talk
ts.
area
we
but
consider
talk
is
When
Legislation.
legislative
important that
my
for
agenda
title
we
think
I
not
is
it
recent
only
di-rectly
legislation
pending
also
probably most
think
affected
that
of
you
by
recent
you
with what might become law.
I
legislation
are possibly
would
like
to
I
dont
think
to
talk
about
about both because
to you
talk
more
are
than
today
become law
has
I
legislation.
you can separate them.
In
about this
talking
the legislative
concerned
t
want
I
activity
We
about.
we
in the area that
are
concerned
are
of
envi-ronment
deal with the
with things that
course
conserva-Office
we
Legis-lative
M.
L.
Director Division
Whitfield
Regional
Meeting
Engineering
questions
- Washington
Reporting and Liaison
and
of
Divisions
Office
September
of
27 1971
of
all
these are
common
of
the
concerned
and
as
we
think
has
should
opened
for
concern
the
lot
of people
other
effect
it
side
picture
interest
in environment
areas.
I
would say
concern seems to express
deals with in the real
pending
and that
many more that
of the
interested
The consequences
is
concerned
very
mixed up. Since
is
they
you
in
activity
active.
very
characterize
can
this
The
are
be pending
concerned
I
now
area
public
about conservation
represented
will
have to say generally
also
of those
most of the
concern
the
as
think
I
a kind
in
together
very
is
and ecology
think Congress
and reflected by the many
in
at
is
bills
times to come.
that this activity
is
going to be beneficial.
It
it.
On
knowledge
all
pot.
mind that
publics
in
concerned and areas which have held our
up areas with which we are now
that we can respond
of
Its
beneficial
to the extent
a number
years.
to
positively
this
to that
become law and
that
environment
their
they have
responsive
very
I
about
say
I
stirred
legislative
least
the
in
ecological
with
concerned
are
tion and we find
D.C.
Washington
we
with
concerned
are
are
of
all
pretty
this
great
to be
appears
conservation
that
this
itself
is
in
and a
way ahead of knowledge
and ecology
probably
lack
really
represented
terms of preservation
by
a basic
the fact
rather
than
that
any
world of environment and conservation.
legislation both that which
as
many of you
5
are
has
become law and
well aware.
I
can
cite
for
that which
you
several
that
consequences
tends to
legislation
land
limits
limit
use
Another
other agencies
interjects
that
Some examples of
statements
that
these
has
very
would
and water
air
direct
We
of this legislation.
the
West.
He was
stock
and that
were
being
harassed
were
not descendants
they
do
have
a
establish
owns
Some of
in
because
is
it
is
quite
has
and
the
contrary
legislation
killed.
an almost
in
the
is
and
it
you
engineering
that
Policy
have
they
who
else
anyone
other agencies
involving
Environmental
the
an overlapping
see
bills
some
-
Protection
responsibility for
control
United
States.
being considered
as
which
up
to
say that
get
have
the
off their
would
States
in
on
their
ordinarily set up.
in
the United
property.
those
enforcing
-
that private
come
they
killed
things
the action
State would
law enforcement
acts
It sets
primarily
responsibility.
and creates so many problems
use of some
So while there
the
United
the
on private property
so complicated
limit
other
when
them
the
think
I
been abused and
among
get
started
Most of these animals
we
animals
anyone
these animals.
bills
system of
are
there are some
6
much
have
that the
the animals
to
may
these
quasi-judicial
tends
- in
Bill
descended from old Spanish
over them. It limits
to
to gather them
is
the jackass
some
affects
it
about the wild mustangs of
all
as
so that
standards
that
as
and how
of the problems.
these
animals
to the
bill
to protect
they
But
value.
those
bill
were
he
guess
I
of Land Management doesnt
that
that
America and history of the West and they
about 16
that where
other agencies
interests
in
with respect
an example of a minor
interjects
line
concerned
these mustangs
dominant
be responsible
Bureau
which
in
sometimes referred to
you can
in
take
these bills provide
one instance
-
historic
interest
could
this
with environmental
and almost
same
the
example of a minor
little
from old mustangs
real
our activities
instances
a real part of early
abused
or at least
owners
whole new
and the
property
This
property.
States
some
owners
property
that
a bill
was good but
basic idea there
This
one
read that
they were
in
is
Environmental
National
agencies
from Maryland became
told or
of
Service.
for this which resulted
concern
up
have
some
in
cope with
probably
involvement
public
standards
and
the
many of
example along
quality
just
of a Congressman
son
effect
you
in
you
State
agencies
responsibility
to give
like
the
to
have
Another
think
I
to
land
Forest
- part
the
and monitoring
time recording
difficult
of
other area of our work.
apparent
Federal
enforcement with the Forest
I
and again
any
as
statements
to comment.
many
Agency
are
from other
might want
the
that
much
as
the
all
increasingly
which requires that we combine
Act of 1969
comments
standards
becoming
is
into our business
had to cope with that
have
much
this
on National
takes place for instance
and increases
thing
be
might
Another thing that you deal with every day
land.
standards
sets
standards.
that
few
a
Just
blessings.
activity
classifies
legislation
is
mixed
have
of our land and creates
many
values to this concern
problems
as well.
standards
Current
and
financing
we say
as
coordinated leading to a
Some
recent
1969 which
created
involved
directly
Some
of the
land
the
whom
with
that
we cannot
the
recently
new
creates
impacts
incorporated
be
to
While
Quality.
have
an
Policy Act of
dont
they
have
any
and
function
overriding
and
standards
quality
Environmental
Agency
the
on the primitive areas
it
on
proper
name
of our
our
it
get
areas.
the
land
to
I
can
of
owners
value.
More
we must pay
for relocation
introduction
from
apart
fouls up the
as
for
place on the land.
through
The
close
market
fair
Act of 1964 and the impact that
felt
as
is
appraisals
option
reimbursement
it
Uniform
the
are
part
but
deals with our acquisition
land
we must
that
completely
primitive
effort
of that but
copies
certain
are
its
aware
that are taking
wilderness
in
they
and water
air
certainly
not
is
and
aware of the Wilderness
all
are
that
negotiate
business and other activities
More
the
are
additional
provide
Act
importantly we must provide
You
budget
employees and
dont seem
a great deal of our business.
in
Some of you may not be
that we must provide
fact
the
more
requiring
Federal
Protection
responsibilities they
others
come today.
increase
on Environmental
Council
and Relocation
Acquisition
these lines
along
the
to
to cut
of the Environmental
enforcement
direct
tend
deal of frustration.
great
legislation
enforcement
the
often
face of efforts
the
in
those
there
impact
is
new
the
that
areas
simply
had on our work.
it
of
that
it
bill
which
presently
are
diverts
our
work
examinations and other work that must
mineral
go on.
We
have
Land Water
the
deal not
in
only
recreation
terms
money
to
provide
the facility.
We
have
We
have
what
new
we
that
facilities
the
acquire
the National
Act of 1965 which increased our workload a great
Conservation
of acquiring land but
needed
are
on
and yet that
land
this
is
Act and many
Trails
the
Wild and Scenic
Rivers
call
the instant rivers
or the study
There
rivers.
are
several
bills in
also
land.
not
of
in
providing
This
are
involved
Act and continuing
rivers
or trying to provide
the
where we have
the
case
with the money
to
in that.
efforts
there to
that were created
now
Congress
the
coordinated
closely
you
is
by the
that would do that and
expand
bill
we
upon
by adding
anticipate
many more.
Then
we
have
which you
will
the
be
recent
directly
Sisk
Law
involved
Enforcement
I
suspect
enforcement.
7
in
Act
the
of 1971
matter
that
is
now
a law
with
of regulating road use and
Those
are just
those
are
almost
comment about
that
such
Land Law Review
by Mr.
have
how
rigid
and
its
you
example
For-
with
in
us in some
The
can think
you
that
land-use
Senate
H.R.
much
alike.
version.
I
are pretty
on the
We
dont
again would have the same impacts
they
direction
explicit
in
land-use
of
planning they
of rule-making they would provide
in
planning
management
for dominant
would subject
they
activities
or State and local
zoning
Land Use
over
plans
That could
act.
rigid
rules
pending
House we have
the
in
They
them
bills
land-use
plans and almost
of.
has the
control
State
Federal
give
to State and local
Administration
provide
but
of land-use
and yet
hour some
last
implementation of the Public
far
the Senate.
in
more
they
our land-use
doing
cases
else.
anything
are
So
use.
the
in
they would create a whole host of Boards and Commissions which we must
theories
confer
a whole host
about to have
with those
are
would generally implement
use
on land
counterpart
and we
on 7211
heard
I
Some-of those deal with the
Commission report
familiar
control.
many pending
- we have
bills.
been passed
that has
legislation
things as land-use
Aspinall
hearings
know
by the
eclipsed
a wide spectrum.
cover
7211
of the highlights of recent
some
private
State
to
subject
bill
It
4332
- that
the House
in
has
also
land-use
us some
possibly give
H.F.
-land.
a provision
plans
if
follow
they
an
is
effort
seems to
that
the
to
make
provisions of
trouble.
in-land-use
have
area that
pending
are
replacing
active
is
now
but
1872
the
Many of them
by
Federal
who
week
a chance
to
consideration
of what
That
product.
have
several
land more
These
generally
assistance
is
bills
private
better
have
a
are
and
number
Entry law
through
to
have
might be
seek
fire
in
that
to
the
particularly
increase
incentive
control
our
as
I
am
We
activity
all
is
regarded
of the
in
Forestry.
Forest
interior
will
in
shortly
bills last
order to
on some
of the
havent seen the
going to be involved
in.
These generally seek to make
-
management
our participation
in
to private lands and this of course
8.
this
testify
althoughwe
bill
are
in
form of
the
sure they
have been
bills
form of mineral
well and
small land parcels.
to increase
that
on one of these mining
bill.
and one we
deal with Cooperative
take
some
government did not
own
of
variety
apparent
of the
Secretary
Act and
Leasing
is
generally
Leasing Act
had a hearing
it
wide
dont know how many
I
which
efforts
a
legislation.
and substituting
the Administration
field
cover
think
I
leasing.
bills
the
forth with their
a very active
productive
providing
and wider
come
but
additional
with the Mineral
largely
were
of
to
plans
be heard
will
Mining and Mineral
We
bill.
final
We
never
land-use
but when the hearing was held the Federal
them
give
there.
deal also
the
own
their
of
mining and mineral
is
government
reviewing
is
have
will
Location
leasing.
the
host
and management you
planning
Another
of these
Most
circumstances.
whole
a
-
we
say
I
fire
is
in
providing
control getting
complicated
at
this
-
As
time
in
point
because
control
We
by the Federal
have
the
problem and
that
appears
48
lower
We
of
a host
planned
limiting
Claims
Act.
claims
which
bills
bills
use.
with
dealing
A
few
with
areas
special
of these
you
to
that
basis
claims
and
the
with
less
in
money.
of the
many
a major
are
get something in the
probably
Indian
in
tribes
the
Idaho
in
an
NRA
Seward
the
are
Snake
the
We
NRA.
give
us some
Alaska
bill in
and.
problems
we
have
that
in
Oregon
bill in
Canyon Moritorium
a Hells
have
the
Moritorium
River
and
standards
again creating higher
provisions of the
for the
schedule
our
complicate
program
wider
a
native
dollars
any development on that river
preclude
mentioned
I
the
will
a billion
deal
also
NRA in Oregon the Sawtooth
Regions 1 4 and 6 which would create
that would
and
Alaska
in
Alaska
In
the natives
Dunes
bill
on
sharing
aid
in
grant
the Yakimas.
including
have
provide
undoubtedly
with native
along
bills
the
revenue
government.
neighborhood of 40 million acres
These
between
conflict
to
effort
and Native
Indian
it
the
-of
Administrations current
wilderness
several
interrupt and
they
and consideration
primitive areas
of
those in the wilderness.
We
have
more
with
revenue
which
sharing
responsibility to the
fewer
strings
Administration
the
instance
the
that
through
get
thing
is
-
to
if
which
you
governments
to
dont how
they
is
an
be held up because
they
will
money
but
whether
the
tax
for instance
long
to provide
effort
Federal
grant
there
concern
real
and
bill
Forestry
Cooperative
real
State and local
There
can
mentioned
just
attached.
the provisions of revenue
Perhaps
I
other
are
bills
for
contradictory
to
sharing.
concerning
among members of Congress
is
reorganization
among
especially
soil
tremendous amount of support
the
conservation
and the general
groups
public.
We
have
-
others
which
be
debated
In
considering
introduced
dont
heard
individuals.
or
There
directed
on
-
American
Mr. Hatfields
three
at
to
things
lands and
private
before
I
we
have
think
we
they
enough
interest
are introduced
many
others
we
out
anything
should
a great deal of impact
have
are
acts
to
to
9
Congressional
greater
understand that
satisfy
an interest
and
forestry
on public land. Those
on forestry which
simply
better
Act
will
of that.
or the sponsor doesnt
have
Society
provide
give
of management and timber resources
of these
all
that have
simply
it
production
some length
at
supply
generally
and guidance
direction
have
are
better
management
either
of timber
a variety
in
are
there
are
never
acted
have enough
some
individual
many
on.
bills
They
seniority
or
to
group of
and on which the committees
us for a legislative
ask
on which we
we
will
processes
we
will
very
are asked
we
will
have
have hearings
strong
and
I
will
many
am
sure
it
because
bills
is
action
look forward to agreat
is
be the
I
on and which
great deal of legislative
can
to report
and that
testify
and that
report
am
will
the end of those
of our
become
going to continue.
that
many
will
have
law.
direct
are
bearing
laws that will be enacted
10
will
be asked
will
From what
There
then
we
I
that
of
all
to report
on
see the interest
going to be
on
others
have
and
have hearings
But throughout
bills.
sure which we
And
and we
interest
end of those
bills.
many
these
which
is still
bills
and a
us and our
work
will affect
us directly.
and we
DISCUSSION
WHITFIELD
To
bills.
about
know
I
is
could
I
the
move
projects
ahead
what
agencies
report and ask for witnesses.
chairman through
many
are
we
direction
to a committee
might
all
there
if
then
interested
are
who
Department
first clears
Briefly
be
to
when
any activity
them to make a
legislative
back to the committee
it
OMB. Our
with
it
like.
going
is
request
So we write a report and submit
that
bills
we might
You
to tell the public.
cleared
Department. Its checked
the
uncommon to
oftentimes
and do.
can
we cant
We
cant
have
against
position
must be
Only occasionally
becomes
-
difficult
the statement
until
position
of the
the Department
what
to
has
Interior.
Administrations position
the
a position
clear
what
is
positions of other Departments and its not
the Administration
will
this
an official
with
influence
cannot
on and
report
report on a bill in connection
That isnt to say that
OMB.
the
in
know what
to
you a brief idea of what happens when we get
we think are worthwhile there is some concern
with Administrationsopinion.
compatible
There
the
give
and goes
introduced
to decide
try
that in
we cant
why
legislation
they
maybe
things off
start
these
ourselves
say they
without
unilaterally
dont
have
- we
is
any
going
position.
QUESTION
Have
bills
detected
you
change in whether the
any
conservationists are
trying to get
more
into Congress
WHITFIELD
I
am sure
there
conservationist
profession
problems.
is
I
is
a great deal
groups
trying
dont
in
are
more
legislative
to
looking
some
respect
sense that groups
the
to
in
activity
and
more
courts
become
this
answer
the
Congress.
more.
The whole
these
to
going to lay off the legislative
are
Obviously
the
legal
environmental
routes.
HOWLETT
We
is
a
will
lot
a strong
than
want
to discuss what
of misunderstanding
professional
political
about
organization
leadership at
element of the whole
constraints are on people
the
legislative
it. I
also
that
top
we
- we
think
are
that
11
as
we
testify
look
going to have
have
process.
who
got
to
be
to
a lot
because
I
the Forest
think
there
Service as
of professional rather
extremely
sensitive
to
this
WHITFIELD
I
know
we have
agencies
-
because
we
in
a great deal
our
have
policy
and
been pretty
more
in
flexibility
developing
straight
in
our
what
own
with the system.
professionally.
12
we
do than
can
testimony.
We
have
One
played
a lot
of other
of the reasons
the
is
game square
MESSAGE FROM THE
CHIEF
Gentlemen
-
L
Office.
for
welcome
am
I
this
happy
very
formal
first
the
to
Washington
make comments
to
of Regional
meeting
engineers.
The
-_00
of accomplishments by engineers
record
the
in
and
I
Forest
want
Service
of you to know
each
.
could
I
road
and
or to
McGuire
Meeting
Chief
D.C.
Forest
27 1971
September
attention
of Engineering
Divisions
our overall
Washington
more
have
or
the
developed to fight
fires
but
benefits
to the
key
Forest
first
spectacular
developments
plant trees. These and
produced
-
Service
of our
bridge
equipment you
Washington
am
I
and
efforts
with you about the
reminisce
bulldozer some
R.
that
achieve-ments.
of your
appreciative
J.
one to be proud of
is
many more
would
I
have
you
role
have
rather
call
in
played
Service programs.
D.C.
You
have
our
The
beginning.
engineering
Accelerated
program. So was
Engineering Programs
the
am
confronted
Kilmers
Sandia
tomorrow
by
daily
to the
with
equally
And
from Forestry
I
and
Programs.
Highway
controversial
expansion of
the
in
from
programs
1963
do not
management and direction
controversies
Crest Minarets
Service
Program of 1962
job Corps work.
distinguished
element that contributes
vital
I
as
Works
Public
been involved
Forest
I
was
think
see
the
an
largely
of these
engineering
of our National
as
as
a
Forests.
which
require your input. Todays
Joyce
and the George Rogers Clarks will be
replaced
We
projects.
need
your
best
analytical
and
professional advice.
Demands
are
for special
on the
construction
We
are
manpower
on the National
and we need
your best
over
building
inspection.
uses
Im
sure
so that
Forest
Annually we accommodate
increase.
7000
you
we can
this
and
I
private
industry
to minimize the impacts
miles of road annually
realize
put
talents
by
requiring
need your help
enough energy
in
13
and other agencies
hundreds of millions of dollars
in
proper
arriving
places of need.
on our
at
worth of
lands.
supervision
a balanced
and
use of
We
have
economic
and
point where
The
service
this
your help
am
program
we
to
glad
recreation
Technology
machines
that
you
to meet
is
and
are
giving us more
complicated
that
why we have
You must develop
ecological
engineer
society
is
to you.
on to apply
see
evaluating
outlived
our
their
the
to
plight
here.
now
problem
with
under Executive
The
even better
you
know
it
you
have
You
fully.
having
in
the
manpower
Order 11507.
I
need
analytical
have
the
an even more
There
possibly use.
much
we
less
will
than
transport
are
so
have
and
of them.
all
on you more
we now
many
garbage
understand
rely
of the
most
this
is
experience
on the Forests
to
the
in
assist in
an
and
environmental
unfair
of the
indictment
Which
and expertise and you
with the Supervisors
will
be
and Regional
anyone.
important
developments
and better
But what do we do for solutions
training
output
his
problems.
that
feel
I
he has developed.
You work
automation
for creating
credit
today.
manager
tools
to management
and more
timber
machines
assured
rest
more
must increase
can
to list
try
on us for
end pollution
to
of transportation
development
of these.
all
we
than
our problems better than
technological
land
modern
available
You can
the
in
being placed
needed
tools today
you.
giving
.w
problems
Foresters and
I
now
not begin to
and the technology
brings us back
So
.
pioneering
vitally
the best possible solution
all
need your help
I.
have
describe
properly
to
deadlines
means
this
gadgets
would
I
thats
called
and
involved
And
After
the
now
are
possible and
trees
reaching
presents
the demands
harvest
future.
program
a pollution-free environment.
in
You
planning.
funded.
which
facilities
unable
adequately
told to meet
are
see
means
every
is
and
buildings
here.
system planning
by
of
yet we seem
life
abatement
pollution
restraints yet
I
thousands
literally
then
role
applying
in
the
them
future
by
to achieve
sorting
the goals
out
and
we have
established.
with many of these problems in your
go on and on. I see you plan to struggle
and
I
work groups
some concrete suggestions we can adopt and move
hope you develop
I
could
forward with immediately.
You have my
best wishes in this endeavor
and
I
14
will
be looking
forward to the
results.
DISCUSSION
GANO
face of these constraints of real managerial
In the
whom
to
we
are reporting
the
carrying out
the
in
program within
Administration
to what
as
the quality standards
we
as
we
are
challenges
ourselves
expressing
these constraints
mean
in
them
understand
McGUIRE
We
are
getting
with us
along
if
White House
there
are
of expressing
the
ourselves
The
chaired
hearings
and
We
appropriation.
to have
went
need
to
sympathy we
come from
it
was
quite
up
a
by the
body
At the White
Nation
this
more
and there
do a better job
could
effective
that
fact
between
balanced
to
our
support
more of that kind
encourage
go
The
to
have
us.
impressed
a group evenly
as
is
would
run into the problem
in
Maybe we
it
less
having
cut the timber.
efficiency.
invariably
Sometimes
are
Secretary
cant
must be done
to do first
groups.
Our
of
terms
in
We
Secretary.
money we
the
get
what
is
outside
Powell
by Mr.
conservationists
of
our
White House.
the
things that
question
committee
appropriations
with
things more
at
priority
to
outsiders tell our story than
with
a bit
quite
get
road
we dont
look
to
of high
a lot
money -
isnt enough
to say if
tend
we
while
that
and perhaps
we were
people
House level
that
OMB
with the
progress
way down
a
quite
of
in
the
this
last
timber
for
request
set
of
industry
additional
thing.
GANO
I
your remark about the
appreciate
a more
forceful
expression
of using outside
possibility
of these problem
to attempt to get
groups
situations.
McGUIRE
I
we
think
the
sell
are competing
in
where
the other needs
-
to
in
the field
deal
on
it.
Washington
and preservation
Washington
contacts
here
contacts
conservation
in
all
of Agriculture
Secretary
principal
with
-
that
with key
you
have
We
have
the
are
a large
number
We
it
is
of
representatives of the
of key men. Perhaps
kind
men.
and
of the Nation
have
that
opportunities
to keep working
at
is
not
enough
contacts.
to
Some
associations
-
the problem here
from day
to
day
for
am
not
it.
DEINEMA
Mike
so
I
would
proud
to
like
see
so
to
make one
many
point
engineers
clear
in
the
before
group
15
we
as
get
I
on the next question.
am
to
see
the
I
different kinds
of
you
disciplines
have
you
I
think
have
there
doubt
no
is
that
-
have a career
it
isnt all engineers.
I
guess there
no longer we or they
is
and
that
engineers
no doubt
is
The day
- we work
has long
passed
where
to foresters.
foresters
mind
anyones
in
of our team approach.
segment
it
to just engineers
talking
engineers
-
here
in
a mighty important
are
mind
anyones
in
that engineers
a team.
as
FUREN
I
whos
wonder
the
all
doing
If
things that are going
we have
work
engineering
now
seeds
planting
Corps of Engineering.
the Forest
What
Service.
of having
eventuality
they
Resources
be
will
we doing now about
are
a
the
3 to 50 years
be happening in the next
to
of Natural
a Department
for
for the
organizationally
DIENEMA
We
an outstanding
have
He
Forest
Service right
has been working with different
here
-
now - John McGuire
committees that have been
up to study
set
Iil
to tell us.
the
in
expert
this
whole problem.
McGUIRE
The two Houses of Congress
now
they
planning
are
The
departments.
first
held hearings
have
month
probably next
to be taken
department
of Natural
of
prospect
anything
Administration
is
anyones
There
get
guess.
down
to
Agriculture
with
away
Forest
always
to
are
and
do
that
away
year
pretty hard.
it
a bit
of
there
is
generally
in
the things
Service
argued
quite
overall
we
Soil
are
Next
bit
look
very
yeai
being
of opposition.
Whether
Conservation
about
Service
they
is
ever
to
the
we wanted
to stay in Agriculture
this
engineering
you will hear stories like this. The
There
new Department of Natural Resources.
one for Water Resources.
16
but we cant
proposal
be
is
one
although
the
an election year
is
but when you
For example many
together
for
for
five
a good
is
go part way and move
In
argue
the
of Natural
past
that
point of Corps of Engineers
will
The
Department
may get around to abolishing Agriculture.
with the Department. On
year.
this
good
get
that if they
over
of
but they dont want to do
favor of reorganization
concerned
individual
odds and ends. The
for reorganization
support
a
quite
of Agriculture.
Department
they never
Resources
want
the
pushing
is
specifics
members
One of
question.
the
the
happening
still
and
be the Department
other
up by the Senate
doesnt
this
on
hearings
will
plus some
possibly will be taken
Resources
hold
to
up probably
HUD
Community Development which would be
Department
on the whole idea of reorganization
we have
now
doing
if
administrations
Land and
they
all
Recreation
in
the
the
and
-
Its going
to be
present
plans
done
not
is
planning
substantial
how you
Except
You
consolidate
can
proposed
to
SCS and Bureau
in
work
and barrel
DNR.
to
There
of Reclamation.
there could
but
that might be
consolidate
like to
stock
move
under
have
will
of coordination
over lock
going
the engineering
all
other kind
not
is
is
Each
administrations.
of Water they would
case
that
Corps
elements
engineering
but what
the
in
two
those
see the Corps
of the
part
arm
research
clear.
all
functions.
planning
the
own
its
at
to coordinate
difficult
dont
I
it
the
is
just
some
are
quite
see
be a consolidation
of
of planning
no
planning.
On
the
land
side
of engineering
consolidation
Conservation
Soil
Service
Under
administration.
Land and Recreation
do
If
-
WO
with
and
proposal the
to
go through
bureaus
have
a
as
staff
-
them
administrator
regional
offices
but
imminent
a more
we know
office would
Regional
become
would
were
this
away
Service
this
Administrator and the
to
centralization
some
be
may
functions.
be a move
would
possibility
there
again
each
for
to the
report
for the
Forest
Regional
of the
Administrator
Administration.
DEINEMA
I
what
think
actually
we should
participating
well into
pretty
say here
that
is
and attending
all
we
are not
to let
going
the committee
this
We
by.
pass
meetings and we have
are
our hands
it.
McGUIRE
Yes we have had an
excellent
to participate
opportunity
in
all
of these proposals. Of
course we couldnt oppose them or we wouldnt have been allowed
and point to pitfalls.
we have had a chance to lay out alternatives
to
But
participate.
ADAMS
Could you
us
give
us a short
the timber
in
rundown on
Club meeting
the Sierra
business and the road business
or
last
week
Are they
after
we anonymous
are
McGUIRE
No
we were
going
to
not
exactly
a revival.
It
platform but then
reasonable
They
forth.
people
talked
The
in
I
is
press
an emotional
found
the two
a little bit
was
We
anonymous.
when
organizations.
about coming
interested
in
to
We
even got some
prospect.
17
all
the
substantial
individuals
restrictions
that
share of
There was
thing.
talked
I
our
caught
that
on -wilderness use
We
criticism
there
defense
encountered
Its like
criticism.
are
from the
quite
from the
rationing
a few
floor.
and so
a little difficulty
getting
down
to consider
them bluntly
that
dont
I
proposed we
They
with the
this
up doing
will
probably
from the two
in
that
thing
there
some
people
can
that
is
about
talk
there
if
is
about it but they
talk
going to wind
are
Society.
all
the
Eastern
some of the
remove
to
opportunity
to
this
we
the problem. I think
meet with us and we want
to
Then we
Regions.
They want
Act.
Wilderness
A lot
most of the meeting that day.
throughout
discussing
them about
to
be an
told
I
in the East that qualified for primitive
Club and the Wilderness
appoint
appeals
might
way of
Sierra
eastern
me
to
primitive areas in the East.
that.
up some
set
much
there was
thrown back
agree with
of protecting
ways
didnt think
I
areas and that was
of people
alternative
to get some
wilderness
undesirable
think
folks
The
different angles.
we
are
legislation
of the
aspects
too
our
in
pure
interpretation of whats wilderness.
HOWLETT
I
hope while were on
that Dick Costley
paper
of
lot
as land
us
to
you
start
would
within
discourse
like
to
the
certain
we
and what
have
We
strengths.
have
that
et
one
It
organization
that are
the
running
upon
easy
now
but
will
it
among
we
interior
why we
reason
particular
has been very
based
means
really
said
a
given this a lot of thought
have
professionalism
encourages
cetera.
Dick
It
It casts
views.
the agencies
at
is
his
We
professional people
top
Secretary
professional
There.
the wilderness
with everything
to agree
As you look
has an environment
Assistant
sound
have
did an excellent job of presenting
of Engineering.
Department.
Secretary
solid
It
sent to the Regions last week.
just
back a moment to reorganization.
go
adding
Agriculture.
was
It
and should be a must for every engineer.
the positions
You dont
He
thinking.
be
have
managers.
the Division
would
in
wrote on wilderness.
on why we
light
that everyone gets a chance to read the
of wilderness
subject
a good thought-provoking
is
I
this
like
the people
all
Department from
for us to
professional
maintain
the
a good
approach
to
land
management.
The
Forest
Service
half of the
a high
professional
been organized
along
Another
thing
we would
strength
in
Interior
strongest
such
such
of
overwhelming
we would
4
has
have
people
have
a Department
our
as
any
in
of
the
other
is
only
than
organization
Our
proposed
Also
would have almost
other
havent
agencies
preponderance of the professional
the great
certain activities
agencies
because
We
lines..
organization.
that Department.
the
new Department
the
in
these professional
research
of professional people.
percentage
that
for
our State and
with
are
research
not presently
organization
consolidation.
private
activities
It
is
by
would
far
be
to
the
just
would mean that
ongoing programs closely related
18
common
to
each and
every
see
individual
that
State.
would
it
overshadows
the
look
of
the effect
at
on
difficult
the
so
in
on the new Department you can
this
to
Secretary
of the
Department
rest
now with
ourselves
you
If-
be
have
individual
an
many important
We
areas.
which
agency
must concern
our organizational integrity.
maintaining
CURFMAN
Do
understand
I
National
in
is
priority
that
priorities
Each
Regions.
be working
the
one
to
now
is
field
in
have
he
to put
is
and
people
dollars.
Is
in
priorities
to
one program
way you
in
which
within
develop
that the
are
of
a set
develop
what
emphasis
different
the National
each program instead of being directed
within
to
going
determining
would place
This
Forester would
Regional
where
of criteria
be helpful
will
to another
relation
Chiefs Office
the
that
correctly
different
he would
a certain
headed
at
set
the
level
Washington
McGUIRE
Thats
thing
Our program
right.
a balanced
program
with
planning
the
for
decade
Forests. Each
the
that
process
We
ahead.
Regional
we want
to develop
hope the Region
Engineer
and each
whats coming and whats agreed on in the way of
balance
when we want balance but we must get down
with
is
turn will do the same
in
Forest
Engineer
It
priorities.
the Regions
is
fine
to
will
know
talk
about
brass tacks.
to
DEINEMA
What form
hunch
can
pick
this
will
it
take
takes
and how
soon
it
comes about
be a major topic of discussion
program
priorities
things are going to
try
have
at
the
along with the-pressure
these reductions
to
and fund
those
is
However I have a
I dont see how we
not decided.
RFD meeting.
for
We
increases.
are
going
and do a quality
adequately
to
job.
have
to
Some
go by the wayside.
McGUIRE
I
sure agree.
LARSE
While
we
perceive
programs
recognize
for the
optimism for the
the
Forest
future
future
restraints
future
Do
you
Service
In
the
long-range
for the
about what
these short-range
all
holds
the
time.
We
for increase
see
on our program and budget
increasing
field
we
try
levels
to
note an increase
in
quality of
19
in
of resource
maintain
the
work and
what do you
development
a high
degree
of
amount of pessimism
resource
development.
DEINEMA
let
Just
-
-
election
What
dollars.
in
funds
us. The Regions with
am trying to say is dont
we
but
I
to have
going
are
which
almost
is
a cinch
before
the
unemployment and
the
the
programs to decrease
and ecology.
I think
we are going to have
environment
ahead of
bright days
-
war
with
complemented
for the
programs
Vietnam
to the
something happen
the proper
give
plans
up on your planning
My
increases in the future.
dollar
some
pretty
going to get the increase
are
we
efforts
outlook
is
still
lack
optimistic.
McGUIRE
Our tentative
Our
expenditures
and
wouldnt
I
There
years.
program
10-year
is
now
be
if
we came
of popular
how we
too frequently
I dont see why we wont
in
get
close
we
our programs
to
and
doing
are
maintain
will
to States
payments
that within
doubling
to
we
for what
the funds
over the next decade.
$700 million including
pretty
support
carry out
of expenditures
a doubling
for
are running around
surprised
a lot
calls
we dont
if
this
10
the next
popular
slip
up
support.
go ahead.
DEINEMA
Gloomy
about reductions
Talking
gloomy temporarily just
look
come.
Every other year we have
we bounce
take the
right
back with more
or the
away
sting
future
the long-range
is
people and reduction
in
look back
of
these periods
of caution
needed
is
does
it
howlfar we have
off or even a depression
leveling
that
- although
see
and people than ever before.
dollars
degree
in dollars
the last 5 yearsand
over
I
am not
now
right
but
I
but
trying to
think
also
optimistic.
WILKE
I
believe
we
amount of road
to
make
this
much
been trying to meet an allowable
have
miles that go with
a reduction
timber
with
it.
this
Jack you
Dont you
timber sales.
in
much money and
still
timber
sales
quota
of the
regardless
you dont think we will be allowed
we should tell OMB we cant sell
said
think
do a quality job on the ground
DEINEMA
We
didnt make
conservation
we
stood
testified
increases
we
we
until
that if
then
we cant do
f
cuts
we
got
could
this Region
last
year.
We
didnt
and other factors that leveled
up and were counted on
the future but not
and
allowable
constraints
this.
actually
10 percent
do such
by Region
I
think
know what
this
it
is
is
have
it
out.
what we
like
on the
increase in our timber
and such. As quickly
or Forest
as
we
by Forest we
20
road funds
the
We
got some
are
going to
ground-.
sales
have
will let
dollars
We
criticism
We
but
have
to do in
just
went up
and our
FRT
specifications on
it
had
be known.
why
We
never
should
and
poor roads
ourselves
TV
ads
are
lost
talks
fancy
an
as
Any more of these poor
The only way we are going
outfit.
or anything
else. It
is
It
is
to save
going to be
not
the kind of job
or
sales
goals.
and showing them on the ground.
out
people
ads
newspaper
be done right
we
think
I
by taking
is
quality for quantitative
sacrifice
that needs
to
out there on the ground.
LARSE
Is
there any
anticipation
in
the future
make some
at
time
this
that in packaging
shifts
inter-Regional
your
Phase
you
have
2 programs
you may
or targets
McGUIRE
Its
to
going
be a kind of negotiating
need your estimates. When
fashion
this
-
bound
theres
so
we
to be shifts.
all
going to have
are
we
think
I
or roads but in
not just in timber
we
a target
set
After
process.
allocate
to
are
some
in
it
going to need to be
the other functions
all
information we
the
flexible
on
as well.
WILKE
You
asked
the
predicted
maximum
the
for
Region
on the
program
they
handle.
can
financing on which the Regions have
historical
This
to build
always
is
their
present
capability.
McGUIRE
That
is
right.
That
analyses.
to try
why we
of roads
take
that
trying
our
and
both
to get
have
set
their
It
multifunctional
also
is
We
account.
use.
have
and one of the reasons we have
we havent made a good
why we
to resource
relation
and demand
the supply
this
up
techniques.
the factors into
all
instances
is
was
is
to imprnve
study
to
I
planning
in
trouble with those
in
OMB
to
need new techniques
been too loose
to
develop
our
WO
the
make
a
and we have
our approaches
who
in
recognized
team here
committed
are
We
side
in
many
budget
levels
Future
The
case.
KREITLER
Are
we
using
Environmental
year
-
about
step
request
- we
that this
is
took
from
input
10 months
ago.
to go.
Environmental
Future went
Program for the
you wanted
direction
for our
the
Now
The
what we
basic
are
for
information
interested
was
out
in
Environmental
to the Department
the
this
in
FY
1973
supplied
doing.
21
Program
for
November
in
effect
a 10-year
Program for the
with
the
or
December of
plan
regarding
Future was the
minor changes.
This was
last
what
basis
the first
by the Regions and told the Department
Now
second step came
the
responded
Regions
would
like
15
a
as
percent
and
Future
much
is
Regional
want
it.
It
do
me
let
up with
percent
using
the
input
to
to
wanted
they
we
are
going
entire
and the Department
questions
Foresters wanted
package
it
come up
with
will
some
to
in
cycle.
will
is
get
an
was
something much
increase
this as
the various
Through
at
a basis
fundamental
the
they
leeway
in
in
Program for the
In fact
smaller.
We
all.
back
went
figuring out what
information
negotiation
on the information
they
the
to
total
was
that
the
we
fed into
processes within
to us by
supplied
and Finance
Budget
Regions and
the
Regional
feeding
right
The
changes.
We
We
send
once
again
come up
go to Congress
iii
a final appropriation.
it
with
to
think
now
in
of coming
the process
for doing
this
is
the
6
they
Chief has priorities
balance
out.
point
in
OMB.
will
new
by
have
using
our
it.
It
requests
has
to
Presumably they
to
go
back
the President
is
system.
a very
the
and Congress
yes we
are
using
are
significant
be asking us
will
to what
We
Department
the
OMB comes
When
figures.
the answer
22
things
will
with the allotment
to continue
a message
I
is
initial basis
back to the Regions the basic
the information
use
probably
and we
intend
their
dollars
use this as a beginning
order to
more
your Environmental
said
you
and used
rely
to the
information.
Regions
this
be
will
much
has
the
to do.
words
other
There
additional
we
give
didnt
information.
allotments
level-in
In effect
can
take this a step further.
initial
requested.
back and
This
programs.
not the exact
Department we continued
Now
we
if
and where
increase
percent
Forester
Regional
Around February
process.
a 6
like
priorities.
on the 6 percent
various
Forester on what
The
came
high-all
would
responses
the
in
is
too
we
what
asked
1973 planning
would
they
their
the Department
FY
the
increase.
reallocating the resources
At that time
with
where
to
it.
Regional
up with the
will
finally
MULTIPLE-USE PLANNING
To
-
Im
management
is
of
variety
directions
take
of
we
it
EOs
and
ourselves
We
departmental
to
achieve
have
us
direct
an
developed
the
to
a series
of
efforts
and we have
others
direct
to .quit a
and
coordinate
to
organization
and
actions
goals.
meeting
will
that direction.
authorize
appropriate
activities
I
responding
are
laws
that
National
in
of
area
this particular
my thoughts
see
I
the
about and the
talk
on NFS management
focusing
most of
to
going
required. Since
is
As
define
with other management
integration
that
me
let
begin
adopted
man-agement
of accomplishing
means
functions.
C.
Rupp
W.
and
Office
Washington
Use
Multiple
of Engineering
Divisions
27 1971
Washington
Regional
illustrate
-
Coordinator
Office
and
this
the emphasis
for
what
So
D.C.
management
One of
Laws
provided
work
from.
purpose
When
the
is
of
Ive
I
got
say that
desired
achieved
to get
are
would
I
guided
had
large
set
land
base
to
organizational
on
impact
and
priorities
targets.
you of how
remind
to
like
NFS
our
and
appropriate
is
today.
us with an
Laws
to
many ways
organizing or creating an organization
for
a result
of
carried out
us
the
efforts
many
is
of people to achieve
one time or another
at
or
Get
things
my work
things
have
our
and volume
individually and
by
how
how
efforts
skillfully
they
or
well
are coordinated
common
By
that effect.
arent achieving
organization
and quality control
a
to
is
to ourselves
or words to
my
seems wasted. So with
influenced
said
organized
of finding
its usually as a result
and most of
commodity produced
functions
of
organized
to myself
result
as
basic purposes
Most
objective.
just
this
all
towards synchronizing
coordination
or
this
must mesh.
actions
the major and very
provide
golly
know
already
are
think
we have
Presidential objectives National goals
structure.
You
certain
There
September
Meeting
functioning
organizational
I
basic
production
and even the kind
these
management
towards meeting the
objectives.
The
point
remember
is as
the
we
direct
focus
and
on the
vital
management
relationship
23
function
of planning
of plannin
to
the
today
other
we must
functions
of
organizing
directing
This
organization.
a part of a total
is
order
to
other
As
management
see it the
I
various
the
fulfill
meet
help
thats
changed
functions
is
even more
that
change
We
direction.
1960s and
that
value
lines
go
hand
more
in
keep
know
that
count
is
rising
Yes youre
relation
direct
And
tie
right
NFS
to
to
it
been
this
major
a
of
a major objective
been and
and has
is
land
other
Future and to
for the
Hasnt
management
planning
and
actions
management
in
has
just
more
is
a
on
to
any
shifting
intensity was
system
a group
Thomas
and constitutions
a
total
in
designed
are
of new
far
laws
see
I
done
in
the early
with which
greater
today
are bringing
Jefferson once said
it
of
change
what weve
complexities
But the complexities
same subject
laws
than
for the
fine
The way
change
throw out
That planning
numerous and
in
the
of gears
sense that we
those years.
this
be Why
the
their
I am not
but laws and constitutions
an
must
new
as
discoveries
the
a boy
change
We
might
civilized
as
are
of
made new
circumstances
must advance
institutions
well require a
as
society to remain
and manners and
truths discovered
man
to wear
still
the
also
coat
to
which
forever under the regimen of their
ancestors.
not suggesting
change
on
it
in
in
society
the
acceleration
that
in
factors
and
consultants
of the
rate
our
recent
environment
which
ancestors
and
influence
specialists
of change.
consider
Im
in
our
were
As
barbarous.
we do
everything
lives.
that
all
a matter
is
of fact
change
as
a matter-of-fact
suggesting
to
you
that
the
I
constant.
do
We
many
The
item.
pressures
are
and we must meet the challenge.
Understanding
now
in
with the times.
management
key
place
changes
with
now Im
Well
Framework
swell
of an
System lands in order
hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed
him when
barbarous
question
and more
sharper
change
pace
fitted
can
involved
enlightened
opinions
in
and the
of planning
of frequent
advocate
well
as
objectives
next
to bear. Speaking
weight
in
and
planning
the production
for
Forest
10 years
than
over the past 10 years.
level
management was
for more
actions
much
taking
use planning
multiple
planning
perspective
multiple-use
to provide
Okay
targets.
planning
not proposing
are
its entire
and
visible.
the
is
is
identified in
objectives
production
that
all
thats true then
the
Service
National
just the
havent
relationships
the
throughout
multiple-use
in
between
and values from National
services
management
point. Our
other
several
If
Forest
the
for
must be viewed
objective for multiple-use planning
of multiple-use
objective
discussion
activities.
optimum mix of goods
to
dependent
my
that
picture
coordination
ensuring
to
basic
is
management
the
see
and
controlling
understanding
that
we
stand lets look at
are
not
whats
going to start
all
over again but
different in the revision
24
will
build
of our planning
from where we
system.
For
thing there
_.one
and the
objectives
more
multiple-use
at
A
be.
the
Im
have
and
Multiple-use
we
are going
relates
things
-
resource
as
be a
will
system of
completed
a
and
Now
required.
it
never
lets look
a part of a complete
-
the temple
Of course
-
these
to
It
be
can
them. We
pillars
others
of
- here
playing
their
many ways
in
this
are just
are resources
illustrated
specialists
all
of
as
to sag.
start
in
will.
Act
Act of 1962 -
basic
The
considered
can be reached
they
involvement
are
you
a comprehensive set of
provide
to
or experience.
and land
these
going
if
Weeks
of coordinating
planning.
is
The
and Research
the matter
is
Temple
Use
of 1970
States
to
three basic elements
public
demands
Multiple
about today
talk
The
judgment
teams
interdisciplinary
plan
to
is
exists
it
Policy Act
have
three basic elements
for action.
studies
as
The
and controlling
directing
and peoples demands.
capability
We
the basic input.
any one of them slipped
plans
involvement
that
of
concept
been applicable
of
modules.
a chart called
at
The
dynamic.
remembering
District.
Ranger
units has never
Act of 1964 the Assistance
planning
land-oriented
the
if
be
to
The Environmental
organizing
and what
important
have
a look
laws that have
planning
temple
take
to
Wilderness
all
management options. The
systematic
system
number of laws
1911 The
the
at
public-interagency
planning
There
at
system of interdependent
going
a
these are
such
positive
multiple-use
Here
have
more
far
the Chiefs statement
between
tie
look
designed
is
visible
of projects
for most administrative
plan
management
We
accomplishment
planning
and
direct
and deliberately
intensive
multiple-use
will
a more
is
NFS
land
through
way - we
center we have
in
this
the
in
the rest of the
many
things that are
roles
to the plan.
feed-in
Of course
this
spelled out
in
what
is
area.
Some
the relationships and assumes
greatly oversimplifies
a detailed description
intended
lets walk
through
a
hypothetical
be made
may
compromise
of the system. So
the
in
in
order to more
planning
but
system
fully
understand
situation for an
Ill
try
and
imagined
describe
an
idealized situation.
A Forest
Supervisor
is
confronted
of a part of his National
in
his
relation
to
fulfilling
Forest.
his
management team or
he can make
done before
Assume he had
with a need to develop an action
The
plans he
objectives for
that
rational decisions.
Area Planning
has seem inadequate
management.
and Rangers
staff
now
plan for
He
a more
decides
after
Guides
Basic Assumptions
Forest
Coordinating
Planning
Forest
Required
Requirements
Units Identified for his Forest
Situation
Skills
Statement
Available either in- or out-Service
25
consulting with
intensive planning
-
management
or inappropriate
job must be
The
forest
a
appoints
work
to other
He may
chairman
usually
his
decision.
the
extent
and
Remember we
which he
may
the
the
provides
result
planning
an
about
talking
team
the
team
determines
with
planning
for
the
process.
He
for
alternatives
guides
for
planning
provides
unit.
of the
judgment
on-going
and intensity of inventory
which
decisions
critical
with
coupled
area.
planning
project in relation
establishes
process.
the planning
estimate
This
He
the
as
assigned
units.
planning
best
the extent
and appoints
the job of preparing
the planning
in
his
is
of this planning
the priority
date for completing
are
from
who
individual
that must be considered
planning
start he assembles
membership from the non-government
to participate
desires
To
approach.
include
establishes
a target
sets
objective or sideboards
He
He
for his Forest.
coordinator
this
team.
planning
appropriate
He
might take
Supervisor
of
and data collection
work.
What kind of
people.
a negative
necessary must be made
will
be the
planning
The
people
basis
team then
has
the
meetings
and hearings
are
objectives to be met.
session
The
a judgment
planning
clear
Are
implied
within
administratively
the
peoples demands
information
assignment
The
in
as
people
considered
to the
flow chart
tie this
to
the
at
this
of holding
and effectiveness
limits
flow
that
and
we
are
order to formulate
for the three major categories
into the
sequence
is
prepared
and
clear
to
a series
are
the
can
briefing
They
briefing
is
early.
advisable.
previously
to
to
the
stated
specified
and
try
capability
of management
is
Are the objectives
the
for continued
land
be met.
an in-house
be done
idea
decks
consider
determined
26
with
the job
The
should
of other communication
environment..
listed
chart can
established
conflicts
is
planning
its
need to be
that
developed to
visible and reasonable
specific
desirability
availability
to review
is
time. Meetings
effort
planning
be held without
time
A
set on the schedule.
may be
not
preliminary
time
premises
officer
of individuals to a
and out-Service
in-Service
tentatively
objectives
controllable
planning
of contacts
same
needs
Based on the
standards
basic
now
personal
available
available
cases
factor that will help decide whether an in-house
team
there
objectives
the
this
is
of events and
objectives relating
be considered.
should
is
thing to avoid
sequence
and should
At
The
of meetings
specific
be documented
should
on the team. In some
serve
an organizational job to do.
list
series
of
of operational expediency.
early
when
be considered
tools
An
meeting or
public
to
expected or desired
time frame.
necessary
a long-standing
made up
teams are not
Planning
the team.
for
going to break
and areas of expertise identified by the
skills
available
team job on the
establish
A
right
planning
required
statement.
possessing the
People
Im
teams
on planning
are
people
and make
rule
work.
resolve
One of
resources
alternatives.
Sources
and
of
demands
Peoples
process
political
are
have
provided
direction
management
These objectives and
or
provided
a
direction
on the nature
National
Forests
and
of various
more
of agency objectives
of goods
outputs
the
specifically
coordinating
Service
the Forest
step-down through
the
Regional
requirements.
organization
provide
and values desired from the
services
National
Laws and
sources.
several
and Forest
guides
area
planning
their
from
available
are
base for the formulation
Forest
involved
in
this
planning
effort.
National
for
targets
Agencies
and National
Regions
or needed as a result
desired
Budgets
are
not
some
whole may provide
Forests
perspective
other programs of the Administration
Viewed
from the
involvement
public
Careful
way
National
objectives
to
complementing
be varied
and
administrative
Another
techniques
sale
relationship
this
in
step
basic items
habitat
effects
necessary.
without
inventorying
results
write-up
meaning
is
will
that
is
or implication
hydrologic
to
on the
predict
land.
It
This
be a map showing
areas.
The
and
timing
activities
The
There
climatic
is
a series
of
At
activities.
form
land
to get
of
busy
be avoided
least
soil and
and other data
some degree
easy
information
provide
to
management
may be
data
collecting
by
the
reliability
and
collecting
use.
interdisciplinary
significant
write-up will include
of these areas and their characteristics
27
of
on resources.
should
be correlated by the
an
of attendant
range
data on land capability.
with
is
is
fulfill
help
of physical features roads
other geology
each
will
controlled.
is
for
by people
programs on the ground can
being dealt with
of need and expected
should
land
describing these
needed
demands
quality factors.
ideas
and scope
may be
mean
fauna
be able
cause
to
of values people
expressed
desired
design
data collected
for its usefullness.
should
correlation
to
as a
programs
of National
hierarchy
These
more
Size
and
that
characteristics
data on the basis
their
variables
type
idea
regard
on land capability
of
cover
views
a
goals.
identified and related to
The
relative
activities.
providing
the kind of land
land
activities
specific
however
Data
are
all
area to the
this
the
Present
type.
as
in
and
of use
of information
to identify
of what
statements
are
Service
and environmental
for use
multiple
regulation
units
the
assessing
array
aspects of actually executing
meet
to
adjusted
is
short-term
agency and viewed
the
of Forest
of the
knowledge
comparisons of the
while
targets
Many
major category
some
added
and
of what
the short range.
mixes of uses
develop
outputs.
timber
buildings
four
tool for
and
weighing
listening
excellent
used
another
is
full
Departments
much
activities.
programs within
on commodity goods opportunities
place
is
of a
perspective
precisely
on the relationship
in
to
how
peoples demands but may provide
for
priorities
more
us
of our management
of
distributed
activities
tell
a means of viewing
really
on the relationship
insight
and
commodity goods
planning
team.
land classifications
statements
indicating
to management.
The
and a
the
The
area of information
third broad
These inventories
Data
data.
displayed
the
of
map
a good communication
also
and
Recording
predetermined
avoided
the
in
exist. It
they
standards
inventory
of the planning
the job
may be combined
activities
of the various
Inventories
working
with that
number
of various
within
a
resources
members may want
sharpens
in
existing
All
series
should
the
now
of
alternative
in
and
unit.
planning
for
objectives
development
have
the
more
by
usability
to
according
category
Range
or value
must be
collect
the
are specialists
data
collect
as
in
using a
unit
on a number of
data
inventory
Planning
satisfactory.
work. This
of the
by
on the same planning
skills
inventory
awareness
to
the
team
part of the job
and
features
plans
to one
water
National
team
planning
for the
The
relationships
stated
resources
land.
step
Each
is
to
They are
enhance
to
social
a
plan
objectives for
has published four
council
land
develop
alternative
management
to enhance
economy
on
information
next
unit.
planning
or several
of public
management
to.
have not been
of the
who
people
satisfactory
inventory
to
some
available
Presidents
to enhance
objectively
resource
area.
to be responsive
The
are
to
their
collective
management
be designed
done
each
hand and peoples demands.
on
resources
capability
is
one individual
to participate
We
It
focus
and around the planning
then.
right
be
are best collected
resource.
with
individual
develop
to
These overlays
make judgments on the way in which
mix of goods services
most advantageous
team
dame. Attempts
simultaneously
their
resources
specialists.who
time
as
area.
particular
common
scale
and comparable count of the resources
to produce the
and values from the planning
both
the relationships
and opportunities
judgments on
Field
is
These overlays
relate
readily apparent.
for
developed
on.
so
it
same
the
graphically.
visually
if
other goods.
must
of getting an unbiased
interest
is
with
resources
to
activities
are more
tool in working
inventorying
team
planning
useful
made on
overlays
display data
between
Conflicts
Timber Water and
Recreation
way
patterns of management
complementary
process
Transparent
the
help
most
is
inventories.
compiled from existing
be
may
or
surveys
to
of resource
a compilation
is
inventory
the best
is
another.
to
field
statistically.
combinations
one resource
in
resource
this
and
unit base
various
in
in
graphically
planning
.use
be collected
can
collected
needed
well-being
National
regional
and to
enhance the quality of the environment.
As a start an
favors
deliberately
consideration
In
some
alternative
one
other
This
have
does
plan
may
the
not
are
satisfy
been developed
and quantify
be
should
developed for each objective that
not mean that an
objectives that
alternative
alternatives
describe
management
that goal.
for the
cases
reasonable
possible
alternative
benefits
several
the
being
emphasized
objectives
planning
consequences
plan.
28
plan must exclude
alternative
in
the alternative.
simultaneously.
team
will
After
all
identify and where
costs and impacts
for each
we
Before
however
to
the
now
far
team
planning
and
values
certain
design
too
get
The
done.
constraints
heavily on
rely
Timber Range Recreation
for
program
that
and
of
anticipated
and becomes
the
Just as the
and experts
partners
must be able to have
ability
for
solid
achieving
the
point
way
things
benefit
greatest
Our
carefully.
makes
presented
from the
public
with
dealings
and
him
to
the
decides
on the
public
Local
objectives and targets
demands
as
to the specific
the
planning
uses.
The
a pattern of
The
Forest
great
a
unit they
a planning
and
need.
those
range
Service
need
found
familiar
in
for
in
to
an
alternative
organizational
the
widest
considered
When
the
the
array
of
Several
of
derive
the
fully
and
line
officer
alternatives
of the
all
considered
of the
provide
do not
that
possible range
and proposal
management
management
that
and
facts
in
light
of
and
helps
qualify
as
to
spectrum and with a
Recently
opportunities
wilderness
use.
management
fill
for
plans
of choices
we
have
heretofore
opened up
unfulfilled
for experience
wilderness
similar
according
to
to the
Act.
courses of action
objective
be
involvement
of management.
range
places that
Wilderness
specifications in the
In constructing
intensive
with the extremes
areas of land
wilderness
will
to
will
unit.
consider
to
their
Methods
one of the ways to understand National
from consideration
to very
of back-country
is
planning
varies
geared
public
is
our
the job of matching up uses to identify alternative
of mixes in the middle
concept
The
is
unit.
must be sure
of activities
management
variety
new
team begins
structured
from
and
situation.
planning
and frank.
plan
essential
are
activity.
and
to do so with a knowledge
bearing
for
inputs
a
implement
and Regional
When
for each
be open
will
divisions
is
points are
and circumstances
Conditions
varied.
Public
National
relate
to
program
Critical
of
into a
All of the
the
the. best
obtained.
is
specified.
activities.
is
as
to help
molded
are
execute
well
necessary
is
divisions
on the planning
effect
be planned
to
opinions
they
is
to
Staffing
methods
is
inputs.
to
planning
projects
projects
It
as
result
management
represented
many and
must be able
he
public
involvement
Public
choice
his
the
are
input
unit.
management
management
a real and visible
most appropriate
the
to
clear.
are
public
planning
from resource and management
process so too
this
the
of
development
plan
of uses or activities
and other
out.
a guide for personnel
items established.
specialists
alternative
desired
Timing
spelled
identified and control
in
the
Wildlife
area.
are
to
apply
so that
plan
needed
actions
the
from the various
Watershed
management
constraints
will
specialists
parts of the
precise
how
about
lets talk
able to prescribe a pattern
is
or
set
of
for an area each
objectives.
29
In
alternative
planning
should
for National
respond
Forest
lands
System
responsive
This
in
set
of Regional
Development
2.
of National
Economics
3.
Enhancement
of Environmental
alternative
will
such
management
alternative
wilderness
Wilderness
Other
back
as
country
should
case the
on
delineated
write-up
should
sequencing
of
write-up
cultural
local
Service
others
not
life
be
activities
alternative
and
economic
as
alternative
and
be
for
considerations
enhancement
of
alternative
entirety
its
qualify
to
necessary
envisioned
activities
This
unit.
of
activities
as
or
of the
consider
will
major part
in
the
as
under the
wilderness
assure an
systems and
and acute
prepared
the
each
clearly
may be emphasized
alternative.
need
to
itemize
be
listed
and
the
to relate
understand
An
needed.
if
this
point.
expected or predicted
alternative.
discussed.
Benefits
Public
A
of the
explanation
at
the
can be
of activities
Overlapping
or events will add to understanding
will
unit will be
and others
costs
consequences
opinion
is
to provide
a program of management
in
response
demands. Public land managers must take into consideration
of landowners and agencies affecting or being affected by
their
on planning
of
exploration
planning
team
more
to
values.
conflicts
for
for the
the
helps
and
of implementing the
must
also
of course
managers
in
in
this
to
should
be
if possible.
objective
activities
This
does
planning
of the
involved
risks
summarized
and
objectives
unit
and
relationships
or timing
The
the
planning
land
of
values
is
possibilities.
activities
descriptive
and
to
information
on timber production.
is
the
distribution
special
Critical
expected.
of the
map
between
relationships
social
multiple-use
well-being.
developed
of uses
kinds
a
the
to
be
of management
complete range
quickly
if
social
This
Act.
alternatives
any
of
plan will itemize the expected
comparison
in this alternative
of the
management
or
Basic
sawtimber and related
this
impacts.
facilitate
be developed responsive
and enhancement
for
options
to
as
The
unit.
environmental
alternatives.
but the emphasis
will
environment
costs
other
against
must be retained
to maximize
necessary
and
manner
a
is
Quality
from the planning
outputs
consequences
in
actions
consider.
product
fibre
be developed that
plan will
management
Enhancement
displayed
The
alternative
of objectives
Enhancement
benefits
In
an
1.
wood
An
case
every
to the following
teams must make every
and planning
considerations.
teams or
utilized
Members of
in
a consultant
effort
the programs and
their
to include
the public or other agencies
capacity.
30
to National
work.
the
Forest
plans
of
may be included
Before
even
environmental
satisfies
the
the entire
What
objectives identified
or
they
say
to our
difference
are
is
that
an aggregate
the
for
filed
over
environmental
for the
planning
alternative
unit.
The
that
they
plans
will
projects developed
1Iý
Forest.
31
that most nearly
plan
decision
made and an
is
made
only after
has been satisfied.
functional
period
is
analysis
functional plans The
years our
of the
an
statements
array of
8-10
roughly
and
prepared
is
process for environmental
The
today.
until
statement
happens then
a period
a decision
making
considering
for
change
will
have
still
here
is
slight.
resemble
been repeatedly
planning
Over
plans
of
adjusted
units throughout
the
DISCUSSION
WILKE
Our
present
statements
system
multiple-use
and
plans
make
might
It
plans.
combined
environmental statements
for
guides
for
more
sense
plans rather than
multiple-use
statements
make
to
environmental
for transportation
environmental
the individual
for
we make
that
say
environmental
for
statements
transportation
plan.
RUPP
If
you
far
are
the
Those
that basis.
and financing
individual
to
it
to
going
multiple-use
even
have
they
get
planning
sales individual
environmental
we
over
mix
a
have
transportation
multiple-use
the
in
it
to
down
in
any
is
Some
hard to believe
or ahead
advance
they would make some
are
is
just
like
going to have
the units
projects.
which
nothing.
here
we have
until
on
plan
manpower
present
We
project.
get through
of planning
almost
However
a multiple-use
The thought
individual
for
plan of any type. That
planning
it.
interim period
when we
types
has
indicate that with
individual
or
that
under the old system
plans
that
then
integrated
plan would be adequate.
10 years to get
make
is
of other
it
completely
are
Forest
work on
roads
to
two
multiple-use
up to
now
those
a National
statements
will
to get
have
a multiple-use
in
to take
going
hurdle
hardest
have
done some
have
Until then
completed.
are
that
is
timber
make some
The
for the
it
planning we dont
unit
road that
the
about making
your statement
in
down
enough
with unit planning we
from
range
Forests
in this
day and
of completion
environmental
complete
National
dont
age.
If
of the unit
statements.
WILKE
Are you saying we
could
make
a transportation
without having
plan
a unit planning
done
RUPP
Its
been
done.
multiple-use
We
have
transportation
plans
on
a
lot
of Forests
that
dont have
plans.
WILKE
My
point
is
I
dont
think
the thinking
behind the
32
directive
is
clear
in
that respect.
RUPP
We
were talking
of
multiple-use
planning
same
environmental
are
environmental
on the
are
still
statement
multiple-use
plan
is
not
a transportation
unit
in
old
on these units
only
each
for
it
almost
think
I
Then
are
plan within
that
that would
if
meaningless
We
the old system
units
rather
you make the
when compared
talking about making
the
plans.
the unit.
plans for example even
is
than
be the
not
on the old type of multiple-use
management
and
complete
plan
planning.
is
not
transportation
ahead with timber
going
planning. Under
system
about under the new
system.
talking
You wouldnt make one
We
about
talking
are
statement
we
what
with
come up with
could
you
we
what
and transportation
we had zoning and management
where
planning
units
as
about unit planning
though the
going to continue.
ADAMS
Do we
have
any indication
that will cover
all
that
CEQ
and
GAO
will
an environmental
accept
statement
these things
RUPP
We
CEQ
with
working
are
GAO
and
and they
pleased with what
are
very
an
environmental
we
are
talking
A.
Ranger
about.
CURFMAN
What
package
size
do you
see
District Group of sales Forest
in
developing
statement
Service sale
RUPP
No.
A
20000
-
acres
and everything
unit
planning
some
could
thats
included
be much larger some
in
much
it.
These units
can
be around
smaller.
CURFMAN
What happens
if
there
made
is
some
reason
to
change a part
in
the unit plan once
it
has been
RUPP
If
there
is
a change
If
integrated.
statement
is
it
is
then
it
takes
acceptable
necessary.
Any plan
to
a reanalysis of the
go
some
that cant
other
way
be changed
33
entire
unit because
then
isnt worth
another
much.
everything
is
environmental
-GANO
Can you
5000
that
any background
give
acre
more
or
in
wilderness
these undeveloped
may be
areas
my
area
study
than
less
behind the instructions
rationale
to the
regard
point
-
being
there some
is
for the
possibility
management unit
a proper
RUPP
of the concern of many people
Because
much
was
if
we
wilderness
available
we had 5000
with
selected
for
doesnt
Act we
doesnt
Then when we go
not that they be made
are.
go
to the
at
we
until
fit
take
that
wilderness
areas
first
that area
a look.
- we
propose
are
thing they
The
we
First
public also
say that
that
they
say this
automatically
where
recognize
are
Some of
to be studied.
are
we cant
these
all
-
that these areas be studied
and say we propose
the President
to
public with this the
area Did you look
those
for
a proposal
what
at
said
things that conflicted
doesnt
This
it.
how
to
as
and we
available
and no obvious
a look at
Service
had to take a look
of what was
no roads
take
the Forest
be we
should
it
to fall out in the first look but
going
or that
fit
should
make
study and then
obviously
are
and where
have
had to make an inventory
acres and if there were
Wilderness
the
them
should
We
first.
and outside
inside
these areas be studied.
to ask
going
knows where
is did
If
we dont
look
you
at
this
these areas are.
GANO
about the delineation of a planning
worry
drawn around a 5000-acre site. I see some
we
being given to a unit because
of less
possibility
only looking
are
consistent with
unit being
I
at
a part of
than
what
might be
consideration
total
it.
RUPP
You
are
to describe
people
on the
about
talking
basis
these units on the
of the
socio-economic
be 5000
area whether they
will
boundary
interrelationship of
the
acres
of land
basis
If
situation.
or
not we
not be around 5000 acres
will
will
it
capability
they
it.
be much
trying
are
get
to
and demands and
needs
within
are
use
we
However
units.
the potential
However
chances
wilderness
are
the unit
larger.
WILKE
Something
ago
Colorado
in
every
traveler
deciding
keeping
real
that
Highway
Interstate
whether
about
goes
system.
of that
wilderness
hazard
me
bothering
right
this
across
Its costing
road money.
these areas
people
is
I
that
the
we
established
most
logical
a lot
the
State
am
concerned
are. eligible.
I
think
we
from saying we dont have
here.
34
of
a wilderness
area sometime
and economical routes
and
money
we dont
that
are going
to build
to
it
is
recognize
have a
that
road
of the
going to cost
little
there.
this
in
trouble
I
see a
FOR ENGINEERING
DIRECTION
IN
FOREST SERVICE
As you
will
talk
to
to
ýr
asked
I
some
of the
need.
Then
advice
I
that
Use
report
occasionally
we
time
were
came
I
into the
at
the
it.
Service
thing.
Service
Forest
functional
performing
was
everyone
the Forest
in
One
in
of haphazard growing
been a kind
At the
Skills
up and looks
this
picks
through
have.
that
hope
I
we
important
very
In the past Engineering
has
we
of Engineering
Service.
Forest
of
think
back
looking
was
think
I
going
of advice
dont
I
got
am
I
direction
for a lot
started
I
the
of the older material that
thing
the
about
you
engineering.
some
on the agenda
notice
of
types
mainte-27
incidental
operations
M.
R.
Howlett
Washington
Divisions
and
Office
of Engineering
1971 Washington
-
of Engineering
Director
Regional
Meeting
The
Forest
was
Then
the
need
the
that
many
and
construction
a
superintendent.
Service
service.
Forests
and there werent very
basically
nance
D.C.
for the
Engineer
had engineers
office
September
to engineering
Forest
for
multi-professional
and
recognized
into
input
complex
role.
we employed
Therefore
numbers
large
task
unique engineering
prior to
the
time
In this environment
professional
their
skills
very
professional
to do
low
demanded of
we had
offering
skills
engineering
professional
have been attacking
to
a very
our
work.
This
this
difficult
individual
particular
To
Most
is
We
still
a
1950s and
the late
never
did our
1960s when
to do this
organized
truly
work
changing
early
we
had
and before
we
much
very
of professional engineers
as
accomplish.
and no
level.
us.
numbers
large
in
However we
of engineers.
works
sub-professional level.
We
a sudden change
when we had
had major engineering
level
we had
of our
problem
for
engineers
opportunities
organization
extent
a large
a matter
time bringing our overall
we
for the
still
engineering
work
of some concern
some
37
time and
to
I
is
me
think
to
to do our
done
and
with
them
a
to
grow
in
of high engineering
use
continue
up
engineering
for
at
I
work
at
a
a GS-7 or GS-9
know
some
it
is
success.
to you.
I
would be
we have
in
than candid
less
We
had.
a manner
if
must develop
a high
which we can
in
didnt say
I
am not
I
and organize
talent
to specific
talent
professional
with the success
all satisfied
at
of unique professional
degree
this
apply
that
on the
jobs out
ground.
we have
This morning
more
becoming
make
ourselves
engineering
listened to speakers
We
critical.
invulnerable
and we
skills
skill
or
resource
problem or
advance
a
crucial
of land
the
engineering
talk
I
engineers
in
the
Forest
in
the Forest
engineers
objectives
suggesting
of the
we
organize
to
skilled
the
art
the broad context
Some
time
ago
stated
supervision
is
of
each
Region
signed
Im
not
I
various
is
what
are
be met.
to
know
to
ability
what
the help of others
is
to provide
special
Not
only
you and
to solve
a
input thus allowing a
its
we need
that
engineering
of managing
am
do
land
skills
to
we need
I
make
or
other
any
of forestry and
of engineering
kinds
am
-
make
to
I
can
about
talking
per se
of the normal
terms
in
thinking
terms
in
of Engineering
can
not
about organizing
talking
a
need
received
am
and
types
how we
advance
what
I.
of
as
the
am
a better engineer
about actual
talking
to meet and enhance
a letter transmitting
by Ed Schultz
and Red
for
construction
programs better management
force as a whole.
our
which
of social cultural political and
context
thinking
This
of engineering
for Administration
there
in
the art of forestry in
of land management.
recommendations
Chief
increase
to
complex engineering-oriented
mechanical engineers
the
in
Service.
do.
Service
skills
am
I
se or to make a better Division
contributions
to
vehicle
technique
available
of people
when you need
total
its
engineers
Rather
are
Forest
are going
Service.
civil
as
hire.
we who
or
growing
needs
Only to the extent
management.
such
we
that
that every
and awareness
about professional engineering
skills
an organizational
in
we
jobs.
way
the
If
to have
going
are
us and the public
at
attacks.
decision.
of forestry
art
skills in
engineering
per
the hard
do and recognize
purpose of engineering
better job
As
make
ride
be applied. All of you have the
can
staff
we
to
to bear if the
a keen understanding
forces -must
your immediate
face these
specific
problems are to be solved and
economic
to
attacks
to high priority
to be brought
has
technical skill but
The
going
have
have
to
learned perhaps
have
device
these
about people looking
talk
to
going
to
are
these skills can be applied
Some of you
are
better
and Red Nelson.
was
Deputy
designs
better
a study
Chief
of roads
program
of Engineering with
At the time
for
and
NFS.
critical
development
The
are just
ago
38
as valid
today
as
transmittal letter
public
and
of road funds and better management
These recommendations
Ed was Deputy
works
better
better
control
of
of our engineering
they
were three years
The
went
letter
competence
to
that
concept
or
meet
on major and
rather
than
Office
Washington
the
problems
The
Service must accept
of the
technical
full
be applied
should
order to bring adequate
in
Forest
work
of engineering
entities.
separate
-
these objectives
critical
of organization
levels
all
complementary
Regional
To
on to state
bear
Forest
Service
the
to
job
are
of
the
on
the
competence
needed
where
the
ground.
With
the
has tended toward more
this
would
on
out
like
to be more
the
Forest
anywhere but
engineering
this
approach
to
we dont
sense
to getting the job properly
fix
to
needed to do a
the
size
organization
program
such
how much we
and
of
as
of
small
has
which
projects
has
in
when
we
and
had
the
level
to do a
more
require
order to
in
the
at
been
a truly
a truly
in
him. In
in
people
the
professional engineers
forces has
of Regional
expense
the team
rather than
generalist
also
tended
priorities.
job
level
of competence.
It
we
are
are
convinced that we
than
Our
work
where we can do the
to determine
supervision
him
meet the goals of the Forest.
of a
use
were
with
trained
competent
perfectly
them
I
never
discussed
- we hadnt
fault
job. Dispersal of engineering
an acceptable
at
hire
develop
led to
Forest
at
the ability
do
can
to
done
first-class
the
engineer and he had good
intelligent
That was our
continue
Also this
continues
letter
of experts
who
Engineer
engineer
of ours we
approach
The
Forest
an
young
engineering.
organization
academic
but
under
professionally
had absolutely no idea whatsoever of what was involved
scattered
highly
that
grow
inherent in
of weeks ago Dick Wilke
a couple
GS-12
a
best
Service
supervisors.
-
this
with
but
training
processes
professional
on
talked
the weaknesses
recognizing
can
engineers
engineering
specific
and
without
few years the Forest
the past
in
on that Forest. He was obviously
academic
formal
Young
of highly qualified
supervision
I
decentralization
of organization.
type
work
of engineering
great expansion
has led to a multitude
equipped
to
handle
properly.
Looking
at
organize
This
-
to
when
I
at
they
do occur
the Forest
District
such
major
make
better
action
as
projects
of our
use
the
those
or
qualified
establishment
about centers
to resolve
I
difficult
am
talking
of
a
and
must
experienced
technical
projects
specialized
about centers within
problems that do not occur
at
all
not with enough frequency
level.
We
are
work when we
the
require
handle
talk
technical skills
if
must
job we
engineering
center
which
-
or
occur
on any one Forest.
infrequently
Now
will
expanded
We
differently.
engineers.
centers
our greatly
think
not talking about
of these
and Forest
level.
centers.
What
I
large
to
have
numbers
on
the kind
saying
39
is
that
all
of your Forests or
of expertise
available
of people or even most of the
The major part of the work
am
your organization of
there
is
still
has to
be done at
a part of that work that
we cannot do
work.
professional
skill
This
we
contribution
Such
centers
would
fully
staffed
with
three
sections
should
to
one cannot
the
Assistant
a higher
at
of the Regional
with modern
be eliminated.
or other
Forest
it
a
is
design
Administrative
Instead specialized
skills
These top
modern
We
This
load.
They would be
needed
equipment
have
level
work
Engineers.
specialists.
but
of people
Engineer.
be encountered.
will
engineering
Regional
the
at
that
large
more complex
for this
level
numbers
provide.
and equipped
the .problem
architects
engineers
to be prepared
under the direction
be
of
parts
includes
have
to organize
got
not necessarily mean
does
again
many of
consolidate
have
specialists
quality job. Here
evaluate
we
there and
are
tools
such
to
fully
have
to
organization
branches
as
would be organized
staff specialists
do a
to
going
proposed
units
to
should
under
or
staff
be of GS-13
caliber.
Our purpose is
When
expertise.
of a
have
got
help
at
the
than
he
is.
more
far
job.
You
too
many
the GS-13 specialist
The
will
The
will
development
guidelines
Forest
feels
we
have
Service
and
roads and other improvements
supervision
investigations
Forest
lands checking
Forest
level.
similar
capacity
needed
work
Where
as the
reviews
work
He
detract
no better
are
done
qualified
of
talent
activities
Use
to
hope
plans and annual
hear
of
all
from the importance
the Supervisors
and
Engineer
will
of Engineering
you
activities
Regional
engineer in private
for compliance
the
by
other
use
in
of
the
occasionally.
reconnaissance
terrain
for
is
not
engineering
of improvements by others on National
structures for safety
the
the
in
Skills
referring
work
of the
direct
to be determined
plans of
new
staff
lead
will
but the most complex projects
some of the
at
this
the technical centers.
planning
Forest
report
certainly
engineering
is
the
to ask for
the right kind
design of minor roads or major roads where
owners
plans
is
We
do
to
Engineer
wondering what
are
particular
member of
the
to proposed construction
such
in
multiple-use
of the
of construction
and other improvements
bridges
at
relating
and
Forest such
C
Formulation of long- and short-range
complex
-
planning.
I
for
terms
in
manager.
skills
special
there
in
many of you
to serving as a
on the
which
man
the
would not
in
Appendix
to
know
centers
participate
in
particular
not been looking
Engineers job
activities
contained
that
professional
to think
Office.
I
stated
of transportation
engineering-related
mans
a tendency not
rather of a program
but
Region
of the
In addition
Engineer.
Engineer
have
still
but to provide
such
as
going to get a GS-12 or GS-13 Forest
of technical
establishment
the
in
the Regional
also
we
when he
do to the Forest
job of Forest
Forest
not
instances
at
transmittal letter
concept
are
program
these spots
critical
Office
Regional
In
to
fill
technical engineer
be
to
engineering
in
looking
GS-13
top
to run an engineering
not
level
business.
with stated
40
and maintenance of roads
which
logically
the
Forest
He
develops
needs
would remain
Engineer
makes
acts
a prospectus
in
a
for
on-the-ground
program
of plans and
review
plan-in-hand
the
technical
center
may
check periodically to ensure that Forest
The
engineering
Where
other.
Forest
should
that
engineer
action
plans
them
giving
The
Forest
have
one
manager
the
he can
He
will
stagnate
priorities
He
will
tools
jobs
of
the
his
contemporary
their
be
at the GS-11
engineers
offices
Regional
take
to
and
technical
or
basic
in
part in the
background
engineering
In the
level
and
philosophy
trained
modern
with
Forest
Service.
engineering
specialty
Special
his
his
in
training
He
forestry.
He must
fire
of
be
can
to
his
career
order to
in
Our
than his specialty.
continue
concept
job. Communicative
listening writing
play a key
skills will
jobs and continue
to
a
advise
of what
of a good technical engineering
reading
to
as
whole scheme of
the
that
see
will
begin
into
fits
and enable him
and
his
undergraduate
urge
job.
and speaking
role
in his
being
a factor in whether or not
be
he
level
of
leaves
There
college.
trends
practical
of doing
college
is
no
He
the
only
are
must continue
to
beginning.
if
curiosity
learn
He
not he
to be aware of
around him.
knowledge. He must take the
and the
societies
professional
issues.
at
days
for self-improvement an intellectual
political
the input
supply
the
in
engineering
moment
social
with
professional
a
properly.
built-in
himself between
associate
mark of
the
level
Regional
that he be well trained.
at
also
be greater than the concept
learn that
and
a
each
complement
at
supplemented and taking
multiple-use
should
must be contemporary
should
it
that
They
in
areas where
those
for responsible
must have
is
be
should
assignments
grasp of things must be broader
daily
soon
This
dictates
position
well-trained
technology.
in
a communicator.
perform
will
resources
him to take direction
train
his
vital
selected
be
also
toughest
or wrong
He must be
needed.
for identifying promising
including
show him how
to
should
levels
to our organization.
Engineer
It will
right
are
should
of the
specialist
is
training
advantage
specific
own
his
Engineer
made
broad
organization
things.
Forest
be
management
resource
control
the
of the
should
They
centers.
when
assistance
will
Engineer
that support.
The importance
future
for
when
is knowing
obtain
to
call
Forest
only be provided
can
skills
of a fluctuating
case
the
met.
are
and Regional
or specialized
higher-level
Engineer
needs
Forest
at
organization
but
construction
supervise
In
construction.
supervises
areas
to
where
stay
substitute
communication.
41
for
he
calls
plugged
personal
initiative
to
for assistance.
in
to
experience
broaden
He must
discussions
and
on
face-to-face
This
is
our challenge.
engineering
I
think
organization.
It
Divisions
of Engineering
However
we must not
a long
way
to
go
in
stop.
that
I
at
think
get
the
we
been giving challenges
have
started several
first
order to more
about the people we might
we
years ago
WO
level
more
can be proud of what
effectively
- but
when we
and
the people
42
use
we
the
people
have.
for sometime for our
reorganizing the
suggested
recently
we
have
we
at
the
RO
done but we
have.
I
am
not
level.
have
talking
AND MANAGEMENT
PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION
The
which
topics
discussion
this
the
in
urgent
you have
week are both
of
activities
belt
and a constant
the
change
in
-
concern
one
public
It
management.
of
present
self-appraisal
to
the
modify
or
business.
-1
to
speak
an area which
of
and
construction
major
you
areas
major
works
is-
for
opportunities
and
doing
opportunity
on
detail
timely
improve
to
of
ways
for
our
tightening
need
the
appreciate
of
context
outlined
provides
forward
steps
toward better ways.
con-27
It
has
this
morning
association
R.
P.
McRorey
Washington
Associate
Office
of Engineering
Divisions
1971 Washington
Regional
Meeting
involved
Chief -
Deputy
and
every
Office
September
problem areas where
What
are
are
Forest
1.
improvements
going to adequately
disciplines.
You
Major
increases
$49 million
The Timber
the
Forest
but
is
Sale Credit
3.
action
Legislative
construction
structural
Road and
and
in
the
land
improvements
Trail
in
in
1972.
growth
allowances
in
This
12
item
line
acquisition
out
Program.
43
as
a
You
other
therefore in
some of
if
we
the
the Forest
and changes
in
the National
Trail
still
Program from
not caught
has
up
years.
in
are
in
of the
are
define
for road construction
1971 appropriation
funding
group
about
particular come to mind.
$110 million per year
FY
in
aspect of our Program.
Road and
Development
a substantial
$44 million to an estimated
actions
legislative
work Four
1961 to $173 million
in
with our needs
2.
in
our
works
are
any
and must be made
can
the public
significant
Program areas which affect
position
a
as
disciplines
Service.
than
better
to
in
involved
deeply
activities
or changes
manage
of the specific
some
more
Engineers
indirectly
the Forest
times
several
as
other
and/or
struction
a
Service
the
in
activity
out
you
that
with
directly
however
D.C.
been pointed
already
increasing from
the same
12
years.
process creating
financing.
multi-year
fund
This
our
new
sets
our
similar
to
the
The Environmental
4.
legislation
other
considerations
we
this
have
am
I
road
if
bridge
not
the
in
both
Service activity
than
A
I
moment
ago
maintenance
set
allowances
credit
and
for
final
that at
any given
time
we
budget
civilian
largest
we would be
These investments
or
the
We
facility
sense
They
se.
are
large
these
solving
functional.
maintenance
functional
Region
funding
needs
of
you
stages
why
or
in
interest
should
two
least
and
according
to
its
you
Service
in
Forest
this
to
you
is
a
realize
Year Programs
manage.
efficiently
news
Engineering
sale
That
million.
When
or three Fiscal
ability
and
with the timber
facilities.
government. With
Federal
of the
items of construction
when combined
and maintained
at
and
does
it
have.
The
levels.
land
for making
if
Because
not.
personal
the
translating
and maintenance totaled $324
with
as
and
structural
group responsible
why
program
many problems
in
of our
terms
At
Service Programs.
this
record the sixth
timber
credits
They
They
You
you were
or Bureau
all
on.
confidently
added
probably
In
many
know
cases
44
manage
creating
new
maintaining and operating
activities
ahead to
obtain
of
it
the
specific
is
an
many
to make
fully
full
the
the
financed
field
total
people.
of
influence
facility
operation
of other
funding
instances
outside
sets
in
times on a functional
facilities
of Reclamation project which
and problems.
are
manner.
look
cannot always
to better
ability
same time they
constructing
acceptable
of related functional
cannot
programs.
or Forest
both
architects
all
direct
at least
Service
particular.
service
of monies going into new
of funding
programs.
of Engineers
on the Forest
programs may be creating a deep frustration
amounts
and a lack
basis
fully
that
the
1972 budget
make us
an environmentally
in
in
and
reason
existing problems of adequately
to
adding
at
largest.
Forest
aspects of the
specific
as
on the organization
works agency
public
many
abatement
pollution
a major impact
to
more
specific
FY
working
are
items alone
fourth
the
reconstructed
a major impact
line
of
Along with
cases.
developments carried out by the Forest
road construction
new
is
front
in
you may be thought of seldom
individuals
as
the
in
this
of
mentioned some
in
concerning
services
acting
any other group or
out
out
individual
many
engineers
function
works
investment
then
By
regardless
sizable
The
aware
reality.
public
a group
as
quality
from concept through
or building
does
it
well
are
into
plans
involvement
have
Order 11507
and architectural
be involved
must
management
often
you
sure
landscape
that
public eye
others but these four alone add up
are
in
and clean
air
facilities.
a whole and on engineering
As
the
with clean
along
environmental
placed
in
Executive
Federal
existing
There
has
water
of 1969
Act
Policy
this
such
related
within
as
and
the
a Corps
the stage for the coordinated
In
any case your help
land
him
in
We
talk
about
the
almost
limit
anything
then
possibly the
erosion
control
into
of implementation of
process
the
of development
alternatives
and future funds to a constructed
management
consider
There
facilities
of
man equipment
used on or
buildings
structures
and
it
retaining
walls
items we can
goods and
roads
major communicationspower
trails
and
conveyors
control
stream
and
equipment
would include
and water
then
however we
If
Structural
system or systems.
particular
these
word
the
items pipelines
related
the
in
dams
mean by
and storing and conserving
facilities
transport
defines
goods
assist
the line item in
constructed
in
man
than
included.
is
and
facility.
really
this
Webster
as
for
tramways waterways and
include
more to
investment
facilities
down
break
do we
what
is
job done
to getting a specific
transport
equipment
would
facilities
the
the Line Officer
physical plant or capital
further
heliports
airfields
structures
networks
systems
cetera.
These
The
may
facilities
but they
still
it
is
well
or
involve
may
Environment
presentation
organizational
concepts.
The
many
terms
under our authority
fully
architects
in
connotations
of very
depending
you heard
word
the
on
such
functions
specific
for funding
the
in
and
context
within
Management
broadest
its
effort.
management
as fleet
Forest. In the
used
or control
needs
management
the total
term
of
done more in the last year to focus
abatement program has probably
on the wide range of management
problems real and imagined in public
pollution
attention
works. We
For
and
broad sense of management of the National
the
as
has
in
come
not
engineers
management
used. We use it
term
which
as
we
If
throughout
and facilities but
we
for housing
facilities
resources.
even
the
them
categorize
structural
by
contributing
to
facilities
meant
is
to
existing
works
for instance
If
budget.
commit
to
public
terms and what
needed
of the first and long-term costs of systems and facilities
decisions
his
is
to identify
management plans
and the consequence-
et
staff
as
the
have
managed
of
purposes
management
of a facility
should
the reports
this
mean
funding
presentation
the
facilities
and
coordination
as
of
sites
food-
for
identified
et
cetera.
thought
I
need for and
suggest
service
with
Planning
and programming.
Design and
specifications.
work.
Construction
Operation
of the completed facility at or below design capacity.
Maintenance
to
Similar actions
assure performance at level
on related but
different
45
of service
functionally
initially
controlled
identified.
facilities.
that
criteria
You have
different
entirely
concern
designed
purpose
maintained
uses and a
problem
is
problem
How
to
big.
life
of
has
do we
show
around
the
caused
of
cost
total
a reservoir
funding
This
facilities
the
is
of a complex
The
such
development
into several
separated
systems
approach.
do we
manage
of parts
is
of
systems
How
fragmentation.
elements
all
when
and you were
design.
complexities
requires a sophisticated
In total In parts Or in accumulation
recreation
of inadequate
an
for
operated
standard
questionable
plus increased
facility
Functionalism
for one purpose
Foresters must address ourselves.
investment
capital
finite
some
because
failed
everything
which we and
your Regional
to
rapidly expanded
and
and constructed
facilities
when
called
probably
A
seen
all
such
sub-items
a
as
the
in
budget process
Is
a
system of planning programming
and replacement
expansion
Do we
for
provide
accelerated
a system responsive
How
we
do
which
Should
amortization
as
present
District
works
or
operation
10 20
or
such
maintenance
30 years feasible
Can we make
it
needs
of
complexities
Forest
of
period
intensity of use increases
a complex situation
in
a Ranger
in
public
all
the
programs
results
a time
to the field peoples total budget
reduce
multi-facility
cycled
construction
design
over
initiating
as
and
the
coordinating
a major recreation
development
expansion program
programs come
under
one authority
and
for execution
management
week
Later
this
some
detailed
tools
your problem-solving
problems of management
and new methods.
should
are
in
serve
suggest
to broaden the
identified which
Regions
I
and us
in
WO.
problems and opportunities
the clarification
scope
We
as
you keep the
might provide
the
sessions
such
of
your
the
you
personnel
total
Public
discussions.
handle
will
we need
I
be addressing
programming
Works
for change
of the problem and
its
innovation and improvement.
scope but that would be a good
46
in
mind.
It
items
specific
objectives for
must work toward an early solution
new
quality
Program
hope that some
to set
to
yourselves
you
in
the
to these growing
It
may
start.
only be
GENERAL
DISCUSSION
MONDAY SEPTEMBER
27
DEINEMA
My
remarks
opening
challenges
ý
listening
get
have
like
to
you
pin us
W.
Deinema
Forest
and Regional
Meeting
D.
would
down
of advice
feel
all
it
do
to
fellows.
frank
is
would
I
where
discussion
kind of
you ask the
where
you
like
really
from you
good
a
after
is
us the
Give
you.
necessary.
HOWLETT
r
National
I
the
he has covered
that are bothering
questions
kind
Chet
What
the
in
and
approach
feedback
the
today
think
I
brief
just
about
you
tell
us
multidisciplinary
to
be
to
going
to
facing
pretty well.
J.
was
presentation
Washington
Divisions
Office
stimulated
is
personnel
C.
to
way
get
on what
for a discussion
reduction
percent
Washington
one
maybe
thought
I
Office
of Engineering
27 1971
September
Chief -
Deputy
Associate
Systems
Forest
in
this
a 2.9
Service
means.
DEINEMA
This
is
the
ceilings.
How
of challenge
type
Management
do we
get
out
of
is
hitting
us the reduction
more and more and giving
that
demanding
this
spot
I
in
is
think
this
is
the type
dollars personnel
and
less
less to
of thing we can
do
it
and
with.
discuss.
SHIELDS
the
FY 1972
final
Administrations
additional
funds
staffing.
Now
August
which
something
like
Our expected
come
budget estimates
call
call
then
was
for a permanent
for an
the
given
That
positions
is
full-time
positions
a
figure
2.9
below our calculated
during
positions.
47
funds
staffing
us under this proposal
attrition based on experience
down some 600
the additional
of 1024
increase
ceiling
21526.
1700
include
percent
needs
over
is
positions.
our end
the
staffing
below the
for
added to
that Congress
of 22539
g
Our
the
size
of
FY
we had
22539
so
The
1971
as
it
of
is
of the program.
that time will be only 967.
We
must
QUESTION
What
do we have
other alternatives
full
quote permanent
time what
of other
Where
types of appointments
they doing with other types of appointments
terms
in
are
you
SHIELDS
The
probably get a
and we
could
We
are
on others. We do
ceiling
cannot turn
also
do.
OMB
of Management and Budget
Office
will
impound
going to
dropped
the
that
a certain
other
on
the constraints
work
for the
to contract
hasnt
have
shoe
amount of
We
yet.
full-time
ceilings
personnel
the dollars.
DEINEMA
What
we have
-
control
reach
do
to
we have major
where
see
is
we need more men
with
to go
it.
We
for instance
increases
cant
men
get the
in
therefore
pollution
we cant
these program goals.
SHIELDS
At this point
in
time
guidelines and give
the prescribed
the
objective
is
and
the Department
we must
guidelines
how we
to determine
OMB
describe
the
picture.
we cant
and
the consequences
do the job within
can
If
the
do the job within
what they do about
see
it.
QUESTION
How
they
are
control
going to
contracting
SHIELDS
I
would doubt that anybody
The
the
way
they
Indians
arrive
to figure
describing the
at
in
OMB has
these things
out
the
management
is
details.
checked
a top-level
I
am
not
process that takes
out
arbitrary
being
the
details
decision.
cynical
as
to
They
or negative
how
to do this.
then
leave
here.
I
it
to
am just
place nationally.
QUESTION
I
guess
run
that
I
didnt get the
significance
of that
limitation on contracting
by again
48
Chet.
Could you
SHIELDS-Let
me
read the
the
effecting
as
priorities
exact
employment
required
by
established
be increased or used
not
Unavoidable
increases
We
guidelines.
Careful
statement.
and ingenuity
planning
reductions
to
the President. Contracts
assure
a way to circumvent
work loads must be absorbed.
of trying to
are in the process
what
out
figure
That
it
sum
means and
will
employment.
in
the
is
in
of program
private firms or individuals
with
the required reductions
as
in
be necessary
will
maintenance
of the
total
how we
apply
it.
QUESTION
Jack do we
such
as
what
have
feedback
any
to
may happen
on the Administrationsprograms
Do we
and pollution abatement
timber
cutting
from that statement
have
programs That we might be
these
real
any
directed
feedback
to
yet as to
these
carry out
programs to something else
DEINEMA
Realistically there
no doubt that we
is
OMB
abatement program. Also
OMB
Eventually
meet
and
them
fields.
million this year.
after
the
all
fights
$11 million back
say
they
it
still
think
I
timber
is
is
contracting
Timber
We
but they
out
the timber
the
stand
to
proposing
however
is
the
improvements
our
The
President
program
have
never
us live with
in
addition
us to
do
let
in
Now
will
we
have
up
given
off the hook
reached
all
as to
49
the
be
at
morning
they
do we
engineering
$11
the
especially
to
is
hat
And when
I
the office of
for
-
We
program.
This
the
give
along
preservationists
whether
as
are
to carry
are
also
Administration
this
approach
is
severe are unanswered
same
time
a compromise.
people
program.
How
the
it politically.
- but
and that and
this
past
we havent
been
this
to the harvesting
off of these things.
sales
before.
money back
the
on the Hill and the
and whether the reductions
tells
but
proposal
our pollution
programs increased
program with these cutbacks.
us back
let
timber
have
especially
turning
with
one of the things we wear the white
to do the job. In the
up part of the people
However we
Our
gray world someplace
reduce our harvesting
not about to
resources
is
hopes
hook by
Congressmen
industry. This
going to give us more people
questions.
off the
going to let
not
are
kind of an outside
Management and Budget
with
let
they
and planting
improvements
to get this program going.
as
goals
real
to continue
off on our
us slack
let
one of our
is
be
going to have
demand output
stand
not
will
not
will
to
going
are
takes
We
have
away
given
proposed to be given up.
meeting our commitments.
USHER
of realism where
comes to a point
It
many
make
Now
people.
the
if
wrong and
they
we
absorb
were
goals that
were
right.
management and if you
to work our own
opportunity
percent
we
take
6 days
people
well
we
week
is
are
taken
we were
then
a lousy job
doing
the
as
then
people
away.
in Somebody
realism set
and go ahead and
personnel
that
as
a
to be accomplished by so
than we have
slack
money
overtime
in
people
much
the
away
reduction
more
have that
window and
out the
dreaming go
If
much work
so
is
a 2.9 percent
for 2.9
set
of
does
there
Now
to draw
has
the
where
a line
someplace.
DEINEMA
I
your point and
see
muscle.
dont
I
have
just
hard
going
agree
have
with you 100 percent.
be made
in
our
programs we
within
entirely
the
to give
Forest
Administration in the White House and
think
I
programs.
have
we
think
I
Service
OMB
we
up. But
are
to have
think
are going
they
to the hard
means we
paring
going
dont
I
down
are
the field and
any more
fat left in
any
up something
on what
decisions
to
we
feel
to give
I
the
to
choices
be made
to
will
make
are
the
in
as well.
QUESTION
This
will
bring us back
we had GS-7 and -9s
we
can
live
with
some of the
to
doing equivalent
we
things
have
seen before
GS-13 work. To
me
this
in
is
our programs where
wrong.
dont
I
see
how
that.
DEINEMA
You
know
the field
in
people
a lot better than
it
I
do.
I
to rely on your judgment.
have
SHIELDS
Well
at
to
there
opposite
give
That
is
I
think
my
that
The
purposes.
and
just
no question
is
it
is
these pull-backs in average
OMB
more
is
looking
likely
pretty hard
to give
at
and
grade
this.
on the average
I
are working
ceilings
would expect
something
on the
grades than
ceiling.
opinion.
DEINEMA
One
thing
quality
wrong
I
would
letting
locations
like
to
stress
is
that
if
we
ever take the
easy
GS-7s supervise GS-13 work and we end up with
and
sale
layouts
that are too large
50
for clear
route
sloppy
cut blocks
out
roads
we
and lower
put
in
the
are lost as an
Agency.
quality
McGuire
gun
by with
would
Chief has
the
would
we
as
stress
think
I
for quantitative
have
stress
goals.
to get
acceptable
in
We
know
I
quality.
its easy
There
age.
are not
and people.
I
dont
just
john
under the
are
many
too
that
outfits
we
unless
really
about quality when
talk
we
feel
sacrifice
think
I
the past and
gotten
in
survive
to
going
up here and glibly
to stand
We
done.
are
not
will
and
that
stress
a quality job
day and
this
to whittle us up and spit us out.
like
we
that
time
after
better
been before. The things we may have done
never
getting pinched for dollars
are
have
just
time
this
we had
think
I
We
it.
no longer
are
reiterated
do anything
can
you
else.
QUESTION
As
week
the
see
I
whether the
program than
others
has really
their
put
we
If
priority.
here and with
developing
would like to know
This
is
name on
direction
candid
it and where
achieve
about giving National
talk
been directed
that
would be a good time to meet and say
we
your
to which
as
been badly
has
the line and said
some
want
really
has
field
this
a higher
is
feedback
then
OK
is
here
No
one
a lower
is
end of the meeting
the
here
direction
priority
past.
or this
priority
towards
the
the
in
lacking
I
priorities
a higher
is
is
the start. Can
we going
are
DEINEMA
Excellent
suggestion.
I
will
make myself available.
QUESTION
I
would
like
house we
- we
approach
that
maybe
-
when
where
Perhaps
we
should
happens
a more
approach
the letter.
hero and
to the people
been over a
has
take
same
the
playing
score was tallied.
final
somebody
we
stop
what
at
almost
these constraints to
we
its time
the
took
I
approach
-
of the
an extremely conservative
What
who didnt
would
I
like
outside
this
play hero.
lined against
to suggest
house
think
I
of a case in the past
and then
a product
are
and budget constraints many
our noses
stick
dont know
little bit
liberal
we
simple. Chet said
relatively
house has gone through personnel
this
followed
and look
minute
lost
and
time
Every
times.
about something
talk
to
live in
is
for
a
maybe we
- maybe you
do
the wall and shot.
a more liberal interpretation
-
and not
honor these constraints so conscientiously.
DEINEMA
I
think
we do have
to gamble
hole on some
get in the
One
thing
career
along
then
this
coming
up to a
certain
of these things
line
really
to the
shocked
Washington
we
point.
could
me.
However
really
Sitting
in
we gamble
too
far and
be racked.
the field as
Office really opened
51
if
my
I
have
eyes.
for most of
When
we
my
testified
at
the
us
if
appropriations
hearing
we didnt want
we
where
we
set
money
have
FRT
in
Yet we
it.
day and
there day after
sat
I
needed
desperately
realized that
limits
more
Recreation
-
no
said
play on the Administration
to
listened
the legislators
to
Watershed
this
is
all
-
team
we
that
ask
and other places
handle.
can
we
have
I
finally
these budget
for us.
QUESTION
I
would
like
just
If
credibility.
there
and the
Service
ought to
point out
to
is
we need
anything
but within
public
about
talk
when we
that
is
the Forest
long
as
credibility
as
about quality we should
talk
it
we
also
Service.
like
to
about quality
talking
are
would
I
the
suggest
in
about
talk
credibility not only between
Forest
that
we
the rest of the
meeting program.
DEINEMA
I
we do have
think
a credibility
We
gap.
need better communication
also
especially with
those in the field.
HOWLETT
One
never
that
happened
thing
extra
for the
ceilings
a
got
new
pollution abatement
We
ceiling.
so over-committed
already
pollution
abatement.
authority
to do
affected
specifically
We
on
were
group
at
ceilings
the
time
that
year.
gave
all
the field
Service as a whole
Forest
we were
we
We
going
We
to take.
were
these extra ceilings
gave
told by the Chief to go ahead and to do
just
over and above the ceilings he was
it
last
program but the
that this was a risk
felt
just
this
for
He had no
it.
allotted.
SHIELDS
I
think
better
the
in
years
in
terms
over the head too
much
terms
current example
is
get
we
5
is
of obtaining
in
or better.
percent
conservative
over
ways of meeting goals
beat ourselves
the
of being
point
our
own
well
is
of both
because
output
if
taking
agency
is
even
dollars
it
a 2.9 percent
taking
5
I
think
and personnel.
we examine
manpower and
Agriculture
-
taken
Forest
is
play the game
has resulted in some
degree
think
Service
we neednt
success
pretty good
a
to seek
over
story.
A
when government-wide it
When you consider that we
cut
percent.
totaling $38 million over the Administrationsbudget
add-ons
I
we need
I
would say the way
of success.
WILKE
One of
we
the
think
problems of engineering
we
are
going
to
in
the
Forest
Service
is
that
we
design projects that
build then we have to design the project we actually
52
build.
We
waste- a lot
of engineering-effort
Part of
is
this
get the
never
find
they
think
in-house part
road
the
somehow
design decisions
in
of change
because
out-of-house.
involved
public really
out
is
way
this
Public
involvement plays a
part
They dont
decisions.
planning
management
in
we
should
so
we dont
out
figure
have
to get
way
a
hunting
involved
public
the project
after
changes
the
involved
get
going by their door or opening up their favorite
is
planning.
in
We
in this.
until
area.
I
and
planning
designed.
is
DEINEMA
I
am
from an expert but
you
far
hammer down
the publics
these hearings
-
On
hand
the
other
the
get
people
know
I
unless there
your meetings
throat
- we
right
present
areas
if
especially
wont
give
going to be a road past
have
always
We
one way or another.
many
is
are
can
there
which we
a plan
take multiple-use
is
some
plans to
of controversy.
sort
You wont
a darn.
to
try
get anybody
to
their front door.
WILKE
-
Thats the problem
these people
dont come.
CURFMAN
In
reference
more
Study defined
areas
the
jobs many of the things that the Engineering
to quality engineering
than
10 years
ago
are
with
still
us.
requirements
me
seems to
It
for a quality job are increasing faster than
that
Skills
in
many
to
perform
capability
to do a
our ability
the quality jobs on the ground.
McROREY
I
we
think
better
are
doing a quality job. However
quality job.
faced
continually
demands on
I
am
with
not
satisfied
think
I
we have
the
with the job and one of the reasons
we
where
crisis situations
have
to use
our
is
we
that
are
to meet initial
people
us.
LUPIEN
Regarding the
question
to
Once
we
is
of quality jobs and
manpower ceilings
of personnel.
primarily in the vein
effective
establish
the Forest
position
Russ
and
dynamic
topic
Service
personnel
a ceiling
instead
we
section
should
takes
maintain
of waiting x number
going to be vacant we should
of losing a quarter
It
of a
man-year to
advertise
deliver
a
53
an
My
it
new
question
forever
to
fill
to
to direct
why cant we
personnel
prior to the
person
is
like
and a day. to
optimum
of days
would
I
that job.
If
within
we know
departure
We
a
positions.
backlog
a position.
mans
fill
my
have
lose
a
instead
a lot of
time
our
dragging
better
from the
campaign on campuses
recruitment
an active
of the vast resources
use
not
just
ongoing program of recruitment
but-an
the springtime
we make
cant
industry Cant we have
aerospace
in
Why
feet.
McROREY
This
tremendous
a
is
continually
be done.
with
the
we
we
constraints
of the
Civil
some headway.
making
are
from
have
can
improvements
the confines
within
probing
think
I
which
area in
the
Service Commission to
Some
We
and should be made.
actions
Department
are pretty
and
from
to
see what
what
see
tightly
the
are
can
tied
in
Service
Civil
Commission.
With respect
to the aerospace
former aerospace
employing
must be a better way
to
do
we
industry
employees.
have been asked
think
I
all
of your points
we
are
do about
can
There
excellent.
it.
LUPIEN
we
If
decrease
employment
teams.
If
our
work
force
we
are going
otherwise
you
take
one
out
link
becomes
it
that
imperative
to do a poorer
job
of that chain you break
in
it.
making
It
we
keep
up
maximum
interdisciplinary
takes time to weld
it
back
together.
WILKE
What about
designating
GS-13 engineering
jobs to
the
Regions
McROREY
I
am
no
not aware
this
at
One of
decision.
time
the
available
competent people
There has been considerable
of any decision.
considerations
throughout
goes
back
to
your point
-
discussion
the
but
need to have
the area in highly specialized fields.
LOFF
I
have
something on personnel
were spent on personnel
the
Government.
follow-up
action
report came
I
want
to
follow
up on. Some time ago time and energy
of model in
It was set
up as a kind
programs and systems review.
havent
other
I
seen
than
that
we
have implemented
the recommendations
one example sent to Regions about
out.
54
six
months
or any
after
the
SIRMON
There was some
recommendations
which
with
of jobs
restructuring
recommendation
own
up our
had to develop
of the
out
brought
with
office
study.
within
personnel
we
dealing
of routine
engineers
came
that
been
has
Eachunit
follow-up.
better
We
We
function.
have
are
one of
approaches
have
officer
We
for implementing
plan
two
taken
Administrative
of people.
use
management
have
Division.
our
an
in
We
own
their
reorganization
to
trying
followed
of
terms
in
relieve
the
staff
of cleaning
in
terms
in
the programming
Division.
LARSE
Would you comment on
the
new
direction
and budgeting process in the Forest
that
we might be
taking
Service
SHIELDS
OMB are
The Department and
FY
1973
they
do that
going
with
program
think
really
create
the
happening
to
excellent
handle
it.
more
at
Congress
If
book Power
way
you
in
look
Resources.
because
of the
across
going
are
than
just
several
I
agencies
dont know
really
.wan
get
in
apparently
how
they
are
an
frustrations.
functional
insight
how
timber
do you
lines
think
I
lines.
a uniform approach.
to
to
agencies
or
regional
OMB in
in
interrelationships of any one
some
to have
of moving
terms
people
In the budget review
resource
all
For example considering
activities.
when you
it
to look
in
of Natural
meaningful
resource
budget examiners
a tendency
anything
staffed
any
other
roads along with
consider
I
in
from
programs
of the new Department
anticipation
to
to building blocks.
going
to look at
going
are
I
dont
They
into the
it
are
process
will
see
not
an
and the Purse by Pennell describes the budget and committee
process.
CHAMARD
Could you
the
tell
group where we stand on computers
right
now
SHIELDS
We
have
has
done
within
how
completed
the
the
same.
our
analyses
Their
Department.
of what
proposition
is
our
that
needs
there
are.
The Department of
should
There was a task force working
for
to go about acquiring a system of hardware for the entire
proposition
of
five
major computer centers across the country
55
Agriculture
be a centralized computer
some time-on
determining
Department based on the
- each
run by a different
Forest
how
I
One
of Agriculture.
agency
Service.
It
appears
a trip to Region
to relate
attempted
have
6 with
to them
how
and propose
situation
does
not constitute
have
a lot
may
shifting
of sympathy for our needs
be mostly run by the
attitude
a little bit
and a member of
Elliott
was we got approval
result
would
be met.
I
can
we dont
but
to
as
specify any details.
deviation. All
for
its
importance of computer programs
The
needs
our
approval
be
Assistant Secretary
the critical
programs and organization.
Service
yet to
area would
Mountain
Rocky
Department
to go about this-but they
made
the
in
the
say
clear
very
that at this point
is
our Forest
further define
to
was made
It
We
his staff.
in
our
that
this
time they
in
a thing nailed down.
have
HEPFL
What
about Department
for
approval
equipment
use of outside
Is
that
still
mandatory
SHIELDS
Right.
we
think
I
some
have
of the delegation
from the Department.
approval
I
dont
really
up
certain levels.
to
We
any problem on
expect
get rather prompt
that.
HOWLETT
morning and
This
from
all
our field people
the
of National
light
moment
the
in
with the
receiving our
for submission
or lose
with
OMB
isnt very
a
member
of the
these
becomes
-
this
is
team
can
if
the only budget
you
always
appropriated
get
to
specified
may not be
finished
do
in
purposes
making
areas
Forest
an inspection
for which
they
come
Service
related
in
Region
are
et
cetera.
popular
are
process we
not
we
2.
argue
what
We
the
at
have
be
to
down
was
OMB. What we
adequately
if
people
have
say
be
to
you dont
as
through
Congress
purposes.
alternatives.
a tremendous
funded.
You
needed.
win
an extremely
Some
for.
for specific
up
is
play
going to play on the team.
from
cast
have
is
a budget
together
team and
are
come back
They
56
for
will.
to what
goes to
publicly
play on the
back
put
from Congress. This
argue
they
there
lose
can
not you dont
someone who
funds
Department back
the
or
we
and that we should
are
things
from the Regions
What we win
budget we request
the
process
of the Administration.
estimates
initial dollar
professional
on the team they
When
priorities
frustrations
process these are defined
In this whole
not.
are
about
allocation
Some
areas.
particular
and some
to the Department.
important concept
this
in
priorities
Administration
mostly concerned
After
about ceilings the budget process
mentioned that when we
go into our budgeting
Jack and John
in
afternoon over and over again we have heard
this
This
is
I
the
These
have
just
amount of work
causing
to
not only
funding
distortions in
we
by which
process
the
to
proportion
but-
are giving
funds
Regions were financed
The
to send back
would
like
however we must be
We
exist
the
in
opportunities
in
opportunities
way we
me
will
land.
We
never
think
be
are going
as
have
that
will
we
never
you from
a viable
cast
relate
into
fit
as
to
is
the
in
particularly
furnished
not
projects
specific
in
the
we
program
services
total
a
to
can
the
the
we
and
it
cast
the
to
National
light
going
is
of National
of the
managers
only
way we
all
back.
57
up
land
priority.
will
opportunities
American
never
priority
up these opportunities.
for the benefit
going to get them
be what Congress
the overall
in
into National
precisely
casting
not
the Administration.
priorities
fit
up opportunities
are
to
may
be modified
to
certain
for
of National
up
discourage
must
not
financing for the programs
Forests
light
cast
do
to be done
responsive
responsive
do not necessarily
we
let
totally
National
opportunities
Dont
They
to
about balanced
talking
are
Dollars
on what needs
field
to us to do.
We
priority.
Manpower
allocations.
manpower
authorized.
allocations
manpower
to accomplish.
from the
requests
distortions in
also
We
must
be
balanced.
total
These
take
our
The
goals.
must.
can be responsive
of the
public.
We
that
It
is
the only
managers
American
of the
public.
But
PLANNING TEAMS
MULTIDISCIPLINE
We
with
the
me
Let
place
an
ate.
ti
done
coordinative
was
Rupp
Washington
Use
Multiple
and
Office
of Engineering
Divisions
27 1971
Washington
-
Coordinator
Regional
Meeting
Office
the
type of teams
planning
set
up
so
far
that
September
D.C.
8
using
a
going
Directive
to send to each
of the
will
grow
multiple-use
with experience.
from our present knowledge
and
doer
planner.
It
implementing and administering
the
planning
planning
the
of
his
responsibilities
Rangers
role
part of
staff
be
will
is
job.
concerned
to
would
discipline
priorities
must be done by the Forest
expertise
may be
yesterday
upon to serve
on whats expected
called
coming
to
is
often
out
others
discipline
59
may
as
be
to
that
are
an Emergency
in
today
enough
copies
staff
have
Their
training.
but we can
in
skills
operate
has been a mixture of
of
meeting requirements
new
this
directive
of the
to
plans.
relate
planning
man
is
man
single
thats
removing the
are
by trying
The
by a
or no time for working
little
we
on or lead a multiple
subject.
teams
instructions
you know
what
start
Supervisor.
been
Regions and for some review
on execution
multiple
Our
think
many people
as
fact
That
more
have
teams and
multiple
detail
level.
concentrate
I
have
projects left him with
Recognizing
team.
evaluation
discipline
I
are
..
facts
this
some.
planning
Forests.
as
doing
team that has
multiple
We
the
help
The Rangers job
to the forest
free
staff
training
far
doing
is
Regional
off the press
in
can
matter of facing
a
is
base.
1
without substantial formalized
operate
Formal
I
discipline.
They
We have
coordinators
degree.
to plans produced
single
Nation.
next few weeks.
the
teams cant
Obviously
here.
in
hopefully
entire
4 and 5
As
produces a superior plan of action
expected.
for the
1
Regions
some
the
as
This basically
training.
a planning
the
intensive
such
planning
been
spoke of yesterday
on individual
it
or
a
do
to
Region
has
9 has
compared
to tie this together
to
training
or less on
few teams have
however
involved
Region
W.
6
Region
also
Region
C.
team
more
is
West
are
unit
A
functional
systems
team
discipline
today
the
in
logging
level.
basis.
on-the-job
trained
taking
multiple
being
is
teams.
from the National
report
it
planning
discipline
on whats
a status
we know
of the
that
about
yesterday
of multiple
use
give
as
Most
V
some
talked
his
do.
Thus
As
far
as
to
the
by
Establishing
knowledge
team.
discipline
something
multiple-use
will
jobs done
to
teams.
with
on
I
and
spoke
say about
in
this
THE RESOURCE CAPABILITY SYSTEM
j
E
been
Ive
i
panel
asked
considerable
ýd
y7rs
go
into
In
case
I
into
on
spring
into
the
be
Ill
Management
Regional
Meeting
Washington
Office
September
mineral
and
Office
of
Divisions
We
evaluate
resources
the
To do
legitimate.
a
specialists
policy
analysis
Watershed
Systems Development
Invaluable
assistance
has
Research
The
in
Unit
Watershed
this
effort
is
still
Specific purposes
1.
can
collectively
of the
RCS
be used
to
Using
these
evaluating
the
at
got
the
Berkely
team
make
Service
the
sounds
This
matter
Subject
management
scientists
have
total
of
this complexity
effort.
and water
and
the
to
productivity
watershed
in
and
component
a job of
California
from Forest
assist
in
it
basic resources
and
all
Research
attached
and
the
been involved.
other
operational
the
Region
to
procedures
analytical
Resource
5
Divisions
Division
or
been
management
capabilities
tools
which
and limitations of the
resources
methods
response
61
for
simulating
to functional
and
of
resulting from
System
Capability
development have
evaluating
develop
now
the
develop
and climatic
is
tools
called
component
research
tools
soil
Regional
though
been
basic soil water
2.
Unit
The methods
existing
Utilizing
in
Service.
existence
Management.
have
selected
been received
and the Economic
the
at
out
set
System.
Forest
required
and
to
a nation-wide
can
economic
National
Washington
D.C.
programs
it
of the soil water
management
and
social
Engineering
27 1971
weapon
pro-gram
Watershed
of
Director
-
my
for
deep
know why we
to
business.
to
for
Glazebrook
I
to
expect
secret
reveal
composite contributions
B.
too
a
interested
RCS
beginning
T.
not
as
on our
time.
opportune
You may
-
you
do
water
have
I
do so
to capitalize
I
this
Resource
unless pressed to do so.
detail
get
of
part
the
or
investment.
much
as
pleased to
time
its
comprehension
-ý
Im
System.
that
feel
discuss
RCS
presentation
Capability
truly
to
quantitatively
program alternatives
RCS.
Combining
3.
this
capability
and
functions
disciplines
an
of
management
resource
develop
analysis of resource
interdisciplinary
allocation
Training
and
quality
soil
various
selected
tools to utilize
it
with
alternatives
water yield and minimizing
balanced
a
in
productivity
mix situation
multiple-use
4.
water
yield
the
plus
analytical
major emphasis on the objectives of optimizing
sediment
from
data
quantitative
objectives and constraints
management
in
with
and Forest
Regional
and hydrologists
soil scientists
the
in
of
use
these tools and methods.
Developments
New
1.
methods
tools
interdisciplinary
the
simulation
scientific
of water quantity
with
support
this
guide
are
now
of the On-National
and
Most
Forest and downstream
quality.
and
remaining
entire
approved
requested
their
Region
RCS
to the
analysis.
be available
will
also
for implementing
training
FY
includes
new
1972
level
trial
in
team.
on the Monongahela
this
use
permits.
Region
National
9
are
quite
A field
use
their
in
sophisticated.
manual
and users
been developed.
Both
the
of one man
each
training
of the individual
concepts.
Six Rivers
in
man on each
of the Forests
In addition Region
National
and
components
Forest
which has a man trained
Forest.
62
Regions for
have
inputs
the training of one
organization
the past four years in
during
the
fall.
includes
the
and implementation on the
multidiscipline planning
these concepts
for
early
to
and others
simple
manpower
as
systems and economics
operational
It
been provided
are
being remedied
the analytical
being revised
have
Some
analysis.
are
Chiefs Program of Work
The
the
both
work.
and
Weaknesses and gaps
for
of program
of the roads and
impacts
Approximately 50 computer programs have been developed
connection
soil
of these resources
and evaluation
analysis
physical and economic
the
including
model for the evaluation
value
of the
required
facilities
A
and tools permitting
permitting
alternatives
4.
and limitations
capabilities
to program alternatives
response
New
the
analyzing
methods
Analytical
3.
for
and climatic resources
water
2.
been
the past four years have
during
is
for
5
use
has
by
implementing
Im
you
sure
will
from here than
me
for
is it
models
say this
what went
in
an engineer
as
usable in whole
elements
is
all
very
on
in
Im
first
more interested
the past and second
First what
RCS
is
what
just
of
Its a kit
process which
are
in
RCS
is
be
what goes on
and what good
tools interrelated
analytical
or in part depending on the problem to
the decision-making
in
well but
Some
solved.
handled by parts of
RCS
of the
are
characterization
Physical
Response simulation
Resource
allocation
Development
planning
Project design
Performance monitoring
RCS
might
be
also
structured
so
analytical
context
I
Level
If
C
as
think
the
the
field.
be responsive
can
management
resource
Action Planning
of planning
levels
AB
letters
M.U.
list
a bit
whatever
at
I
called
paper
which some
points from which
as
and C. They
which
planning
It
in
level
is
an
of
of
you may
discuss
to
the
NF
to
related
resource
allocation
project Planning.
handled by
of elements
about it and
RCS
this
for
all
plan
will
you
note
planning
levels
AB
no more
terribly
what
resource
it.
data
An
inventories.
AB
it
our
do resource
fundamental
understood
varies
from
me
than
is
goal
design
and
it
all
is.
my
usable
is
understanding
For
those
as
A
B
to
C.
to
RCS
you will discover
Sometimes we do not act
times
when we
make
of course necessary to
allocation
are
level
definition of
opt
for a standardized
uses.
all
tool
of intensity help
collect
our original
true such
is
time and
analytical
or
recall
of planning
fundamental
we must know
project
levels
scientists
the resource
and 10-year short term resource and development planning
intensity
using any
levels
problems
of three
Individual
inventory
i.e.
of
1970 Multiple-Use
C
at
and watershed
geology
in
structured.
is
Forest
5-
for problem-solving
pattern
by other names.
though
In
the
A
glance
you
that
soil
to
used the
I
B
Level
you
we
use
effort.
Level
and
the
seen
planning
If
my
in
proposed
have
that
the problem
intensity
a logic
called
-
practical
I
have two
inputs.
at
but
of
For example
if
I
want
For economy
certainly
I
purposes they
and C.
63
to analyze
of
of inventory
wish
wish
fundamental
a problem statement
levels
different
the intensity
this
I
to analyze.
we would
led to
the
an
These
intensity.
dollars
This
act
as
I
should
may sound
though we
restructuring
are structured to relate
first
individual
to
of
soil
planning
RCS
handle
can
physical
resource
base
the soil water
controlled
is
moving
on to some
wonder
a
headed
in
week
in
the
thinking
in
terms
Let
me
resource
have
actions
After
the
have
short
in
This
of the resource
-
run
this
I
developed and
to
jean
sure
depth but
we go from
Houston
NASA
Hassel
where
has
I
believe
question
to
bulk of our
the
Service was
with
same
this
we seemed
because
principally
began to
I
the Forest
wrestled
analytical
Im
now
right
Frankly
here.
I
to be
could
not
well.
work -
or that
- will be concerned with already-made
MDT teams will be illustrating the effects of
short run
way -
of the
is
our
officers
not trade-offs
is
National
line
give
line
Forest.
officers
have
decided
already
but the balanced
Thus
our
into
insight
biggest job right
the
effect
cut
to
or tolerable
-
now
proposed
their
environmental or ecological complex.
to
began
our short
wonder
of
that
to
with
contrasted
is
or previously
more
a bit
this in
of where
That is we the
The
between
addition
to
Put another
Actually
allocation.
into
to
the
in
on the physical
discriminating
the
i.e.
controlled
a
is
characteristics
capability.
began to wonder
I
priority
roads.
discerned
I
go
Im
beginning
on other resources
in
again
can
down
going
allocation.
and build
impact
tools
top
resource
timber
we
month.
Im
allocations.
a given
inputs
of sophisticated tools to perform
processes which either
or where our current mode of operation
fills the bill
pretty
illustrate.
will
intensity.
on previously known
observations
development.
last
the need for
which
after
systems
the
RCS
alternatives.
other
ago
question
see
simulation
response
important
it
however
climate interaction.
the
by
management
think
you
If
the
to
according
systems which depend
uncontrolled
accepted
varied
is
of analysis
intensities
varying
system which works with the physical
analytical
i.e.
RCS
these
characterization
if
take
heart
term needs
we
have
any
results
illustrating
and
and
we
believe
our
other role
needs
some
have
of
way
term resource
for long
to play in the use of analytical
or searching
for the
optimum
balanced
solution.
I
by statute
True
an area to
road.
I
or solution
move
believe
is
fully
that
of
be provided
in
full
roading
to
of these
this
package.
versus
most cases
and you
or recreationists
of some
process will be
physical limitations
problems
the dimensions
adaptable
we may need the
will
timber
allocation
direction
may be some
must have thought
RCS
the resource
management
there
allocation
that
feel
genuinely
will
i.e.
made much
public
as in
or
pressures
no roading but
you
be asked
the past
-
constraints.
believe
I
the
get the job of roading
will
to optimize
of the job on hand must be understood.
the resulting
Jean Hassel
trends.
direction
if
it
proves to be the
More and more engineers
64
are
way
it
being
works
asked
out.
However
to look
at
total
costs of transportation
or similar
systems like
not worked
have
and
hydrologists
sedimentation
or change
we
which
Six
are
tried
Rivers
and the
water
in
Forest
Forest
One
them
five
at
pat
looking.
I
services
the
next
too
is
the
Forests
have
watershed related
team
-
has
We
500000
some
ingredients
the
words
to
acres
have
National
Monongahela
expose
we
In addition
-
the
Forest
of most of the tool
trying to get the Forest
to
other
in
the
the
are
RCS
-
Soil
Scientist
physical responses
meet the
and
needs
priority
you is though there has been a lot done
RCS family of software and other models
the
of hard work
lot
being
as
decade.
involved
is still
level.
In other
comfortable.
bit.
examining the
both
as
guilty
direction
to
believe
I
effects
as
words
A lot
from one
outputs
the chart for the
level
RCS
and
of strengthening
hydrologists
along these lines within
by
line
of not
I
find the
to
RCS
of proposed road construction
- two
a year
perform
years
analysis
at
there
is
is
much
are
not
family of
is
gap-filling
disciplining
as
myself enough
suggest a change
on
soil
and water.
are
ready
to
the outside.
I
believe
you
to
unless
the necessity
for
from a lack of
Regional
get
indicated
is
family of software
soil scientists
suffers
and program managers such
officers
as
anyone
such programs.
will
you
or teams of hydrologists and
whole area of use of computers
attention
to
in
find that
will
provide
am
Where
individual
to leave with
summarize a
will
models useful
This
in
needed.
closing
You
A
and
engineers
telling
Southwest.
Pacific
use
to
of real estate
chart for
and other models
software
In
want
The
useable in
automatically
still
I
to do.
RCS
parts of
as
alternative.
the
with outside
far except
so
watersheds
trial
10
except
environmental
in this
much
such
beyond
multidiscipline
Hydrologist
thought
final
much more
too
brief
or logic
capability.
of the
trained
very
a road
to
capability
such
total
Region
every
due
regime
provide
constraints of a given piece
see
and reasoning
which goes to the point of providing
services
kit and can use them on specified problems.
we
A
of a facility.
costs
tools
them use individual
helping
million acres
National
team and
planning
level
management
to
42
characterize
in
RCS in
using
Office
Regional
to acquire
requests
specific
far
the
at
functional
elements we have
So
investment
that analytical
RCS -at least a system
- will be appropriate.
to
soils scientists
to
responsive
made
the
just
clear
it
to the land manager
options
We
and not
facilities
of this big order makes
consideration
Engineers.
a firm grip
you want
to
I
on the
abdicate
computer technologists or systems people.
These
are
all
only
tools.
They
do not
supplant
management
decisions
them. As program managers you must make decisions relating to
they only
of
inventories to use in analysis. There is no universal inventory. Each must be
intensity
facilitate
tailored
in
intensity to the
questions
to
be answered.
65
Another
Are-you
serious question
of the
going
kit
of
tools
womans work
I
have
to build
enjoyed
is
an
to
elite
whom
corps
shall
or by
of -all your transportation
never
visiting
done.
training in
training
planning
computer
will
engineers
66
be given
this
technology
Finally
planning
Its dynamic and will always be thus.
with you.
technology
you make
part
like
a
THE FOREST SERVICE TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM PLANNING PROJECT
A PROGRESS REPORT
1971
1968 to September
INTRODUCTION
Am- N
This
of
discussion
for field
techniques
specific
on
primarily focused
is
Brief discussions
on
background
planning
are
presented
basis
process
for
and the
to provide
to
techniques
relating
status
application.
a
their
application.
BACKGROUND
Transporta-tion
TSPP
The
Service-wide
Planning
by the Chief
DeKalb
System
Transportation
Washington
Divisions
Leader
Project
of Engineering
27 1971
Regional
Meeting
September
New
only
developments
and
simulation
The
TSPP
managed
project
travel
that
clarify
use
established
the
but
they
probability
in
Berkeley
agreements with three
of California
natural
to
are
new methods.
applying
are
needed
to
allow
changing
systems
various
analyze
quickly
resource
through
available
analysis
resource
-
Building
with one Forest
universities
values.
Not
technological
network
analysis
with
Service
specialities
employee
used
as
uses and management
interrelationships and predictive
67
policies.
Descriptive
who
follows
models of key relationships among users
consequences.
i
Service
concepts.
was
cooperative
University
needed
computer
similar
of Forest
alterna-tives
methods
in
in
for planning
resources.
were and
methods
under
new
methods
nucleus
a
personnel
planners
were
initiated
Office
D.C.
Washington
new
to Forest
Train
2.
-
Planning Project
and
Office
Servicewide
was
1966 to
in
access
M.
Service
Project
Develop
1.
V.
Forest
models
models for predicting future
-
Stanford
Developing
for
procedures
and
analyzing
among
choosing
alternatives.
-
San Jose State
The
was
project
established
and
universities
coordination.
Developing tools
the
in
allowed
the
Forest
of the
Service
of experienced
availability
resource
to be close to
leader
project
volumes.
use in estimating travel
because
Berkeley
of other
presence
It also
for
for
projects
analysis
employees
in
training at
the University.
At the present
the project has
project and four Forest
the
It
time
has
which
techniques
from. development
changing
Two
several
developed
areas will continue
to
should
project
extensive
to receive
development
Most
Washington
revision
effort
its
is
field
and development of newer
information
are
require such
activities
as
training.
about 3 years more
and the
Office
They
effort.
other techniques
analysis and implementation package.At
total
the
operate
and
soon be implemented
will
on
full-time
enrolled in the training program.
trainees
implementation.
Management and Evaluation Techniques.
verification handbook writing and user
The
Service employees working
three Forest
Service engineering
order to complete
in
determine
to
whether
in line
techniques
and implement
the project will be reviewed
that time
it
should
a
by
be employed
in
with new technology.
IMPLEMENTATION
A
of
discussion
orientation
About 15
design.
turned
taken
want
this
necessary
years
to
early
many
Forest
12 or more
is
Service
expected that
specialists
programmed
universities
Of
special
all
will
importance
necessary
is
use of tools
away
reluctance
analysis
emphasize the
of photogrammetry
from
to use
training and
developed.
used and consequently
personnel
this
to
application
incorrectly
engineering
this
new
costly
technique.
photogrammetry.
and evaluation
to
road
errors
It
has
We dont
techniques therefore
necessary.
that are developed will be carefully studied
techniques
develop
train
is
tried
with transportation
training
will
were
years to overcome
to happen
who
project
Service
Forest
applications
careful implementation
It
of the
assure competent and effective
the
ago
Many
this
phase
specific
seminar
teachers
will
type
in
implementation procedures
training
other
cases
and
others.
In
such
some
as
by training
audio-visual
cases
TSPP
or
processes will be developed to train users.
be programs to orient management and resource
68
specialists.
One of
the
on two National
be
for
the
We
use.
to combine
others
and
TSPP
with
the
and
will
training
be
will
rewritten
as
of Watershed
Division
RCS
with
techniques
a trial operation
is
analysis
training programs
working
are
summer
next
of network
both the techniques
handbooks
trials
Service-wide
Management and
trial
where
Forests
After
tested.
necessary
to be initiated
implementation approaches
processes on the
same
Forest.
ACADEMIC TRAINING
In preparation
each
a
to
year
The
Leader.
for implementation
transportation
at
planning
the
either
Regional
producing
as
better
graduates
every
each of seven Regions and one
It
is
now
to look
appropriate
project.
1972
of
He
network
2.
He
exposed
is
to
He
decision-maker.
been
has
4.
He
way
Cruiser
as
Service
and
The
project
future.
of
that
facilities
the
in
to
natural
serve
must
facility
system analysis
analysis.
resources
and for presentation
analysis
an environment
to
learn
and
which
to
public
and
learning
and
the
serve
encourages
.Productio does
evaluate.
including
of duty
tours
Appraiser Watershed
Engineer
experience
in
as
a Fire Control
Management
Planning
includes
69
Officer
and Regional
assignments
the Southern California Forests.
is
in
A graduate
not
get
in
the
learns.
Assistant Regional
Trails.
this
to resources.
operating
he
program for the
and decision
for measurement
learns
a graduate
It
improving
continuously
of
gone to
success.
under a project leader who has had a variety of experiences
learns
Forest
evaluation
He
the
be
been a
of probability theory
programming
so he takes time
research
in his
the
of
will
program have
has
in
or Stanford
Berkeley
at.
this
Project
work
graduate
experience.
techniques
techniques
minimize damage
3.
new
program
engineers
Office.
the training
at
seriously
analysis linear
through new
the
to
exposed
is
there
the Washington
in
of the present program has the following
1.
This
because
year
By June
development environment.
Graduates of
Planners.
Transportation
full-time
of California
two
of the TSPP
guidance
of one year
University
and one year on-the-job training on the
Offices
under the
consists
program
training
been sending
Service has
Forest
training program
two-year
two-year
the
in
the
Officer
Forest
Timber
Engineer
Chief of Roads and
exposed
public
arena
of
Forest
5.
to
been
Management
Service
these young
train
a
in
Learning
devote
half his
least
at
this
time
does
atmosphere
production
on
In capitalizing
engineers.
to
encouraged
that the project leader has a special
feels
not
ability
he has
characteristic
to
development.
their
allow
for
of
kind
this
attention.
There
other aspects of the
are
valuable
for continued
those
exactly
work
technical
relationships
the
in
public involvement
to
exposure
a future
the
seven
Forests
Forest
are
program spend
need
the
number of
Forest
years
recommended.
including
be out
is
It
also
least
it
the
15 percent.
Regional
above discussion
that
in
in
can
recommend
decisions
that
planning.
planning
now
Forests
that
resource
expect
transportation
National
of
a person to
of transportation
charge
of the
mind we
are
phases
of
make
to weigh and
no change
for this
the
in
Washington
An
program.
Engineers
of
because
graduates
have
of
this
responsible
that
deciding
and the expanded
attrition
a program of two
personnel
that
before
all
it
Forests.
Consequently
suggested
in
understanding
remain
strongly
program
two-year
invaluable in preparing
in
engineers
would appear
trained
for
Foresters as candidates
early this Fall.
consider
assistant
At
necessary.
is
ability
are
not long
will
program
years on National
level
the
operations
teams and we
planning
above discussion
the
at
this
to set up
several
attributes
With the above considerations
maintenance.
multidisciplinary
From
of
continuing
and
operation
of Forest
Engineer.
graduates
These
Service.
the
during
needed by engineers
says are
make
program which should
training
learned
things
management
Forest
and a broad understanding
be
The
support.
which
attributes
formal
two-year
for a
format or training objective
Office
for
for encouraging
Region
is
and Regions consider
announcement
the
a year
engineers
will
applicants should
do
can
candidates
it
better or
we
dont need any more.
PLANNING PROCESS
In
order
planning
to
discuss
process.
the
The
tools
thin
available
Process
there
is
Overview
California shows a simplified process which
is
a need
report
illustrated
THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
published
in
them
to relate
by the
modified form
PLANNING PROCESS
STRUCTURE THE PROBLEM
DEFINITION
OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
70
to
a resource
University
as
follows
of
OF THE INFORMATION
DETERMINATION
REQUIRED
AND SELECTION OF ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES
OF ALTERNATE PLANS
DEFINITION
.COLLECTIO MANIPULATION AND
PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF DATA
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
PLAN SELECTION
Note
All have feed-back
Based
on
the
techniques
below
about systemizing
because
been
of a
three
ensured
could
nor more
that
low
level
about
level
of
eight
agencies
schedule
and costing
TSPP
effort
is
had
government
over
the
experience
and
phase
the
development
for.
of TSPP.
and the
processes
to employ
all
supporting
At the time of formation
of the
purchased system programs on a one-year
the
last
three years
indicates
the
occurred
in
a computer
system
for
field-use the following
71
systems
services.
less
This
of the complex problem
facets
In most cases
has
any one project not
in
with
engineers
This
involved
techniques
that
this
TSPP
phases
are
several
development
could
not be
slower deliberate
producing better products.
In developing
of
analysis
or any other unit in the Forest
slow process
financing
a million dollars.
over
process the
decision-making
phase.
was planned
be understood and accounted
used.
TSPP
development went slowly enough so that
in
or
collection
been done by
of financing
than
planning
data
PROCESS
concern
relatively
development. The
than
much
the
the evaluation
TECHNIQUE DEVELOPMENT
There has
others.
into
fall
phase. Very little has
an alternative
Service
all
flow chart of any
illustrated
discussed
to
loops
followed
Formulate the Technique
1.
Conceptualize
2.
Validate
and formulate
Pre-Implementation
3.
Final operating
4.
Writing user and training
5.
Trial
system programming
guides
implementation
Implementation
Apply on a Service-wide
6.
These
phases
important
phase
to
technique
requires
is
not
that
this
many
the
If
field
require
short-handed
is
cooperator
4 years
of
from
Implementation
usually
requires
handbook study so a unit would usually find
immediately to
In developing
1.
The
for use
are
Forest
at
to be done on Regional
Forest
Service
standard
Forest
the
Service
the following
levels
additional
several
it
phase
usually needed before
time
needed.
is
sessions
training
difficult
although
access
techniques
to
to put
model manipulation
are
computers
ready
not
are
of
for use.
may
big enough
levels
all
In
many
to handle
of
cases
complex
models.
3.
Techniques
systems
being
development
4.
Techniques
needs
early
complement
will
developed.
units
needed
continuous
publication
difficulty
other
resource
not duplicate
analysis
TSPP personnel
work closely
with
other
to assure that
first
field
of
by
this
low
occurs.
most Forests
interaction
priority
will
be developed
to be sure of meeting
techniques
of development of high priority
72
may
techniques.
this
occur
is
and
the
This
and
a technique
policies
computers
it
Service-wide
to
Office computers.
have
will
when
sophistication
is
two
receipt.
techniques TSPP has pursued
Techniques
have
2.
work upon
in
conceptualization
implementation.
intensive
of time. However
investigation
minimum of two summers
lead-time
average
of lack
because
explained
techniques
situation a
ready.
an
be further
will
note
In
five.
basis
first.
TSPP
policy.
because
The
of
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
AVAILABLE FOR USE WITHIN TWO YEARS
Note Data
available
for
trial
competent instructors and
at
use means that any unit can
use techniques
with help from
a certain risk.
Service-Name
Date
for
of Technique
and Remarks
Process
ready
Date
trial
for
use.
wide
ready
use.
TRAVEL DEMAND
MODELS
Macro-Allocation
Model
Determines the amount of recreation
traffic
which
ed to enter
Forest
from
can
a large
be expect-
planning area
gates
at designated
surrounding population
centers.
By changing
inputs
such as
study area
population
attrac-tiveness
and difficulty of
travel
a variety
of
alterna-tive
future
states can be
investigated.
Also useful
planning.
in recreation
Usually used in
with the
combination
micro-model.
Not
applicable
where
there
are
to areas
no population
centers.
Developed
for use
on
and probably Univac
CDC
1108
computers.
University
of California
development.
73
6400
Spring
Summer
1972
1973
TRANSPORTATIONSYSTEM ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
AVAILABLE FOR USE WITHIN TWO YEARS - Continued
Service-Name
Date ready
for
of Technique
Micro-Allocation
Model
and Remarks
Process
Allocates
to
network
the
tion traffic
traffic.
recreation
the
1972
1973
recrea-
the
to various
trips
is
measured
gates
derived
macro-model
from
of
from
of other
sources.
model
This
sub-models
has
measuring 1
gen-erated
by
traffic
travel to various
recreation
and
2
in attractiveness
by
traffic generated
desires
touring
which
units
compete
this can
also
be used for trials.
By
varying
inputs including
road characteristics
recreation
and/or
area
characteris-tics
alternative
future
states
plans can be
This
is
investigated.
applicable
operation
in
planning
and maintenance
in
planning.
The model
is
designed
custom-tailored
Data
use.
amount of
areas.
is
wide
Summer
traffic entering
This
ready
Spring
usually daily
Generation
area.
use.
Date
for
each link in a
Also allocates
amount of
trial
for
collected
to
be
each Forest.
inter-views
traffic
through
counting
measurements
network
and recreation
unit evaluation.
74
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
AVAILABLE FOR USE WITHIN TWO YEARS - Continued
Service-Name
Date
for
of Technique
6400
and probably Univac
1108
computers. University
California
Allocation
Model
travel to
a
use.
ready
wide
use.
of
development.
timber harvest
Allocates
Date
for
CDC
on
for use
Developed
Timber
and Remarks
Process
ready
trial
various
network.
of
links
Spring
Spring
1972
1973
Through
proba-bility
can
applications
where
estimate
traffic will
go.
considerable
logging
-
Requires
from
input
timber management people
on various timber harvest
alternatives.
From manipulation of
road standards
alternatives
and network
various
can
harvest
alternatives
future
states
plans
be investigated.
timber transport
Includes
model
below
listed
as a
sub-model.
Useful
for
opera-tion
planning
and maintenance
University
analysis.
of California
development.
Uses Univac
1108.
NETWORK ANALYSIS
MODELS
Timber Transport
Model
May
be published
network
as a
timber
analysis model.
75
February
February
1972
1972
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
AVAILABLE FOR USE WITHIN TWO YEARS - Continued
Service-Name
Date
for
of Technique
Process
and Remarks
ready
trial
use.
Date ready
for
wide
use.
Analyzes a transportation
network
to
efficient
haul
trucks
logging
sale
a
determine most
for
route
from a given
and through a mill to
market railhead
etc..
can be made of
Analysis
time
shortest
shortest
lowest
distance
cost.
Determines route
effi-ciency
measures for
all
three
In
criteria.
addition
to
timber
been
this has
appraisal
used for estimating
of various
wilderness
which
and
section
road to
unimproved
rebuild
first.
of California
University
Network Scheduling
Model
of a
boundary
for analyzing
of an
effects
locations
TSPP
effort use a
1108
or
CDC
and
Univac
3100
computer.
Administrative Travel
February
February
Provides
1972
1972
gram
a
computer
most
for scheduling
travel routes
efficient
crews required
at various
the
to
haul
for
work
locations
network.
garbage
pro-
in
For example
campground
clean-up.
76
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
AVAILABLE FOR USE WITHIN TWO YEARS - Continued
Service-Name
Date
for
of Technique
and Remarks
Process
Coordinated University
Fire
Control
Staff
1108.
A
transport
in
wide
of
control
model.
Transport Model
Not
use.
ready
effort.
Uses a Univac
fire
for
Management
Service
Sciences
Date
TSPP and
California
Forest
ready
trial
Spring
Spring
1974
1974
August
August
1972
1972
fully conceptualized
cooperation with the
of California
University
and the Forest
Riverside
Fire
Service
Lab.
SINGLE LINK
ANALYSIS
PROGRAMS
One-Lane
Road
Simulator
flow of traffic
Simulates
on one-lane
one kind
suring.truck
and light vehicle
kind
Mea-
road.
one
travel speeds
various
under
such
conditions
as amount of vehicles
each
going
way
cent
per
of each classification in
each direction
turnouts
turnouts.
costly
to
designers
spacing
and length
Program
of
of
is
run so a
guide
will
be
issued for typical
situa-tion
used
for
analyses
establishing
design
criteria in planning
and
design.
77
use.
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
AVAILABLE FOR USE WITHIN TWO YEARS - Continued
Service-Name
Date
for
of Technique
Can
be used to check
also
TSPP
Stanford
The
Effects
of
Horizontal
Alignment
A handbook
use.
wide
ready
use.
a design.
and Region
6.
with nomographs
between
difference
Vehicle Running
sizes
Costs
in
for
Now
Now
an
roads
curves.
excellent
Financial
Design
Criteria
alignment for
determining
Economic
Cost Model
different
of curves. Can be used
single
for
Date
for
determining running costs
on
planned
A
and Remarks
Process
ready
trial
or in designing
Appendix
D
discussion
on
Political
factors
Will evaluate
and
in analysis.
costs
basis of
has
a
system
road development
on total
Fall
1973
proposed
project.
Analyzes cost of construction
and maintenance
operation
under various
including
alternatives
stage
construction
situations.
Cooperator
under
May be handled
by
consideration.
M.I.T.
or
of California.
University
SUPPORT
FUNCTIONS
Decision-Making
Primer
A handbook
samples
decision
for
with specific
applying
theory to
investi-gation
problems. How much
traffic
site
counting
testing
should be
write-up
done
for
foundation
and sampling
easy
Very simple
understanding.
78
February
February
1972
1972
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
AVAILABLE FOR USE WITHIN TWO YEARS - Continued
Service-Name
Date ready
for
Traffic
lance
Surveil-
Handbook
and Remarks
Process
Covers
of traffic
facets
all
surveillance
use.
Rough
for Forest
draft
roads including
Service
for
volume
June
to
1972
1972
also include
programs
use.
February
view procedures.
Will
wide
Forests
sampling and inter-
traffic
ready
for
all
on
direction
specific
Date
computer
Regional use in
II
of Technique
trial
and classification
data manipulation
and
summarizing.
Will
be rewritten
after
one
of use to clarify
year
obscurities.
Programs
1108
on Univac
operate
and
CDC
Coordination
3100.
TSPP
between
San Jose State and Region
Data Management
Specifically
-
4.
and
revision
of road inventory
update
forms to make a more
manage-able
program
include
computer
inventory data
analysis
for
and incorporate
accomplishment
Use
INFORM
Work
reports.
if
possible.
will start aggressively
1
January
a.
network
1972
questionnaire
Forests
and include
to
all
on needs.
Cooperative TSPP and
University
of California.
79
January
January
1973
1974
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
AVAILABLE FOR USE WITHIN TWO YEARS - Continued
Service-Name
Date
for
of Technique
and Remarks
Process
ready
Date
trial
for
ready
wide use.
use.
WORK BY OTHER
OR
FUTURE
UNITS
IN
Missoula Equipment
Counter
Traffic
ment Center
Evaluation
methods
work
be
proceeds.
for installing
loops
devices
counting
a
and
compiler
data
issued as
will
counter evaluation
traffic
best
on
working
is
Handbooks
Develop-
investi-gating
devices
for mechanical
classification.
Running
Costs
There
are
few studies on
running costs for
Analysis
b
trucks
The
Say 1973.
logging
on
vehicle
any
dirt or gravel
a
Unknown.
Date
roads.
San Dimas
Equipment
begin-ning
TSPP
re-write
Center
Development
studies
will arrange
the
Nelson
to
Byrnes Googins
Study
Road
Logging
Handbook when
become
is
in this area.
data
cost
available.
THE TOTAL PLANNING PROCESS
While
a total
process
studies
has
during
three reports
Through
project
planning
the
considerable
last
formally
three
developed
years the
it
Forest
has
system
analysis
and evaluation
been investigated by TSPP.
Service and
its
cooperators
have
From
issued
in this area.
careful
a
been
not
a transportation
process including
reading
transportation
guidance
in
and underlining
planner
the
or
process
a
of sections
relevant
multidisciplinary
from the following
80
to
a particular
planning
reports.
team
planning
can
obtain
II
TRANS-PORTATION
Forest
1.
Service
Report No.
Technical
Engineering
ETR-7700-4a
FOR FOREST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
TO THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLANNING
PLANNING
INTRODUCTION
CONCEPT
PROJECT-A
TRANS-PORTATION
MAN-AGEMENT
Forest
2.
Service
ETR-7700-4b
Report No.
Technical
Engineering
SYSTEM PLANNING FOR FOREST RESOURCE
SOME ASPECTS OF RESOURCE AND TRANSPORTATION
ANALYSIS
TRANS-PORTATION
MAN-AGEMENT
Forest
3.
Service
Technical
Engineering
Report
No.
ETR-7700-4c
FOR FOREST RESOURCE
ANALYSIS PROCEDURES - A PROCESS REVIEW
SYSTEM
addition one of the
In
best
PLANNING
planning
available
guides
today
found
is
in
Cooperative
Research Board Report No. 96.
Highway
STRATEGIES FOR THE EVALUATION OF
ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION PLANS
A
prototype
the
total resource
Washington
Office
on transportation
any transportation
of Planning
After
analysis.
process
planning
Division
analysis areas
this
be developed
will
and Policy Review.
and winter by
include
It will
completed
is
publication
this fall
TSPP
will
sections
supplement
further explanation.
needing
EVALUATION
Techniques
system
analysis
of them
During
and can
produce
techniques
involve
the
under
developed or
next
be used
also
few months TSPP
techniques
presenting
are
irreducible
developed by TSPP or
new
approaches
programming
to
can
its
the
then
programming
will
the
evaluation
area.
process can
in
to
which
the
From
difficult
to
cost-effectiveness
say in
be evaluated.
81
by
have
promise
Some of
dollar
dollars.
analysis
evaluation.
these
in
should
concepts
and readjust
until
techniques
will
now
further
12 to 18 months a better
be
techniques
be forthcoming
not
and
evaluating
the development of evaluation
FRT
to analyze
At that-time
upon
These
resources. Most
cannot be measured
coordinated
appear
of the
recognize
for transportation
very closely with resource
working
decision-maker.
cooperators.
allocation
be
be
effect
against
which
effects
will
useful
are
planning operation and maintenance.
order to assure
available
data
FRT
in
of
consideration
and systems development units
Several
in
TSPP
by
which must be measured
results
the
development
and
considered.
work
is
done
programming
OBSERVATIONS
From
the
techniques
significant
change
in
way we
the
in
changes
In answer
findings
come
observations
several
to this
recommended by many. units of
Highlights
1.
of imminent
with
macro-system
Forest
has
should
level
- What
a result
of TSPP
as
TSPP
not
made
Observations
analysis
been asked
occur
that culture
out
pointed
approaches.
planning
is
causing a
here are discussed
will
the
approach
of
consideration
careful
Service include
the Forest
in
procedures
- we
be systemized
will
Planning
at
be
system
transportation
mind. The question
the Service as well as outsiders.
in
changes
and
to
plan
should
it
Service planning
Forest
of planning
overview
brief
preceding
process
in
of a
terms
and
components
all
their
interactions.
2.
be
will
Planning
3.
The
change
biggest
alternative
or
and
plans
understand
that plans must continually
by management
understanding
what
is
and with
on analysis using probability concepts
based
innovation
their
being
be
will
in
This
presented.
that
so
consequence
change.
method
the
the
includes
the
of presenting
decision-maker
can
to
presentations
the
public.
4.
Based on the above observations
need
will
one
functions
historical
system analysis
skills.
more
or
Few
is
apparent
three
usually
timber
like
or
can
people
that most National
skilled
specialists
and
engineering
computer
probability
production
it
in
techniques
competently
fill
new
and
Forests
one or more
in
techniques
similar
of
planning
these positions without
intensive retraining.
5.
Because of the
will
6.
computer
changes
terminals
access to computers
be necessary items on Forests.
This
additional
commitment
7.
above
The
systemized
maintenance of
application
effort
will
quickly
changes
in
analysis
to planning
work
activities
become
and
facilities
like
information
much more
managers than
will
the
extend
systems
of the system.
82
and
its
and
today.
into
operation
and
Forest. Plans and their
which
human body.
collection
lead-time dollars
seen
on a National
self-adaptive
and easily
development and operation
take
procedures
planning
continuous
will
by Forest
adjust
This
use
to
external
requires a greater
in
analyzing
the
and
As a public agency-gets
8.
desires the
addition
large
world
in
changes
The
planning
the
has
of the
listed
not
will
above
take
development
handbook
for transportation
be completed within
place
two
are considered
Most
before
up to the
use
never
implementation
is
it.
to
allow
new
by two
once.
in
in
reasonable
planning
On
units.
coordinated
is
processes
on
based
Forests under great public pressure and
of us in planning
changing. Many
from such
with
the
total
hand
other
the
planning
resource
some
certain units for
by
and want
innovator
of by
with
the
enough
technique
of users
types
risk-adverse
The
thought
of a
manipulation
by
before
time.
field.
are
managers
they
applications
meet
to
operates
years may not be applied
New
techniques
occurred
never
are already
analysis which
is
work
at
all
are learning
groups
Carrying the ball
individual.
has
well as adjustment
as
management environment
right
This
environment
unique
instant demands
where
a situation
are heard.
public
This
technique
to
created
public preferences.
changes
new technology
in
publics
history.
and
and serving public needs
recognizing
at
aspirations rise and people demand more amenities. In
television
sectors
better
the
a guarantee
time will take
time to a Regional
and
then
the
that the technique
for
office
him
to
to
effective
support
for study
engineer
work
with
will
and develop
technique
One approach
developer.
and risk-adverse
risk-taker
Forests
and
in
its
application.
TSPP was developed to
work were established
additional
recognized
specialists
techniques
support
from
needed
transportation
the
in
best
can
be applied
where
knowledge
transportation
by TSPP. Please advise us
they
do
of such
the.
of
system
needs
most good.
83
at
analysis
so
the
Forest
Forest
analysis
that
level.
needs.
the
Priorities
There
which
trained
are
may
of
be
not being
skills
of our
INTRODUCTION
t
E
I
the
appreciate
you
my
to
to present
opportunity
account
an
of the events
version
of the
Multi-functional
the
to
leading
establishment
Devel-opment
MPT
Process
Program Planning
Team
given
to
and
asked
by Mike
Team
will
Chief.
the
by
it
Howlett
assignment
also been
have
what
to predict
the
could
be
foolish to predict this early in
my
Though
accomplish.
considered
the
I
new assignment
will
I
do
to
try
it
so.
DEVELOPMENT
In
describe
to
trying
which caused
M
J.
Hassell
Legislative
Regional
Staff
Meeting
of
Divisions
September
27 1971
Service
and
Office
and
program
of
in Division
- Washington
Affairs
Office
Assistant
attempted
first
I
this
where
Engineering
and
established. Plans
is
work which demand
in
changes
our
of
Forest
could
say that
This
seemed
expensive
do not evolve
in
a
it
and of themselves.
approach
is
which
process
to start
and programming
planning
planning
or to cause
The
I
it
forces
believe
at
are
follows
all
of
its
many
and
Questions
priority
exerted
Policy
actions
those
coupled with expectation
growth
Population
of use
facets
challenges
for these
has
do not
the
will
provide
correct
with
resources.
their
at
Internal
On
human
a proposed
action
many
their
participation
Traditionally
this
as
forest
an input
and participation
The Act
environment.
people
into
and
and external pressures are being
level the Environmental
a strong
and range
lands.
extent
a National
supportable and understandable
of
to the
as
in
living
and Range
Forest
levels
all
of
standards
and public consultation
the
developed leaving
management and use
include
affect
significantly
agree
Polarized extremes have
will
and resources.
detailed analysis
required
which would
who
lands
nationwide
raised
and higher
higher
on the Nations
great impacts
are being
program emphasis and mix.
to influence
Act
having
is
for
way
searching
answers
lands.
plans
to
They
has been a leadership
opportunity
challenge
agencies.
for leadership which
to their
for use
for
has provided
seek
concerns
about
leadership which
of the
land
for the Forest
and
its
Service.
85
ti
as
I
because
forces
strong
it
where
the
re-quires
D.C.
once
me
to
superficial
Washington
difficult
to change
in
happened.
it
MPT
the
the evolution
planning
a point
of events
series
establish
follow
to
land
up to
is
the
the Chief to
The
Forest
from
the
Service
plans
problems
programs must take into account
Forest
and
Service
A
vacuum.
Executive
Branch
evaluation.
The
problems
its
The
their
await
The
Agency.
and evaluation.
short
term by
must
reflect
world.
and
this
but
areas
is
is
extended
and
real
themselves
than
programming
or
must be able to
always
meet
among
trial
call
of action
to
two-way
the
ground
objectives
and range
field
with
complete
channel
the
policies
and
on the
land
and programs which
goals
Considerable
action
planning
through
Several
is
underway
and programming.
the
use
Re ýons
have
variety of land-use planning
and
in
some
cases
Forests
to
and
costs
benefits
and manpower
are
is
not
limited
Agency. Competition
who
back
sit
are
Plans and
challenges.
which
uses
are present
and
for
responsible
talent and data which
and mold these into
consequences
the
real
on firmer
and
planning
will
permit
them
courses
There must be an
open from the highest
to
programs
alternative
of each.
define
long or
in
must be based
organizational
and
consistent with realistic
justify
estimates
and operational programs.
and unit programs responsive
the shift toward multifunctional
been made to strengthen
teams qualified to prepare
rapidly in this direction.
procedures
as
his drive
and programming
planning
Those
tools
area plans
Efforts have
progressed
to better
level
National
of
forest
Conversely
to
National
needs.
in
of interdisciplinary
the
justification
error.
demands
capabilities prospective
and Regional
within
leadership must be able
as well as local
planning
must be demonstrated andclearly
present
and
of communication
units must be able to keep land
the
and
responsibility of all agencies
alternatives
a
the
level
to strengthen
be present. Those
resource
appraisals of the
Agency
level.
program
in
assigned
National
money and manpower
time
a
at
decisions
analysis
intuition
those
recognition.
function
no longer
in
not present
are
Because money
for
to understand interrelationships and capabilities
effective
Laws
problems.
the
continues
the
is
sub-units
will
it
inter-relationships
means that
This
one
traditional
the
foundation
It
efficiency
to
turn will not receive adequate
means that
This
isolated
agencies.
of Management and Budget
office
responsibility to compete
itself
problem
their
manpower.
of Agriculture
Secretary
At
improvements
require
use must be efficient
communicated.
between
and
the
and economic
problems confront
supported
programs complete
them clearly.
and to communicate
fully
the
we
are
private
and opportunities
local
with
consequences
to
to
and
funds
established
stronger program planning
limited
and
State
social
challenges
limited
continues
President
meet these requirements.
prepare
Federal
and urban
rural
of National Regional
host
responsibility of allocating
for
nor
for planning
responsibility
other
policy
made
The
sole
of
and public demand require that plans and programs be coordinated
Forest Service plans and
mutually complementary to the extent possible.
regulations
and
not have
does
and
that
they see them.
are
evolving
The
86
Forest
These
to
fit
or interdisciplinary
multiple-use
land
efforts
planning
management
plans.
have resulted
hav
the needs
in
a
of each Region
Service Environmental
Program
for the Future has
the
rising
of techniques
development
development.
we know
Several
whether
system Which
now
want
planning
be
are
What
analysis
SPF
MPT
I
best
we
should
thema
are
those
Can any of
believe
properly
been done
has
are in various
ready
into
an
the
of
How
effective
purpose What are
who have developed
the
in
stages
for implementation.
we do about new
should
procedures
Much
efforts
be united
can
which
say to
What
this
These
analysis.
for
of the interrelationshipsjbetween
capabilities.
where they
concerned
all
the
recognition
and
planning
the point
by
efforts
in
activities
for
at
to implement
and
used by
establish
are
efforts
involved
factors
continued to develop
of resource-use
level
do
planning
time and cost
tools and
analysis
proposals
develop
to
the tools developed or under development
describes
under the leadership of the Deputy
the
for
setting
which
Programs and
Chief to
led the
Legislation.
OBJECTIVES
It also
is
brings
to develop
process
me
an
must
to the
based
the
link
package.
upon
where
objectives must be discussed.
multifunctional
on-going
program-planning
outputs
point
Field
to
a process which
1.
Physical
2.
Expected
3.
Value of resources
4.
Constraints
the
Washington
package
Office
will
overall
through
provide
a
objective
process.
The
unified
single
analysis of inputs
and
includes
of land
capability
use and consumption
-
program planning
The program
The
and evaluation
goods and
esthetic
of resources
goods
and
services
services
-
pollution
air water
and
other
environmental
requirements
As
I
5.
Multifunctional
6.
Public
see
1.
approach
to planning
involvement
it full achievement of this objective
Chiefs Office
his
staff
Further
mixes
and
benefits.
and
to
it
It
SPF.
-
A computerized
will
levels
permit
and
between
National
priorities
examination and display of
of intensity
should permit
something
process which would permit
examine on a broad base
should
require
complete
with
costs
examination of the proper
Regions
in
87
accordance
the following
the Chief and
and demands.
alternative
program
consequences
balance
with
like
their
between
and
NFS
capability
to
produce goods
of
2.
tentative
and-services.
production
Offices
Regional
computerized
funds
and
balance
National
for
for
the
-
d
services
Work
reasonable
of
proposals
alternatives
presented.
c
therein
with
each
for
by
given
targets
funding environmental
the
quality constraints
Foresters
Regional
tentative
consequences
e
b
several
Display
of the
presentation
be the
f Compare
resource
output
proposed
capability
g
Respond
and
proposals
for
basis
tentative
needs
local
program
program
to produce goods and
clear
and
responding
units of land
specific
this step should
to
Forester
Regional
and
targets
for
Costs
- A
fit
targets
program alternatives
one important output of public involvement
the
c
Identify
programs
and consequences
output
Finally
Determine capability
up and analyze
forest
a
to
would
this
tentative
Alternative
all
to
tentative
replies.
and Regions.
Areas
that
The Chiefs
a
for assignment
a basis
as
targets
WO
Forests
procedure
alternative
outputs costs
serve
funding
analyzing
b
A
Determine resources
should
distributing
basis
funding
Forests
it
tentative
Area Offices to the extent
and benefits of
trade-offs
3.
and
on
Chief
the
to
and
process
Forests
to
Finally
and
to
present
alternatives.
4.
A
the
Forests
a
selection
until
between
for negotiating
procedure
and
periodically update
Chiefs Office Regional
made.
same
This
the
at
in
be
should
procedure
all levels
Office
and counterproposals
mixes
program levels
concerning
is
the
order
to
used
reflect
to
changing
values and priorities.
In
of
spite
overall
It
process.
and that National
also
that
new
direction
opportunities
we need
process
This brings
1.
me
so
system.
already
of the National
is
because
a framework
that
we
Lack of
or
can
this
Forests.
there has
at least
on
soon be a
not
are
almost
The
outline
is
overall
has and
we
holding
88
It
reality.
now
is
for
MPT
is being
all
This
done
It
better
efforts
will
still
is
true
ways to
from
to tie into.
accomplish.
the
new
far
must be done
to
this
underway
true that
find ourselves
process.
up refinement
developed.
is
daily for finding
reason
way from
a long
lands
under development.
been a baseline
of the
what
are
NFS
for the short-term what
relate
outline
will
and others
themselves
we
to date
planning
this effort
guide
present
to predicting
Develop
soon
to
multifunctional
been developed
have
conduct management
the
that
true
is
techniques
analysis
and accomplishment
of the effort
all
overall
and use of subsystems
2.
the
Using
computerized
3.
is
the National
4.
MPTs
assignment
planning
has
of
phases
new
and
developed or are
are
recommending
for
the planning
where
procedures
system.
and
techniques
to plug the gaps.
One
more
obvious
process.
given
them
of the
an
and
eliminate
as liaison
serve
concerned
groups
This
effort.
planning
and
to
opportunity
individuals
work
development
which
the basis
as
in
process
various
dimensions
different
serve
new
various
analysis
will
be employed
overall
between
coordinator
planning
Get action underway
needed.
are
the
analyze
analysis
might
the
in
gaps
knowledge
gap
The
these techniques
Pinpoint
for
techniques
under development.
how
a baseline
as
process
should
confusion
and
with
up some
speed
better
through
communication.
In
the
effort
management
underway. A
SPF NFS
member
which
6.
7.
will
a
and
present
Search
Last
Their
to
for
I
basis
successful
innovations
data
into Forest
that
before
years
will
this
have
and
and
planning
This
a
IE
effort
is
and
suggested
one
glossary
finalization.
units
to
future
case
useability.
by the Chiefs direction
planning
Service effort
produce
collection
management
in
developed.
prior to
interfacing
for
the
Administration
be to
comment
presently underway
of ecosystems
several
will
standardize
problems of system
predict
operational
for
in
with representatives from Research
Coordinator
initial effort
circulated
in efforts
Participate
MU
including
group together
incorporate
9.
glossary of terms. will be
a
be widely
Get
communication
improving
been assembled
group has
MPT.
of
land on the
8.
of
interest
to
classify
purposes.
and public involvement
and
where appropriate.
overall
process
is
fully
developed
and
gone by.
89
III
5.
DISCUSSION
WELLER
Im
3
interested in the project in Region
considerable
what
effort
of linkup
kind
Region
the
in
but
have
to keep
managed
Glazebrooks
coordination
or
Creek watershed study.
the Beaver
they
had
have
efforts
It
has
on
taken
I
wonder
the
Beaver
afloat.
it
Creek watershed.
GLAZEBROOK
At
the
We
Flagstaff.
for the
in
RCS
that
were
built
the
effects
for specific
of
and
for being
salvageable and useable
How
make
teams or others
to
to
Some of
it.
With
use
TSPP we
systems
about the
program
be
a
way
on the
available
This
is
next
should
years.
software
in
Creek was
that
systems
in
here.
RCS
that
realize
but
the present
find out
to
on water-yield
and
priority
At
are
in
Flagstaff.
beginning
are
package
total
10
of the
question
how much
of
was
PSW.
the
These
to
built
This
components
its
are
was
its
highly
around the same thing
built
Or
are
at
will
and
we
are
trying
the
things
be
go
material that
this
firing
line
we
the Forest
at
people
all
going
with
in
to
in
furnish
level
the
engineering
to develop
a
for over the last 4
paid
level
for interdisciplinary
to
have
number of
Are we going
sell.
the
capabilities
specialists
to
and some
those specialists
made without you
Forest
will
all
the problem program managers have
can communicate
these decisions
computer
is
it
of tools
who
coordinators
we
We
purposes.
on the Forests
people
these kinds
use
the
a
going
are
of present
background
not
is
a question
is
other contexts. Beaver
in
It
the individual
by what
soil-water
had to
against
placed.
the technical organization
utilize or interface
or 5 years and
all
of
the
at
improvements.
do we salvage
have
a
it
It
observed
of the proposed plans that
project over
and some
be overwhelmed
to
systems
- water-yield
make.
particular
members of
the
illustrate
reason
Creek can
into that
be
we
on what
deliberating
review
can
priority
techniques
to
dont need
We
much
Beaver
put
known
are
how
of the
some
time
of
process
10 years and a technical
be
can
funding
are
see
contribution
the
in
are
ask for a technical review
going to
next
to
activities
we
time
present
these
if
you dont get
various
and to those
in
components
who
ask
there and pitch for
for use
for them.
I
with the
think
this
future.
TURNER
I
was
that
What
pretty interested
aspect
sort
in
your remarks
of the job that needs
of scheme do
you
as
to be
have going
to
done.
how
I
the
soil scientists
havent
really
are
observed
going to handle
this
on the reorienting of these fellows
90
in
action.
GLAZEBROOK
We
were
asked
inventory
where
stand
they
planning
the
at
10
Region
go.
which
We
than
less
is
that
There
the
is
about
in
is
soil
these planning
have
of outputs
than
backlog
larger
to
trace
that were expected.
3
Region
think
is
8 had
Region
I
For
4 has
Region
in
to
philosophy
tried
processes
good shape. T.C. Green
particularly
serve
way
a long
the
four years at our current level of effort.
the inputs to the kind
to
surveys
the whole Region.
or so to cover
years
in
We
5.
the
acquiring
have
or another
Region
in
in
the Regions as to
up
Regions that
Some way
hold
take
five
two
are
other.
usable
inventory
but they have a
reoriented
5
- maybe
8
making
are
totaled
.inventory-reconnaissance-typ
levels.
have
only
We
to do our job.
morning did not
resource
soil
the idea of tailoring
5
survey
good shape. Region
very
we need
intensity
this
it.
with
attained even
soil
one and Region
is
enunciated
I
instance
in
in
kind of progress we
to what
as
which
various
genesis of
the
GAO
by
information
Region
else.
anyone
USHER
I
have
some
heard
to
begin
that
feel
way
We
myself.
but the basic data
consequences
Maybe we
that.
concern expressed
are
more sophisticated
to
going
than
that
have
is
our
systems are
fine
pretty
suspect.
I
wind up with a
the relationships
available
outstripping
for
systems
data
taking
data.
I
to develop
wonder
what your general feeling is about
of sophisticated models which are much
lot
of the data that goes into them.
.GLAZEBROO
We
are
a
at
The
balance.
Forest
where
they
two
We
cant
a
way
that
different kinds
to
him
as
wants an
At
the
as
entirely
present
INFORM
display
far
is
what
for two
analysis.
individual.
purposes
the
We
If
usefulness
had quite a job to
new computer
a manager
species and as far as brush
time
we
not keeping
information
one
of timber
is
things in
information
this.
will
They
the
for
are
at
be needed.
to determine
inventory
this
get
This
technology.
that
Their
allowable
for range
data
structured
thing
again
is
timber he
trying to manage
in
a job that
may want
on a map. These may be important
of ecological communities delineated
different
realized
of inputs
kinds
these two
get
providing
in
gap
to
is
sales.
can be used by this
be done by any
data
Timber Management
determine
to broaden
have
it
severe
a
tailored
timber
and hydrological
purposes
such
been
have
to
has
trying to
to lay out
going
are
one of the major problems
and hardware.
are
inputs heretofore
cuts and
Service
software
sophisticated
point
here where
point
competition
is
concerned.
The
range
manager
delineation.
do
not have
up with other
for use
in
our
input
capabilities.
computer
structured
The
technology.
91
to
current
Suppose
facilitate
idea in
you do
use.
every
INFORM
not
is
want
to
to
display it but
use
it
look
at
one or
linear
into another
it
model
We dont
way
you
have
to go. Its going to
it
a
We
yet.
computer
To
jobs.
print
You want
to
to
to
it
give
you
one or one program to
kind
different
out and
it
talk
models to bring them to bear on
software
of
made some
have
technology.
to another
talk
of various
need
of
level
different
one computer to
for
use the effects
to
program
arrangements.
long
to put
one thing but
is
to another
a
want
along the line. These are two
all
INFORM -
conceptual
but we
progress
have
still
a
take years.
RUPP
I
think
we
have
-
to recognize
have
not
example
immediately have
was not
just
individual
we
inventory.
going
have
to
go out
People
to
we
phase. This
planning
Then
of
is
or
esthetics
something an
never
we
are
the rotation
However
it
it
may be
it
is
It
we
that
much
as
a roadside
with the
in
planning
team can do.
interdisciplinary
sale and
to be used for an
to harvest
going
because
for
and
bases
whole thing further when
by wrapping
not
timber
several
intended
the
complicated
systems
lets take
to an individual
or even
basis
-
past
done work on
designed
we
these
the
in
have
take a timber inventory.
going to lengthen
are
We
was never
into
input
to cut that area because
area because
It
inventories
sound.
on a block
it
sound.
on a block.
or even
trying
our
statistically
to apply
tried
statistically
sale
started
been
that
are
not
in
that
zone. This
is
a
not an inventory
is
job.
The same
in
inventory
but
it
are
Range
leads us
werent
be
thing can
down some
proposing
units
Why
in
this
- not
Because here
roads that have
the first place
new
system
over entire
have
National
that
done some
werent
this
same
this
try to
fill
type
that
deep trouble because
statistically
inventory
be
but by planning
Forests
of
- we
a gap
us into some
gotten
and they
is
is
gap
they
So what we
sound.
statistically
units.
of
sound
by
think this will
I
difference.
ý
make some
in
we
about Rangebecause
Management.
coordinated
planning
said
It
is
going
of inventory
to take a reorientation
on the
by Forests
basis
of what
is
planned.
methods and
Its a job that
is
priorities
going to be set
are
going to have
to
t
be done.
b
USHER
Craig from that standpoint
sees
that
progress
his
inventory
to a point
and the information
level
where one
comes
is
along
interdependent
RUPP
Right
now
in
with
no one.
92
the
the
field
software
who
in_
the
Chiefs
programs
on the other and the other
so
is
that
office
they
available
USHER
That
bothers
us in the field.
of coordination
of programs
that
point
a
is
RUPP
This
subject
going
is
going
do
that
services
the
this
needs
A
together.
function.
their
it
done and
be
to
of people
lot
makes
It
necessary
to
done
it
get
from the functional
in a
about what
have
to
this
going to do away
In
standpoint.
is
competent
very
manner which provides
not
is
mandatory that we do a better job than we have
it
them
He
about today.
talking
is
concerned
are
for
there on the ground needs. It
unit out
system or any planning
inventory
make
to pull
to
do what
to
people
have
to
to
what jean Hassell
is
the
with
any
its going to
fact
the past.
in
USHER
The
Agreed.
basic
concern
inventory
for
the
has to
it
of
The
We
models
or software
needs
inventory.
of the resource.
management
put
Therefore
the resource
for
requirements
that the computer
is
material.
the
have
this
system may
computer
inventory
farther ahead than
get
not
are
people
sure
the
the
dictate
this
is
proper
back and forth and someone
banging
together.
HASSELL
I
think
you actually understated
between
a balance
dont know
have.
job
job
what
we dont
think
I
hand.
at
as
know
and
at
to
have
that
by doing
use.
I
level
know
to
this
think
a
we
we
data.
We dont know how
there
everything
to
this
do.
I
planning
of accuracy
everything
is
really
rule
to
is
have
and
effort
we need
-
automatically
the problem
we
think
to
to
me.
know
know
is
We
to
figure
it.
to
data
data needs
approach
I
to
try
out
think
what
any
do
it
already
to
planning
It
too
is
little bit
of
is
we want
to
that just to
we
we
the
a
getting us into trouble.
a lot of data that
We
is.
use the data
about everything.
to learn
really
what
out
match
of trying to
situation
than just getting
deeper
little
we dont know what
think
I
it.
get
or famine
feast
know
start
available
when
it
think its a
I
understand the concept
difficult
what
data
at
all
like
to
we
before
-
dont
have
and too
expensive
thinking
seems
It
we
if
do with
to
the problem.
and
software
I
approach
also
think
have that we
that serious.
is
DeKALB
We found
acre
area
because
multidiscipline planning
they
that
is
spent
all
they
two and
really
a
teams
in
Region
half months
knew how
of
1 had three months
that
to do. They
93
time
collecting
spent the last
to
plan a
data.
20000
This
was
week analyzing and
wasnt
it
a very
job
good
would probably
it they
If
had collected
they
data and spent more
less
time analyzing
had a pretty good plan.
have
BRYANT
You
folks
what
out
what extent
to
you
way back
start
personally
That
involved
the
is
but
the
toughest
with
-
can
you
Find
doing now.
find that there
will
of your answer unless
reliability
and
to
to get
your people
who
the people
to get
being
is
that
so
are
of ten you
to yourself
it
to do
he
of the answers
the
in
enough
what you
in
times out
can communicate
for a manager
thing
involved
you
help
nine
You owe
process.
so that you
limitations and accuracies
will
increase
little
very
Get
obligation.
this
them because
to use
in
a real
tools like
investment
a fantastic
is
cost
will
it
have
managers
as
determine
doing the job.
are
qualified enough
to
know
the
with.
supplied
USHER
I
dont
how
care
sophistication
are
reliable
data
poor
not very helpful
is.
its
If
wrong
its
degree
of
using
to see
and
reliability
the decision-making.
to
HOWLETT
We
have
they are
to run
of data we
analyses on the kind
sensitivity
are
how
sensitive
to the final decision.
HASSELL
From
my
of view
point
whole approach
this
and its kind of amazing to
task
be so
still
from where
far
into so
gotten
we want
to
Yet
go.
I
we
think
can
a lot to learn and if anyone
all
spend so
dont
I
we
is
quite a
and money and
effort
It
taking.
time
is
and the problems.
- we
has any suggestions
much
any other way we could have
see
are
the conflicts
see
and programming
to planning
could
many things without the approach
something together.
have
me how we
can
now
to put
would say we
I
the help.
use
HOWLETT
Thank you
Jean.
the
processes
This was discussed last
year at
material
and the
about the processes before
in
planning.
saying
we
this
have
is
It
is
an
we
been spinning
people including
programs were
could
our
we
are
wheels.
the Regional
to
begin
extremely complex
a program and
the
I
all
need
94
it.
this
to
It
We
are
wont
has
all
that would be useful
not going
work
been very
be told this.
these planning
had to learn something
methodology
and we
field
think
discussed.
develop
going to use
Foresters
RFD meeting
to
settle
that way.
useful.
I
it
just
dont
by
think
All of our field
PANEL
FRT
1
PROGRAM PLANNING .AN MANAGEMENT
R.
Larse Chairman
R.
Chamard
F.
Ferrarelli
F.
Hammond
PROBLEM STATEMENT
The
Forest
Service
does
not
have
FRT
an
decision-makers
programming
system
which
in
confi-dence.
and
have
program managers
BACKGROUND
The
search
for a programming
both
provides
some
program
to
flexibility
meet
as
future
well
demands
changing
and somewhat
challenge
of
certainty
and continuity
direction
that
process
is
as
a
of a paradox for the
program manager and decision-maker.
fr
At
There
R. W.
the
Larse R-4
are
many
conclusion
indicators
that
need of overhaul.
Some
that
present
are
as
us
direct
system
is
to
in
follows
i
Chairman
the
1.
2.
The
GAO
has
directed
the
Forest
Service
Service-wide
and Regional
management
objectives on a priority
There
is
a lack
to establish
program management
and implement both
systems
consistent with
basis.
of resemblance between
tentative
and
final
programs and
accomplishment.
3.
Resource
with
4.
program goals appear
FRT
Present
resulting
basis
in
out-of-step
with our
capability
to
match
funds.
much
for
of funds
apportionment
dissatisfaction
and
inhibits
Administrationsgoals.
95
to
Regions and
objective
Forests
commitment to
is
our
5.
The demand
is
do more and more with
to
deep
creating
in
frustrations
field
all
money
less
development work
for
They cannot
people.
confidently
look ahead to better days.
These and other indicators
program
and
in
management
the
Our
future.
offer
methods
and demand that we develop
challenges
to better
position
satisfy
today
the
resource
managers
of
reaction
rather
one
is
and
refine
needs
than
of today
planning
programming to meet recurrent and new demands.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
define
Further
multiple-use
2.
National
Better identify and fund the basic
Provide
levels
-
recurrent
to
relation
workload of Regions for recurrent
FRT
and program support.
Regions with
a
in
objectives
and Regions.
program needs
related activities
3.
and
goals
more
minimum
of
forecasts of future
specific
3
advance
in
years
of
program funding
the
budget
year
is
recommended.
4.
Develop
program management
and evaluate
program
as
effectiveness.
and processes to better manage
techniques
The system
to improve
the
follows
a.
Certainty so that planned accomplishment
b.
Flexibility
to ensure
continuity
results
from budgets.
and effectiveness-in
spite
of changing
and emphasis.
levels
c.
be designed
should
Stability in recurrent
multiple-use
demands
program
regardless
activities
of
to support
shifts
in
the
National
broad range
of
Administration
goals.
5.
Design
facility
program
benefits
Review
in
order
adequacy
the intent
techniques
to better
Project Worthiness
decisions.
6.
management
guide
measuring
and improve
transportation
quality of program
Evaluation.
of present program system and
its
purpose and goals of the Federal Highway
96
I
for
effectiveness
relative
Act of 1958.
our
to
and
PANEL
ABATEMENT
POLLUTION
R.
Kennedy
Hahn
J.
Lamb
J.
Mead
J.
2
Chairman
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Considerable
expressed
to
date
continues
concern
to
be
about the lack of accomplishment
With
Program.
Water
the
in
the
the
compliance
Abatement
Pollution
established
deadlines
for
to be behind
Regions seem
schedule.
BACKGROUND
The program
on
for water
National
in
Kennedy R-5
to
Chairman
the various
4
This
1970.
Federal
directions
Water
Pollution
Since
the
individual
More
handle
Abatement
of E.O.
projects
with estimated
have
strong
increased
been
11507
is
Forest
and
of
and to gather
legislation
in
this
and
air
this
on February
pollution
program.
to this Executive
risen
at
existing
The
current
Order.
to
$130 million as of June
a
deferred
status.
The
over
30
1600
1971.
Chief
program and of our capability
the established
97
quality.
program has
Service
placed
growth
of projects within
water
response
was
agency
nationwide
the
Nixon issued E.O. 11507
costs rising to over
the
in
to improve water
to abate
-
Activities
leadership
for accomplishing
in direct
the
identified
concern about
numbers
deadlines
Program
issuance
projects
expressed
each agency
and established
Federal
of Water
1966 and directed each
Order and subsequent
to this Executive
under one Order President
Order directed
facilities
July
provide
effort
to lack of response
-
is-sued
Pollution- by
Due
new
a
11288
Control and Abatement
Prevention
J.D.
not
is
Order
Executive
program.
abatement
pollution
lands
Forest
deadlines.
has
to
Differences
within
FS
Regions led to confusion
and
permittees
timely.
have
Solid waste
received
There
However
consistency
receiving the
also
confusion
from planned actions
that
is
moving
various
in
much
months
relating
were not
facilities
to this same
11507
E.O.
the
all
the
is
program
and
confusion
past
approaching an even
to accomplishment reporting
lack
program
Time
keel.
is
It
factors
lag
rapidly.
recommended
is
complementary
2.
its
confidence
It
is
in
3.
It
problems
causes
latter
not
that
and retained for use
in
all
sites
input
and should
facilities
role
its
gives
to clarify
our
respective
of sewage treatment
of FS representation
to
message
tentative
plans.
to the
The
carrying.
and then
approval
pollution
in
management and
land-use
As
planning.
Program has developed many projects have
the
program and
The
then
dropped
subsequently
as
data accumulated on these projects and
for management
be lost even
not
abatement data be documented
if
decisions
of Federal
on operations
the projects are not
included
in
the
Abatement
ement Program.
IIII
Pollution
water
for this
program.
valuable
are
their
when EPA
subsequent
been identified included
non-qualifiers
EPA
from support
ranging
or
Abatement
Water Pollution
the
if
exercise
task at hand.
the
meet with
the
reaffirm
office
the decision.
support
recommended
is
EPA
ways
different
WO
the
Chiefs
the
that
organization
and with
be recognized
factor
lag
the States for approval
of
Regions
States in
that
with
dealing
Different
time
this
of the
the Regions in accomplishing
in
recommended
roles
will
that
nature
4.
It
is
recommended
concentrated
Abatement
vaults
Program
is
units
many of which
are
to
the
and portable
increasingly
from
sewage wastes
related
In
technical
of additives
for use
criteria
develop
area
of
the
problem of disposal of concentrated
the
becoming
are
concentrated
problems
trailer
WO
the
wastes.
sewage
camp
systems
that
the
varying
incompatible
toilets
National
Forest
controls
with treatment
98
is
for
processes.
from
Community
treatment
facilities.
on additives
in
Pollution
wastes
significant.
unavailable
of
now
view of a program
a distorted
cause
implementation.
apparent
The
levels.
organizational
and
management
on
RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
of
well understood.
low-use
response
Regions
of
at
recognized
of
in
Forests
to inclusion
of response.
degrees
attention
Policies
of high-cost
management programs
relating
been
has
project
use
recent
in
identification.
to continuing
varying
much
was
in
land developments in joint systems were not
private
decisions
Management
Regions and between
interpretation of project eligibility between
in
to
One of
such
of
the
wastes
PANEL
3
ENGINEERING
QUALITY
T. Utterback
Chairman
D. Logan
G. Leonard
T. Nielsen
G. Scherrer
PROBLEM STATEMENT
How
be
uniform compliance
can
obtained
for
all
road
to
standards
on
construction
Forests
National
BACKGROUND
One
of.the
the
Forest
allowable
land
management
Service
to
is
As
of timber.
cut
Environment
70s
for the
objectives
maintain
quality
the
out
pointed
in
timber
and use of land resources depend
harvest
of
on
manage-ment.
road construction
proper
road specifications and contract
requirements
Utterback
and
R-6
Chairman
Lacking
guidelines to the
toward upcoming
skills
than
are
that
service
minimize
to assist in scheduling
field
action
Obviously
programs.
fluctuations
barely
be supplied
of financing
in
at
the
The
best.
past
they
field
are
less
adverse
to
manpower.
in
pointed
it
will
and
other
an engineering
have
Engineers
convinced that
people
a direction
when
particularly
Forest
will
impacts
limited engineering
energy
of subsequent programs cannot be tolerated
can
their
more not
require
implemented
recently
quality of our timber access roads
the
T.E.
for good
im-prove
New
experienced
happen
in
the
future.
The
WO
The
accelerated
without
would
naturally influences and
adequate
have
road program
engineering
is
most knowledgeable of directions apt to be taken.
is
a prime example
lead-time.
been most appreciative
People
of even
basis.
99
of committed
responsible
a few
months
FRT
for engineering
notice
financing
schedules
on a possibility
Studies
the
conducted
presently
to date
indicate
that
even
with the best organization and technique
workload cannot be carried out to a
projected
level
satisfactory
of
quality.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
Establish
objectives
should
other
WO
at
the
level
be carried out
to
include
activities
activities.
Create
rules
with
of the
game
insufficient
priority
ranking
assigning
This
manpower.
which may be abandoned
for
for
before
priority
statement
quality suffers
commitment of
on
engineering
effort.
2.
Select
merits
a joint
of
a
timber
Service
management-engineering task force to
audit
system
to
standards.
100
evaluate
conformance
investigate
with
the
quality
PANEL
4
GEOMETRONICSAND TECHNOLOGICAL IMPROVEMENTS
Hogan Chairman
J.
0. Bockes
C. Chandler
R.
Swinnerton
PROBLEM STATEMENT
We
1.
do
not
have
adequate
and administrative
todays
cannot
to meet
maps
Forest
Service needs.
afford
to
demand
the
work
keep
up
with
We
with
present
pro-duction
methods
and
organization
rather
than
develop-mental
work.
BACKGROUND
s.
Each
discussion
describing
organization
J.D.
engineering
ADP
systems
of the attendees
interest
for Regional
concern
to be involved
to
centered
setting
in
Rangers with
providing
primarily
involvement
in priority
his
place
in
from space
up-to-date
to
Technological
the
in
improvements
Improvements
liaison
on
implementing
work maps. The
on the operational mapping
the Technological
brief
and the problems he saw. These
remote sensing
Chairman
new
a
presented
problems ranged from interagency
WO
Hogan
member
panel
problems and a
They want
projects.
area.
RECOMMENDATION
Define
the
production
alternative
develop
program needs
mapping
action
plans
to
for the
next
5 years short range
and
accomplish the program.
ACTION
Hold a workshop
for
with representatives from
implementing the
asked
to attend
recommendations.
- scheduled
for
all
All
Regions
AREs
in
responsible
Denver October 27-29
101
order to develop
1971.
a
framework
for geometronics
were
PROBLEM STATEMENT
2.
There
lack
a
is
of direction
in
the
and implementation of
development
computer applications and geometronics.
engineering
RECOMMENDATION
Establish a steering committee
Promote
that
by
of Regional
group composed
and Washington
which will
Office personnel
1
or advisory
the
communications
between
the
wants or problems of the user
computer
engineering
oriented
user
are
and the developer
defined
technology
so
and so that advances
and
geometronics
are
made known.
2
Prepare a program to satisfy
of the
3
the immediate
wants and problems
user.
and
Prepare
computer
Forest
or solve
oriented
advances
program to explore
and geometronics
technology
update
a
in
engineering
for applicability
to
Service problems.
ACTION
Swinnerton
and
Hogan
WO
to
develop
groups.
IIýýI
advisory
Bockes
102
proposals
for
implementing the
PANEL
5
INSPECTOR CERTIFICATION
Chairman
G. Roberts
B.
Bowen
D.
Roper
D.
Jones
D.
Williamson
PROBLEM STATEMENT
How
do
both
formal
we
insure adequate
and
contract
on
inspection
timber
operator
III
construction
BACKGROUND
construc-tion
In the
past timber
road
purchaser
ques-tion
not received
has
to
formal
how
is
done
on
more
What
is
for certification
G. W.
Roberts R-1
some
needed
to
be
is
comparable
The
an adequate
get
purchaser
in
progress
others.
we
do
timber
inspection
construction.
contract
job
roads There
Regions
than
is
in
a uniform program
administered
by
the
Regions.
Chairman
RECOMMENDATIONS
It
is
recommended
certification
1.
Director
3.
Chiefs
Service
develop
the following
program by taking
of the Division
the specific
2.
that the Forest
of
office
should
required
on
Training
material
all
by September
issue
jobs after
July
to initiate
the
inspector
should
designate
an individual
with
the program.
a policy
1
construction
steps
Engineering
responsibility to develop
a Service-wide
that
a
certified
inspector
shall
be
1974.
program must be
1972.
103
available
to
the Regions
PANEL
AND EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT
EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT
C.W.
F.
6
Howard
Chairman
Burbank
0. Broadway
PROBLEM STATEMENT
The
Equipment
Program does
well
as
functional
Regions
nor
realize
fully
a clear
do
field
the
extent
and Test
Development
of the
picture
of
all
the
or managers
foresters
of
as
Development
and requirements
needs
Test
with the Regions
Equipment
do not have
personnel
tow
not
should.
it
and
Development
relate
the
services
Equipment
available
to
them.
loose-C.
BACKGROUND
In
W.
Howard
EDC
San Dimas
knit
become
and the
only
Regional
are
fragments
these
of functional
committees
coming
in.
However
committees.
equipment
are
The
they
not
have
are
were
instigated
of a
The
committee.
equipment
has been for these committee meetings
objectives.
The
the whole
covering
centers
projects
recommendations
the
Regional
trend
a rehash
new
past
through
Chairman
to
the
On
working to regenerate
not been too
board
equipment advisory
field.
a nationwide
some
basis
life
back into
for
their
successful.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
Provide
review
2.
Regions with copies or synopses
comment
Regional
Equipment
management
3.
Place
more
proposals
and
the
priorities
as
they
of
new
relate
to
Advisory Boards should
project proposals
their
emphasis on informing
the
and
repair
Regions of.actions taken
they
105
the
represent
user and those who must maintain
submitted by them-that
Regions.
were accepted
in
interests
of
equipment.
on project
whole or
in
part
as
new
proposals
deferred
4.
Coordinate
common
5.
Provide
Regional
activities
in
other
approved
projects
or that
they
were
and reasons why.
of
various
committees
and
groups
working
opportunity
to
on
equipment development programs.
Equipment
Equipment
activities
Development
Advisory
to providing
staff
personnel
Board meetings
information
Il
their
included
or rejected
106
as
and advice.
needed but
attend
restricting
PANEL
7
SPECIAL USE IMPACTS
Meinders Chairman
B.
H. Cappleman
C.
Dwyer
S.
Hughes
M. Loverage
PROBLEM STATEMENT
programs must. be
Financed
manpower
qualified
connected
reduced
shifted
to
unfinanced
with
and
work
do
Use
Special
Permits.
BACKGROUND
There
our
are
numerous
that
Forests
These
program.
highway
the
Corps of
R-1
Meinders
for
Chairman
In
the
past
so great that
we have
neither
However
the
impact
supervise
their
design
outside
generated
is
given
We
are
we
are
shift
and the
also
are
permits
we cannot
such
agencies
as
Bureau
many
of
requests
from private sources.
completely
or
prevent
land we must recognize
that their
the
to
recognition
that
point
we must
In order to properly
forced
our
to
efforts
take
to
nor have
ignored
properly
review
money away
cover
we
them.
review
and
and supervise these
from existing financed
programs over which we have no
control.
responsible
responsible
other
them proper
and construction.
projects
Forest
by other
FHWA
construction
ignore them.
increasing
and manpower and
programs
planning
on National
efforts
we cannot
FPC
FRT
for
engineers
the
for protecting
safety
of the
must be reviewed
our
public
to
and
resources
on National
determine
if
ecology.
Forest
The
lands.
safety and ecology
Forest
Service
The work
is
of
are adequately
107
III
impacts
are
include
projects
There
use
special
Although
these construction
control
not part of the
Engineers
Reclamation.
B.E.
are
construction
and construction
projects on
construction
0
protected.
funds
However
POSSIBLE
Forests. It
manpower and
allowance
is
recognized
that
this
is
our inability
of permittee
an impractical
to get additional
construction
solution.
SOLUTIONS
Realistically
provide
2.
in
seems to be to discontinue
the alternative
the National
1.
with the reduction
recognize
financing
Sharply
define
the
increased
workload
and
increase
ceilings
to
and qualified manpower.
legal
of the job and do no more
requirements
than
legally
required.
3.
Require the permittee to finance
Forest
Service support
services.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
Washington
2.
Regions
Office define
assess
legal responsibility.
manpower
requirements
in
connection
with
Special
Use
Permits.
3.
Washington
funding
Office
develop
policy
and procedures
and manpower.
108
for furnishing
adequate
on
PANEL
8
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OPERATION
Chairman
D.
Trask
F.
Ferrarelli
E.
Neumann
S.
Wilcox
Three topics
were
Maintenance
Road
Third
considered
discussed
Use
the
by
Regulations
Each
System.
panel
The
and
will
topic
be
separately.
MAINTENANCE
1.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
A
uniform
not
exist.
vary
in
of maintenance
definition
on
Practices
condition
does
surveys
each Region.
BACKGROUND
Some
W
would
Regions
like
to
system
sys-tem
be-tween
Trask
D.B.
roads
It
was
The
that
apparent
6000
the
cover
occasional
each
probably
for
Further
year.
was
obligations
probabilities
before
did not
feel
miles of additional
discussion
and reconstruction.
roads that
Uniform
are
during
funds
being
of
periods
through some
that maintenance
a lack
revealed
expense
be given access
avoid
other means.
were
adequate
to
added to the road
of understanding
and distinction
definitions do not
exist.
Practices
on
and maintenance
with the number of Regions and
vary in accordance
with the number of Forests. It was clear that no
Region has a definitive
system
systematic
additional
group
could
to
-surveys
maintenance
assessing
There
the
7000
to
maintenance
condition
user or hunter
put
manner
a positive
in
maintenance
Chairman
non-use.
to bed
priority
some
and
needs
on
discussion
the
tort
discussion
deciding
in
accordance
claims
on
to build
where
use
new
of recent
effects
both from an environmental
of
funds
with
these
needs
on
a
basis.
standpoint
adequate
of network
legislation
maintenance
analysis
roads.
109
on our
Clean Air Act
leading
is
et
maintenance
cetera and the
not performed.
to
total
cost
There was
consideration
RECOMMENDATIONS
1
The Washington
definition
present
2
There
Office
need
a
is
determining
is
should
of
out
the
for
priorities
the
since
date.
Office
Washington
for
maintenance standards
redefine
to
new methods
develop
of
maintenance and reconstruction
investments
in
should
do
use and control.
3
The
Forest
Service
maintenance
as
it
engineers
relates
with better advice on
job of analyzing
a better
road
road costs and furnish the land managers
to total
alternatives
be
to
used
in
decision-making.
USE REGULATION
2.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
It
is
to
difficult
very
enforce
road use
service
special
to be a more uniform understanding
There needs
haulers.
and
designate
commercial
by
and use of P.L. 92-82.
BACKGROUND
It
was
with
to the
called
Chap. 11
-
Safety
uniform
attention
groups
Order No.
control
traffic
that
but
devices
to comply
with the modified requirements.
Road
regulations
use
There
problem
as
applicable to Forest
to
enforce
enforcement
Forest
was
the
roads
on
types
of land
interested
in
Police
a Washington
it
is
Law
Public
to reimburse
of our
Since
imperative.
Service
the
The
Service
Forest
appropriate
92-82
recently
under Forest
authorities
Office
that
the
that
was given
State
this
will
and
will
a
regulation
laws
be
be asked
law
facilitate
enforcement.
interpretation and guidance
Act.
special
become
traffic
or counties
enacted
of
will
traffic
State
Service jurisdiction
for some
on
be able
road management or
enforcement
is
CFR
working
is
Service should
tighter
Law
under 23
requires compliance
designation
need for
roads.
fall
Office
Washington
our objective
110
I
This
on system roads and the need for law or
laws.
all
use
in
now
roads
Act.
Safety
the
and Special
interest
these
Service
Sisk-Johnson
expressed
and control
become
will
discussed
increases
traffic
enforcement
were
was
to direct
operations
Service
with the Department of Transportation.
modifications
attention.
Forest
13 of the Highway
allow
The
under P.L.
the
group
92-82
RECOMMENDATIONS
The
1.
order
212.7
Road
Service
Special
should
seek
so
signing
of
modification
of commercial haulers
notification
to permit
minimize
to
of Engineering
Office Division
Washington
CFR
36
as
by mail
avoid
to
in
sign
pollution.
The
2.
Office
Washington
the
proper
write
additional
manual
and interpretation of the various
use
road use closures
direct
The Washington
3.
should
for
Office
manual
publishes
concerning
and
regulations to control
resource
accomplishing
material
objectives.
under P.L.
material on operations
92-82.
3.
THIRD ROAD SYSTEM
PROBLEM STATEMENT
The number
of roads abandoned
by the counties
are
The
increasing.
which require the Forest Service to maintain
impossible restrictions
counties
are
placing
these roads.
BACKGROUND
These
on
roads
are
the
county
counties
are
on both
the
road
is
too
either
in
a
on
The
of the problem
extent
roads
the area
road.
public
restrictions
the
National
poor to maintain
program
often
or State and Forest
county
approaching the
systems
them. The Forest
the
making
is
Forest
was not
these roads
cases
Service
known
or
the
In
many
upon
very
these roads
may
put
and yet
impractical
the
following
recommendations
RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
The
Washington
this
problem
Office
and
should
contact
discuss possible solutions.
and attempt to
2.
The
solve
Washington
and maintenance
the
The
gather
data
National
Regions
should
responsibilities
provide
111
of County
to
begin
the various
guides
between
authorities.
of
Association
these problems within
Office
on the magnitude and nature
should
the
for
making
Officials
local
contacts
States.
determining
Forest
Service
the
to accomplish.
difficult
group made
the
cases
abandoning
occasionally
are
county
activities
therefore
System or those roads
boundary.
dependent
frequently
some
In
Service
Forest
jurisdiction
and
county
PANEL
MATERIALS
9
ENGINEERING
W. Furen Chairman
D.
Jones
A. Pelzner
L.
Stern
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Over
$300
million are being
on engineered
The
vast
on
Forest
That
System.
this
expressed
AL
inordinate
repair
are
W.E.
costs.
on
built
Forest
efficient
and
This
This
adequate
is
and
has resulted
turn
maintenance and
works
materials.
materials
In
not
are
attention
engineering
in
design
turn
in
inadequate
of many of our engineered
has
resulted
in
very
and
construction
attention
is
resulting
works and degradation
basic
of the
and serious problems
management and development of the National
effective
in
impact
Service engineered
earth
receiving
significant
sediment
in and from earth
general
planning
performance
environment.
a
This
dust
construction
these
This
unsatisfactory
system and
mainte-nance.
Furen R-5
Chairman
in
have
unquestioned.
Forest
spent
impact on the Forest
excessive
failures.
unsightly
in
is
Service.
are
Transportation
transportation
works
engineered
in
Forest
dollars
Service
and often detrimental
environment
the
in
of these
majority
the
other
works
annually
spent
for
Forests.
BACKGROUND
There
are
Forest
Service are not receiving adequate
many
indications
1.
Using wrong
2.
Poor
3.
Lack of knowledge
results
skills to
-
that
try
the
earth
materials used
attention.
Some of
skills in
problems
earth science
fields
113
engineered
these are
geotechnic
to solve
failures
of
in
works
in
the
4.
Inadequate
or untimely
to Forest
5.
Imbalances
of materials engineering
6.
Trial
1.
$10 million/year
8.
Dusty roads and unstabilized surfaces
9.
Slope
response
needs
organizations across the Service
- inordinate
costs
III
and error design techniques
storm damage
system
to transportation
failures
road safety
10.
Forest
11.
Excessive
12.
Insufficient road life
13.
GFI
14.
Line
deficiencies
maintenance
costs
reports
decisions
Foresters
by Regional
a.
No
b.
Stabilized surfaces
slip no
Region
slide
6
Region
5
RECOMMENDATIONS
Since
works are
engineered
materials are basic to National
1.
That
a
Timber
high
level
Harvesting
on
built
fact
Forest
in and from earth materials
management
it
is
recommended
group such as
Committee examine
finding
Review
and since these earth
the
group enlisted
Forest
in
the
Service practices in
ecommenda-II
the handling
2.
That
this
tions to
of these earth resources.
group develop
the
Chief for
specific
the
proper
detailed and comprehensive
and appropriate
be given to these earth resources.
III
114
engineering
attention
to
PANEL
TRAINING
10
AND MANPOWER
DEVELOPMENT
Loff Chairman
D.
W. Kinworthy
Landman
R.
N. Sears
Sirmon
J.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Due
the
to
engineers
for
reluctant
The
training.
do
staff
workload
heavy
are
understand
not
engineers
Forester
Regional
Division of Engineering
supervising
to release
the
role
and
his
of the
training position.
BACKGROUND
It
is
obvious
with
the
better
ý
jI$
ý
-
job
informing
Yý
D.D.
Lou
R-4
the
that
To
Management.
must have
He should
deficiencies and has the knowledge
We
also
need
out-Service
If
the
the
the
of
the
develop
identify
quality training to improve
Forest
panel
a system and
deficiencies
deficiencies
and of
The
problems.
we must
to
engineers
members
in
the competence
to
an engineering
be one who
has
training
or
can
coordinator
acquire
to
of
work with
skills
to identify
-
specifically
to correct them.
explore develop and make known training opportunities
opportunities.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
our
can be corrected
have.
do this each Region
Personnel
skills
people.
by training we must be able to provide
we
of
quality job
we must do a
have
training
staff
I
Chairman
the people
of
to do a
are
we
people
Supervisor
believes
we
if
Get understanding
and commitment from the Regional
the need for the
engineering
training and development
115
Engineers
position.
regarding
2.
A
paper
assist
is
being developed
Regional
Engineers
gain an understanding
3.
Reaffirm the
obvious
a.
b.
how
out-Service
capabilities.
development
of
role
technical
Determine
the
Sirmon due February 1972 which
these
the
this
commitment
original
take
Jeff
informing
of the
Service-wide
WO
by
in
to
Regional
leadership
coordinators
be
doing
an
develop
action
plan
training needs and
corrected
with
to
position.
engineering
can
will
Forester and staff
utilizing
either in-Service
or
training
and
Regional
engineering
the
work
staff
to examine
deficiencies.
and
to
the
spend
on
report
Regions on progress by July 1972.
4.
Analyze
the
self-development
amount
and
of
relate
time
this
other
to the
personnel.
116
similar professions
needs
of Forest
Service engineering
PANEL
11
CONSTRUCTION IMPACT OF POLLUTION ABATEMENT
Plath Chairman
B.
B. Bradley
A. Colley
Feuchter
R.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
We
now
are
plants
operators.
We
the
t
have
trained
will
be
we
the
to
difficult
licensed
require
neither
manpower
It will
plants.
that
500 sewage
over
constructing
treatment
ceilings
operate
for this
contract
to
nor
these
behind
exist-ing
service
as
already
are
and maintenance funds
operation
and cannot take
facilities
work
unfunded
in
our
for
on additional
in this area.
BACKGROUND
The
no
posed
Plath R-6
major
should
supervision
Chairman
ranks
after
major impact
is
construction.
designs would
operation
Recognizing
a
the
future
and
Staff
in
required
have
the
decisive
be
in
Personnel
and
for
construction
within
available
carried out
itself
the
the planning
these projects.
for
and maintenance of the pollution abatement
systems
that
impact
and our
construction
problem.
of those who
and design
The
that
administration
contract
B.B.
held
panel
ability
decisions
made
amount
on the
to finance
today
of
it the
operations
panel
the
concerning
system
and maintenance
developed
the
following
statement
Line
have
not
given
adequate
attention
to
the
operation
and
maintenance aspects of pollution abatement systems.
Full implementation of E.O.
projects
and
all solid
waste
11507
requires that
disposal systems
we
have
operational
117
all
water
by the
pollution abatement
end of
FY
1974.
As a
estimate $20 million per year
conservative
be required
will
to
and maintain
operate
these systems.
500
Approximately
should
have
To
immediately to
begin
we connot
Where
contract
ensure that
Region
waste
all
actions
funded and
and the
this
WO
will
we must
service
develop
of
the construction
on a timely basis
carried out
critical
for the
paths
licensed
require
for securing
their
up to the operational
leading
develop
plants
alternatives
explore
for
on board during
our operators
recognized
sewage treatment
this
in-house
respective
phase
water
operators.
trained
this
manpower.
capabilities
recommends
panel
and
plants.
of these systems
pollution
Action
are
fully
that each
abatement and
solid
disposal programs.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In
carrying
out
the
above
the
be identified and appropriate
should
following
actions
taken
1.
Forest
and Supervisors
Engineers
OM
must consider
costs in the selection
of a pollution abatement process. This requires an examination of alternate
methods
2.
the required
for carrying out
must
Offices
Regional
3.
The
This
costs.
will
need to develop
Currently funds
financed
through
contributing
amount
for
general
functions
required
is
critical
Office Divisions
Washington
Recreation
OM
identify
qualification requirements.
for
if
the
OM.
of
and
needs
a State license
Administrative
is
Management
of administrative
operation
budgets
This
are
may
not
increased
pollution abatement at administrative
118
a
present
their
required.
a system for identifying and funding
assessments.
their
personnel
where
and
OM
facilities
are
problem
for
to
cover
facilities.
the
GENERAL
DISCUSSION
THURSDAY SEPTEMBER
30
TURNER
As
it National
see
I
the
going
have
to
have
going to
are
program and pollution abatement program.
timber
-
been set we
have
priorities
to
use
on
our people
all
other areas of concern
Many
are
to suffer.
GANO
Someone
we
suggested
hes
of job that
kind
what
we understand
audit
to
we
have
the
admit that
uneasiness to
We
are
at
skills
deep concern
to
have
a study
considering
that
are
of
necessarily
I
uneasy.
we arent performing
is
of
skills
manpower -
suggest
that
that
not
perhaps
use we
to
we havent
are
built
of things here
that
We
necessarily money.
we
an
arrangement
practical
a whole host
the
establish
to conduct
available
of our real problems
are
to
attempting
attempting
are
motivations
use
required. There
and its not
we
and we
attitudes
may be one
are
that
underway
to be
adequacy
tools
training in itself
into our people
cause
We
quality standards
are looking
that
recognizing
a poor job of telling the Chief
doing
after.
our
qualify goals.
cetera
et
are
should
indicate
our
a quality job.
The
the Chief.
KETCHAM
In
the
Chiefs Program
Chief needs
to
for
the
1970s
know what we need
in
the
the
first
way
statement
of facilities
concerns
to
do a quality job.
WILKE
think
there has
spending
time
I
suggested
we
are
reviewing
as far as
going
been quite a
to
changing
have
bit
design
of discussion on establishing
plans
priorities
to change
our
trying to do business as usual without
made
by
or direction
- just
an exercise
emphasis and cut out
changing
119
anything.
We
priorities.
There hasnt
others.
in
something.
should
been
semantics.
I
stop
anything
believe
I
think
we
are
AND
- A REVIEW
PANEL REPORTS
DISCUSSION
HOWLETT
We
Jack Deinema Russ McRorey and Paul Neff with us today. I would like to
them up to date with respect to our panel reports and recommendations.
we had a report from each chairman. We would like to review these reports
Yesterday
have
bring
today.
DEINEMA
How
do you intend
up
to follow
Are you going
to
this
put
form
into written
HOWLETT
from
we
what
finalize
be
will
ilt
Everything
We
you.
in
put
final
down
put
not
are
as
we would
are
not
- we
answers
for
too
just
some
like
want
to
we
volume. Before
into a proceedings
recommendations
asking
recommendations we make
form
written
and input
guidance
make
sure
that
the
far off.
UTTERBACK
I
was
on
the
for quality
panel
applies to everything
engineering
we do
An
a small part of quality engineering.
we
a support
are
however
service.
the
overlook
lowest
irreplaceable
A
action.
or
assist
further
are
cost.
study
impacts
an economic
analysis
and
Legislative
of
actions.
cannot be
Most
considered
of resources
quality
to zero in on just
quality engineering
that
is
These must
standpoint.
that
provide
be run to find the best
has
management
been
result
engineered
in
until
alternative
pointed
at
related
particularly
projects
adequately
required
and cost factors unique to
direction
engineering
as
in
which could
should
land
we had
engineering
executive
of
alternatives
an
alternatives
as loss
to us that
apparent
felt
meeting land management objectives
in
from
such
We
minimum
managers
of the various
irrevocable
project
land
rather
engineering.
obvious
considerations
adverse
Considering
comprehensive
have
to
of these alternatives
each
for
there
to a total
relate
effort
in
was
It
engineering.
an
all
a
to
irrevocable
alternatives
been considered.
USHER
I
think
cant
we
engineers
do everything.
need
priority
Nevertheless
problem. With our present
definitions
we want
constraints
we
as
far
as
programming
to be part of the
feel
120
solution
is
concerned.
not
part
We
of the
uneasy about the projects for which we
The
accountable.
are
Regional
Forester on engineering
uncomfortable
related to management
aspects
about the
RFs
advise the
direction
real
which we
in
giving advice
for
responsible
is
Engineer
We
objectives.
going.
are
are just a
little
bit
want to be able to
just
I
to the Regional
properly.
III
TURNER
I
uncomfortable
feel
to our
called
to
take
the
We
are
attention.
of pollution
care
done.
things
with
This
financed
abatement.
mean
will
situation
present
timber
to produce our
I
we
that
seems National
It
dont
really
have
to
much
see
our
lessen
cut.
are
priorities
We
choice
efforts
but
to get
these
areas and
other
in
being
financed
also
are
con-sequently
do
consequently
or
accept
that.
support
a quality job in other fields. I
feel
I
am
I
we ought
what
than
less
than
less
talking about more money or more
not
a trap.
in
to
do
in
am
confident
not
must do the
I
other
areas.
see
a
way
I
think
RFs
and
We
things
priority
dont
I
that
out.
will
are
people.
MILLER
business of quality engineering
This
problems
have
the
to satisfy
to reach
the
trying to satisfy
in
is
beyond
we
people
are
has been bothering
me
We
have
land
manager.
working for the
really
what a land manager
just
all
week
to go beyond
We
public.
might be happy
-
one of our
that idea
have
- we
responsibility
with.
WILKE
We
today
of
for.
It
asking
that
is
demanded
is
dont
have
program.
what
We
engineering
you
are
people
want.
just
at
2
put
in
that
You
it.and
we have
as
can
the
2
saying
all
We
well directed.
have
1
man
with
engineers
agree
so
the
of quality they
some
of our efforts
that
of our
efforts.
We
road building
other
of just our road building
what
things to emphasize and
terms
single
phase
of our
total
of getting something
many people no matter how
we are at a point of doing with
else
efficient
think
on roads
are
from
phase
on one
in
faced
level
other juggling
priorities
to forego
dont
kind of quality job
we
to
yet
willing
I
can
some
are
of quality that has been
redirect
engineering
week about
do so much
only
or
not
we
What
thing.
the kind
is
number of
the
have
this
we
that
construction
we would be
how
that
saying
engineering
total
the
de-emphasize.
In Region
this
simple
in
a relative
is
engineering
have been furnishing
are
been talking
have
job
accomplished.
as
Region
to
things
we
past
construction
would have
agencies
quality
people
just not
to
in
the
in
Now
us.
preconstruction
on
that
ought to recognize
with
that
people
are
now
telling
the
us they
of what
road
would be using
per 10
agency
any other
one aspect of our job.
121
I
IOW LETT
We
do have
number
largest
of people
panel
on programming.
going
far
enough
become
that
shifts
our manpower
of
majority
some
to make-
of the
problems
we
so that
the
in
priority
toward
One
pollution abatement.
One
advance
in
can
is
organize
the
panel
where
in
the
we
are
to meet those jobs
efficiently
had some
second
Our..
was suggested
this
dont know
just
more
The
are very limited.
road program.
help to
we
that
Bob Larses
future.
manpower
shifts in
directed
already
is
in
is
however any
recommendations
on
this.
LARSE
One of
problems we
the
we
constraints
have
2 3
to be
going
Regions
think
we
may
involve
are
We
new
going
to have
in
changes
organizational
the
programming
was the
and the apparent need to shift people
of what our
range forecasts
program is
At the present
program direction
work on
to
to.
funds
need longer
and 4 years from today.
forecast what
to
our panel with respect
in
manpower and
in
today
job demands.
meet changing
to
discussed
time
it
is
very
of our manpower and
flexibility
for
difficult
might be 3 years from now.
there
skills.
I
This
concepts.
HOWLETT
We
do not
jobs.
We
than
just
I
the
not
arent
going
about
make some
numbers
to
There
happen.
We
feel
hard decisions
a
is
the
engineering
project
put
strong
we
have
reached
we
are
not
going to
or
funds
constraint
that
people
We
do
priority
much
larger
sometimes bolster the
there for
projects that just
organizationally
a point
to
Its
organization.
about whole Forests.
talking
manpower and
with
this.
are
of just
movement of
the
accomplish
terms
in
We
engineering.
organization
to
flexibility
talking
Forest
anything
E
have
are
where we
are
against
doing
going to have
to
meet our goals without increasing our
of people.
DEINEMA
Will
this
w
some help
It
is
to
going
give
we
that
effort
reorganization
more
are
going through
flexibility
Forest
of two Forests per Region
be of
by Forest isnt it
HOWLETT
We
have
been discouraged
studies are
to
made and
do and what we
the
are
almost
total
to the
lack
going to put
point
of frustration
of relationship
out
there to do
122
of what
it.
No
in
we
one
the
are
will
way some
going
get
to
down
of these
be financed
to the basic
that
fact
have
you
to look at what
got
around a fixed
organize
you
are
and then organize
proposing
we
rather than around what
concept
have
to do
We
it.
do on the ground
to
DEINEMA
These
the
trial
reorganizations on the Forests
much
job
more
Its just
easily.
a
more
have
so
trial
They
flexibility.
isnt
but
far
that
can
to do
organize
the
right
the Multiple-Use
Act
a step
in
direction
HOWLETT
What
Jack
happens
that
specific
This
We
things.
making
is
the adverse
it
are
we
that
we
what
describes
is
are
to
going
extremely
we
manage
difficult
are
to
such
basic legislation
but
then
to do the first and
organized
conditions
some
have
we
we
funded and required to do
get
never
to do the second.
organize
an effective
carry out
as
program
under
particularly
facing.
CURFMAN
We
to
have
four
that
forests
1 you
each one of the forests
additional
cant
have
additional
was assumed from the beginning
It
money.
and we had enough
studied. There were two
being
are
dollars.
It
was
just
to
work
something without a foundation
the
constraints that were given
people
that
and
2 you cant
have
we had enough people there
improper mix. So we
trying to achieve
are
from.
HOWLETT
There
out
brought
a
also
is
in
serious problem
panel
the
develop
time and
during
to
engineers
Many
those
the
divert
projects
on
-the
which they
are
we
we
on
put
we
are
are
far
financed
etc.
taking
We
more important
to
We
undertake.
We
have
These
other large
that
This
is
not
recognized
the field to do these jobs.
123
level
these cant
many
either
in
as
and most talented
to the management
have
such
problems that
particular
our highest
feel
impacts
tremendous users of our
are
with
They have a tremendous job of managing
not funded.
was
It
jobs.
we do about 7 times the number
plans work
-
unfinanced
regarding
lifts
do.
to
to these fields.
efforts
their
ski
projects
review
course of construction
lands.
in
to
Region
say
financed
are
-
effort
times these impacts
impacts
people
than
every
highway program water
interstate
engineering
that
discussion
of man-years of work
in
Forests
be
abandoned.
of the lands than
that
have
large
these other programs for
job loads or in the types
of
DEINEMA
One
on this I have
point
been
here a year and one month.
in
make many recommendations similar to this. It was
WO when I was in the Regional Office and on the
Then
Forest.
a solution
the
in
for this
We
rec.gnized.
to
came
I
through
of
kind
went
began
I
to
need
This
thing.
some
see
and
there
it
Management and Budget and over
Congress and you people in the
some of it. So we end up with a
there
field
slight
are
it
is
but
year
on the
was on the
I
dont
just
impacts
get
a
known
well
It
got
more
Office
of
it
to
goes
restores
Congress
near what
anywhere
have
is
little
wiped out. Then when
not
used to
finger
go to the
will
it
your needs
but
use
I
for this purpose.
probably
then
really
making
increase
I
life.
special
Well
back.
the Department
with
arguing
slashed
got
when
of
facts
this
wiser.
Office
Regional
concerning
lot
to put the
easy
of the
about $2.5 million additional
after
Department
restored
here and
too
am a
I
is
necessary
on the ground.
Now how
can
give
Office
in
the
do we overcome
The
us.
way we
It
are
is
WO
that
falls
work on
the
but
we
and our funds
use
even
you
people
impacts
the
scratching
surface
somehow
to
is
We
with
are
the
convince
done your job of
have
needed.
is
and help
you fellows
the thought
all
to get the job done
think
I
special
are not
going to take
going
of Management and Budget.
Department
big ax
only
that
us
selling
able to convince
OMB.
the
Theres where
the
really get cut back.
HOWLETT
we want you to know what
We dont want to become part of
Jack
we
handicaps
will
have
in
the
over and over during
we do want
problem however
our job.
doing
help in solving some
internal
has been reiterated
We
of these difficult
want
some
general
this
to point
meeting.
out
the
and some
recognition
problems.
TURNER
This
is
efforts
that
exactly
what
I
of our people
we were
of these
going
problems.
I
The
be rescheduled
said
I
uncomfortable
was
programs.
priority
We
in
we had
schedule
outside
but
if
it
understand the problems that we
impacts
is
set
up
for
we were
not we
will
try
not
trying to
were very
able with your help and understanding
to be
showing these tremendous
trip will
when
meant
toward financed
your
trip
financed
to do our
hopeful
show
to
was
part
in
this fall
OMB
some
aimed
largely
to handle.
the
shift
I
getting
at
hope the
OMB
to
face.
DEINEMA
Thats
any
probably what
relief
in
sight.
its going
The same
think our only salvation
is
to take
-
to get
OMB-people
pressures and the same
to look to contracting.
124
binds
are
in
the
going
field.
I
dont
to stay with
see
us.
I
-WILKE
Thats
one of the
we
that
said
most discouraging
not
are
to be
going
things
allowed
have
I
heard
whole week.
our contracting
increase
to
this
Chet Shields
efforts
order to
in
our objectives.
accomplish
DEINEMA
I
think
some
there will be
on adding
more
going to have
relief
to our rolls. There
people
there
feel
is
going to be any relief
be a need to add more
would
I
we
think
I
ceilings.
may
else.
dont
I
contracting.
be cut back someplace
to
on these personnel
salvation
in
have
but
engineers
its
bad trying to offer any hope or
feel
hope
for
contracting.
McROREY
What
Chet was
paragraph
when
held
will
I
agree
Don
-
Jack
when you
to have
going
the
President
abatement.
we
with
are
I
to
is
dont
to
in
see
written
material
to
contracting
is
we
have
around
get
to date
carried a
But
people.
hiring
emphasis on pollution abatement and we
puts great
there
some
is
room
negotiating
going
have to
to
there with
OMB.
I
are
give.
I
think
we
that
we
contracting.
spoke of the quality engineering
initially
the
the highest
at
priorities
-
President
any way out
to have to channel
going
the
something about it something
establish
saying
that
use
President
be able to go further
think
are
the
for doing
responsible
certainly
not
us
directing
nevertheless
about was
talking
-
if
we
gave
level
job you
of funding
said
and that
is
what
additional
us
only have
those into the highest
money for pollution
so many men and so many dollars
which are coming down
priorities
from the highest source-the President.
TURNER
Then what happens when
lot
an
FPC
project comes along
- what
than pollution abatement
more
do
I
tell
and its going
my
Regional
his
Regional
to
affect the Forest
Forester
a
then
DEINEMA
Concerning
different
your
Don
to
perfectly
Timber
Id
priorities
Regional
desire
Turners
Manual
willing
quality.
that
we
its in
on
point
Forester what
achieve
clear
be
are
the
I
is
good
think
not
convincing
to bet
all
going
my
last dollar
quality
the
to
he
will
that
back
way through
sacrifice
Chiefs statement
125
the
Forester
when
you up
Service
in
it
quality for quantity
its every
place
about
these
and tell
you- stand up
else.
If
your
-
common
been made
has
in
the
fellows
are
this
you
is
under pressure
and
to
get
hillside
be
defend
I
youve
got
- then
have
else.
counted.
professional
allowable
youve
and
remiss
or a Ranger
take
me what
down
the
dont
- Im
that
defensible.
If
by
in
if
if
an allowable
cut
- I know Id
know
or anything
trail
does
project
we have
then
wayside
reasons where
the
I
cut if
you didnt stand up and be
that
accept
and
up
your boss
to
an allowable
road
a
the
Forester would back
make
a proposed
you
the
stand
that
have
darned
quality
is
on your job
fact
goes
you
why you cant
quality
is
tell
state
else
everything
But where
What
are
to
going
District
down
slide
professionally
you didnt
if
of excuses
lot
falling
up and
you
practices
cut
got a
be
really
stand
you
you cannot
that
or
be
behind you.
that
on you fellows to
you would
to
Forest
a road thats
build
your hand slapped for not making
to get
on. shaky ground.
are
If
really
on the National
cut
have
refuse to build that road.
Every Regional
going
where.
depend
feel
almost
not
are
out
you
to
I
you would
reasons like
its an easy
cut you
displeasing
esthetically
think
You
up.
allowable
an
allowable
him and
challenge
you
make
to
that
this
meet
to
would
meet
not
be
the
morally
indefensible.
NEFF
Of
course
have
is
-
correct
the
cant
statement
be
disputed.
along and sometimes very much impeded
pushed
being
who
Jack
interests et cetera
special
so
by
In
we
respects
are
and by people
public opinion
isnt surprising that
it
many
a quality job
might not
look the same to everyone.
When
insist
we go to OMB and to Congress
that we attach
You know
goals.
money
going
Where
but we
we
particular
along
Chief
the
particularly
money
right
wont
get into
area
it
is
with
a
to
they didnt offer
dilemma on allowable
As a matter
allowable
of policy
the
accomplish
I
public
we
think
at
which we say
reasons. There
we say
we
get
We
to
are
all
No we
degrees
of
arent going beyond
cut
the
is
that
political
if
we
to offer
fail
give
us the
arena.
timber
Foresters and
or in Congressional
hearings
have
to
been agreed
goals that have
You
hearings
in
a
Forest
to
as
why
cut.
do this at the expense of the resource.
and place
into
immediately goes
their
and say
or Congress
meet the goals.
become embroiled in
Supervisors
FRT
OMB
to go to
willing
be able
money to finance our job they immediately
when we ask for timber money or
No one
goals we are supposed to accomplish.
that
the
are
it
for
I
are
quality.
this
say that
to
we
are
the Chief
by
going
and
think the whole problem
not
We
going
have
point. That
to
to
OMB.
is
I
agree
the difficult
of these
the point
part of it
where
however when
a point where we can stand up and defend our position with our
126
we cant
ascertaining the time
meet these goals because
a hard time getting to
is
do our best to
critics
and be
successful
that
because
we
if
the
is
we
time
the
sell
should
we
timber
No
say
will
we
the
damage
not
are
going
-
resource
timber
the
sell
to
and
that
is
not
just
acceptable.
meantime
the
In
on accomplishment of goals
.emphasi
At
our
session
panel
do
be
dont
money.
money
Why
to
enough
think
that
take
the
think
the
goals
have
the
them
dollars spending
I
see
we dont
said
else
have
this
engineers
work we
the
first
think
I
we
things
that
have
to say.
not
we
OMB
and
Congress
it but
If
to
put
have
do
to
to
going
say
We
us
the
to take
the
give
continue
to
a right
the goals
accomplish
are
should
dont
properly therefore
job
have
to
going
enough
we know
that
is
can do otherwise.
you
say
said
you
money.
Forester
Regional
dont
I
dont
how we
money and spend
the
accomplish with the
because
everybody
and we can demonstrate it then we
do
to
one of the
is
suppose
to the point
get
engineers
accomplish
do you
could
I
I
I
-
day we
other
to the resource
damaging
have
the
Okay when we
quality work.
will
Chief Jack and
the
going
is
have
to
to do the
people
and then say we
to
job.
just
I
Dont
say
dont
couldnt accomplish
money
more
us
give
how we
see
the
keep taking
can
the goals.
WILKE
Jack
I
to
case
have
the
Forester
Regional
him
to tell
erosion
getting
your example about the poor road but
with
agree
construction
is
getting land damage
we
are
proper
we do we would
and the Chief cant
him
We
is
that
have
we
some
on contractors
some
dont.
In
additional
-
and white
are
that
that
we
in
drainage
its a shade
So
it
is
order to
the project to enforce
really
purchaser
make
have
the
and
people
have
to state
of grey
and where
because
we
are
the
whole road. What
we
therefore
at
the
site
are
during
culverts.
do you draw the line
not
I
assuring ourselves
We
that
sure
not
this
black
in
that job
we now have
that
and white. What
I
have
to tell
of the miles of road.
one-tenth
good jobs not because
or a timber
adequately
fills
10 times the people-
to have
buy that.
the
and compaction along these roads. To assure ourselves
drainage
can only build
way we
the
to lose
and therefore we dont have enough
the form of erosion
have
going
are
we dont compact the
the way we dont
along
to design
getting
not
that
all
So its not black
is
of policy
to give
that
all
or engineering
us
a
good job. Some of them
of them
the specifications.
127
but because
do we
have
to
have
we depended
do
the
however
people
on
DEINEMA
You
put
acceptable
your finger right on it and it has always bothered me in the field - what is
erosion We cant have a complete finished product
everywhere all the time
and thats
where
just
has
it
take
to
good judgment.
It
to have
going
is
depend upon
to
the situation.
KREITLER
FY
In
you
1972
give
made
the Chief
indication
us any
agreement with Congress
an
what the Chief
as to
is
Can
that there would be goals.
about for
thinking
FY 1973
DEINEMA
In
When
generalities.
for
after
felt
we had
1973
allowable
sale
we had
we had
and cut
the
money
and
We
goals.
do
to
a
did not
into the
the
think
that
water.
our request
a request
production
in
We
for
are
Chief
the
to what
as
were interested
we were
in
any increases in our allowable
we
earned
going
meeting our
cut until
make
the right to
especially
is
field.
for
is
a
for
a
desire
to
administration.
an increase
for
try
will
timber
is
we
increases in
He
fighting just
as
hard
getting dust-free
felt
is
are
when we
not
really
timber but there
closer
in
really
decided
on water-related
Progress
in
we were
keeping
is
not a
balance.
show you what we thought was
dollars but
no increase
dont
that
in
quality.
goals and
concerned.
up and being counted.
standing
that
- we
bring about a
to
an increase of 48 percent
as far as
-
of discussion
lot
He
there.
getting the boat ramps in
to the Department
really
is
recreation improvements
in
use
special
not
There
up
for increases in all other activities
There was
The
million
poor.
above
heads
desire
I
is
increases
Special uses came
$2.5
development
our
want
We
and a good recreation base out
campgrounds
watershed.
in
add
to
meeting.
quality job and
Following that the Chief wanted
low
staff
through thinning and seeding.
the cut
roads
budget session
our preliminary
a Chief
as
he
can
I
think
to get this balance
is
being recognized
and quality point
across.
HOWLETT
Theres
bring
it
one subject
out
that
again and that
we
is
talked
about yesterday
Transportation
and
I
think
System Operation.
128
it
would be well
if
we
III
TRASK
We
getting hurt in
are
already
100000
.th
We
built.
many
have
just
we
miles of trails
We
system.
are
do
can
old
which would
Maybe we need
of
level
a
We
a
look
could
we
should
look
- we
existence
about
have
time just
system and
to
maintain
growing
experiencing
dust we find there are some
with
of the
get
at
things
Maybe we need a definition that
first
of
$28
how
a system and ask
back
in
down
we
could
that
the
million
our
panel
it
that
that
condition
on was
agreed
as
was constructed.
it
ties
to
redefine
to
development
look
Maybe we
better.
we
use and could
its
Maybe when we
means more
it
be managed
should
control
system.
line
whole thing-maintenance
the
that
things
maintenance
at
under which
the condition
in
looked
climate.
a good investment
that
- we
maintenance
of
facility
definition.
with a budget
realize
at
of that
use
find dissatisfaction
keep the
new
One
use.
that
think
that
in
system we have
the road
to overlook
tend
miles of roads
$28 million at the present
spending
increased
definition
maintenance under todays
We
we
Perhaps
differently.
For example our
activity
are
seeing
that system.
pressure on
we
ways.
under 200000
at
a
maintain
new
control
reconstruction
we
project
Maybe we
maintenance.
-
so
it
should
as
a
feel
a
all
package.
The second
growing
could
area that
we
spent
that
we
are
concern
use
our regulations
area that
that lies between
our
the
because
on which perhaps
with
a lot
experiencing
to control
panel
forest
unclear maintenance
thwarted
time
was
of
the
of
use
We
regulations.
on resources.
pressure
that use. Lets build some
Perhaps
we
of
into our use
flexibility
of regulations.
the system by use
Another
some
dealt with
responsibilities
WO
is
that
system
development system and the county system. Jurisdiction
of lack of
county
the
was the third road system. This
should
unclear.
are
provide
some
Oftentimes our
The
maintenance.
kind
panel
resource
identified
of guidance
and
this
plans
is
are
area as one
direction.
HOWLETT
Following
right
along
that
in
same
line
relating
to
operations
was
the
panel
on the
impact of our pollution abatement program.
PLATH
It
became
clear
maintenance
and
in
the
panel
operation
discussion
of our
that
treatment
129
our
big
systems-.
impact
In rough
was
going
estimates
to
we
be
have
in
a
cost about
program that
will
havent
considered
even
We
and
Recreation
many
people
during
We
What
that
and coordinate
future
and
retrained
Administrative
We
efforts.
that
we
didnt have
We
required
We
licensed.
and we are going to build
Management
need to have
and operate
to maintain
of skills are
type
recruited
construction
the next
the
in
involved
reassigned
abatement
pay
We
for operators.
salaries
and suggested
this
together
get
needed
is
are
people
coordinate
to
should
of what
picture
get
we had
decided
to
Over and above
to maintain.
million a year
dollars
into the program.
built
everything
$4.3
the
these facilities.
need a
are
critical
this
starting
tremendous
a total
operational
How
path
to
pollution
problems
2 years.
need a completely
coordinated
effort.
DEINEMA
Where
does
the
Why
lie
fault
isnt this coordination
now -
done
being
is
Recreation
l
failing
to participate
PLATH
Recreation
has
planning
recreation
havent
been
and have
has
concerned
been
working
been together.
recognize
this
about
been plugging
now and
over
dont
I
in
it.
The
We
havent pulled
figures.
here
and we have
think
the
time
were doing
engineers
their
too
is
the
it
basic design
all
been working
together
over
there
-
yet
- we
but we must
to get together
late
or
get going.
HOWLETT
Of
the
new
treatment
sophistication
to
licensing
people
that
will
comply with
the
650 plants that we
We
need and we
how soon
State laws.
qualified to the
are
are
are
level
have
in place.
a
going
community
have
that
We
should
they
can
got to be on board.
we
to
building
are some
there
go ahead and
be licensed
lot
many
of
We
also
have
attrition.
We
have
to recognize
We
plants.
130
will
States
at
already
650
of
sufficient
going to require
are
least
by the
toward a development
program.
to get qualified people
are
are
going to build there are
looking
the operators
we
plants that
need qualified plant operators. Most
make
State.
sure that our
In addition
to
constructed.
We
have
got to determine
got to start a training program
in this
highly skilled
probably be training
for
area that
the
local
FUREN
I
am
not
we
that
sure
be quite
to
getting the full impact of this.
are
plants but the operation
and maintenance of the
more. Everybody
a bit
concerned
is
group
is
in
keeping
I
plants.
the back of their minds that
about treatment
talking
are
systems are probably going
pollution abatement
because
want
just
the day-to-day
make
to
sure that the
waste
in solid
operations
a tremendous impact.
to have
are going
now
right
.ha been dealing principally with the treatment
We
waste
solid
COLLEY
I
would
water
We
pollution.
and current
can
make
to
like
costs
a point
hidden.
that
unequivocally
state
and operating
It will
the
to be 3 to
going
is
of land
fills
take around $15 million per year and
probably
cost
maintenance cost for
million annual
$4.3
for operation and Maintenance
no firm estimates
have
are
the
concerning
we
4 times the cost of maintaining
pollution abatement system.
water
PLATH
Dont you
waste
think that
disposal
than
the
with
will
the
be more
probably
and with water
people
to go along
personnel
balance
That
dollars
pollution
is
the
way
dollars
abatement we
that
I
look
the
in
required
will
solid
need more
the broad picture
at
there.
COLLEY
bet
a good
Its
of
hauling
waste
solid
abatement
waste.
waste
solid
systems.
projects.
However
we
that
have
but
on the ground
people
not
the
to
We
staffing
probably
wont
for these jobs
that will be required
extent
Maybe 500 operators
have
have
is
today engaged
collection
in
to handle
the
and
new
to be trained for major water pollution
to bring that
a big problem and
many people on for
we need to get with
the solid
it.
STERN
In
the water
required
confidence
operation
that
judgment
in
they
are
to
going
be the best
maintenance
they
their
not
abatement
pollution
will
selecting
select
an
get
the
program
dollars.
these
They
dollars
field
are
is
so
concerned
very
much
concerned
to
the
the initial construction
alternatives
in
alternative
that
is
solution.
131
relatively
concerned
that
point
they
that
about the
really
it
is
swaying
phase. In other
maintenance-free
but
lack
words
this
may
HOWLETT
This
of operating
problem
come
to grips with
.Th next
abatement
pollution
is
but we must
difficult
very
it.
on Materials Engineering
panel
facilities
concerned
with a
and while
it
was.also
-
problem
difficult
one that we have Service-wide.
FUREN
Our
and earth
We
materials
materials engineering
basically
were
This
materials.
of National
mission
total
define
to
tried
panel
struck
Forest
Service.
about $10 million per year
How
much
simply
So
I
soil
think
really
something
as
need to
week
spirit
are
-
lots
of things
with the use of earth
basic and fundamental
quite
when
this
to the
about the use of earth
talked
that
$300
over
for the repair of flood
million are
One
a tremendous figure.
is
spent
we
we
its impressive
sidelight
damage
being
that
is
primarily to
build from.
how much
How
erosion
in
to
a high
-
-
doing
Service
or even
much
We
tolerable
is
that
doing
the
to
all
of us
Service
the
resources.
and practical
to do this
is
are
to have
uneasy
somehow
National
our
The
as
we
to
Forests and
standards
a high-level
-
should
in
just
as
-
We
impressive.
are
and
works
have
doing.
heard
I
am
a system for us to measure what
important
something we dont
unbiased
This
no
for
significant.
engineered
kind of quality job we
develop
just
have
works and our use
for our
tremendously
We
works.
tremendously
is
figure
a means to
be doing.
engineered
soils
engineered
dollar
is
to the
needs
as
we dont have
that
is
what
management
group to study
level
of earth
recommendation
of these earth resources
use
Forest
our
in on and from earth materials
that
meaningful
of
are actually
for the
enlist
long
suggesting
way
the
basic
abuse
perhaps
constructed
we
think
being
slides
in
we
what
standards
quality
all
I
are
lost
is
involves
concerned
is
dont know.
nieasure
We
is
Service
of the job
works
to the earth materials
damage
repair
engineering
Forest
management.
magnitude
for engineered
spent annually
the
of earth materials
use
Forest
the
by
the
materials in
in
and develop
to identify
have
now.
We
group take a long hard look
feel
at
the best
our present
practices.
DEINEMA
Would
it
be held to the construction
and whats planned
land
132
in
the long-range
future
of the
FUREN
I
what
guess
look
am
I
what
at
we do
quality and until
.o
saying
we
that
is
our posture
is
right
are
practical
have
We
a base from which to improve.
we
for something as basic as these earth resources
top of the problem. We need somehow
acceptable
We
trying to do a better job.
all
now -
to
taken
not
a
cant define
never
will
measure our present practices and
get
establish
for these earth resources.
quality standards
GANO
supplement
Just in
materials
engineering
the
we would
have
degree
of
effort
type
of
situation.
after-the-fact
we
after
applied
of materials engineering
level
adequate
is
that
afraid
an
is
materials engineering
then
am
I
of these
some
avoided
been applied
have
able
to put
on
of our
effort
in
are
Most
a damaging
have experienced
should
we
that
A
more
beginning
and
situation.
the
in
problems.
costly
HOWLETT
There
is
one thing the
there
engineering
than
in
always
to none
What
some
accept
at
the
are
all
-
-
Forests
than
there
no
as
quite
It
in
very
chairman of that
from
Forests
sophisticated
there
Obviously
of not
engineering
is
middle
the
the
at
I
think
or
think
I
carefully.
we need
places
that
we
we are
political
on Training
to
look
at
job or not
this
I
am
sure reaching
of
being
of
can
realistic
again.
doing
it
carefully.
Regions
more
a lot
the point
more
plans and
Development
very
between
making
probably
are
advantage
and Manpower
You
an aspect of quality engineering
of materials engineering
variations
How
in
a lot
is
job.
complete engineering.
doing
of doing a complete materials engineering
afford. In some
can
was
and between
varies
variation.
investigations and our present way of checking
panel
In materials
significant.
Regions
undertake.
Service-wide
a cost
particular financial
preliminary
next
we
is
between
about the value of a complete materials engineering
failures
we need to look
mistakes
think
I
investigations to none at all from good quality control
quality Materials
is
we
activity
tremendous
consequences
and between
Our
all
or something
Certainly
is
at
of opinion
we - what
are
engineering
and predesign
preconstruction
difference
mentioned which
panel
probably a greater variation
other
any
contacts
is
careful
where
in
our
specs.
and Don
Loff was the
panel.
LOFF
It
is
the
obvious
people
better job
from what
we have
we
I
heard
have
this
morning that
to do a better job
of improving their confidence.
We must
133
if
of
we
are
training
develop
going to do a better job with
our people.
We
a system which
have
to do a
identifies
the
and the
skills
deficiencies
by training then
Our
voids.
the
panel
some
Region
we
it.
We
will
we
have.
to
one -
out-Service
provide
man who
and
the
training to
appropriate
training coordinator
who
has the skills or
and
knowledge
the
fill
each
in
can
acquire
do
to
authority
and make known the training opprotunities
need to develop
specifically
a
deficiencies
be corrected
these deficiencies can
If
an engineering
develop
have
peoples
identify
we
have
people
that
suggested
something about
our people
the
in
obvious
is
Regions already
to
skills
it
training
opportunities.
you would
discuss for
Too many of
our
for
in-Service
courses lack the needed quality.
HOWLETT
Jeff
think
I
would
it
be
well
if
which we have been pointing out
a minute
of work
the need for this
type
some
of the ways
in
the Regions.
in
SIRMON
whole
This
of manpower development hasnt been defined
field
of people working
lot
There
people
are
ceilings
also
or
very
well and
we
have
a
areas.
manpower
this
-
We
development.
and they
planning
of thing.
sort
employment of people
manpower
called
in
operating
of control and
span
deployment
in different
We
have
placement and
have
people
think
other
in
who
people
this
sort
involved
in
of numbers
terms
in
operate
- and
of thing
-
recruitment
this
is
getting
people on board.
The whole manpower program
recommendations
the
to
speaks
et
type
of
contribution
whole
responsible
field
kinds
a
of manpower
for getting
we
professional
consolidate
technical
division
We
needed.
deals
the job
with
thrust of our panel
of people
-
are
synthesis.
concerned
in
a job
doing
its
that
a paper
in
responsibility
with bringing a man on with
want to identify the type
man
of our panel
hope to develop
redeems
division
is
and one
together
We
a job
of development
and making
a
needed
maximum
to the organization.
recommendations
Another
that
been drawn
type of
a
technical
Eventually we want
cetera.
This
skills
A
never
this
of how
question
manpower development.
the
has
to do with
has
should
teachers.
We
to the point
from
the
standpoint
been put into a
clear
of a
person
focus.
being
One of
the
better
use
that.
is
that with this emphasis on cutting back
be using instructors who
training needs.
of needs
development
done has never
need to take
We
that
have
we
a real
are
qualified to teach
look
at
a recommendation
can
get
adequate
instruction.
134
outside
and/or
the subject
sources
matter
of training and
dealing with consolidating these
training and improve the level of
DEINEMA
I
think
in
manpower
been outstanding
has always
Engineering
and a leader
and the whole
training placement
the whole Forest
in
of personnel
field
Service
management.
.HOWLET
Are there any more discussion
points
NEFF
I
how
dont know
do know
want
we
you Mike
work
to
continue
with
you
have
the same
call
going to be able to improve our quality of
are
and
this
of you
all
the
at
the
at
much more
it
tL
Engineering
to improve
time
we
to improve
going
are
to say to
going
rapidly
rapidly if
fellows
levels.
on Timber Management we
I
we
that
office
Washington
Regional
we work
would
in
work with you
will
So
a team.
but
I
a team.
as
make
I
I
only
Timber Management
level
like to
as
work
are
hope we
the offer that any
We
to get things clarified.
objectives and we want the same accomplishments.
HOWLETT
I
want
to
say that
than
together
they
Timber
running
Regional
feeling
now.
are
In every
level.
Management and
We
Management
that
inspection
single
Timber
Washington
that
I
have
been
fortunate
Office.
in
Timber Management people
of cooperation
possible to meet
Region
been very
have
the
in
think
I
some of
it
is
one of the
the challenges
have
Engineering
facing
the
I
the
also
been any
we
people
noticed
gone out
strengths
we
with
us.
closer
have
this
3 years there hasnt
last
havent
real
in
have
never
had
the
at
been a
There
is
on to make
can build
a
it
us.
CURFMAN
On
the
also
first
day
brought
I
out
credibility
I
would liketo
talk
again on credibility
and
bring in quantity.
Credibility
-
the
walking
WO
John
are
McGuire
outspoken
affecting
I
think
this
this
Forest
room
realizes
the
tight-rope
that
you
people
in
that there are certain rules.
did a pretty good job
about
the
-
everyone on
or
that
issue
in
saying
or
that
Service.
135
that
they
the Washington
wont
participate
Office
in
cant
the
be too
decisions
from
quantity.
the
going back to a
We
been removed
from
1950s which
was supposed
been talking
about
talked
staff
to his
planned out and
We
had
a
and Ranger
am
I
Supervisor
for
me.
I
the
jobs
is
This
how
he was coming
drop he
to
wins a race
We
are
going
we
else
are doing.
that they
all
much
me.
when
I
that
satisfied
quantity we
are
here
as far as priorities
-
much
that
we
if
it
Now which one of
extra job He said
job he doesnt
extra
the
are really
We
problems.
have
that if a guy
feel
he
flags the road
didnt get run
he
are
We
attention.
he
over.
is
think
I
situation.
If
they arent going to get
is
anyone
the
doing
go ahead without
to
going
the same
in
concerned
are
want you to do
I
system-temporary roads. There is little or
system of roads which is disturbing more soil than
that
to be pretty
going
next week. Finally
and
him an
give
the
man would
the staff
it
said
also
for that.
done.
get
attention
the race
week
all
when he
and when
retirement
project
I
getting no engineering
is
won
he
the late
a fourth
also
fourth
This
to
special
and he stays ahead of the bulldozer while
demonstrated
a utopia
and
into the
that
who
one of you accountable
to drop in order to do this
is
in
never
about here and have
of individual
3 or 4 weeks
for
experience
me
like
sees
just
the third system of roads
anything
good
that arent getting
the jobs
no engineering
take about
to
going
is
on a
have
program back
he expected to get to
to it but
about
story
I
every one of you has your job
close
getting
true
ago and
talking
type
Now
hold each
was
about Ranger so-and-so
like
what
Basically
been
who
man
very
is
the
was very emphatic.
you would
that
it
I
This
said
said
thing
me
job.
supervisor was
are
a
tell
time
planning
problems we
to personally
going
staff
to
like
just
started a long
new work
a
the
cure
The
week.
all
would ask him
the
ask
started in with
to
would
I
that
situation
respond that he hadnt got
always
The
it.
recreation
Supervisor
quantity
of
standpoint
am
I
has
it
normal
for
looking
it.
DEINEMA
One of
it
think
we
it
priorities
is
of
level.
how
to put
will
have
to
say
I
to
out.
I
reduction
take.
I
what
we
just
feel
where
to establish
hope you
the
record
that the Chief will help us set priorities
One
other
thing
communication.
on
this
Somehow
credibility
we
are
The
are
it
promise
will
an Assistant Regional
work program
his
I
felt
jobs are broader
not
I
is
-
to
going
going
priorities
constraints
will
tell
that
and
I
Forester
was
I
had to do
just
it.
and you
ill-defined
on them.
the parameters
on Monday.
going
laid
had was to
something out
and grade
personnel
form
ever
the Washington
to have
going
I
at
emphasized that
are
jobs
to take
tougher
gets
dont know
I
toughest
to have
going
But
the
cut
to be
lie.
my
that
This
is
in
is
solidly
dont look
getting the
at
think
it
especially
dollars.
do what
will
commitment
that he
136
I
I
imperative that
more so than
you
out.
I.
we
as the staff
true with these
dont know what
can
to
get
to this loud and clear.
behind
as
I
McGuire
John
these
feel
I
us.
credibility
as
much
as
I
do
story of whats happening told to the
ji
Now
My
field.
how
discovered
levels.
with Rangers
contacts
little
television
into a system like that.
in
minutes put
staff
here.
knew about what was
they
would hope- that Engineering being
I
system of closed
.an
summer shocked
this
I
think
solutions for
it
I
our
as
bright as
just
to
the
all
are can
they
Regions so you
something we have
to
but
in
work
get
wouldnt
it
the field
at
the
all
I
and Regional
the National
at
meeting and somehow
staff
when
nearly half to death
going on
dont want more paperwork
out
is
in
me
come up with
hurt to
have
a
tied
supervisors
Chief
know whats happening
the
time.
I
have
no ready
it.
CURFMAN
I
is
think
would be
very helpful
this
Jack.
I
think
this
culture to decentralize
organization
good.
DEINEMA
One
other
working
point
as
people than
We
feel
are
in
a team
in
closing
and
that real strides
Foresters making
real
have
the
-
I
been made
think
we
think
think Mike
decisions
I
feel
have
engineers
have
ever
come
seen
own and
into their
brighter
days
in
dollars
are
and
outlook now.
breakthroughs
different disciplines.
sure
I
dont
the long-range
working together
made some
I
-
-
it
and
you
in
is
mentioned that
getting away
line officers.
real
it
goes throughout
from the
Engineers
we
are
progress to opening up
fellows have earned
that.
I
all
key
career avenues
to
it.
I
they. It is not
spots - we have
am personally
what your profession has done and how the Service has responded
137
and
in
the Service.
very
for
the
proud of
The
discussions
Service
1
of
problem
on our
To
concerns.
solved
is
time
meeting covered
this
The recommendations
today.
these
at
we
think
1.
Efforts will
are
3.
4.
Quality
Region
6 audit
due
1973.
FY
Geometronics
Denver
and
made some
already
have
approach
in
worthiness
a
as
staff
in
The
--
first
One of
staff.
Bill
this
new
-
and Technological
a multi-layer
January and
A
will
Stephens
approach.
this area.
weigh programs
MASS
with
conjunction
- hence
of business
order
his
Sirmon
Jeff
system and develop
February and March.
and
in
progress
evaluation
following
available.
with
underway
efforts
first
to better
the
a
stated
rational
map
series.
- The
of Panel
This
is
due
in
a Sanitary
to
develop
will
proposal
of
follow
the
adoption
Workshop
held
in
4 concluded with a plan
was presented
Foresters and staff
a detailed analysis
Their report
be
for Service-wide
task force consisting of Jeff
make
get
will
Wilcox
Sterling
Improvements
Regional
to
assignments
an approach
1
to
is
sewage wastes.
and
a result.of recommendation
to implement
identified the
have
be made with the forces
for use of additives in concentrated.
Engineering
the
setting.
WO
on the
Engineer
have
We
at
Abatement
Pollution
criteria
arrive
to priority
approach
we
experiencing
can
output-oriented
to
objectives
presto
and
recommend
discuss
and depth
the breadth
also
reflect
to better identify objectives and then
objectives.
an
describe
2.
- We
continue
these
against
and
this
the Forest
in
Solutions may come slow and hard. In view of demands
isnt realistic.
Programming
of engineering
major concerns
meet
can
and the constraints we
FRT
the
reflect
where a substantial contribution
areas
ACTION
DECISIONS AND FOLLOW-UP
- PRIORITIES
PANEL REPORTS
in
all
to Chief
Regions
in
Sirmon Terry Gossard
how
to best implement
early summer.
recommenda-tion
Efforts
to
establish
a steering committee
are
underway
see
2.
Wash-ington
Jeff
and
M.
Sirmon
Regional
Administrative
Office
Divisions
Management and Data
of
Engineering
D.C.
138
Meeting
Retrieval
September
Washington
27 1971
Office
5.
how
the
and
testing
1974
to redeem
Rich
Weller
7 -
Panel
use
special
dam highway
Charles
to
permits.
phases.
He
System
-
Operation
special
Due
will
started
already
Due February
alternatives.
Ed Neumann
will
Fall
be
will
et
in
and
3
dealing
in
paper
involving
for steps
be
to
in
requirements
the planning
in
the activities
studies
cetera.
Wilcox
MASS
uses
1972.
needs
consider
a
develop
manpower
included
Sterling
1 2
and
with
power lines railroads mining
with
Trask
will
assess
To be
Some work
Dave
to
matter training
subject
Dwyer
responsibilities.
implementing recommendations
investment
Consideration
recommendations
include
efforts
and operation
has
be met.
associated
will
paper
coordinate
will
Transportation
chart soon
a flow
to develop
program description
the engineers
with
Jones has been assigned the job of
is
date can
target
responsibilities
The
taken
construction
7.
program.
He
population.
legal
sports.
connection
1
Impacts
concerning
winter
Dave
development
trainee
Use
Special
are
July
to policy
given
6.
Service-wide
a
developing
outline
-
Certification Program
Inspector
will
the
take
with
lead in
maintenance.
maintenance
determining
1973.
recommendations
handle
1 2
and
3
dealing with road operations.
8.
Material
and
pose
-
Engineering
a
Adrian Pelzner
fact-finding group
will
composed
a problem
develop
of
skills
necessary
statement
to meet
the
objectives as per his statement.
9.
Training
and Manpower
Development
-
Jeff Sirmon will
a paper
develop
on manpower development by early Spring.
10.
Construction
Jeff
planning
Sirmon
program for
for
State
to define
and
will
in
our needs
with
personnel.
examinations.
to
define
the subsequent
work
OM
Abatement-
Pollution
how
guidelines on
develop
initial
of
Impact
EPA
One
and display
annual
operating
and other agencies
Hammond
both
in
will
the
plan.
to explore
a training
aspect of the program will be preparation
Funds have been earmarked
and develop
Frank
OM cost
a training
139
program.
in
the FY_ 1973
Due March
1973.
budget
ENGINEERING
MEETINGS
- SEPTEMBER
N O T
E
27
- OCTOBER 1
1971
S
GPO 932.246