ENGINEERING
TECHNICAL
FIELD NOTES
DATA
INFORMATION
RETRIEVAL
PROFESSIONAL
TECHNICAL
REPORTS
MANAGEMENT
DEVELOPMENT
SYSTEM
-7
VOLUME
Graphic
NUMBER
4
Notes
Field
Government
10
Liability
Display Method
For Comparing Alternate Routes
Washington
Office
News
L
FOREST SERVICE
APRIL 1978
US
r151
5rdct
Ylra.crý
U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
UýS
ENGINEERING FIELD NOTES
Volume
contained
Information
in
this
publication
10
has
Number 4
been developed
of employees
respon-sibility
of
the
United
for
The
use
the
product
that
The
guidance
its
The Department of Agriculture
agencies.
by other than
of this information
contractors
assumes
its
own
and
its
no
employees.
firm or corporation
names in this publication is for the information and
Such use does not constitute an official endorsement or approval
in
or service
may
the
publication
be
or policy
except
engineers
and engineering
intended
by the United
States
Department of Agriculture
to the exclusion
be suitable.
must not
not
for
Service
Agriculture-Forest
of the reader.
of others
text
of
interpretation or use
of trade
convenience
of any
and State
Federal
cooperating
Department
States
construed
by
as
FSM
the personal
represents
recommended
references.
technicians
exclusively for
U.S.
opinions
or approved
Because
should
of the respective
of the type
read each
of material in the publication
issue
however
engineers.
FOREST SERVICE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Washington
D.C.
author and
procedures mandatory instructions
20013
this
publication
all
is
GOVERNMENTAL
Edmund
LIABILITY
Neumann
C.
Transportation Management Engineer
R-Z
article discusses some thoughts
and facts
about responsibilities and
liabilities in relation to planned design construction
and maintenance.
This
responsibili-ties
broad classification
The
known
to
the
government
we should
-
some
a
Liability
to
tort
wrong committed to
damage or injury.
Tort
in
define
failure to perform such
of
as
basic
a
In order
law.
terms
of
social duties
tort
law.
person or property of another which
legal
obligation or responsibility to pay
person injured or damaged.
the
-
are
to discuss
the
results
money damages
- the failure to do or the doing
Negligence
of that which an ordinary
reasonably prudent person would do or would not do under the same or
similar circumstances.
This is the area normally called unintentional
and
the
one
which
will be discussed in this article.
tort
The plaintiffs
case
must show the
1.
The defendent owed
2.
He
3.
Actual
4.
The breach
breached
that
injury
of
a
four
legal
basic
duty
elements
to the
of
a
tort
plaintiff.
duty.
or damage resulted.
duty
was
proximate
the
cause
of
the
plaintiffs
damage.
Elements
owed
1
and
and
was
2
are
that
the
duty
ones
we are
breached
We do have
interested
in.
Was
a
legal
duty
definite obligations to the traveling public--certain duties
imposed specifically or generally by operation of law.
Our duties fall
primarily in the area of public safety.
We have the duty to provide a
safe driving environment for the highway user.
The legal relationship
and
duty
are
there.
1
exercise sovereign immunity but since the Federal
Years ago we could
Tort Claims Act of 1946 the government is liable for its actions.
central provision of this Act affirms
against the United States
The
that
a suit
may be brought
III
for injury or loss of property
or personal injury or
death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of
any employee of the Government while acting within the scope
of his office or employment
under circumstances where the
United States if a private person would be liable to the
claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act
or omission occurred.
28
U.S.C.
1346b
A section of the Act provides that the government will not be liable for
These are acts
damages
arising from its agents discretionary acts.
involving the determination of policy or exercise of judgment such as
These are differentiated from
planning or design activities.
of
acts which only involve obedience to orders or the performance
of
in which the government or_officer involved
is left no choice
a duty
ministe-rial
sub-jected
his
Even
own.
after
the
passage of
the
Federal Tort Claims
Act
we were not
to many claims
on our road
system because the language of the Act
Forest
roads
Our authority to construct and
23
U.S.C..
establishing
maintain roads
was
and
still
is
void
of
any
mention of safety or
safety obligations.
Department of Transportation DOT issued
Federal agency to implement the Highway
Standards.
In
1975
Safety Program
agreements were reached between the
Forest Service and DOT which specifically identified those applicable
However
in August
a regulation
which
of
1973
the
directed each
standards.
and
result wasthat we lost much of our discretionary immunity
There are
our activities were placed in a ministerial role.
safety standards and guidelines that we are obligated to adhere to and
no longer can we decide
administratively for ourselves.
The
most
net
of
immunity principle has had a marked effect
the State of California in 1961
on governmental agencies.
example
had one attorney assigned to claims.
The records
show that as of July
there
billion
in
claims
and
active
suits against the
1976
were $1.2
California Department of Transportation.
The Department has increased
The
erosion of the
sovereign
For
2
1
full-time attorneys with 18
find-ings
staff
for handling
legal
full-time investigators.
its
At
the
ten
This
claims
against
than
were less
Forest Service study
claims
ago
years
of a
percent
time
present
claims
in
that
to
40
Forest Service exceed
the
$1 million.
$20
million
This
supports the
indicated an annual increase of
58
claims.
tort
brings us to a discussion of our duty and the avoidance of
The logical way to do this is to examine each step in a
liability.
project.
PLANNING
Planning of a facility is a purely discretionary act because it involves
evaluation of alternatives
and -- based upon such
consideration -- the
exercise of independent judgment in arriving at a decision or in choosing
of action.
There are no hard and fast rules for deciding the
a course
of
course
Therefore the planning activity is immune
action.
appropriate
Claims Act.
from liability under the Federal Tort
DESIGN
facility has long been considered discretionary and as
immune from liability.
This has been severely challenged
have held that there are exemptions to design
in recent years and courts
Where there is room for policy judgment and decision
there
is
immunity.
where
there
discretion.
official
directions
are
Conversely
manuals
or procedures
and we fail to adhere
etc. that dictate minimum standards
The
design of
such has been
a
discretion-ary
to
such
to
The
are
directions we may find
ministerial function.
exceptions
1.
we have
that
shifted from the
the
design immunity that
to
have
been
identified in court
cases
unreason-able
Where the
approval.
or made
of
without
a
plan
adequate
or
design was
arbitrary
consideration.
danger-ous
2.
Where
3.
Where a plan or
a
plan or design was
defect
prepared without adequate
care.
manifestly
design contained in inherent
from the very beginning of actual
or was defective
use.
4.
Where changed conditions demonstrate the need
remedial action.
3
for
additional or
con-sidered
excep-tions
exemp-tion.
de-sign
5.
This
can
to
Where the
design does
not
follow specific agency
standards.
be summarized by stating
although road design is normally
discretionary and sovereign immunity applies there are
this
rule.
CONSTRUCTION
When
a project is constructed in accordance with specific details or
specifications we would be protected by a discretionary function
However if a project were executed in a manner which deviated
from the specifications we would not have immunity.
If the plan or
did not specify a certain detail which
is included
nevertheless
and is done negligently
the courts
probably will decide the case on the
basis
of whether or not the decision involved
was
a planning
discretion-ary
or
an
operational
ministerial
decision.
com-pleted
func-tions
dis-cretion
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Operation and maintenance is an area that is least likely to be immune
from liability.
Once the planning
design and construction are
the courts
consider this phase to be routine housekeeping
necessary in the performance of normal day-to-day administration.
Maintenance of roads is at the operational level and even though
to some extent is involved
the discretionary decisions to be
made are not policy-oriented in most cases.
The majority of all tort claims fall into the operational category
this
refers
to the earlier statement concerning the duty owed
to the users of
the road.
Although we have no duty to make the roads absolutely safe
motorists who use public roads have the right to presume that the road is
extra-ordinary
and they are not required to anticipate
normal traffic
danger impediments or obstructions to which their attention
has not been directed.
Inherent
in our duty of ordinary care
is the duty
to eliminate hazardous conditions
erect
suitable barriers or adequately
warn the traveling public.
safe
for
With
respect to operation and maintenance
have
liability is to identify where courts
the
Inadequate roadway signs and markings have
Courts have ruled governments liable for
contributed
1.
our
way to define
against governments.
best
ruled
to many cases.
Once
hazards have
Missing signs i.e. stop or curve signs.
identified through signing we have to maintain recognition
that hazard until it has been eliminated.
4
been
of
2.
3.
guide-lines
Failure to install signs or hazard markers.
Policies and
have been written on signing and courts
have ruled that
failure to follow written direction is considered negligence.
The use
of nonstandard
signs
which
contribute
to
or
cause
an
Examp-les
accident.
4.
Roadway
of
are
as
1.
Improper or mislocated
maintenance has also been the subject of numerous cases.
roadway conditions which have resulted in government liability
follows
Standing water mud rocks
if we have knowledge of the
roads especially
nothing to correct
it.
For example if an employee of the government notices these
conditions and does nothing to report or correct them the
courts
have ruled that knowledge by an individual constitutes
knowledge by
2.
3.
striping.
the
or
other
debris
condition and
on
do
government.
ice
bar-rier
dis-appeared
Slick road surfaces
plain dirt.
such
as
road
oils asphalts
or
even
A road closed
by earth barriers that is not posted with other
One case
involved an earth
warnings creates a liability.
had been
blocking an old road from which the culverts
removed.
Over a period of time the barriers had all but
when an accident occurred on that road the government
was held liable.
decision as to when to install a guardrail along a road is normally
considered discretionary unless past accidents or other sources have
Once
pointed out a hazardous condition.
a guardrail is installed
we are
Blunt
ends on
obligated to maintain it as it was designed to function.
are considered
guardrails when accepted standards are otherwise
and we are liable if an accident occurs.
The
hazard-ous
An improper or missing bridge rail which contributed to an accident was
the basis
for a decision against the government.
Here again is a case
in which we have definite standards
and failure to adhere to these
standards is strictly ministerial.
one case
a plugged
drainage system which
property resulted in government liability.
In
caused
damage to private
Bridge inspections and restricted weights although not the subject of
could
The bridge
cause
a liability on our part.
any particular case
5
limita-tion
condi-tions.
iden-tified
reason-ably
inspection report normally contains recommendations as to weight
If an accident
or work that is needed.
occurs
as a result of failure
follow
the
to
through on
recommendations
a liability will be created.
In addition
we also have a responsibility to warn of hazardous
For
example
kilometers
at
from
the
the
is a restricted bridge 10 miles 16.09
entrance to a road this condition should be
if there
entrance.
These cases and many others that could be cited
have a common-law duty to use care to ensure that
safe
for
One caution
the
clearly show that
our
roads
we
are
traveling public.
to
observe is that a governmental body
government agencies
discharge its responsibility or duty to maintain roads in a safe
condition by doing no more than warning of hazards because the duty to
warn is only part of the duty to maintain.
Warning of hazards is feasible
only until we have had time to make the road safer.
We cannot put up a
is a minor washout along
sign indicating that there
a road or a
in elevation between
the road and shoulder
and feel we have
our obligation.
We need to diligently follow through with
action to eliminate the hazardous conditions.
for
cannot
differ-ence
ful-filled
correc-tive
specific examples with respect to the above are as follows
Forest Service inspected a bridge and posted weight limits.
Brush
obscured the weight limit sign.
An accident
occurred when the bridge
Some
The
collapsed.
Forest Service
Two
missing.
inspection indicated that hazard markers on a bridge were
months later a car went into the river.
Following a rain a Forest Service employee noticed a mud slide on a
Forest road.
No action was taken to warn of the condition.
Two days
later a fatal accident occurred.
The
Forest Service
sealed an asphalt road.
An accident
in which a car
resulted in the filing of a claim for $750 thousand.
claimant asserted that the Forest Service knew of the slick surface
did not warn of the condition.
ac-tions
slid
The
and
off
the
road
as to liability of individuals for their
General rules of immunity normally bar the personal
The Federal Tort Claims Act provides
liability of government officials.
that the government will not be liable for intentional tort on the part
this situation includes
of employees
things that are normally outside
The
question
or
the
scope
always
nonactions.
A landmark
of
arises
employment
case
that
could
such
as
change
assault battery libel and slander.
this situation occurred in 1974 in
6
which the Supreme Court ruled that a government employee was personally
liable and the court stated that officials
are liable when they fail to
make decisions when needed or who do not act to implement decisions
that are made.
This could
have far-reaching effects
on us as
individu-als
if we
fail
to
faithfully perform the
duties
assigned to us.
discussion is intended to give you a better realization of our
responsibilities as public employees.
Everything discussed is a matter
of record in the courts and the courts
operate on the principle of the
on flying backwards because
it
kiZZy-Zoo bird--the bird that insisted
didnt care where it was going but was only interested in where it had
been.
Most court
decisions are made in this manner.
Past cases form
the framework for the decisions
are sufficient
they make today and there
This
past
cases
in
tort
liability to know
7
where we stand
today.
A
GRAPHIC
DISPLAY
METHOD
ALTERNATE
Wallace
FOR COMPARING
ROUTES
Cox
Planner
Transportation
Gifford Pinchot N.F.
R-6
Peter Wong
Civil Engineer
R.
se-lecting
straight-for-ward
INTRODUCTION
eco-nomic
transportation analyst is faced with the problem of
or proposed road
over another.
This usually does not
a
difficult
since
present
problem
many selections require
analysis.
However transportation analysts
sometimes do a somewhat
rather than dig into a detailed
short-range or financial
analysis
The financial analysis
analysis.
ordinarily gives good results.
it
does
not fully meet FSM requirements for economic analysis
However
because it does not portray what is really happening to the investment
of construction and operating costs.
Frequently
one
the
road
What appears to be a simple problem of deciding whether to construct a
new road or to reconstruct an old road can become quite complicated.
This is especially true if stage
construction is used to keep costs to
minimum when the amount of benefits or costs directly related to the
a
pro-vide
construc-tion.
road
is
not
clear.
of costs and benefits is to
approach for evaluating future effects
use graphic methods to provide a picture of the situation.
A person
experienced in graphic analysis can create many illustrations that
information which is easy for the decision-maker to understand and
for an analyst to interpret.
This article presents a graphic approach
for analyzing alternatives in construction scheduling
stage
Graphic analysis has also been used by Forest transportation
to evaluate the sensitivity of the solution to different rates
analysts
of interest.
We hope this article will encourage creative use of
as a means to evaluate such
problems.
One
graph-ics
THE
PROBLEM
reconstruct-ing
To
let us set up a problem and go through the process.
demonstrate
1 we show the problem of constructing Road 1-20 or
Road 1-20 costs $160
N-19 for the Iron King Timber Sale.
figure
Road
8
In
A
ý
t
FUTURE
SALES
W
\
\ý
\
\ý
PROPOSED
SALE
\
ýý
I20
ýýý
Ley
MI L L
Figure
1.
Construction of Road
-T-20
vs
Reconstruction
of N-19.
and operating costs
after
thousand to construct
haul and maintenance
Road
for $19
construction will be $8.05/MBF.
N-19 can be reconstructed
and operating costs after reconstruction would be $10.30/MBF.
thousand
reconstruct Road N-19 its operating cost will be $11.30/MBF.
King Sale is 20 MMBF in size and immediately behind it is about
100 IMF of timber which will be hauled over
the road during the next 20
In
a
financial
it
is
that we could
not offset
analysis
years.
apparent
the construction cost on Road 1-20 through savings
of haul and
on the Iron King Timber Sale.
If
we do not
The
Iron
mainte-nance
To
demonstrate this below
are
the
results
of
a simple financial
analysis
Size
20 MMBF
Route N-19 no reconstruction
20000 MBF x $11.30/MBF
$226000
Sale
Route N-19 reconstruction
20000 MBF x $10.30/MBF
$19000 reconstruction
Route 1-20 construction
20000 MBF x $8.05/MBF
$160000 construction
This
shows
N-19 road
$1000
that
for
over
$321000
we would
probably select the option to reconstruct the
it demonstrates a savings
of at least
sale
other
considered
for
the
sale.
options
the
the
$225000
since
amount
of timber remaining beyond the
Although we are unsure of the exact
Iron King Timber Sale it appears that we can amortize the construction
cost over
an unknown number of years and that transport of some unknown
amount of timber volume will attain a break-even
point compared against
the $160 thousand construction cost of Road
1-20.
Also if there is an
overall savings
it
would
be
beneficial
to know the
over
a long term
minimum volume required to break-even and the extra expense if we
construction of Road 1-20 until after the Iron King Sale has been
de-ferred
logged.
now we have not decided whether or not to reconstruct Road N-19
on the Iron King Timber
although it appears that there would be a savings
Sale by doing so.
If Road
1-20 is built someday
the reconstruction
costs and subsequent extra operating costs on N-19 become an extra expense
which must be absorbed by additional timber volume.
This could
be called
an analysis of future project scheduling in which construction costs
Until
are
not
offset
by
savings
in
operating costs.
10
All costs portrayed within the analysis may also be shown as the result
and then
discounted back to
of inflation at the year they are expended
inflation
rates
are
and
be
set equal
to zero.
optional
present worth
may
Also a variety of interest rates should
be studied.
An array of costs
using different interest rates is useful in deciding between alternatives.
inflation
rates
controversy among economists
that
Users
of
this
should
understand that the Forest
on
technique
point.
is
inflation
in
economic
we have
Service policy
not to use
analysis
inflation
illustrate
how
it
be
used
in
this
included
to
might
process to
the
effect
of
inflation
future
cost
factors.
on
develop a sensitivity to
It
the
is not
intent
of
this
article to advocate
in an economic analysis
since
there
the
use
of
is
THE ANALYSIS
basic route alternatives are considered for this study in which
of timber harvest
each alternative is studied for two different levels
The
two levels
of harvest for the 20-year period
over
a 20-year
period.
are 100 MMBF and 50 MMBF.
Four
The four
alternatives are
route
Alternate
I
Alternate
II - Use
Alternate
III
-
-
The
first
periods
existing route
throughout
N-19
1-20
Use existing route N-19
route
use reconstructed
throughout
the
N-19
first
the
period.
the
5
period.
years
during the
then
last
5-year periods.
Alternate
then
follows
Use existing route
reconstruct and
three
as
use
the first 5-year period
IV - Use existing route N-19
existing route 1-20 during the last three 5-year periods.
step is to
the 20-year
divide the overall time of the study into study
time horizon was divided into four 5-year study
periods.
demon-strate
The second step is for the analyst to calculate the accumulative cost at
To
various points within the study period for each alternative.
how we would determine a cost at a given point let us solve for
Let the
the present worth of costs at 20 years for Alternative IV.
the present
discount and inflation rates be 10% and 7% respectively
worth of an amount
due to the combined effect
expended in year
of
these
two
rates
c
t
is
c
x
1.07/1.101
11
c
x
0.97271
calculat-ed
calculation
operating cost and construction cost are assumed to
incurred at the last and first year of each period respectively.
For
100 MMBF total
Alternate
we assume that 25 MMBF is harvested in each
time period as shown in Table 1.
The present worth of costs is
In
this
I
be
as
Present Worth of Costs
discounted
-
inflated hauling cost for 25 MMBF
over
existing Road N-19 at year 5.
discounted
cost
for
inflated construction
-
Road
1-20
year
at
6.
discounted - inflated cost for 25
MMBF over Road 1-20 at year 10.
discounted
for
-
25 MMBF
inflated hauling cost
over Road 1-20 at year
15.
discounted
for
-
25 MMBF
20.
25000
inflated hauling cost
Road 1-20 at year
over
11.30 x 0.97275
x 0.97276
x
16000
25000 x 8.05 x 0.972710
25000 x 8.05
x
0.972715
0.9727
The
same method
alternatives
is used to
and
for
the
20
25000
-
x
$783000
8.05
x
obtain the accumulative costs for other route
MMBF logged each period for alternatives.
12.5
12
Table
1.--Cumulative Costs
Timber MMBF
Each
Period
Worth
of
Cost
thousands
of
dollars
Cumulative Present
Current
Alt.
I
II
III
IV
discount
for the Alternatives
at
Indicated
Year
5
6
10
15
20
25
0
246
246
460
647
809
12.5
0
123
123
230
323
405
25
156
331
331
484
616
732
12.5
156
243
243
320
386
444
25
0
246
262
457
627
776
12.5
0
123
139
237
322
396
25
0
246
382
534
667
783
12.5
0
123
259
335
401
459
ratel0%
inflation rate7%
The
next step is to plot the points given in Table
1 on graph papers as
shown in Figures 2 and 3.
At this time the analyst
can start comparing
alternatives directly from the graphs.
the circled
For illustration
letters
B and C in Figure 2 identify certain meaningful situations
A
A
-
shows break-even
point in the first period in which construction
becomes less expensive than using existing Road N-19.
B
-
shows
C
-
shows
that at the end of the design life both construction and
reconstruction costs in the second
period become nearly equal
and that both are less expensive than using
existing Road N-19.
expen-sive
construction in the first period is the least
less than
100 MMBF is to be logged in the 20-year
If construction were delayed until the second period
period.
the loss would be the difference in costs for Point B minus
Point C.
that
if no
Figure 3 graphically shows the results of the same alternatives if only
50 MMBF of timber is to be logged over
the design life.
Letters D and
E identify certain meaningful situations
13
MMBF.
100
14
with Alternatives
Cost
2.
Figure
YEAR
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
1
4
00
100
RATE7%
W
INFLATION
RATE10%
DISCOUNT
MMBF VOLUMES100
TIMBER
ZQ
200
300
.
I
U
400
417
J
500
/
3
600
700
B
-
--
--
800
900
1000
500
/
450
/
400
350
W
O
300
CD
250
W
/
I
200
__
Q
ml
TIM
BER
VOLUMES50
DISCOUNT
INFLATION
RATE
MMBF
10%
RATE7h
50
0
0
4
2
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
YEAR
Figure
3.
Cost
Alternatives
15
with 50 MMBF.
recon-struction
D - shows
the
break-even point in the second period in which
becomes less expensive than using existing Road
con-sidered.
E - shows
the
overall accumulative results
The
of
all
N-19.
alternatives
expensive
next highest in
reconstruction
followed
existing road
by construction
the most expensive alternative is construction
least
is
prob-lem
con-clusion
cost
is the
in
period
in period
1
of
use
and
the
2.
Although we have not developed all reasonable alternatives for this
we can make some determinations from these four.
The primary
would be that if volumes are as low as 50 MMBF Road 1-20 should
and if volumes equal
construction
not be constructed
or exceed 100 MMBF
be
of Road 1-20 could
This situation
delayed until the second period.
indicates that approximately 75 MMBF are required to construct Road 1-20.
It should
be noted that if inflation factors
are not used
construction
of Road
1-20 appears more economical in all cases.
infor-mation
re-quires
deal of
that a great
An inspection of the graphic plots indicates
This possibility
can be generated in this sort of analysis.
the analyst to organize the information properly to determine the
factors
that are pertinent to the problem.
Some of the more important
observations available to the analyst from the graphs are
1.
The higher a plotted line is on the graph in respect to another
plotted line a higher accumulated cost of that alternative is
represented.
2.
relation-ship
The
point
at which
between
3.
intersect represents a
economic
point.
Beyond that point the
the alternatives is reversed.
A lesser amount
rates
of
creates
a
b
differentiation between inflation and
discount rate
two situations assuming
rate
expen-diture
inflation
a steeper
at
curve
which portrays a greater accumulated
of the design period and
indi-cating
the
end
earlier in the design period
occur
decisions to create those break-even points
be made earlier in order to realize the greatest total
break-even
points
that
dis-count
must
savings at the
4.
plotted lines
two
dis-count
ex-ceeds
break-even
A greater amount
rates
of
results
end
of
the
design period.
differentiation between inflation and
in break-even
points
occurring later and
16
re-sults
there
is less
break-even
5.
6.
If
total
there
making
few
decisions that
result in such
timber volume makes early
break-even points occur.
decisions more
is a
greater total timber volume a late decision may
break-even point may occur however delay in
decision can cause a substantial increase in cost.
and
a
a
Break-even points occur earliest
if there
is a combination of
lesser differentiation between
inflation rate and discount
rates with a greater amount of timber volume and the greatest
cost differences between
alternatives at the end of the design
com-bination
period result
9.
if
delayed.
criti-cal
A lesser
be made
8.
difference
are
A greater total timber volume for the entire design period
in earlier occurrence
of break-even
points because the
greater volume occurs
early in the design period.
since
7.
cost
points
from
that
situation.
Break-even
points occur late and are scarce if there is a
greater differentiation between inflation rate and
discount rates with a lesser amount of timber volume and less
cost differences between alternatives are noted in that situation.
of
CONCLUSION
The graphic analysis
of alternatives in developing construction schedules
provides the decision-maker with an array of costs and relationships which
in scheduling
selection of projects and
may occur as a result of changes
timber
volumes.
By
establish a range of
making a decision.
recognizing the array extremes the decision-maker can
feasibility and desirability limits as a basis for
17
I
WASHINGTON
CONSULTATION
OFFICE
AND
NEWS
STANDARDS
Walter E. Furen
Assistant Director
CADASTRAL ENGINEERING
recommendation of the Regional Engineers Meeting held
November 1-2 1977 a work group met in Washington
D.C. January 16-19
to develop an action plan to respond to the increasing cadastral funding.
The work group
consisted of four Regional Directors of Engineering or
their Assistants
three
or their Assistants
Regional Directors of Lands
and several staff members from Washington
two Regional Land Surveyors
As
a result of
Office
in Lands
and
Engineering.
The cadastral program has increased from $4.9 million in FY 1977 to $13.8
The
million in FY 1978 with further increases
expected in the future.
groups findings and recommendations will be out in the form of a Forest
Service Cadastral Survey Action Plan very soon.
The
major action
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
items
be
Staffing to accomplish the program.
Training for short- and long-term needs.
Providing a career ladder for personnel in cadastral work.
Policy direction to re-emphasize the landline program.
Cooperation with adjoiners.
Awareness of cadastral engineering needs and education
assis-tance
for
The
will
RPA backlog
60315-1-SF
coupled
July
action in these
field
personnel at all levels.
with a Cadastral Engineering Audit Report
for accelerated
has highlighted the need
20 1977
areas.
new Amendment No. 45 of FSM Section 7150 September 1977 should be
A Land Surveying Handbook
helpful in supporting an increased program.
has
but
it
will
not
be available until about
been
started
FSH 7109.15
the middle of FY 1979.
The
18
A joint FS/BLM Survey Equipment Seminar was planned for the weeks of
March 13-24 1978 to acquaint cadastral engineering personnel on how to
best involve new equipment and survey
in the increased program.
systems
New survey technology is developing very fast and it is felt that this
factor
could
become one of our biggest program assets in the next few
We are continuing to monitor such development
and will publish
years.
information as it becomes available.
19
OPERATIONS
Harold L. Strickland
Assistant Director
RESOURCE
The goals
the
July
of
1977
RIDS
INFORMATION
DISPLAY
Project and its planned
of Field Notes.
issue
RIDS
SYSTEM
development
were outlined
in
A work plan which outlines
the complete
RIDS
Project has been developed
and on September 26 1977 was approved by Deputy Chief T.C. Nelson.
were sent to all Regional Foresters Station Directors
Copies
Area
and WO Staff
Directors
Directors.
outlined in our
objective consists
As
first
report
in
Field Notes
the
RIDS
of
short range
analyzing the existing
seven grid and three polygon
systems and assemblying a system with an option to use either the GRID
or POLYGON method.
Both methods are needed because
of the different
accuracy requirements for various types studied and the difference in
the two methods.
cost between
The GRID method is cheaper to use but is
not as accurate as the POLYGON method.
The
RIDS
team chose
to investigate the seven
the most widely used.
User needs
grid
systems
first
since
criteria which were defined
users workshop in May 1977 was used along with existing user and
system documentation to eliminate all but two of the currently used
A list of the seven grid systems and the percent of user needs
systems.
provided by each are as follows
they
at a
are
MIADS2
-
LIM
-
R3MAP
-
R10MAP
MAPIT
CONGRID
-
RAP
53 percent
60 percent
38 percent
43 percent
-
60 percent
-
79
-
87 percent
percent
A plan was prepared to test and evaluate CONGRID and RAP the two systems
which met most of the user needs.
The plan consisted of test methods and
criteria as well as test evaluation criteria.
These were developed by
the RIDS
team with assistance from the Land Management Planning Staff
20
The
two systems were tested at the same
Washington Office.
team attempted to produce the same results from the two
Time and cost figures were recorded for each run to be used in
systems.
A detailer from Region 2 familiar with the
the system evaluation.
Unit of
time
the
and
the
needs
of the land use planning activity
reviewed
procedures and evaluation criteria to assure that no
overlooked.
When all of the tests had been run and
Resource Analysis Procedure RAP system was chosen
Service grid type system available to meet existing
the
teams
testing
major items had been
evaluations made the
as the best Forest
user
needs.
An evaluation report which contains
recommendations for the Systems
Coordinating Council and for Deputy Chief T.C. Nelson is in rough draft
form.
The RIDS team will make the recommendation that RAP be adopted as
the Service-wide grid type processing system.
re-vised
RAP
system is currently being used by SPF in Region 4 and in the
Northeastern Area but the original user instructions are very difficult
A revised users manual has been prepared by the RIDS
to understand.
In order to test the
team and is being finalized for distribution.
The
moni-tored
cur-rently
users manual
working with Region 9 on a project
Mountain National Forest.
This
Green
200000-acre
planning
of
which
consists
of
six
will
be
project
layers
information
completely
processed at the Forest level using the new user instruction and
the
RIDS
unit
a
by
the
RIDS
team
on
is
the
team.
team has just begun to investigate the three polygon systems
WRIS PLOT COMLUP.
Only two of these
systems WRIS and PLOT are
on
Service-wide
so the selection of the polygon
running
equipment
will
be
somewhat
simpler.
processor
The
RIDS
A projected date for completion of the RIDS short range phase is late
With the addition of William Ubbens a Computer Specialist
August 1978.
the
RIDS
to
team the team should be able to meet this scheduled target
date.
If you are interested in being kept
posted on the
completion
ques-tions
progress of the RIDS project or have comments
suggestions
please contact the Project Leader Tom George at FTS
21
or
235-2306.
TO READERS OF
INVITATION
NOTES
FIELD
Every reader
is
author
potential
a
of an article for Field Notes.
If
you have
news item or
a
accu-rate
short
publication
Material
would
you
article
in
Field
submitted
like
to
share with
we
Service engineers
you
invite
send
to
it
for
Notes.
the
to
Washington
Office
publication
for
should
be
by the
reviewed
Washing-ton
respective
Office
Regional
and of
informative
may
material
submitted
however
short articles
Office
glossy
Field
should
be
Notes
is
mailing
the
ask
number
Each
sentences
items are preferred.
to
submitted
should
be
of
pages
typewritten
several
material
All
illustrations
all
timely technically
FSM 7113. The length
current
the
to
original
or
drawings
photos.
and Forest
Forests
your Office
Manager
sent to
your
Office directly
Service
or the
office.
retirees.
Regional
to
Regional
all
you
If
are
Information
Copies of back issues
are
not
Station
currently
Coordinator
also
and
on the
to increase
from the
available
Office.
Region
questions
short
several
is
Service-wide
engineers
to
from
double-spaced
typed
of copies
Washington
interest
vary
the information
that
distributed from the Washington
Area Headquarters
list
see
or news
and white
black
to
has
an Information
and material
R-I
Melvin
R-2
Royal
R-3
Juan
Coordinators
for
Coordinator
whom
to
The Coordinators
publication.
Dittmer
R-4
Ted Wood
M. Ryser
R-5
Jim
Gomez
should
direct
Kjell
R-8
Bob Bowers
should
submit
R-9
Fred Hintsala
R-10
F.
WO
Bakke
concerning
personnel
both
are
McCoy
R-6
questions
field
W. Baxandall
Al Colley
format editing publishing dates and other
problems to
USDA
Forest
Engineering
Service
Staff
Attn Gordon
P.O.Box2417
Washington
Telephone
L.
D.C.
Rm. 1108 RP-E
Rome
or Rita E. Wright
20013
Area Code
703-235-8198
U.S.
GOVERNMENT
PRINTING
OFFICE
1978
0-211-474/FS-42