ENGINEERING FIELD A NOTESTECHNICAL REPORTS DATA RETRIEVALMANAGEMENT PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM PIP 1 NUMB ER 12 -Notes Field Portable Bridges for Use 1 Logging Roads Washington Office FOREST SERVICE _ News DECEMBER 1978 U1S U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE E5T5EM... nrrc ENGINEERING 10 Number Volume contained FIELD NOTES has 12 been developed of employees and its contractors respon-sibility Information of the United Federal cooperating for The use of The the or service be construed or policy except not use its of this information names use does not by the United this publication is an official States Department as represents the recommended personal or approved Because by FSM references. and engineering technicians should intended in constitute assumes no by other than for its own employees. the information and endorsement or approval of Agriculture to the exclusion suitable. publication must not engineers guidance Department Service Agriculture-Forest and State agencies. The Department of Agriculture may be the for of trade firm or corporation that text in publication interpretation or product of others this of the reader. Such convenience of any in States exclusively opinions of the respective procedures of the type read each of material in the issue however for engineers. FOREST SERVICE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Washington mandatory D.C. 20013 author and instructions publication this publication all is PORTABLE BRIDGES FOR ON LOGGING ROADS Frank Regional W. Muchmore Structural R-10 P USE E Engineer INTRODUCTION native log stringer many years the blast rock-decked bridge has been the mainstay bridging system for logging roads This system has been used almo in southeast Alaska. primarily because of the abundance of hair Sitka Spruce logs near the bridge sites. r--rt has been very bridges from these native materials. economical to construct thiss to loggers for constructing Cost allowances type.dt bridge linear foot. have ranged from $50 to $80 per -ecc-lu-sively e high-qual-ity For trans-ported Suitable logs for stringers are times are changing. to locate and are having to be becoming more difficult distances. Also increasing over increasingly longer pressure is being applied to protect fishery resources from of log stringer caused by replacement the cyclic disturbance However bridges. Rock and soil used for deck material can be spilled into the streams during installation and removal. Only the highest quality logs are suitable for bridge stingers and loggers are realizing that these high-quality logs are worth more at the head-rig than when left in the woods to span creeks. repre-sents It is estimated that about 1.5 million board feet of prime logs are used for log stringer bridges each year in southeast Alaska. end product price this Estimating $350/MBM worth of finished lumber the equivalent of over $525000 Perhaps there is a better use being left in the woods yearly. for these prime logs purpose of this paper is to explore the concept reusable bridges as an alternative to the portable native log stringer bridges. The 1 of using use of R-10 ROAD SYSTEM interconnec-ted of the logging roads in Region 10 are on the islands of Alexander Archipelago thus the region has no With the few exceptions on land transportation network. to any the larger islands most road systems are not connected and are normally used exclusively for log hauling communities activities. Most the yield management required road access for successive with only sporadic and on 10- to 50-year cycles between is questionable that such use entries. It minor very use can truly justify the installation of permanent bridges on arterial and/or collector routes under these circumstances. Sustained entries be-comes Installation and removal of temporary log stringer bridges alternative in these cases. However in a more viable some cases installation and removal of log stringer bridges has resulted in unacceptable resource damage with respect to salmonids and/or water quality. A type of bridge that could with minimum disturbance to be installed and removed easily the stream banks and bottom but that could be left in place for extended periods of time if needed appears to solve these In problems. addition if such bridges were reusable the high-quality logs which to date have been used for bridge could enter the economy as stringers and then discarded lumber products. fin-ished FOR PORTABLE REQUIREMENTS Bridges to be classified in BRIDGES portable as should be weight 1. Light 2. Durable 3. Corrosion-resistant 4. Repairable 5. Easily and rapidly unskilled crews 6. Handled 7. Adaptable to many conditions. and sturdy if with damaged installed and normal logging different 2 removed equipment with and config.rations and listed characteristics virtually rule out concrete which are heavy and difficult to repair if superstructures Also larger-size bridges would require larger damaged. in the cranes for installation than are normally available would not be Timber girder bridges likewise very woods. holes etc. are not practical because handling damage The above re-pairable. meet all the above de Steel bridges however can effectively If modular sirable characteristics. systems mai_e up of smaler are used for the longer spans 5G7 ft- to 120 ft components of individual onents Is- ll o the weight 15.-14m 5-m witiuri the lifting capacity of readily available equipment. Two basic types of steel portable bridges will be examined. There may be other types of prefabricated structures that would meet the basic requirements for portable bridges but at this time. they will not be considered r . Figure F-Z Z.--Hami ton and two 50-ft 12a19m Bridge 15024ma in 2 days. with The 3 40 ft. spans--one bridge was instaZZed 4 superstructure Bridge Zog for 3a--Moving Figure E-Z 2.--Prepare siZZ Figure CONSTRUCTION HAMILTON The Hamilton developed q1 called the use on logging COMPANY E-Z BRIDGES nstruction Company of Springfield Oregon has ane prebuilt steel bridge superstructure Bridge suitable for permanent or temporary roads. Z fabrica-tion the usual lagtime for Installation is rapid without The bridge and they can be moved and reused easily. consists of steel girders with a treated timber deck split into two sections longitudinally each section carrying one The two sections to each other by wheel line. are connected bolted diaphragms. They are designed for USES U80 loading with impact and L90 loading without impact and are available steel or ASTM A-588 in either ASTM A-36 painted Cor-10 steel steel. weathering Bridges furnished in weathering about 16 percent higher in price than those with painted steel. However from a durability and corrosion-resistance standpoint the 16 percent additional cost will add many years structure in the wet southeast to the useful life of the climate. aver-age Alas-ka These 4.27 structues or 4.8 rfl can be widths Figure 4 furnished for the in either off-highway E-Z a--Hamilton 5 14-ft. or 16-ft. loadings. logging Bridge components ACROW PANEL The Acrow World War BRIDGES BAILEY-TYPE Panel Bridge is the modern version of the famous The extreme versatility of the Bailey Bridge. is its asset The cantilever system greatest launching method is of particular interest where it is important to avoid stream disturbance. Using the cantilever launching method of length can be constructed any bridge on one bank and launched over rollers without the need for heavy lifting equipment using a false nose which is later removed. II gird-ers main girders are composed of identical 5-f-L by 10-ft Acrow panels which are pinned together by 3010-q end to end When gr ater load carrying capacity is necessary the panels can be connected side to side to form continuous from bank to bank on eit.he side of the bridge decking Various widths as shown in Table 1 are available simply by using different length floor beams transoms and a different width of deck unit. Timber decks or steel plate decks can be used. The 152m Figure 5--Acrow Bridge 6 components Table 1. --Acrow Panel Roadway Standard 11 extra Wide 13 Ultra--Wide 15 Double-Fide 23 ft. 3 3.43m ft. 6 4.13m ft. 10 4.84m ft. 8 7.23m Bridge widths Clearance Between Tresses Width in. 12 ft. 4 in. 3.76m 3/4 1/2 1/2 in. in in. 15 17 24 ft. S ft. 11 3/4 ft. 11 in. 4.78m 5.48m 7.59m in in. how-ever In some cases the extra-wide structure if a wider roadway machines the ultra-wide is needed for configuration will be adequate large yarders or other should be considered. re-quired. Acrow panels also can be used vertically to form piers and towers. In addition the equipment can be used for falsework where temporary heavy support is or for other applications corrosion-resist-ance nt the Hamilton Bridges durability and The Acrow components are not available in are impoiC butto provide s teý-_-l weathering they can be hot-dip galvanized This procedure approximately increased c.orosiou--resistance. increase in the useful life at about an 18 percent quadruples cost over panted components. As with 7 00 Figure 6 --Rigging Spar Tree to Zift abutment cap Zog and end of bridge across creek super-structure Figure 7 --Preparing beam seats Figure Bo--Building the crib abutment Figure 9a--Setting abutment--crib cap 9 Zog 10 Bridge Panel Acroua landing and for used rollers 11a--Rocking Figure launching Bridge roiZers--Acrow on panels Figure10a--Assembling nose cantilevering Figure 12--Launching Acrow Pane Z Bridge over stream Figure 13.--Completed quadruple-single Acrow 2438m span Bridge 80 ft. Panel pri-maril im-pacts materi-al prac-tices PROPOSAL Since FOR INCLUSION IN TIMBER SALE CONTRACTS use of the portable bridges is being proposed for prevention of adverse impacts on water quality and fish habitat needs the following provisions of FSM 2431.24-8 are considered applicable the When it can be determined that a temporary log and removed stringer bridge cannot be constructed without control of erosion or adverse adequate on water quality and fish habitat needs and that timber purchasers or prospective purchasers have the capability of constructing them bridges of permanent materials can be authorized. Portable bridges are determined to fall into this category. Available FRT funds can be used to furnish permanent and construct When bridges under Timber Sale Contracts. it is not feasible to use FRT funds accepted industry i.e. purchaser credit may be utilized. R-10 ILOT PROJECT implement the use of portable bridges in R-10 a in the add-on pilot project was proposed and funding approved FRT financing for FY-1977. Seventeen tentative sites were in the Tongass National selected Forest. All of the tentative sites are within the two existing 50-year timber sales on will Suitable contract modifications specified system roads. be required to accomplish the installation of portable bridges at these 17 sites. The following have been procedures to implement this pilot project. to devel-oped con-tract Materials for the 17 bridges will be purchased under a administered the Office. The by logistics of Regional materials deliveries several coordinating suppliers to five by different camps on two long-term sales would be extremely to say the least. Because of this it is proposed difficult that all bridge materials be delivered by the materials to a central point such as the GSA storage yard at Auburn Washington. sup-pliers Divi-sion The two timber and Alaska Louisiana Pacific-Ketchikan Lumber Pulp Company transport periodically heavy equipment and machinery to their logging camps by barge. It is proposed to provide a suitable cost allowance in the allow the the sales to to handle long-term purchasers shipment of the bridge materials from the central storage yard to the timing bridge sites. They are much better able to coordinate purchasers 12 and transporting to fit their construction minimum of delays and conflicts. unloading with a schedule Installation costs will probably be slightly higher but still When the same range as for native log stringer bridges. abutments are their construction will be used temporary log similar to that required for log stringer bridges except that the beam seats level. more care will be needed to construct Installation costs should be allowed as a purchaser credit in the timber sale. allowance in Costs associated with removal storage and/or transportation be somewhat higher than log to another site will likewise removal costs. The removal and stringer bridge storage costs credit allowance in the should also be allowed as a purchaser timber sale. Appendix A summarizes the use of portable bridges. estimated ECONOMIC costs associated with the ANALYSIS most cases for initial construction the land manager must choose from a log stringer bridge a portable bridge or a should well The as as can be bridge. know permanent manager with of the costs associated each estimated type bridge so that he can determine how much fish habitat and water quality protection as well as other constraints are going to cost. Of course other factors enter into this decision such as environmental and transportation planning input concerns In present-worth as-sumptions expediency. The following comparison is presented method for comparing the costs. outline the Other methods to and be on the equally valid depending particular may The assumptions conditions encountered. used in this example will probably not be valid for any particular project. ASSUMPTIONS simplifying assumptions have been made for this The basic comparison is made assuming that a 60-ft. analysis. 18.29mbridge either permanent portable or log stringer will be needed at a different site every 7 years. For sites will be assumed to be equidistant from one the another that a permanent bridge or log stringer bridge will be required at a different site every 7 years or that the original 60-ft. 18.29m portable bridge will be moved A number of simpli-fication new 13 from one site to as follows 1. Service 2. Service 35 next the life of life of years. every years. 7 portable bridge permanent assumptions The is 35 years. is more bridge than port-able value 3. No 4. Annual maintenance cost equals $200 bridges and $100 for permanent stringer bridges. for or log bridge will be needed for 7 years particular site then the road will at be a 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. are salvage at end of 35 years. A Bridge value. stringer logs will not have closed. salvage a re-moved Permanent bridges will be left in place. portable bridge will be 7-year period. Logs will be discarded. Portable bridge will be removed then installed at another site. Log stringer at Safety or of end characteristics 10. End product value equals $350/MBM. 11. Portable -- of railing not considered. for stringers logs used bridges. Initial installation .3048 x 60 transportation ft. and cost 18.29m equals erection. -- Reinstallation cost x 60 ft. 18.29m equals $5100. ft. $560/lin. including $33600 $85/lin. ft. .3048 .3048 -- Removal cost equals $59/lin. ft. 60 ft. 18.29m $3540 including to the next site. 14 x transportation 12. Temporary log -- Material -- -- Removal $350/MBM cost x 20 $72/lin. $4320. cost bridges. $28/lin. ft. $7000. MBM ft. .3048 .3048 60 x 60 ft. ft. per-cent in-terest 18.29m 14. cost Installation 18.29m 13. stringer $1680. x 0 Interest rates percent 6 percent 10 and 15 percent. The different interest rates were used to show the sensitivity to The Bureau of Budget rate assumptions. that a rate of 6 percent be used to specifies The minimum attractive compare alternatives. rate of return at financial institutions is Fifteen percent was also used as 10 percent. rate for comparison purposes. a sensitivity per-cent Inflation of all per year. costs assumed was at 2.5 man-ager such The foregoing analysis could be refined by considering additional factors as increasing scarcity of suitable native other appropriate factors. However log stringers and/or based on the assumptions made for this analysis the land could be shown the following conclusions 1. 2. For the the present worth 35-year time period of the five bridges compare as shown in Table 4. environ-mental These costs can then related be to the impacts fish habitat and water quality protection concerns safety considerations etc. fu-ture de-fined. to allow a more rational decision-making process. CONCLUSION After of the R-10 pilot completion and evaluation of this type of bridge structure will be In the meantime the following procedures for the pilot project. use used 1. Bridge superstructures contract and delivered in the Seattle area. 15 will to a project further are being under purchased central storage area be 2. 3. pro-posed with the purchasers they will Upon agreement and install the transport bridges at the 17 sites. Purchaser credit will be allowed for this work. re-quire avail-able cred-it transporta-tion Should additional sites be identified which this type of structure and none are for reuse from the available pilot project FRT funds may be used to purchase the bridges. If FRT funds are not available purchaser may be allowed for the purchase and installation of portable bridges. FSM See 2431.24-8. 16 Table 60-Ft. Permanent 2.--Present Bridges worth calculations 0% 6% 10% 15% Initial Construction Annual Maintenance 79000 79000 79000 79000 7-Yr. 79700 79558 79487 79416 94800 59479 44225 30990 175322 139473 124005 110590 Construction Year Maintenance 7yr 111390 46479 26666 13689 21-Yr. 7yr Subtotal Construction -- Year 8 Annual Maintenance 7yr 14-Yr. Subtotal -- 15 Annual 700 822 966 558 436 487 293 416 184 341 177 287678 186293 150848 Construction -- Year 22 Annual Maintenance 7yr 130883 1135 36321 16078 6047 28-Yr. Subtotal 266 107 81 124360 36 419696 222880 167033 130443 Construction -- Year 29 Annual Maintenance 7yr 153788 1334 28383 9695 2323 64 16 35-Yr. 574818 251471 176792 132782 Initial Construction Annual Maintenance -- Year Removal 7 33600 1400 33600 33600 33600 2767 2135 7-Yr. 39160 37483 36709 7191 1645 4887 4512 3355 2162 1287 52883 45029 41938 39406 8449 3525 2023 1038 Subtotal Subtotal Portable 60-Ft. Steel Bridges 7yr Subtotal Installation -- Year 8 Maintenance 7yr Annual Removal 14-Yr. -- Year 14 Subtotal Installation -- Year Annual Maintenance -- Year Removal 21 15 7yr 21-Yr. Subtotal Installation -- Year 22 Maintenance 7yr Annual Removal 28-Yr. -- Year 28 Subtotal Installation -- Year Annual Maintenance -- Year Removal 35 29 7yr 35-Yr. Total 208 4160 1933 5743 1116 872 587 1689 354 776 69008 50925 45091 9928 2755 2271 6748 682 974 1220 35996 2351 368 691 162 305 40911 459 1320 213 468 135 87955 55533 46992 41577 11666 2153 735 129 203 416 1032 282 60 59134 48138 41872 2669 7929 110219 533 832 1564 72 32 Table 3.--Present 60-Ft. Temporary Stringer Bridges worth calculations 10% 15% 0% 6% Initial Construction Annual Maintenance -- Year Removal 7 11320 11320 11320 1974 1313 1013 416 742 7-Yr. 13994 13191 12820 12478 15961 10014 7546 5218 2319 1026 611 184 328 33096 24667 21270 18208 18754 7825 4490 2305 Log 7yr 700 Subtotal Installation -- Year Annual Maintenance -- Year 14 Removal 8 7yr 14-Yr. Installation Year Annual Maintenance -- Year Removal 21 21-Yr. 822 Subtotal -- 15 7yr 802 55541 33635 26305 20739 22036 1135 3202 6115 2707 1018 81914 40642 29341 21857 25893 1334 3762 4779 1632 450 112903 46118 22 Installation -- Year 29 Maintenance 7yr -- 35-Yr. Total Year Table 35 4.--Comparison Permanent 5 Portable 5 Temporary Bridges Bridges Bridges 266 626 107 222 208 489 of present 0% 5 341 2725 Subtotal Annual Removal 293 11320 177 368 7yr 28-Yr. 487 436 966 Subtotal Installation -- Year Annual Maintenance -- Year 28 Removal 558 worth 6% 81 145 36 64 64 16 134 28 31170 22351 for 35 years 10% 15% 574818- 251471 176792 132782 110219 59134 48138 41872 112903 46118 31171 22351 18 APPENDIX The B are estimated following C transporting bridges. A. costs A A involved in furnishing and installing removing portable D Furnishing Materials Table 1.--Portable bridge materials costsl Hamilton Description Length E-Z Bridge COR-10 Acrow Bridge Panel Galvanized Ultra-4.27m 14-Ft. 16-Ft. ExtraWide ---9.14m structures designed U-80 and for U-102 with loading L-90 occasional overload. $12000 $12500 40-ft. 16000 16500 $25300 $30500 50-ft. 21000 21600 30600 36800 60-ft. 31400 32100 43200 50400 70-ft. 38500 42200 50100 58300 80-ft. 52900 56200 57000 66200 90-ft. --- --- 79800 90100 100-ft. --- --- 88500 99800 15.24m 18.28m 21.34m 24.38m 27.43m 30.48m 1 Estimated F.O.B. Wide 30-ft. 12.19m All 4.88m Seattle as of January 1977. 19 --- B. 900-hp 912.a 600-ton 544 Estimated tip tug Load and round unload Transportation estimated 100 Total bridge Average 30-ft. Current lin. Assume a trucks - at hrs. $750/day allowance 14 x 2 36400 x 6 $ hauling $40/hr. 1080 x $18200/trip for 4500 - 4000 44900 329.18m ft. .3048 cost/ft. Installation 1. at 1300/day weeks 2 4-destination length Recommended Seattle approximately each crane 1100/day 200/day trip to 2-Seattle days $ 3lf barge Estimated 2 trips at 400 tons 362.87t Tug and barge total C. from Timber Sale Shipping Costs for Base Year 1975 Appraisal Handbook. 44900 10 $41.57 3048m $40/ft. Costs 9.14m bridge temporary abutments. portable temporary bridge ft. .3048 that 2/3 -- cost of allowance ALP Sale. is is $72.35 in abutments. Abutments Installation 2/3 x 30 Additional planks Subtotal cost $72.35 9.14m ft. material etc. abutments 20 _ x $ 1450 150 1600 per b Superstructure Installation Hamilton-type Crane - 1 day at $750 Crew - 2 days at $350 Dump truck - 8 hrs. at $22.50 End loader - 8 hrs. at $21.00 Miscellaneous materials Subtotal $ 1950 superstructure Installation total 30-ft. 9.14m Hamilton-type c Installation $3550 Acrow-type crane - 16 hrs. at $35 Hydraulic 3 Crew days at $350 Dump truck - 8 hrs. at $22.50 End loader - 8 hrs. at $21.00 Miscellaneous materials Installation total 30-ft. 9.14m Acrow-type 2. 750 700 180 170 150 $ 560 1050 180 170 140 $2100 $3700 abut-ments. 60-ft. 18.28m Current temp ft. lin. Assume a 1/2 portable bridge temporary rary bridge allowance 3048m -- ALP Sale. of cost is in is $72.35 per abutments. Abutments Installation 60 ft. Additional Subtotal $72.35 18.12m materials abutments 21 x 1/2 x planks etc. $2200 200 $2400 b Superstructure Installation Hamilton-type Crane - 1 day at $750 Crew - 2 days at $350 Dump truck - 8 hrs. at $22.50 End loader - 8 hrs. at $21.00 Miscellaneous materials Subtotal $ $1950 superstructure Installation total 60-ft. 18.12m Hamilton-type c $4350 Acrow-type Installation crane - 24 hrs. at $35 Hydraulic Crew - 4 days at $350 Dump truck - 8 hrs. at $22.50 End loader - 8 hrs. at $21.00 Miscellaneous materials Subtotal superstructure Installation total 60-ft. 18.12m Acrow-type 3. 100-ft. 30.48m Current temporary bridge portable lin. ft. .3048 Assume 1/2 of a 750 700 180 170 150 cost is in 840 1400 180 170 110 $2700 $5100 bridge is allowance ALP Scale. -- $ $72.35 per abutments. Abutments Installation 100 ft. Additional Subtotal $72.35 30.48m materials abutments 22 x 1/2 x planks etc. $3600 200 $3800 b Superstructure Installation Hamilton-type Crane - 32 hrs. at $35 Crew - 5 days at $350 Dump truck - 8 hrs. at $22.50 End loader - 8 hrs. at $21.00 materials Miscellaneous Subtotal superstructure Installation total 100-ft. 30.48m Hamilton-type 4. 9.14m 18.28m 27.42m $7900 90 .3048 $87.78/ft. Acrow-type $16000 190 9.14m 18.28m 30.48m 58.80m $3700 5100 7200 $16000 .3048 $84.21/ft. Recommended Removal 1. at at at ft. Cost d $7200 $3550 4350 $7900 at at ft. 30-ft. 60-ft. 100-ft. 190-ft. c $3400 Hamilton-type 30-ft. 60-ft. 90-ft. b 180 170 180 costs Average a $1120 1750 Installation Average $85/lin. ft. .3048 Costs Hamilton-type Crane - 1 day at $750 Crew - 1 day at $350 - 1 day at $200 Backhoe Truck - 1 day at $360 Miscellaneous Removal total Hamilton-type 23 $ 750 350 200 360 140 $1800 2. Acrow-type crane - 2 days at Hydraulic Crew - 2 days at $350 - 1 day at $200 Backhoe Truck - 2 days at $360 Miscellaneous Removal total Acrow-type 3. Average a. b. c. removal $280 $ 200 720 120 $2300 costs Average Acrow Average cost length $2300 80 Hamilton length Average cost $1800 45 80 24.38m ft. $28.75/ft. ft. Average 45 ft. $40/ft. ft. removal allowance Suggest average of $36/lin. ft. .3048m 24 560 700 .3048 13.72m .3048 WASHINGTON OFFICE CONSULTATION AND Walter Assistant WATER CONSERVATION NEWS STANDARDS Furen Director E. IN FEDERAL FACILITIES President Carter transmitted his Water Policy Reform Message to That message announced a broad set the Congress in June 1978. on four key problem of policy initiatives concentrating areas 1. 2. Enhancing Federal-State water Making the efficient. project cooperation. planning process more con-servation. new National 3. Providing 4. Increasing environmental sensitivity resources planning and management. a emphasis on water in water con-servation Actual implementation of these initiatives breaks down into One many separate elements each having very dif erent needs. of these elements is water addressed in problem are/f3 in Federal facilities. The Forest Service as the with the of the lands from which a management agency charged of the Nations water resources major portion originate should take the lead in conserving water and eliminating its This responsibility is especially nonessential use. in relation to the Water Policy Reform Message and the severe water shortages that recently affected a good portion of the Nation. signifi-cant --possible There both as official many measures that can be adopted and to indicate and as personal commitment our concern policy -to Some but all participate. willingness certainly not measures are as follows are 1. Curtail washing of vehicles. 25 2. 3. 4. re-duced Eliminate amount of The curtail watering of lawns. water required for lawns can be by using flood irrigation instead of lawn sprinklers. If flood irrigation is not then lawn possible sprinkling at night or on will a cloudy reduce water loss resulting day from evaporation. or Install flow limiting devices on faucets and showers. A saving can be expected of about one-third for faucets and about one-half for showers. Reduce the quantity of water stored in toilet flush tanks by adjusting the valve float or the of the water-filled container in the placement tank. tank stores 4 Normally a gallons 15.14 liters of water a total of about 5 1/2 gallons flush-ing. re-duced 20.82 liters is discharged in a single Some experimentation to may be necessary determine how much the tank capacity can be and still provide for effective toilet it is reasonable to expect flushings however that 1/2 to 1 gallon 1.89 to 3.79 liters of water can be saved per flush. Bricks or other similar objects should not be placed in the flush tank to displace water volume because they and damage the toilet mechanism may deteriorate af-ter or plumbing. 5. Store and reuse the water and detergent that is drained from an automatic clothes washer the wash cycle. Reusing the water may save 25 percent of the approximate 25 gallons 94.63 liters required for a complete cycle. 6. Curtail or dish-washers. dish-washers. eliminate the use of automatic Manual washing of dishes should. save at least 50 percent of the 13 to 19 gallons 49.21 to 71.92 liters of water used per day by the average household in their automatic wa-ter discom-fort 7. Check for and repair underground water pipe and plumbing fixture leaks. Leaky faucets pipes valves etc. can waste large quantities of over a 24-hour period. em-ployees of these items may cause some inconvenience Adoption minor hindrances however and/or as Forest Service it is our responsibility to promote opportunities the better use of existing water supplies. 26 for IMPROVEMENTS TECHNOLOGICAL Heyward Assistant Taylor Director For-estry collabo-rated LOW-VALUE TIMBER HARVESTING Center and the Development Engineers from the Equipment Sciences Laboratory in Missoula Montana have of a bunching for two-stage in the development concept cable yarding that would make low-value timber harvesting profitable. cab-le oper-ation Buncher Concept bunching vehicle would be bunching low-value timber into a corridor The buncher for later yarding with a simple grappler yarder. vehicle.m ves itself by powered sheaves along a suspended and//co tains a skidding winch to perform the bunching the It can easily be 1. positioned anywhereon 7Fg. remains fixed while it stems Fig.2. here skidding cables In exe tionally difficult terrain the cable canbeelevated can readily pass. by intermediate supports which the buncher A self-propelled radio-controlled used efficiently Engineers from the two organizations proved the technical feasibility of buncher vehicle. have designed model built and of the sav-ings. lim-ited cumber-some a working from both foreign and domestic sources indicates cost bunching before yarding can result in significant However bunching methods in difficult terrain are winches that are to skid-mounted or hand-carried slow and potentially dangerous. Evidence that is much safer and The buncher vehicle easier to maneuver than a skid-mounted or hand-carried winch. Moreover because it is in workers do not have to install snatch blocks elevated trees adjoining the corridor to provide lift for the logs or stems. 27 Powered Sheaves Skidding Winch ý Ar . ox Radio Controlled yard\ýýý Vehiclet Figure 1.--A radio-controlled vehicle is used Zow-value timber. for bunching re-sidual per-mits can be moved at will it can be manuevered Because the buncher along the cable to eliminate hangups and reduce damage to This maneuverability also trees in partial cuts. stems to be brought into and aligned with the corridor in neat piles creating an ideal arrangement for later yarding. With the stems bunched in the corridor a simple grapple yarder can then transport this material to the landing. The average number of stems per yarding cycle could be greatly increased due to bunching. per-cen Cost Savings multifunctional cable yarding on system anticipate doubling with-butncreasing daily costs resulting Compared to work the Tale 1 28 systems engineers production in savings rates of 50 Powered Chain Sheaves Drive Hydraulic Motor 0 v 0 O Skyline Radio 0 Receiver Gas Tank 0 Solenoid Valves 110 / Pump Hydraulic Hydraulic Motor Air-cooled Industrial Radio Transmitter Engine Winch Figure 22-eCutazway Reservoir drazazng Line self-propelled radio-controlled bunching vehicle Table 1.--Multifunctional Multifunctional $200000 $400/day Yarder yarding costs Buncher Vehicle Grapple Yarder Labor 4-man crew $600/day One 2-man crew One 3-man crew $750/day 200 Daily stems 400 vs. two-stage yarding costs. $50000 $100/day $100000 $200/day buncher yarder 25% in reduction machine cost increase 20% stems 100% increase Produc- stems tion landing Cost/Stem $5.00 in costs labor at in the 50% reduction $2.60 in cost/stem Applications is designed bunching vehicle primarily for bunching stems into a corridor for later yarding. It is this application that offers attractive cost savings in the selective cutting of low-value timber. The The could be operated bunching vehicle as a multifunctional as well. One worker yarder would be at the landing to unhook the logs while the other would set chokers in the woods. Both workers would have radios to control the buncher during these separate operations. This application would not be routinely as it is doubtful it offers significant economic over a multifunctional advantages system. situations may arise that make this capability ad-vocated Neverthe-less benefic-ial. com-mon In many situations bunching and felling can be combined. While the trees are felled and the limbs removed by one worker the second worker could bunch them. this fashion the In problem of stems being poorly aligned for skidding to the corridor is eliminated. Finally when vehicle could bunching lay out completed in a corridor the buncher strawline for rigging the yarder. is a 30 unre-lated There problems may be many other general transportation that this concept could solve. to timber harvesting re-covery Objective The this effort is to achieve more efficient this buncher concept wood resource by developing used buncher vehicle could be built and where the point risk. The timeframe for this reasonable economic will depend on the extent of the funding. objective of devel-opment of to a with the 31 OPERATIONS Harold L. Strickland Assistant Director had a most of you are aware the RPA Act of 1974 PL93-378 road construction significant impact on the Forest Service This law for the first time since the passage of the budget. Act of 1964 requires the Forest Service beginning in FRK-R F 977 to get Congressional authorization prior to using In essence this ends chaser credit for road construction. p unlimited use of purchaser credit. the As The pur-chaser con-strained law led to 1. 2. two major decisions OMB directed the Forest Service credit within the Forest budget. to include Service credit would that purchaser Congress determined the year be available for obligation only during for which it was appropriated. responsi-bility decisions immediately placed a tremendous on the engineering Engineers now have to organization. estimate purchaser credit needs 2 years in advance knowing that if they overestimate it will be at the expense of other program areas. These two ex-ceeded estima-ting credit needs FY-1977 and FY-1978 estimated purchaser And although actual needs by $50 million each year. in accurately there are a number of variables involved the credit needs 2 years in advance accuracy purchaser of estimates must improve because of the amount of money Perhaps one way to improve the accuracy of estimates learned from small business is to capitalize on the knowledge In in-volved. re-duce turnbacks Each during the past time there is a small credit available purchaser elected to build purchaser this surplus perhaps of small business turnbacks if we estimate an example 2 years. the amount of business turnback road -- had the for a particular To it -- becomes a surplus. our 2-year history we should review As and use it to our advantage. credit needs to be our purchaser 32 pur-chaser our 2-year history indicates wecan expect $5 $20 million and work our request for million to $7 million in turnback Of course $15 million. credit should be approximately risk but it may be one worth taking. this is a calculated man-aged The intent of this article has been to make you more aware credit is now an appropriated fund just as that purchaser As such purchaser-credit must be FRT has always been. in the same way that we have always managed FRT. 33 U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1979 280-914/8 INVITATION TO READERS OF FIELD NOTES Every reader you would of an article for Field Notes. author a potential is a news you have If item or ac-curate short article Material share to with we Service engineers invite you send to for it Field Notes. in publication like submitted the to Office for Washington should publication be reviewed by the Washing-ton Office Regional respective to and of informative see the that interest to information Forest is current timely FSM 7113. Service Engineers technically The length may vary from several short sentences to several typewritten however short articles or news items are preferred. All material submitted to the Office should be typed double-spaced and ideally all illustrations should be submitted material drawings Field Notes is distributed from the Washington Area Headquarters mailing Coordinator also to increase the their should Regional R-1 Melvin R-2 Royal R-3 original If to all you Engineering your office. Regional are not Station currently and on the Data Systems issues are of back Copies Technical Office. submit material for publication or questions concerning Field Notes Coordinators Dittmer M. Ryser Juan Gomez Coordinators retirees. Manager or the Regional number of copies sent to available from the Washington Field personnel to Office Office directly and Forest Service Forests ask your list pages or negatives. prints glossy of should direct R-4 Ted Wood R-9 Fred Hintsala R-5 Walt Weaver R-10 F. W. R-6 Kjell Bakke Al Colley R-8 Bob Bowers questions concerning WO format editing problems to Forest Service Engineering Attn P.O. - USDA Staff Gordon L. RP-E Bldg Rome Editor Box 2417 Washington Telephone D.C. 20013 Area Code 703 235-8198 Baxandall publishing dates and other