United States
Department
of
Agriculture
Forest Service
Engineering Staff
Washington
.RES.
us
D.C.
E ngi n e e r ýn g
Field Notes
November
Volume 17
December
1985
Engineering Technical
Information System
1985
Field
Notes
Article
Awards
Discussion Regarding Policy
Economic
Procedures
for
Buildings
Related Facilities
Analysis of
Underbody Blade Truck
Floating Field Camps in Region 10
Alaskan Solution to an Alaskan
Problem
Federal Engineer
Liabilities
Bibliography of Engineering
Equipment Development
Publications
An
Engineering Field Notes
Administrative
Professional
Distribution
Development
Ser-vice-U.S.
This
an
administrative document
that
was
guidance of employees of the Forest
Department of Agriculture its contractors
and its
Federal and State Government Agencies.
cooperating
The text
publication
developed
Management
the
the personal
of the
represents
opinions
authors. This information has not been approved for
publication
recom-mended
instruc-tions
in
respective
Data
Retrieval
is
for the
and must
to the public
distribution
not
be construed
as
approved policy procedures or mandatory
except
by Forest Service Manual references.
or
in-formation
con-venience
The Forest Service-U.S. Department
no responsibility for the interpretation
names and
by other than
identification
its
own
Agriculture assumes
application of this
employees. The use of trade
of
or
of firms or corporations
is
for the
reader such use does not constitute an official
or approval
by the United States Government of
of the
endorsement
any product
service to
or
the exclusion
of
others
suitable.
This
information
unlimited rights
by private
Please
publication to
the sole property of the Government with
the usage thereof and cannot be copyrighted
any comments or recommendations
the following address
M.J.
P.O. Box
Telephone
Staff-Washington
Carroll
D.J.
be
is
in
FOREST SERVICE-USDA
Attn
may
parties.
direct
Engineering
that
Baggett
Office
Editor
Editorial
2417-Washington
Assistant
D.C.
20013
Area Code 703-235-8198
about
this
1985
Field
Notes
Article
Awards
Its getting close to the end of the year again
which means it is time for our readers to vote on
their choice for the best Field Notes articles
We will reward the authors
published during 1985.
of the
three articles receiving the most favorable
response from our readers.
Did
a
Field Notes
article
help you
in
the
performance
espe-cially
Did any articles help your
your
during 1985
office save money--or time
Did you learn a new way
to perform a task
Did you find any articles
of
job
useful
or
answer
to
informative
yes
these questions is
please complete
rating sheet on the next page.
Select the three articles that you found most
or informative and rate
interesting beneficial
them from 1 highest to 3 lowest.
Wherever
the
indicate
amount
of money you
applicable please
believe
was saved or could be saved as a result of
the article.
If
the
any
of
the
Remember
do
NOT
rate more
than
three articles.
fold and staple it
page as indicated
and
mail
it
to
the
Office.
For
closed
Washington
selection
to
be
YOUR
RATING
SHEET
considered
your
MUST BE DELIVERED
TO THE WASHINGTON
OFFICE BY
DECEMBER
1985.
31
Cut
out
the
use-ful
Engineering Field Notes is intended to provide
information to Engineering personnel in the
field as well as to those who manage or supervise
projects from the office.
If
you have a new way of accomplishing
better idea for handling problems why
it Write an article for Field Notes
win a 1986 Field Notes Article Award
EFN
1
a
job
or
a
not share
and you may
FIELD
1985
NOTES
ARTICLE
RATING
SHEET
1
CHOICE
ARTICLE/AUTHOR
TECHNOLOGY
MAKING
SYSTEM
J
A
N
HOW
U
A
R
TRANSFER
A
R-S
SKI
CROSS-COUNTRY
/
F
E
TIMBER
HAUL
AUTOMATED
WORK
ON
PLANNING
TRAIL
DESIGN
DEVELOPMENT
Colburn
SYSTEM
THE
THE
R-4
SURFACING
W.
DESIGN
Roger
R-9
Pekuri
SYSTEM
FOR
REPORTING
WO
Ou
L.
R-6
R-4
Collett
Fong
Crystal
Roger
INFORMATION
TRANSPORTATION
WO
R-I
R-1
Valentine
H.
CONSIDERATIONS
Lee
MANAGEMENT
$
Darrell McNenny
SAFETY
6
OPERATION
F
Swarthout
D.
FOR
JOBS
MEASURING
ROAD
ROAD
BASE
PRODUCTION
TOUGH
R-3
Stewart
B.
DATA
A METHOD
OF USING
ANALYSIS
MEMORY
MAINTENANCE
COSTS
John Rupe
TRANSPORTATION
B
R
U
J.
ON-DUTY
AFFECTS
AT
PHOTOGRAMMETRY
Salsig
Gerry
A
CREATING
WO
ENVIRONMENT
WO
Petersen
R.
BETTER
SYSTEM
Pelzner
OFF-DUTY
THE
CLOSE-RANGE
Y
ROAD
GOOD
Adrian
Dale
YOU
6
2 3
----LOW-COST
A
R
Y
THE
SOFTWARE
SPOT
RECON
Gene
THE
SOFTWARE
SPOT
BUDGET
R-1
Gibson
L.
ELECTRONIC
Dale
SPREADSHEET
Petersen-WO
R.
--------------------------------------------------------SPOT
SOFTWARE
THE
FENCE
DIAGONAL
GRIDER
M
A
R
C
H
AREA
CREEK
Joel
PRESTRESSED
R
TOPOGRAPHIC
R
L
HOW
MUCH
CLARK
OF
R-10
ENOUGH
GOOD
IS
HERITAGE
C.
TRAFFIC
Dale
FOR
ROAD
LASER
SDEDC
SERIES
ON
ANALYZING
TRAFFIC
Fong
ESTIMATION
DATA
PROFILE
W0
Greer
L.
Ou WO
CASE
THREE.
Simmons
P.
NFAP
Colburn
STUDIES
WO
R.
WO
Swarthout
D.
Crystal
R-6
WO
Weller
Clyde
WOOD
D.
WO
Petersen
R.
Jerry
WO
COST
Lachowski
H.
Currier R-3
F.
W.
MANAGEMENT
RADAR
B
Station
NE
MEMORIAL
PROGRAM
A
WILDERNESS
R-3
IN
WO
Petersen
R.
Smith R-5
L.
Clyde Weller
AIRBORNE
Peters
McKenzie
W.
ANALYSIS
USING
J.
8
BRIDGES
TIMBER
REGRESSION
MAPPING
Jensen
R.
I
R-3
Dale
BASE
Eugene
CONTRACT
SENSORS
Boaz
Jacquelyn
TREATED
USE
POTENTIAL
A
PLANNING
DATA
Dan
STRAINER
ELECTRONIC
ANALYSIS
Johnstone
CRIME
TRANSFER
TECHNOLOGY
Eugene
DATA
SURVEILLANCE
R-S
Smith
L.
ERA
Lee
Northcutt
MEDC
-------------------------------------------------------------EQUIPME
DEVELOPMENT
FOR A NEW
I.
M
A
DEVICE
Y
THE
TO
MEASURE
BAUSCH
GPS
RESOURCE
SPECIAL
AUTOMATED
U
N
E
LOMB
$
SATELLITE
BRING
UNDER
AS
AN
AREA
MEASUREMENTS
Jerry
D.
Greer
NFAP
R-8
Vic Hedman
R-9
R-1
Muchmore
W.
WO
Taylor
IN
Jr.
SURVEYS
Frank
BRIDGES
AID
Pense
M.
CADASTRAL
TIMBER
TO
RMS
Lester
PHOTOGRAMMETRIC
LIFE
Deborah
DEVELOPMENT
SYSTEM
SPECIFICATIONS
FOR
NEW
NOW
MEASUREMENT
PROJECT
CONTROL
TO
TECHNIQUES
DUSTINESS
ROAD
---------------------------------------------------------ROCKS
FROM ROADBEDS
DITCH
LINES
Larry Leland R-9
REMOVING
PROTRUDING
$
U
AIRBORNE
SIDE-LOOKING
L
A
FAMILY
CURVES
U
G
THE
FOR
NATURAL
RESOURCES
SINGLE-LANE
ROAD
IN
ESTIMATING
RULE
SLIDE
RADAR
POST-MORTEM
A
Jerry
Greer
D.
Jerry
MANAGEMENT
Fong
CAPACITIES
D.
Greer
On WO
L.
NFAP
Tompkins
Ken
WO
NFAP
REPORTS
John
------------------------------------------------------------OF CONTRACT
PAY ESTIMATES
COST-TO-GOVERNMENT
Best R-5
SPOT
FLIPS
PROCESSING
SOFTWARE
E.
8
IS
S
E
P
T
E
M
B
E
R
0
THE
FOREST
READY
SERVICE
FOR
INTELLIGENCE
ARTIFICIAL
PRINTER
TO
TERMINAL
OR SERIAL
SLAVE
YOUR
OLD DEMAND
R-4
TERMINAL
Wayne T. Beddes R-4 L. Ray Flinn
PHOTOGRAPHY
AERIAL
METAL
HP-41
OPEN-TOP
TEMPORAL
$
ALTITUDE
DESIGN
VARIATIONS
IN
Fong
VOLUMES
TRAFFIC
Ellen
STUDY
L.
Ou WO
Petersen
R.
GENERAL
DASHER
B
E
EVALUATION
George
OF
WO
Lippert
J.
DRAFTING
COMPUTER-AIDED
DESIGN
Bob Swarthout
DESIGN
FINAL
APPLICATION
REPORT--INTERNAL
SYSTEM
Frank
DESIGN/DRAFTING
EVALUATION
DISPLAY
Lafayette
R-8
Lonnie
Randy
Gary
R-6
Warhington
R-8
R-6
ENGINEERING
ARCHITECTURAL/STRUCTURAL
WO
COMPUTER-AIDED
R
FOR
VIDEO
D410
C
T
0
WO
R-2
Wolf
Dan McReynolds
41-RDADS
SYSTEM
W
FLYING
DATA
Dave
DETERMINATION
STRUCTURE
DRAINAGE
DATA
ROAD
FLIGHT
A
Dale
EVALUATION
DATA
OF CONTROL
Robert
LeCain
CORPORATIONS
CD2000
-----------------COMPUTER-AIDED
MINI-CADD
SYSTEMS
6
Muchmore
George
J.
R-1
Lippert
R-1
WO
-----------------------------------------A
0
V
/
D
E
C
REVIEW
DISCUSSION
FACILITIES
UNDERBODY
FLOATING
OF
MICRO-
REGARDING
George
BLADE
FIELD
Don Garcia
POLICY
J.
TRUCK
CAMPS
R-10
B
PROCEDURES
WO
Lippert
James
IN
REGION
R.
Bassel
10
AN
FOR
San
ECONOMIC
Dimas
ALASKAN
-ANALYSIS
Equipment
SOLUTION
TO
OF
BUILDINGS
Development
AN
ALASKAN
6
RELATED
Center
PROBLEM
CUT ALONG
THIS
LINE
COMMENTS
I
NAME
-----FOLDHERE
OPTIONAL
FOREST SERVICE-USDA
ENGINEERING
P.O.
BOX
2417
WASHINGTON
I
STAFF 1101 RPIE
DC
20013
I
FOREST SERVICE- USDA
ENGINEERING
ATT.
P.O.
D.J.
I
STAFF
CARROLL 1101 RPIE
BOX 2417
WASHINGTON
I
DC 20013
I
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------HERE
I
CUT ALONG
THIS
LINE
O
Discussion Regarding Policy
Procedures
Buildings
for
Economic
Analysis of
Related Facilities
George J. Lippert
Chief Facilities Engineer
Office Engineering
Washington
facili-ties
This article was prepared
to clarify some concerns
economic
about the use of various present-worth
analysis methods for buildings and related
See FSM 7314.3.
projects.
per-cent
cur-rent
of the National
Bureau of
Based on Handbook
135
certain
project reports
Standards we have reviewed
of
4
that have used discount rates
percent 7
and
both
constant
and 10 percent and use
alternatives.
dollars for comparing project
Constant Dollars are values expressed in terms of
general purchasing
power at the time the evaluation
Constant
is being
made that is the base year.
inflation.
Current
dollars do not reflect price
values
expressed in terms
or Nominal Dollars are
Current
dollars
of actual
prices of each year.
Rate
of
Return are
Real
reflect price inflation.
inflation
and
of
values of investments exclusive
taxes if applicable.
discount rate for
use of a 4-percentile
buildings and related facilities is inappropriate.
While FSM 1971.71
prescribes the use of 4 percent
for Forest Service field operations the use of
The 4-percentile
other rates also is mentioned.
rate was selected by the Forest Service on the basis
in
of analysis of real rates of return oneinvestment
1978.
1950 and
industrial economy between
the U.S.
the
lower discount factor
As a matter of interest
of out-year
provides more favorable consideration
benefit
streams associated with reforestation
stream land and other long-term resource
measures.
First
the
improve-ment
Gov-ernment
rates are established
by the Federal
socioeconomic policy.
Key
a matter of
factors are the comparability of investment choices
and their benefit
streams as well as the time value
Alternative
rates of return on investment
of money.
For
are considered.
in other parts of the economy
Discount
as
5
non-resource
both real and personal and other
program decisions rates other than the
standard Forest Service 4-percent rate are used.
The Office of Management
and Budget
Circulars
A-94
and A-104
both contain instruction on
economic
Both
comparability of these decisions.
circulars were issued in 1972 and are still valid.
Both use present value analysis and require that
future costs be treated the same.
property
1
2
OMB
compara-bility.
Circular A-94 is useful for benefit-cost
A 10-percentile
discount rate is required
OMBs estimate of the average rate of
representing
return of private investments before taxes and after
inflation constant dollars are used.
Thus
are comparable to a current dollar analysis
using a 13- to 14-percent discount
rate.
However
Circular A-94 specifically
exempts the 10-percent
rate use in decisions
the manner of
concerning
obtaining use of real property lease vs. purchase.
calcula-tions
prop-erty.
Circular A-104
was established
to compare costs in
purchasing
general purpose real
A 7-percentile
discount
rate and constant
dollar cost analysis is prescribed.
All future
costs appreciation/depreciation
imputed taxes and
insurance maintenance operation and repair may
be estimated in terms of current dollars.
This
for increased cost resulting from inflation
and those costs increasing at rates greater than
inflation.
This occurred
during the energy crisis
and may still be present in spot leasing markets.
However all costs must be reduced to constant
dollars for comparability.
Circular A-104 provides
factors and tables to assist in comparing and
adjusting future costs.
However the deflation
factors provided are out of date recent rates are
higher.
Building decay and obsolescence/site
factors are largely offsetting
and of
limited utility.
leasing
or
pro-vides
appre-ciation
OMB advises that Circular A-104 will be
within the next few months to consider
1
2
The current rates of
costs.
A 12-percent
considered.
The
revised
Government borrowing
discount rate is being
effects
of defacto
subsidies delivered
the
tax
investment tax
under
through
system
credits and the accelerated
cost recovery
6
3
Both are to be treated as costs to the
system.
Government.
These are both addressed in the
current Administrations tax reform plan and
in the
their status and potential inclusion
revised Circular A-104 is subject to debate.
deprecia-tion
Current rates of inflation building
and site appreciation.
recom-mends
0MB advises that use of Circular A-94 is appropriate
for preliminary project alternative analysis because
0MB
it is more a benefit/cost
comparison.
that budget requests be based on Circular
A-104 comparability and that the 12-percent discount
and
factor be used.
However inflation/deflation
other factors are unavailable
at this time.
Rates
used
for water resources project analysis
by either
currently 78 percent are not affected
These
covered
in
Water
Resources
circular.
are
Principles and Standards.
condition that 0MB provides is that the
policies in the circulars are not withstanding
We are particularly
Agency decision criteria.
concerned
about the suggestion to use both Circular
A-94 and Circular A-104 in facility development.
Circular A-104 would be appropriate
if a separate
Federal capital budget were available to the
With all agencies currently using a unified
budget both annual and capital requests budgeting
decisions are in reality program tradeoffs.
Hence we believe Circular A-94 practices are more
A further
agen-cies.
appropriate.
facil-ity
notice we recommend
continued
use
of the
10-percent discount rates constant dollars
and a study period of 25 years for evaluating
This will provide a
project alternatives.
reasons
fairly comparable analysis for the following
Until
1
2
further
the
Facility decisions
rarely are made on cost
alone.
Project alternative analysis considers
all tradeoffs with cost being but one factor.
Lowest cost is attractive but total
cost-effectiveness
is more appropriate.
benefits are not computed per se
Although
costs are compared and benefits are
subjec-tively
compared
Because
dollars
in
the
analysis.
the
10-percent rate with
is comparable to current
7
constant
dollar
3
analysis at a 13- to 14-percent rate and close
to proposed OMB rates
the time and effort to
use Circular A-104 procedures
does not appear
beneficial.
Optional use of Circular A-104 is
if future costs can be supported.
acceptable
Using discount rates of 10 percent or more
little is gained by continuing
the study beyond
Discounted
25
years.
costs 20 years hence
have little effect on present values.
pro-cedures
We will maintain
contact
the status and rationale
with
OMB and advise you of
proposed changes in
and policy.
Discussion and legislation on
tax reform may retard early action
by OMB.
Chapter
FSM 7310 is currently being revised.
The Economic
Analysis Standards for facility analysis formerly
FSM 7314.3 will be relocated
to FSH 7309.11.
Both
directives will be issued around October 1 1985.
Definitive action
by OMB may be incorporated
by
of
sup-plementation
REFERENCES
1
2
3
later.
Pro-grams.
Washing-ton
Bureau of
Department of Commerce National
Standards.
Handbook
135
Life-Cycle Costing
Manual for the Fe eral Energy Management
U.S.
U.S.
D.C.
Department
of
Commerce
bene-fits.
Office of Management
and Budget.
Circular A-94 Discount rate to be used in
time--distributed
costs and
evaluating
U.S.
Office of Management
and Budget
March 27 1972 Washington D.C.
U.S.
Office of Management
and Budget.
Circular A-104 Comparative
cost analysis for
decisions
to lease or purchase general purpose
real property.
U.S.
Office of Management
and
Budget June 14 1972 Washington D.C.EFN
U.S.
8
Underbody Blade Truck
James R. Bassel
Staff Engineer Transportation
San Dimas Equipment
Development
INTRODUCTION
Center
roads represent a
Aggregate and native-surfaced
of
the
total
road
mileage in the
major portion
Periodic
National
Forest System.
smoothing and
and
costly maintenance
reshaping is the most common
surfaces.
This
operation for these unpaved
smooth
maintenance
effort produces a
riding surface
and aids in extending the life of
improves drainage
the generally
the
road.
The motor grader has become
for
this
operation.
accepted
piece of equipment
mecha-nized
opera-tion.
is available for
expensive approach
blading that can supplement the grader
blade
The method employs an underbody
standard moldboard grading type mounted beneath a
The equipment is hydraulically operated
dump truck.
from the cab and usually requires large trucks
30000 to 46000 gross vehicle weight for adequate
A
less
power.
is not
new to the
This road maintenance
concept
The blades were developed
before the
industry.
trolley
first motorized vehicle and mounted beneath
The Forest Service
cars and horse-driven
wagons.
At
has been using the blades since the 1930s.
present the blades are used mostly by county and
in the Northern States
State highway departments
Alaska and Canada to remove packed snow and ice
from roads.
In its eastern and southern Regions
the Forest Service uses underbody
blades for
gravel and unpaved roads.
main-taining
EQUIPMENT
DESCRIPTION
The
underbody
companies
blade manufactured by several
a moldboard
type approximately
high with lengths varying from 8 to
feet.
The blade is mounted to the chassis of
heavy-duty
dump truck between the front and rear
axle.
is used to control pitch and
Hydraulics
horizontal rotation.
A more sophisticated blade
manufactured
by the Wausau
Company of Milwaukee
a hoist and tilting
Wisconsin
incorporates
15
12
inches
is
9
a
clear-ance
ob-struction
mechanism.
The
while the
hoist will increase the road
tilt can be used in developing
a
If the blade hits an immovable
roadway crown.
heavy duty springs and hydraulics or
pneumatics are used for a trip mechanism.
OPERATION
Figure
Similar to a motor grader operation the underbody
blade is angled horizontally so that one end is
forward and the other is to the rear.
The first
passes go along each shoulder so that excess bladed
material from each side is brought to the center in
Little or no road material is lost to
a windrow.
the roadside or ditches.
Additional passes then are
made with a dragging action of the blade to spread
the windrowed
material back across each side of the
With
roadway.
special care an experienced
operator
road crown on
may be able to provide an acceptable
these last passes see figures 1 and 2.
1.--Results after the
first
pass.
Figure 2.--Blading in
cutting operation.
a
10
A typical maintenance
prescription in the Forest
Service for a level 3 road would be blading one to
two times per year with a motor grader for major
road deficiency and establishing
a road crown plus
blade two to
blading with an underbody
supplemental
road
three times per year for minor
deficiency
of these
The combination
operations
smoothing.
of
on the characteristics
can be varied depending
and
the surface material
climate conditions
The blade also can be effectively
volume.
worked on level 2 and level 4 roads.
sur-face
traf-fic
blade
addition to surface blading
the underbody
over the motor
truck is versatile and has advantages
grader in such jobs as hauling and spreading gravel
for reworking road surface deficiency see figure 3
The underbody
and hauling
trailers and equipment.
blade truck also can be used as a general service
truck.
Another important aspect is the trucks
ability to quickly move from job to job and distant
work sites much faster than a motor grader.
In
date
GEOGRAPHIC AREAS
ROAD MATERIALS
$
blade trucks
there are 12 underbody
in the National
Forests--Michigan West
Virginia Tennessee Florida Louisiana and
As expected
road conditions and
Mississippi.
area.
vary widely in this large geographical
Generally the blades are worked on level three
roads where except for the mountains of West
the road grade is relatively
Virginia and Tennessee
Road materials range from crushed aggregate
flat.
to a fine and loose sand
to sandy clay in Louisiana
surface found in Florida.
PERFORMANCE
The
To
mate-rials
operating
performance
for maintaining
follows
Figure 3.--Aggregate
haul
and
spread
of the underbody
capabilities
are
typical road deficiencies
operation.
11
i
blade
as
1
2
3
4
5
Effectively removes minor traverse corrugations
longitudinal rutting on sandy and crush
It
is less
effective
on
aggregate surfaces.
hard crusty native materials and deep
Under these tougher conditions
a motor
with
a
scarifier
attachment
would
be
grader
needed.
Road moisture content greatly
the
road conditions
hence the difficulty
of blading
and reshaping.
and
pot-holes.
influ-ences
materi-al
loose surface
redistributes
from
shoulders
and center
aggregate
Effectively
of
road.
in maintaining
Inadequate
proper roadway
crown.
This violates an important maintenance
function of blading and shaping operations.
of pulling roadway
Incapable
and cutting
road banks.
Has
had
limited exposure
to
drainage
rocky
ditches
road
condi-tions--specifically
to larger native
rocks
embedded in the road surface.
The truck is
able to blade over embedded
rocks on occasions
even extracting
some of the smaller rocks.
How
rocky can the road be before the underbody
blade truck becomes an ineffective
tool or
causes structural damage to the equipment is an
unanswered
question at this time.
Further
study is required on this subject
to determine
what road conditions the underbody
accurately
blade truck can handle.
CONCLUSIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
blade is in a class of road maintenance
underbody
between
the motor grader and the
equipment
rock
rake.
The rock rake
aids the motor grader by raking
off large rocks redistributing gravel and
the road.
Some capabilities
of these machines
Both the underbody
blade truck
overlap each other.
and the rock rake are less expensive equipment and
can effectively
supplement the motor grader but
do not replace
it.
The
smooth-ing
def-initely
The underbody
blade should be
road maintenance
tool for the
light grading needs.
considered
a feasible
Forest Service for
A more detailed project report is being prepared by
the San Dimas Equipment
Center and
Development
should be distributed to the Forests and Districts
in
late
1985.
EFN
12
Floating Field Camps in Region 10
An Alaskan Solution to an Alaskan Problem
Don Garcia
Buildings
Regional
Region 10
Engineer
accessi-ble
pro-grams.
dis-satisfication
problem seemed immense when viewed from the
Over 10000 islands impossible terrain and
map
little or no road system to make the Forest
for timber and other resource management
Coupled with this problem was the large
turnover of personnel resulting from employee
with extended flying in small float
and
the
ever present isolation of the Alaskan
planes
locations.
Also the Alaskan Native Indian Lands
Claim Act passed in 1974 made a veritable
of the
available timber areas thereby
work areas to the more remote timber and
To find an economical and
resource areas.
solution to the problem of housing field
in the remote bush country of Southeast
Alaska
the
Ketchikan
Area
in
of
the
Facility Engineers
dream
to
idea
and
a
National
had
an
Forest
Tongass
The
checker-board
rele-gating
function-al
person-nel
create a floating field camp capable of supporting a
large number of personnel for an extended period of
The system
extensive logistic support.
time without
should be economically comparable to those
on land at permanent
being constructed
District
Work
Center
locations.
or
Ranger
the Areas efforts for the design was Ron
Skillings Supervisory Civil Engineer Ketchikan
Don
Area and Walt Brooks Forest Engineer.
Schultz Regional Mechanical Engineer was
The
in putting
the final details together.
and
a
Office
help
Engineers
provided
Regional
so
and workable
floor plan were developed
could be
that a design and construction
contract
submitted for an invitation for bid.
crew-quarters
Spear-heading
instru-mental
pro-spectus
The basic design requirement called for a floating
field camp with a life expectancy of 30 years that
was made of building and barge craft materials able
to a marine
to withstand
extended-exposure
with minimal maintenance.
environ-ment
13
per-manent
ap-proximately
Earlier economic
investigations
land-based
crewquarters
had shown
in Alaska
that
cost
The initial
camp was
unique-ness
$25000 per employee
space.
proposed floating field
$30000 per employee space.
Because of the
of the undertaking
and the competitive
market
conditions it soon became apparent that the Forest
Service could have two barges built for the initial
estimated cost for one unit thereby accomplishing
a
2-year need in a single year.
estimate
for the
Govern-ments
Nineteen contractors
made bid proposals.
The offers
The
ranged from $732628 to $2217000.
final estimate was $974000.
The contract
was awarded in August 1982 to Umpqua Marine Ways
Inc. of Reedsport Oregon.
The contract
called for
successful sea trials and delivery at Ketchikan
Alaska within 240 days.
J.
Cameron McKerman of
Portland Oregon a naval architect
who was a
to Umpqua
Marine provided design and
marine consultation directly to the Forest Service
to capitalize
on the proposed features that the
Forest desired.
After the final design had been
reviewed and agreed upon the plans and
were turned over to Umpqua Marine Ways for
fabrication.
Prior arrangements
between Regional
Offices 10 and 6 allowed for onsite inspection and
documentation
of the construction
procedure
by
Engineers from Siuslaw National
Forest.
This
assistance proved to be invaluable to the overall
success
of the
venture.
sub-contractor
specifi-cations
After sea trials at Reedsport
Oregon the barges
were outfitted and prepared for the 800-mile journey
by way of the Alaskan Marine Highway--a scenic but
hazardous stretchof ocean water between Seattle and
Ketchikan
that winds among the reefs and islands of
Canada and Southeast Alaska.
The completed
floating
field camps were delivered to the Forest Service on
April 15 1983.
The two 85-foot steel barges--Steelhead
and
Chickamin--are designed to last for 30 years to
their own electricity for heating
generate
cooking
and refrigeration to provide fresh water through a
unique rainwater-catching
and treatment system to
handle their own sewage waste and to deploy a
mobile floating dock for crew boats and seaplanes.
The 31-foot inside hull provides sufficient working
space below deck with a depth of 7 feet 6 inches.
The barge has a draft of 2 feet and the wood frame
14
feet
structure
rises 22
of the
truss roof.
above the deck
figure 1.
to
the
peak
two-person
The
barge-mounted
See
facilities
consist
of
seven
staterooms a large dining and lounge area a
cook and caretakers quarters a laundry and mud
washer/
room with coat and boot racks and clothes
There also are two large shower rooms
dryer units.
and
toilets.
Figure 1.-- Floating
field camp Steelhead
which
has
a
14-person
capacity with
self-contained
utilities and
and currently
is used
on the Craig
and Thorne
Bay Ranger
Districts.
com-plete
facil-ities
15
The
large galley also serves as an office for the
who usually is also the building manager for
the barge and has private
The
living quarters.
machinery room with the hot water heater and other
equipment is next to the galley.
The electrical and
control console is situated near the galley where
the cook can monitor it.
to power the
Electricity
facility is generated
from a matched set of
20-kilowatt diesel generators that provide 120/240
volt single phase power.
cook
Since the floating field camps will be operating
in
one of the rainiest spots on Earth--with an annual
rainfall in excess of 150 inches--Forest Service
Engineers reasoned that rainwater could provide an
Roofs were
important source of pure fresh water.
built to serve as nontoxic catchment
Water
systems.
from the roof flows into drain pipes that go to a
tank in the hull of the barge.
The water
300-gallon
is pumped through a sand filter a chlorinator
and
an activated
charcoal filter before being stored in
the two 1200-gallon potable water tanks.
A
water system distributes water
throughout the facility.
pneu-matic-pressure
Each
barge carries its own floats which can be
deployed when anchored.
These serve as a landing
for small shore boats and work boats and also for
the
seaplanes that are used widely in the Alaskan
bush country.
Since the barges are designed to run
up on gently sloping beaches
sandbars and mudflats
when necessary the floats can be used as walkways
to shore.
There are six 250-pound
Danforth anchors
to secure the barge and floats.
The anchors and
chains are deployed by two 30-ton windlasses and
four electric
The crane consists of a
capstans.
mast and boom.
col-lection
efflu-ent
There
are two
independent systems for sewage
waste system handles the
from wash basins and sinks.
The black waste
system handles contaminated
sewage from toilets.
The heads are nonmarine equipment with saltwater
The marine sanitation system in the hull
flushing.
below deck discharges treated wastewater
Outfall hoses are deployed when required by
water circulation
The sewage system
patterns.
a chlorinator and holding
tanks.
The
gray
over-board.
in-corporates
16
ex-pression
After two seasons of heavy field use at Thorne Bay
and Craig Ranger Districts there has been wide
of approval of the design
and efficiency of
The
crafts
have
the
undergone
these floating camps.
demands of being towed and anchored
in remote
areas.
They have stood up well under demanding
with a minimum number of personnel.
When
and
trained
the
managed
operated by
personnel
the design
floating field camps have exceeded
A detailed operational and maintenance
systems plan was necessary for a marinetype
and has been put into routine use.
Any
that have arisen resulted from personnel not
being familiar with the plan who tried to improvise
solutions to temporary problems.
cir-cumstances
ex-pectations.
environ-ment
prob-lems
To
the field crews
the
floating field camps have
meant dry sleeping facilities wholesome food and
hot water for bathing and laundry--this is a far cry
The
from the tents and trailers of days gone by.
When
of
has
slowed
turnover
dramatically.
personnel
it
almost
to
the
fish are running
is
impossible
get
the
to come to town
employees
17
Federal Engineer
INTRODUCTION
Liabilities
following memorandum was prepared by Kathryn
Toffenetti of the Office of the General Counsel
OGC in response to a number of questions we asked
This
regarding Federal Engineer liabilities.
to
Federal
facilities
pertains
and compliance under the Clean Water Act
the
Safe Drinking
Water Act and the Resource
Conservation
and Recovery Act.
The
memo-randum
responsi-bilities
straight-forward
liabil-ities
OGC response provides a very
analysis of the responsibilities and
that arise from the three environmental
statutes and the possible common law tort liability
of Engineers involved
with
these types of facilities
on National
Forest Lands.
We
believe
the
19
MAY
2 319A5
MMRANDUK
TO
R.
M. Housley
Deputy Chief
National
Forest
System
FS
Clarence
Clarence W. Brizee
Assistant General Counsel
Natural
Resources
Division
FROM
r
SJa
W.
Federal Engineer Liabilities
This memorandum is in response
to your questions concerning
to which Forest Service
engineers
might become subject in
the performance
of their official duties.
Your request calls for a
With the view toward
wide-ranging inquiry.
providing as intelligible
we do not address
analysis as possible
your questions seriatim but
instead have arranged
the memorandum as discussions
of the general
issues
raised.
We understand
your questions
your concerns
initially
are two.
First there are the responsibilities
and liabilities
that
arise from three environmental
statutes the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act or Clean Water Act CWiA 33 U.S.C.
the
SS 1251-1376
Safe Drinking Water Act SDWh
42 U.S.C. SS 300f-300j-10
and the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCRA
42 U.S.C.
SS 6901-6987
as amended by the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
liabilities
L. No.98-616 1984.
Secondly
you request an analysis of
possible oamron law tort liability of engineers
who design facilities
on national forests.
With respect to the potential for tort liability
you wish our opinion regarding the effect of state
requirements for
certification of plans by state
registered
You also had
engineers.
questions concerning representation
of employees
by the Justice
Pub.
Department.
with the SDWA
Compliance
CWA
and RCRA
Each
of the environmental
statutes
asked
about required federal
with all federal
and local requirements
interstate state
to the statutes to the same extent as rnrgeverrmenta1
pursuant
compliance
issued
entities.
The
federal
CWIA
provides
state
Each
Figure 1.--Memorandum
on
Federal
or
that
local
federal
department
Engineer
employees
requirements
agency
or
imposed
to any
subject
to carry out its purpose
instrumentality
liabilities.
20
are
of
the
2
executive legislative
and
branches
of the Federal
judicial
Government
having jurisdiction over any property or
facility or
engaged in any activity
resulting or
which may result in the discharge or runoff
of pollutants
1
2
and each officer
or employee thereof
in the
agent
of his official
shall
be subject to
performance
duties
and comply with all Federal
State
interstate and local
administrative authority
and process and
requirements
sanctions respecting the control and abatement
of water
and to the same extent as
pollution in the same manner
the payment of
entity including
any nongovernmental
reasonable service
The preceding sentence
shall
charges.
to any requirement
whether substantive
or
apply
procedural
including any reoordkeeping or reporting
requirement
any requirement respecting permits and any
other requirement whatsoever
to the exercise of any
or local administrative authority
and
Federal
State
to any process and sanction
whether enforced
in Federal
State or local courts or in any other wirer.
33 U.S.C.
S 1323.
A
B
C
These provisions shall apply notwithstanding
any impunity of such
under any law or rule of law
officers
agents or employees
in that part
33 U.S.C. S 1323.
Immunity will be more fully discussed
of this memorandum regarding
common law tort liability of individual
federal
the United States
is immune
as sovereign
employees.
Briefly
waives its immunity federal
from suit unless it specifically
employees
in some circumstances
from suit for acts dame within the
may be impure
of official
This provision of the Cif waives the
duties.
performance
defense of impunity that might otherwise shield
an employee fran suit.
the Act then provides
that
federal
Having waived impunity however
employees shall not be personally liable for any civil penalty arising
from the performance of his official duties
for which he is not
otherwise liable.
In other words the employee
33 U.S.C.
S 1323.
will not be personally liable for the civil penalties
provided for by
the CW1 but the CFYc will not protect an employee fran personal
which could arise for reasons other than violation of the
liability
Act.
An employee is subject
to the
for injunctive
provisions
relief and criminal penalties however.
Any citizen may commence a
civil action in his own behalf against any person who violates an
effluent standard or limitation under the Act or a state or EPA order
or limitations
33 U.S.C.
The
regarding such standards
S 1365a.
includes
an individual
33 U.S.C. S 1362.
term person
agencies
OAs
The Sr
requires compliance
to the same
extent
as
1
a
the CqP
i
Each Federal agency
having jurisdiction
over any
federally owned or maintained public water system or
engaged in any activity
resulting of which may result in
which endangers
underground
injection
water
drinking
the meaning of section 300hd2
of this title
within
shall
be subject
to and comply with all Federal
State
and local requirements
administrative authorities and
of safe
process and sanctions
respecting the provision
Figure
1.
cont.--Memorandum
on
2
IN
Federal Engineer
21
liabilities.
3
drinking water and respecting any underground injection
program in the same manner and to the same extent
as
The preceding sentence
shall
any nongovernmental
entity.
to any requirement whether substantive
apply
or
A
procedural including any recordkeeping
or reporting
requirement
any requiremnt
respecting
permits and
any other requirement whatsoever.
to the exercise
of any Federal
State or local administrative
authority
and
to any process or sanction
whether enforced in
or local courts or in any other manner.
Federal
State
42 U.S C. S 300j-6.
B
C
states
Although this subsection
a requirement
of compliance
for
agencies only in another portion of the Act is a provision for suit
against any person who violates any requirement
prescribed by or
under it 42 U.S.C.
The term person
S 300j-8.
includes
an
and specifically
individual
includes
an officer or an employee of a
federal agency 42 U.S.C.
Suit may be brought against a
S 300f-12.
person who violates any requirement by any person on his own behalf
42 U.S.C. S 300j-8.
OA
As in the
under the SDFA a federal
is not personally
employee
for civil penalties
for acts or omission in the scope
of the
duties.
As stated earlier the G exempts the employee
employees
from personal liability for acts or omissions
for which he is not
liable
otherwise liable.
The SDMs provision exempting
the employee for
any civil penalty under this subchapter that is under the SDM is
just a simpler way to convey the same meaning.
The SDFIlA allows even
more protection than the CWA
The C WA does not permit the
however.
defense of immunity to be raised on the part of the government or its
The SDFFU only waives
employees.
main ty for federal
federal
agencies
employees may still assert this defense.
RCRAs compliance
section
provides as follows
Each department agency
and instrumentality
of the
executive
and judicial branches
of the
legislative
federal government
having jurisdiction
over any
1
solid waste management
or disposal site or
facility
engaged in any activity resulting or which may
in the disposal or management
result
of solid waste
or hazardous waste shall be subject
to and comply with
all Federal
State interstate and local requirements
and procedural including any requirement
both substantive
for permits or reporting or any provisions
for injunctive
2
relief and such
sanctions
as may be imposed
by a court to
enforce such
relief respecting control
and abatement of
solid waste or hazardous waste disposal
in the same manner
and to the same extent
as any person
is subject to such
the payment of reasonable
requirements
including
service
Neither the United States
charges.
nor any agent
or officer thereof shall be immune or exempt
employee
from any process
of any State or Federal Court
or sanction
with respect to the enforcement of any such injunctive
relief.
28
U.S.C.
S
6961.
ROKIR
Figure
1.
cont.--Memorandum
on
Federal Engineer
22
liabilities.
4
As the last sentence
federal
quoted indicates an individual
employee can be ordered to comply with whatever injunctive
relief which
is ordered.
It was recently
held that as against the federal
government
injunctive
relief is the only remedy under RCRA there
being no waiver of sovereign
from suit for any other penalty
immunity
or payment of damages.
Florida Deparbnent of Environmental
Pagulation
which the Navy
v.
Silver
Corp. 83-926-C iv-J-14 M.D. Fla. 1985
was granted dismissal in an action under RTtA for damages brought
There is no reason why this
against it by the State of Florida.
limitation on RCRA should apply to individuals
however
so it is
that
federal
likely
employees
may be subject to any of the penalties
is
which can be imposed on individuals.
If an imnmity
defense
to the situation
applicable
however
the federal
employee
may avail
himself of its protection.
In this RCRA is like the SDWIIU.
Further
RCRA is like the SUF4R and the
in that it provides for actions
to be
brought by citizens on their own behalf against any persons who are
in violation of any requirements
effective under the Act 42 U.S.C.
In contrast with the
and the Ci4A RCRA does
S 6972.
not
for the federal
specifically
provide an exemption
employee from
personal
liability for its civil penalties.
It is important
to note
for
too that RCRA provides for quite stiff criminal penalties
violations.
egregious
See 42 U.S.C.
S 6928e as amended by S 232 of
the 1984 amendments which provides
for fines up to $250000
N
MM
up to 15 years or both for knowingly
imminent danger from hazardous wastes.
imprisonment
persons in
placing
other
under the three statutes
may
Although the possible liabilities
it is clear that each requires
federal
with all
compliance
requirements
Federal
or local
and substantive
or procedural
State
for which it was enacted.
the purposes
There is thus no
respecting
question that Forest Service supervising
must oaaply with
engineers
vary
state
requirements
any of these
to certify plans
for
projects regulated
pursuant to
acts.
The next concerns to address
are whether in designing facilities
certifying plans or supervising
projects Forest Service engineers are
the issue is whether
exposed to possible tort liability.
Specifically
an engineer can be held liable for work negligently performed.
Tort Liability
is a breach
of a duty of due care owed to another
Negligence
Whether a
causing injury Prosser Law of Torts 143 4th ed. 1971.
particular action or omission will be held negligent depends upon the
law of the state where the injury occurred - even if it occurred on
federal
land or was caused by a federal
Given the variation
employee.
the situations
where liability
among state common laws of negligence
will arise cannot be predicted with certainty.
it has been
However
is the duty of an engineer
stated
as a general principle that
for anyone
to exercise reasonable care
on the
lawfully
whose injuury
is reasonably
foreseeable
of
as the result
premises
it
negligent
Figure
1.
design
cont.--memorandum
on
plans
orders
or directions.
Federal Engineer
23
Moloso v.
liabilities.
State
if
5
644 P.2d 205217
Alaska 1982.
To provide an example relevant
to
it is imst likely
that an engineer
your concerns
who designs a drinking
water system at a public campground will be held to have a duty to
provide a supply of potable water.
He can be found negligent
instead
his design
is faulty
and polluted water injures the users.
It
that state engineering registration laws would affect
is unlikely
this
principle.
In addition to the engineer who actually designs the facility one
who oversees the project to ensure conformance with the specifications
has been held to have a duty to make his
in a non-negligent
inspection
manner to prevent injury to those who will use the facility
Shawnee County
668 P.2d 157
idhen the duty is
Ran.
1983.
specifically
imposed by statute or regulation a finding of negligence
on the part of one who fails to comply is especially compelling.
See
for example
the Washington State requirement that the supervising
Balv.
in accordance
engineer certify the project is being constructed
with
state-approved plans and specifications
173-240-095
This would
be so whether the inspector applies his seal to the form or not in
fact if he does not he is not only negligent but also in violation
of the regulation.
M
Although a federal
in the
employee may have been negligent
of his duties
it does not necessarily
performance
follow that he will
be held personally liable for the damage caused.
The employee may be
protected from suit by either of two reasons.
one is the Federal Tort
Claims Act
which gives an
28 U.S.C.
SS 1346b 2671-2680
injured
party the option of suing the United States
for certain torts
committed by its employees.
The other is the less certain protection
of the doctrine of immunity of government officials.
FIA
The Federal Tort Claims Act
It provides
immunity.
employee acting within the scope
money damages against the United
sovereign
a waiver of the United States
that a party injured by a federal
of his office
or employment may seek
is
instead
of against the
States
which do not
Except for certain situations
concern us here it does not make suit against
the United States
the
exclusive remedy Henderson v. Blumnink
511
F.2d 399
D.C. Cir. 1974
but given the resources
of
vi
government
employee and the
of the federal
deep pockets
government the injured party is far
to seek
likely
compensation from the latter.
Rather the plaintiff
whose FICA case has gone to judgment is barred thereafter fran suing
the employee 28 U.S.C.
So it would be an uncommcn occasion
S 2676.
individual
employee.
more
You
mentioned
states
require
certification of plans by
of the project
and asked who that
charge
This question
naming possible officers
by title.
person might
would best be resolved by discussion with the pertinent
state but it
would seen that actual
not rank would determine
duties
the proper
Certification should
not be required
person.
by one whose duties
did
not include
actual
oversight of the project.
the
Figure
1.
official
in
be
cont.--Memorandum
on
that
same
responsible
Federal Engineer
24
liabilities.
6
when a federal
could instead
employee finds himself a defendant in a tort action that
have been brought against the United States in an FICA
action.
is not cartoon
it is not unheard of.2
a situation
Though such
If sued however
the federal
employee may be able to take advantage of
doctrine of
the other shield
against personal liability the court-made
immunity fran suit.
government officials
from the recognition
that
officials
The concept of immunity arose
of their duties but that
it is better to
may err in the performance
risk some error than not to decide or act at all for fear of a
416 U.S.
The privilege
232242
1974.
lawsuit. Scheuer v. Rhodes
but
of inmunity
o course benefits the individual
government employee
of government.
is to aid_-in the effective
functioning
its rationale
Govertimerit officials must
360
U.S.
1959.
Barr v. Matteo
564572-573
free
to exercise their duties unembarrassed by the fear of damage
be
- suits
in respect of acts done in the course of those duties
suits
which would consume time and energies which would be devoted to
of which might appreciably
inhibit
service and the threat
goverrmental
administration of policies of
and effective
the fearless vigorous
government.
Immunity
360
U.S.
564571.
must be pleaded
Eoonamou
Butz v.
protection.
438
immunity
applies requires dimni.ssal
360
564
U.S.
by the party asserting
and proved
U.S.
478
1978.
of the action.
A
ruling
Barr
v.
its
that
Matteo
1959.
It is the position of the Department of Justice that federal
such
as
in common law tort
cases
enjoy absolute immunity
Torts Branch
U.S. Department of Justice
negligence actions
Representation Practice and Procedure
Representation Monograph
from
This would mean that an employee would be held immune
30 1984.
conduct
occurred
tortious
suit singly
upon proof that the allegedly
of his line
the outer perimeter
while the employee was acting within
courts will
of duty. Barr v. Matteo 360 U.S.
564575.
Apparently
employees
I
suit against
2There
for bringing
are a number of possible reasons
The two year statute of
instead of the United States.
the individual
the
under the FICA may have run out but suit against
limitations
of
states statute
employee may still be possible under the applicable
to the success
of
limitations or a plaintiff may feel it important
under the FICA
his claim to have a jury trial which is unavailable
reasons a
28 U.S.C. S 2402 or sinply for emotional or vindictive
for the
personally responsible
plaintiff wishes to sue the individual
765
v.
537 F.2d
3d. Cir.1976 in addition a
Schrock
injury Martinez
in excess
of the amount
punitive damages
damages
plaintiff may seek
as a punishmznt
for
which would compensate for the injury imposed
egregious
wrong doing which cannot be awarded in an FICA action
28 U.S.C. S 2674.
Figure
1.
cont.--Memorandum
on
Federal Engineer
25
liabilities.
7
that
Some
generally accept
argument.
Sometimes
however
they do not.
courts reason
that
the rationale for the privilege
an inquiry
requires
into the nature
of the allegedly wrongful acts and the scope of the
accused officials duties Jackson v. Kelly 557 F.2d 735 10th Cir.
1977.
These courts
rule that
ty may be recognized only for
whose allegedly tortious
government employees
conduct occurred in the
exercise of discretionary
duties.
Coleman v. Federal Intermediate
Of course many federal
Credit Bank
600 F. Supp.
97
D. Ore. 1984.
of their duties.
emsoyee exercise sane discretion in the performance
Forest Service engineers
undoubtedly exercise discretion in designing
facilities.
But sane courts
mindful that the reasons
for immunity is
the effective
administration
of government policy specifically hold
that
done in the exercise of government policy should
only actions
for immmity.
Henderson v. Bluanink
511 F.2d 399
qualify the employee
D.C. Cir. 1974.
In Henderson v. B
D
of Columbia
Circuit Court elaborated upon the distincthon which allows
immunity
with respect to the performance
of sane duties but which would not
of others.
The case involved
permit it with respect to the performance
the allegedly negligent treatment of a civilian patient by an Army
doctor.
Considering the rationale for the immunity doctrine the court
Timnu
reasoned that the basis for the doctors action respecting his
treatment of the patient determined whether he had immunity in this
situation.
The court pointed out that many decisions of government
but for reasons
no
employees are made not for government policy reasons
different than those which move their private sector
to
counterparts
act.
The court saw no reason why the status as a government employee
should
shield the doctor from suit if the reason for his action was
The functioning
of government would not be hindered by
purely medical.
thus limiting
the immunity privilege
the court conclided.
Holding
medical personnel to the same standards
of care which they
outside
of government service in no way burdens
their public
or the vigorous
responsibility or deters entry into government service
exercise of public
responsibility having once entered the service.
511 F.2d 399403.
government
would face
In other words
all other things being equal there is no reason
to protect a government employee from suit just because his paycheck
canes from the federal
Not all courts agree with this
treasury.
573 F.2d 765
analysis e.g. Martinez v. Schrock
3d. Cir. 1976 but
Forest Service engineers
should be aware that immmity defense may not
be available to them for acts grounded not upon government policy
decisions but simply upon engineering decisions such
as his private
sector
would make.
With respect to the design of
counterpart
facilities
under the CNA SDFA or diTtA the nongoverruental
regulated
of the engineers work is particularly apparent.
nature
To the extent
a design is dictated by state or other requirements
the work of a
government engineer must be performed in the same manner as that of a
engineer.
of supervision
Similarly state
requirements
nongovernnent
and certification govern Forest Service
inspections
engineers
just
like they govern private engineers.
So if the analysis
applied in
Henderson were applied
to a situation involving
conduct
in connection
a Cwh SMA or RCRA project
the engineer would not have the
protection of immunity and the case would proceed to trial.
with
Figure
1.
cont.--Memorandum
on
Federal Engineer
26
liabilities.
8
nature
of
An important
point to remember given the hierarchical
is that
the negligence of a government
the Forest Service
employee
Robertson v. Sichel
127
will not be imputed to his supervisor.
U.S.
507
1888 Tucker v. Duke 276 F.2d 499 D.C. Cir. 19960
Each employee is only responsible
for the
Bazelon J. concurring.
a supervisor
can not
Therefore
discharge of his own duty of due care.
But
for the negligence of his subordinates.
be held vicariously liable
in
his subordinates
of course
if the superior had a duty to supervise
order to prevent or correct any negligent work a failure to do so may
be found to be a breach of that duty and a cause of ensuing injury and
he would be liable for his own negligence.
therefore
should a person be injured through
the negligent
To summarize
it is
in all likelihood
action or omission of a government engineer
not the individual
who will be sued.
In
the United States
employee
the rare circumstance that the engineer designing the facility or
the project is sued he may be shielded from suit by the
supervising
If the engineer is held not to be iacune
the
doctrine of immunity.
case would go to trial for a determination of whether an act or
of an injury
ammission on the engineers
part was the proximate cause
suffered by one to whom he owed a duty of care.
Representation of the
Government Employee
of the
matter to address concerns legal representation
An employee sued in his official
employee defendant.
capacity is represented by the Justice Department as a matter of
for the real defendant is the United States
DQ7 Torts Branch
course
and Procedure
Representation Monograph
Representation Practice
in
2. One sued in his or her individual capacity as for negligence
of his or her employment
the performance
may request representation by
The
final
individual
I
28 C.F.R. S 50 50.15a.
the Justice Department
Representation may
criminal
also be requested by an employee
charged in state
The Justice Departments
an
authority to represent
proceedings.
to
capacity is based in its responsibility
employee in his individual
of the United States in any court proceeding
to the interests
attend
in which the United
28 U.S.C. S 517 and to supervise all litigation
an agency
or officer thereof is a party.
28 U.S.C.
S 519.
States
of the United States to provide
It is considered in the interest
3The
used in preparation of this section
were
principal sources
Torts Branch Representation
two Justice Department monographs
Representation Practice and Procedure and Torts Branch
Monograph
and
and
Jurisdictional
Defenses
Representation Monograph II Personal
advice of Mr. Timothy Garren trial attorney Department of
the oral
I
Justice.
4The
criminal
Justice Department cannot provide representation
proceedings 28 C.F.R. S 50.15a4.
Maiii
Figure
1.
cont.--Memorandum
on
Federal Engineer
27
liabilities.
in
federal
9
representation for its employees
who are sued for acting within the
of employment.
Barr v. Matteo 360 U.S.
scope
564591 Booth v.
Fletcher 101 F.2d 676 D.C. Cir. cert.
307 U.S.
628
denied
1938.
Government representation
of the employee serves
the United
defense of a program within which the
employee was engaged and as a means of upholding employee morale.
There are sate situations
in which
it is definitely not in the United
States interest to defend the employee.
One such instance
where
defense would not be provided would be where an employee
did
apparently
not tell the truth or otherwise covered up wrongdoing
in the course
of
an official
of the incident
investigation
involved in the suit.
There
where it is not in the United States
may also be situations
interest
to take a particular
position or raise an argument available
to the
States
interest
both
in
the
The employee can choose to waive the argument or position
or to release government counsel and employ private counsel.
In the
common occurrence
where a number of government employees are
co-defendants
and their defenses require accusations of wrongdoing
against each other the government will withdraw from participating in
and will hire the number of private
their defense
attorneys
necessary
to represent the differing
factions.
employee.
We
cannot
venture an opinion on the advisability of obtaining
We can offer some points
to consider.
First it
is the individual
not the United States
employee
who must pay any
entered against
judgment
him or settlement arrived at in a tort case.
It should also be kept in mind however
that
the Department of Justice
has an excellent win-loss record in its defense of suits against
individual
Since
employees.
1971 out of over 10000 tort actions
actions
for intentional
involving
torts and constitutional
torts as
well as for negligence
only seventeen resulted
in verdicts against
the
employee and only five of these resulted in payment of damages
DQ7
Torts Branch Representation Monograph
and
Representation Practice
Procedure 30.
Further if the United States and the employee
are
both sued for the employees
allegedly tortious
conduct and judgment
is
entered against both the United States alone
28
pays the judgment
liability
insurance.
I
1676 Aetna Casual
and Surety Company v. United States
570
d pay
4th Cir. 19711.
similarly the government
one
arrived
at 28 U.S.C.S 2672.
any settlement
U.S.C.
S
F.2d 1197
Kathryn Toffenetti of this office has been working on these
issues
and will be happy to discuss
any of your concerns in greater
detail.
be
reached
She can
at FTS-447-2651.
cc
R.
Fowler
J.
Cummings
L.
Hughes
K.
Toffenetti
B.
Opfer FS Engineering
Chron file
Rosslyn
VA
-------------------------------------------------Figure
1.
cont.--Memorandum
on
Federal Engineer
liabilities.
EPN
28
Bibliography of Engineering
Equipment Development Publications
This
contains
bibliography
publications
produced
by
1
2
The
information
on
The Washington
Office Engineering
Publications Unit Engineering Field Notes
and Engineering Management
Series.
The
Equipment
listing
title
is
Centers
Development
Reports Equip Tips
Reports.
and
Special
arranged by the
document
author/source
Project
and Other
series
publication
and date.
number
This issue lists material published from November
1984 through October 1985 with the exception of
some publications
published by the Equipment
Centers that were inadvertently
Development
excluded from last years Bibliography.
For a
listing of previously published material refer to
Engineering Field Notes Volume 16
listed
1984.
Copies of the publications
herein are available
to Forest Service personnel
through the Engineering Staff Technical
Information Center TIC or through the Equipment
Center listed as the source.
Development
November-December
Forest
Service--USDA
Engineering Staff TIC
P.O.
Box 2417
20013
Washington DC
703/FTS
235-1424
Telephone
Forest Service--USDA
San Dimas Equipment
Center
Development
444 E. Bonita Avenue
San Dimas CA
91773
29
Forest Service--USDA
Missoula Equipment
Center
Development
Fort Missoula Bldg.
59801
Missoula MT
1
Engineering
Field
Notes
that supplies
This publication
is a bimonthly
periodical
technical
and administrative
information and
engineering
related to forestry and provides a forum for the exchange
information among
Forest Service
personnel.
FIELD NOTES
by TITLE
Aerial
Flight
Field Notes
Wolf Dave.
17
1985
September-October
Photography
Altitude
Determination.
Automated
Road
13-21.
Design
System.
Ou
17
Fong
Field
L.
Notes
January-February
65-78
Automated
Road
Design
System.
Swarthout
Field
Colburn
Notes
17
January-February
65-78.
Automated Special
Specifications.
Awards
for the
Articles.
Pence Lester
Field Notes 17
29-38.
Project
1984
Field
Notes
and Lomb Resource
Measurement
RMS
System
Aid in Area Measurements
C.
Series
on
Heritage
Wood.
Editor.
May-June
Bausch
Clark
the latest
ideas
of
such
as
an
The.
M.
Field
1985
D.
1985
Jr.
May-June
Notes
1985
1985
17
1-2.
Greer Jerry D. Field Notes
19-27.
May-June 1985
17
Field Notes
Clyde.
57-59.
March-April. 1985
17
Weller
Memorial
Close-Range
at
Photogrammetry
Jobs.
Measuring
Field Notes 17
Crystal Roger.
23-33.
January-February 1985
Close-Range
at
Photogrammetry
Jobs.
Measuring
Field Notes 17
Salsig Gerry.
23-33.
January-February 1985
Close-Range
at
Photogrammetry
Jobs.
Measuring
Field Notes 17
Stewart J. B.
23-33.
January-February 1985
Close-Range
Photogrammetry
Valentine W. H.
January-February
Work
Work
Work
Work
on Tough
on Tough
on Tough
on Tough
Measuring
Computer-Aided
Design.
Crime Analysis
Electronic
Crime Analysis
Electronic
Crime Analysis
Electronic
Sensors and Wilderness
Management.
Sensors and Wilderness
Management.
Sensors and Wilderness
Management.
30
at
Jobs.
Field
1985
Notes 17
23-33.
Field Notes 17
Swarthout Bob.
1985 61-73.
September-October
Boaz
Jacquelyn.
March-April
Greer Jerry
March-April
Field
1985
D.
Notes
17-26.
Field
1985
Notes
1.7
17
3.7-26.
Field Notes
Joel.
Johnstone
17-26.
March-April 1985
17
Ski
Trail Planning
Development and Operation
Considerations.
Field Notes 17
Pekuri Roger.
34-52.
January-February 198S
Device
Irwin L. H.
17 May-June
Cross-Country
Now
Measure
to
Under
Device
Dustiness
Road
Dustiness
Development.
to Measure
Road
Now Under Development.
Taylor Deborah.
May-June 1985
Effective
Information
Management.
Editor.
EFN
Editor.
New
Development
Era.
Evaluation
for
a
of
Computer-Aided
Design for
and Structural
Drafting and
Architectural
Field
Field Notes
15-18.
Field Notes
15-18.
Notes
1985
July-August
Call for Papers.
Equipment
Prof.
1985
Field
1985
Northcutt
May-June
1985
Lee
17
1-3.
Notes
May-June
17
17
3.
Field
I.
Notes
17
5-13.
Field Notes
Lippert George J.
17
1985
September-October
57-59.
Engineering.
for Estimating
Road
Capacities.
Ou
for Estimating
Road
Capacities.
Field Notes
Tompkins Ken.
July-August 1985
Family Curves
Single-Lane
Fong
Field
L.
1985
July-August
Notes 17
17-25.
17-25.-Final
Family Curves
Single-Lane
17
Evaluation
Report-Internal
and
Application
of Control
Data
Evaluation
Corporations CD2000
Field Notes 17
LeCain Robert.
75-80.
1985
September-October
Final
Evaluation
Report-Internal
and
Application
of Control
Data
Evaluation
Corporations CD2000
Field Notes 17
Muchmore Frank.
1985 75-80.
September-October
GPS
Field Notes
Hedman Vic.
May-June 19855-39-54.
Computer-Aided
Design/Drafting
System.
1-How
Computer-Aided
Design/Drafting
System.
Satellite
Photogrammetric
Control
for
Cadastral
Surveys.
Grider Creek Area Planning
Contract.
Much
Is
Good
Enough
How the Off-Duty Environment
Affects
and
On-Duty Production
Safety.
HP-41
Smith Eugene
March-April
Field
L.
1985
17
Notes
17
Field Notes
Petersen Dale R.
49-55.
March-April 1985.
Darrell.
McNenny
January-February
Field
1985
17
Notes 17
15-21.
Road
Data
and Design
System
41-RDADS.
Dan.
Field Notes 17
McReynolds
1985
31-40.
September-October
HP-41
Road
Data
and
Field Notes
Warbington
Randy.
17
1985
September-October
System
Is
41-RDADS.
Design
31-40.
Petersen Dale R.
September-October
the Forest Service
for Artificial
Ready
Intelligence
Low-Cost Diagonal
Strainer.
Fence
Currier
Notes
1-12.
31
17
W.
F.
Field
1985
Bill.
March-April
198
Notes
5-7.
Field
17
Low-Cost Diagonal
Strainer.
Fence
Dan
McKenzie
March-April
Field
W.
1985
Notes
17
1-12.
Good Road System
Creating a Data Base
for the Surfacing
Design and
Management
System.
Field Notes
Carmichael Frank.
17
January-February 1985
Making
Better
Good Road System
Creating a Data Base
for the Surfacing
Design and
Management
System.
Andrea.
Myslicki
January-February
Good Road System
Creating a Data Base
for the Surfacing
Design and
Management
System.
Pelzner Adrian.
January-February
Metal
Lafayette Ellen.
September-October
Field
Regression
Cost Estimation.
Ou
Notes 17
31-38.
Regression
Cost Estimation.
Swarthout
Making
Better
a
a
Making
Better
a
Open-Top
Structure
Potential Use
Analysis
Drainage
in
of
Road
Potential Use
of
in Road
Analysis
W
Flying
Prestressed
Treated
Study.
Timber
5-1.3.
Fong
1985
Field
1985
Field
L.
March-April
Field
Field
Notes
1985
198S
17
5-13.
Notes
17
5-13.
Notes 17
23-30.
Colburn D.
Notes 17
March-April
31-38.
Field Notes
Weller
Clyde.
27-29.
March-April 1985
17
Rocks
Protruding
from Roadbeds
and Ditch Lines.
Field
Leland Larry.
July-August 1985
17
Review
Field Notes
Lippert George J.
17
September-October
1985
Bridges.
Removing
A.
Micro-
of
Systems
and Mini-CADD
Notes
5-10.
81-90.
Side-Looking
Greer Jerry
July-August
Slave
Field Notes 1.7
Beddes Wayne T.
September-October
1985 9-12.
Airborne Radar
in
Resources
Management.
Natural
Your Old Demand Terminal
Serial Printer to a Data
General Dasher
D410 Video
or
Slave
Your Old Demand Terminal
or Serial Printer to a Data
General Dasher
D410 Video
17
Field Notes
Flinn L. Ray.
1985
September-October
17
9-12.
Terminal.
Display
Slide
Notes
19851-15.
Terminal.
Display
Mortem.
Field
D.
Rule
Software
Electronic
Software
Processing
Estimates
The
Spot
A
Post-
The
Budget
Spreadsheet.
Spot
of
and
The
FLIPS
Contract Pay
Cost-to-Government
Greer Jerry
July-August
Field Notes
27-28.
D.
1985
Petersen Dale R.
January-February
Best
John
E.
Field
1985
Field
September-October
Notes 17
80-81.
Notes
1985
17
17
1-4.
Reports.
The
Software
Spot
Software
Spot
Transfer
Technology
Recon.
The
Data
Base.
Field Notes
Gibson Gene L.
79.
January-February 1985
Field Notes
Petersen Dale R.
17
January-February 1985
81-82.
32
17
Techniques
to
Bring
New
Life
Muchmore Frank W.
Field Notes
17
55-73.
May-June 1985
and
You.
Petersen Dale R.
January-February
1-Temporal
to
Timber
Bridges.
Technology
Transfer
Variations
Volumes.
in
Traffic
Field
Notes
Field Notes
Gary Lonnie.
1985
September-October
17
17
41-56.
Variations
Temporal
Volumes.
in
Traffic
Fong
Field
L.
Notes
17
11985
September-October
41-56.
Topographic
Mapping
Using
Airborne Laser and Radar Profile
Data
Three Case Studies.
Field Notes
Crystal Roger.
39-48.
March-April 1985
Topographic
Mapping
Using
Airborne Laser and Radar Profile
Data
Three Case Studies.
Jensen Ray.
March-April
Topographic
Mapping
Using
Airborne Laser and Radar
Profile
Data
Three Case Studies.
Field Notes
Lachowski Henry.
39-48.
March-April 1985
Airborne
Topographic
Peters John.
March-April
Topographic
Mapping
Using
Airborne Laser and Radar
Profile
Data
Three Case Studies.
Field Notes
Simmons Paul.
39-487
March-April 1985
TRAFFIC
Smith Eugene
March-April
Data
Mapping
Using
Laser and Radar
Profile
Three Case Studies.
A Program for
Traffic Surveillance
Analyzing
Data.
Transportation Analysis
A Method
Memory
Using the
Information
Transportation
Timber Haul
System for Reporting
and Road Maintenance
Costs.
FIELD NOTES
by AUTHOR
Ou
of
Field
1985
Notes 17
39-48.
Field
1985
L.
17
17
Notes 17
39-48.
17
Field Notes
61-65.
1985
Field Notes
Collett Lee.
January-February 1985
17
17
53-63.
Slave
Field Notes
Beddes Wayne T.
17
September-October 1985T--
Your Old Demand Terminal
Serial Printer to a Data
General Dasher
D410 Video Display
or
9-12.
Terminal.
Best
John
Field
E.
Notes
1985
September-October
1-4.
The
Esti-mates
Software
1.7
Processing
and
FLIPS
Contract Pay
Cost-to-Government
Spot
of
Reports.
Boaz
Jacquelyn.
March-April
Field Notes
17-26.
1985
17
Field Notes
Carmichael Frank.
17
January-February 1985
5-13.
Crime Analysis
Electronic
Sensors and Wilderness
Management.
Making
Better
Good Road System
Creating a Data Base
Surfacing
Design and
a
for
Manage-ment
the
System.
Field Notes 17
Collett Lee.
January-February 198S
53-63
33
Transportation
Analysis Memory
Using the
Information
Transportation
System
Timber Haul and
for Reporting
Road Maintenance
Costs.
A Method
of
Field
Crystal Roger.
January-February
Notes
17
3-33.
Crystal Roger.
Field Notes
March-April 198S
39-48.
Currier
Field
Marc
W.
17
1985
-April
Editor.
May-June
Editor.
Bill.
F.
Notes
Field
Notes
1985
Field
May-June
Flinn
L.
Field
Mapping
Using
Airborne Laser and Radar Profile
Data
Three Case Studies.
17
EFN
Notes
Call for Papers.
Notes
1985_
17
9-12.
Slave Your Old Demand Terminal
or Serial Printer to a Data
D410
Video
General Dasher
Terminal.
Display
Lonnie.
Field
3.
September-October.
Gary
Fence
Effective
Information
Management.
Field
Ray.
Topographic
1-3.
17
Notes
1985
at
Photogrammetry
Jobs.
Measuring
for the 1984
Awards
Articles.
17
1-2.
Notes
on Tough
Low-Cost Diagonal
Strainer.
1-12.
July-August 1985__
Editor.
17
Close-Range
Work
Field
Notes
17
1985
September-October
41-56.
Gibson Gene L.
Field Notes
January-February 1985
79.
17
Greer Jerry D.
May-June 1985
Field Notes
19-27.
17
Greer Jerry
March-April
D.
Field Notes
17-26.
17
Greer Jerry
July-August
D.
Field Notes
11-15.
17
Greer
D.
Field
17
1985
198S
Temporal
Volumes.
Variations
Software
Spot
Recon.
Bausch
and
in Traffic
The
Lomb
Resource
Measurement
RMS
System
Aid in Area Measurements
as
an
The.
Crime Analysis Electronic
Sensors and Wilderness
Management.
Side-Looking
Airborne Radar in
Resources
Management.
Natural
The
Post-July-August
Hedman
Jerry
Notes
1985
L.
H.
Field Notes
15-18.
Jensen Ray.
March-April
Rule
A
17
GPS
Satellite
Photogrammetric
for
Control
Cadestral
Survey.
Prof.
17
Slide
Mortem.
27-28.
Field Notes
39-54.
Vic.
May-June
Irwin
1985
May-June
Field
198S
Notes
39-
1985
Lachowski Henry.
17
March-April
Field
198S
23-30.
34
17
Notes
39-49.
Field Notes
Lafayette Ellen.
17
September-October
1985
Now
to
Under
Measure
Road
Dustiness
Development.
Topographic
Mapping
Using
Airborne
Laser and Radar Profile
Data
Three Case Studies.
17
8.
Joel.
Field Notes
Johnstone
17-26.
March-April 1985
Device
Crime Analysis Electronic
and Wilderness
Sensors
Management.
Topographic
Mapping
Using
Airborne Laser and Radar Profile
Data
Three Case Studies.
Metal
Open-Top
Structure
Drainage
Flying
W
Study.
Final
Report--September-October
1985
LeCain
Robert.
Field
Notes 17
75-80.
Evaluation
Internal
and
Application
Evaluation
of Control
Data
Corporations CD2000
Computer-Aided
Design/Drafting
System.
Field Notes
Leland Larry.
July-August 1985
S-10.
Removing
17
Rocks from
Protruding
and Ditch Lines.
Roadbeds
Field Notes
Lippert George J.
17
September-October
1985
Evaluation
57-59.
Computer-Aided
Design for
and Structural
of
Drafting and
Architectural
Engineering.
Lippert George J.
Field Notes
1.7
September-October
1985
Review
Dan
McKenzie
March-April
Low-Cost Diagonal
Strainer.
81-90.
W.
Field Notes
1-12.
17
1985
Darrell.
McNenny
January-February
Field
Notes 17
15-21.
198S
A.
Dan.
Field Notes 17
McReynolds
September-October
1985 31-40.
Micro-
of
Systems
and Mini-CADD
Fence
How the Off-Duty Environment
Affects
and
On-Duty Production
Safety.
HP-41
Road
System
and Design
Data
41-RDADS.
Final
Report--September-October
198S
Muchmore
Frank.
Field
Notes 17
75-80.
Evaluation
Internal
and
Application
Evaluation
of Control
Data
Corporations CD2000
Computer-Aided
Design/Drafting
System.
Muchmore Frank W.
17
May-June 1985
Field Notes
55-73.
Myslicki
Andrea.
January-February
1985
Northcutt
May-June
5-13.
Lee
Field
17
5-13.
Field
I.
1985
Notes
to Bring
Techniques
Timber Bridges.
Notes
17
Making
Better
Equipment
Development
for a New
Automated
Road
System.
Era.
Ou
Fong
L.
Field
July-August
1985
Notes 17
17-25.
Family
Ou
Fong
L.
Field
Potential
Field
Notes
1985_
17
65-78.
March-April
1985
Notes 17
31-38.
Ou
Field
Notes
Fong
L.
September-October
19
5
Design
Curves for Estimating
Road Capacities.
Single-Lane
Use of Regression
in Road
Cost
Analysis
Estimation.
17
41-56.
Temporal
Volumes.
Variations
in Traffic
Pekuri Roger.
Field Notes 17
January-February 19834-52.
Cross-Country Ski Trail
Planning Development and
Considerations.
Operation
Pelzner Adrian.
January-February
Good Road System
Creating a Data Base
for the Surfacing
Design and
Management
System.
Pence
Notes
Lester
17
M.
May-June
Field
1985
Jr.
1985
35
to
Good Road System
Creating a Data Base
for the Surfacing
Design and
System.
Management
Fong
L.
Life
a
Ou
January-February
New
Notes
17
5-13.
Field
29-38.
Making
Better
a
Automated Special
Specifications.
Project
Peters John.
March-April
Field
19
Topographic
Mapping
Using
Profile
Airborne
Laser and Radar
Data
Three Case Studies.
Notes 17
39-4F.
Field Notes
Petersen Dale R.
49-55.
March-April 1985
17
Petersen Dale R.
September-October
17
Field
1985
Petersen Dale R.
January-February
1985
Petersen Dale R.
January-February
1985
Petersen Dale R.
January-February
1985
Rupe
Field
John.
January-February
Field
Field
Field
Notes
5-7.
Notes
1985
Smith Eugene
March-April
1985
L.
Technology
Notes
Technology
17
53-63.
L.
Notes
Spot
Electronic
Spreadsheet.
The
Software
Spot
Transfer
Data
and
Transfer
Base.
You.
Transportation Analysis Memory
the
A Method
of Using
for
Information
System
Timber Haul and Road
Reporting
Maintenance
Costs.
Transporta-tion
Close-Range
Work
on Tough
at
Photogrammetry
Jobs.
Measuring
Mapping
Using
Topographic
Airborne
Laser and Radar Profile
Data
Three Case Studies.
17
Notes
17
Field Notes
61-6S.
17
1
-
Field Notes 17
Stewart J. B.
23-33.
January-February 1985
Grider
Creek
Area
Contract.
TRAFFIC
A Program for
Traffic Surveillance
Analyzing
Data.
Close-Range
Work
Planning
on Tough
at
Photogrammetry
Jobs.
Measuring
Field Notes 17
Swarthout Bob.
1985
61-73.
September-October
Computer-Aided
Design.
Swarthout
Automated
Road
Design
Potential
Use of Regression
Road
Cost
Field
Notes
Colburn
for
The
Software
Notes 17
81-82.
39-48.7
Field
Is the Forest Service Ready
Artificial
Intelligence
Budget
17
Enough
Good
Is
Notes 17
80-81.
Field Notes 17
Salsig Gerry.
January-February
9985
23-33.
Smith Eugene
March-April
Much
-4.
1985
Field
Simmons Paul.
March-April 1985
How
D.
17
System.
January-February
65-78.
11985
Swarthout
Field
1985
Colburn
D.
Notes 17
March-April
31-38.
Estimation.
Field Notes
Taylor Deborah.
17
15-18.
May-June 1985
Field Notes
Tompkins Ken.
17-25.
July-August 1985
Valentine W. H.
January-February
Field
1985
in
Analysis
17
Device
Now
Family
Road
Measure
to
Under
Curves for Estimating
Road Capacities.
Single-Lane
Notes 17
-33.
Close-Range
Work
on Tough
HP-41
Road
at
Photogrammetry
Jobs.
Measuring
Data
and
Field Notes
Warbington
Randy.
17
1985
September-October
System
41-RDADS.
Field Notes
Weller
Clyde.
57-59.
March-April 1985
Clark
C.
Series
on
31-40.
36
Dustiness
Development.
17
Heritage
Wood.
Design
Memorial
Field Notes
Weller
Clyde.
27-29.
March-April 1985
Wolf
Dave.
Field
Notes
September-October
17
Aerial
17
13-21.
37
Prestressed
Treated
Bridges.
Altitude
Photography
Timber
Flight
Determination.
Management Notes
Engineering
Series contains
Engineering Management
and publications
special
or reader
purpose
that are applied
to
a
disciplines
specific
The
ENGINEERING
MANAGEMENT
by TITLE
SERIES
Aerial
Tramways
Tows.
Revised.
and
Ski
September
Lifts
serving
publications
several
involving
problem.
EM-7320-1.
1985.
Forest Service
Specifications
for Construction
of Bridges and
Other Major Drainage
Structures.
EM-7720-100B.
Forest
Service
Specifications
for Construction
of Roads and
Minor Drainage
Structures.
April 1985.
EM-7720-100R.
Land
EM-7150-3.
April
1985.
August
Guide.
Surveying
1985.
Sound Facility DevelopMaking
ment Decisions.
1985.
September
EM-7310-2.
Road TIPS--A Compilation of
from the Road Technology
Reports
Improvement Program
October 1985.
EM-7700-5.
Sampling
Course.
EM-77.15-509-100.
RTIP.
8
Testing
Self-Study
1985.
February
SSMOS--Slope
Stability Analysis
Methods
of Slices with
Programmable Calculator.
by Three
the HP41
January
EM-7170-7.
1985.
Standard
for
Specifications
Construction
of Roads and
Bridges.
April
EM-7720-100LL.
1985.
Standard
Specifications
Construction
of Trails.
June 1984.
for
EM-7720-102.
Users
EM-7150-2.
Guide to Photogrammetry
and Other Advanced
for
Technology
the Cadastral Engineering
Program.
July
1984
1985.
Geotechnical
Proceedings.
ENGINEERING
MANAGEMENT
by NUMBER
July
Workshop
EM-7170-6.
1985.
Sampling
Course.
EM-7115-509-100.
SERIES
38
$
Testing
Self-Study
1985.
February
a
Users
Guide to Photogrammetry
Other Advanced
Technology
for the Cadastral
Engineering
EM-7150-2.
and
Program.
Land
EM-7150-3.
EM-7170-6.
July
1985.
Guide.
August
Surveying
1985.
1984
Geotechnical
Proceedings.
Workshop
July
1985.
SSMOS--Slope
EM-7170-7.
Stability Analysis
of Slices with
Methods
Programmable
Calculator.
January 1985.
by Three
the HP41
EM-7310-2.
Making
Sound
Aerial
Tramways
Facility
Decisions.
Development
1985.
September
EM-7320-1.
Tows.
September
Revised
Ski
1985.
Lifts
and
EM-7700-5.
Road TIPS--A Compilation of
from the Road Technology
Reports
Program RTIP.
Improvement
October 1985.
EM7720-100B.
Forest
Service
Specifications
for Construction
of Bridges and
Other Major
Drainage
Structures.
April
1985.
Standard
for
Specifications
of Roads and
Construction
EM-7720-100LL.
Bridges.
April
1985.
Forest
EM-7720-100R.
Service
Specifications
of Roads and
for Construction
Minor Drainage
Structures.
April
1985.
Standard
EM-7720-102.
Specifications
Construction
of Trails.
1984.
39
for
June
Project
Project
include
Reports
Reorts are detailed engineering
proce ures techniques
systems
analyses
rationale.
circumstances
special
TITLE
Premo MKIII
Ignition
generally
CENTER
NUMBER
DATE
measurement results
and recommendations
conclusions
SOURCE
Aerial
that
reports
of
MEDC
8557
2201
4/85
SDEDC
8522
1201
2/85
SDEDC
8571
1202
7/85
System
Water
Range
Pumping Systems-State-of-the-Art
Review
Underbody
Blade
Study
40
Equip Tips
Equip
are
Tips
brief
of
descriptions
procedures.
new
materials or operating
TITLE
Burton
Brush
SOURCE
techniques
CENTER
NUMBER
DATE
SDEDC
8551
1302
8/8S
Dozer-Mounted
Tree Shaker
for Collecting Cones
MEDC
8524
2301
1/85
Flexible Sign Posts
Signs and Markers
MEDC
8471
2308
11/84
SDEDC
8551
1301
7/85
MEDC
8551
2302
8/8S
MEDC
8471
2309
12/84
SDEDC
8551
1303
7/85
SDEC
8457
1304
11/84
MEDC
8451
2304
11/84
Maxi-Lopping
New
Bundler
equipment
Shears
Briefcase
Plastic
Remote
Design
Traffic
Portable
Barricades
Hose-Rolling
Hook
for Highway
Machine
Systems
for Helicopters
Tent
Flys
41
Other Reports
Special
include
Special and Other Reports
society
papers for technical
and transactions
meetings
descriptive
pamphlets bulletins and
special
purpose articles.
TITLE
SOURCE
CENTER
NUMBER
DATE
SDEDC
ASAE
84-1626
12/84
SDEDC
ASAE
84-1623
12/84
MEDC
8551
2501
4/85
SDEDC
8557
1801
6/85
Improved and New Water
Pumping Windmills
SDEDC
ASAE
8416-25
12/84
Low-Cost
Strainer
SDEDC
ASAE
84-1624
12/84
MEDC
8434
SDEDC
ASAE
84-1627
12/84
SDEDC
8451
1801
11/84
MEDC
8422
2805
11/84
MEDC
8422
2806
11/84
of
Development
Concentrator
a
Small Slash
in
Early Achievements
of a Substitute
Development
Earth Anchoring
System
Fit to
Work
Bucket
Helicopter
List
Availability
Diagonal
and Tank
Fence
Method
for Comparing Cost and
of Aerial
and Productivity
Spray
Delivery
Mountain
A
Climbing
Backhoes
Northern
Region
R-1
Flatbed-Truck-Mounted
Evaluation
Disturbed
38th
Report-Rehabilitation
Annual
11/84
Engine
Reclaiming
Vegetative
Equipment
2807
Lands
Workshop
42
and
The
is a listing of
following
Centers
Equipment Development
some publications
and inadvertently
years Bibliography
PROJECT
REPORTS
produced
excluded
CENTER
NUMBER
by the
from last
TITLE
SOURCE
of Spray Deposit
Analysis
Cards Sensitive
to Nondyed
Mixes
MEDC
8434
2202
2/84
Aviation
SDEDC
8457
1201
2/84
SDEDC
8471
1208
10/84
MEDC
8367
2204
10/83
MEDC
8324
2205
10/83
Evaluation
of
an
Intermittent
Furrow Tree-Planting
Machine
SDEDC
8224
1201
7/82
Evaluation
SDEDC
8123
1202
4/81
Evaluation
of Liquid-Concentrate
Fire Retardant
Blenders
for
Ground Tankers
SDEDC
8151
1208
12/81
Evaluation
Model
200
of
SDEDC
8424
1205
7/84
Evaluation
Slashmaster
Preparation
of
SDEDC
8224
1203
2/83
SDEDC
8424
1206
7/84
Field Equipment for Precommercial
and Slash
Thinning
SDEDC
8424
1204
6/84
Hand Pumps--Evaluation Disinfection of Water and Maintenance
Procedures
SDEDC
8171
1201
5/81
SDEDC
8257
1202
9/82
SDEDC
8123
1204
5/81
SDEDC
8451
1207
10/84
Reflective
MEDC
8372
2206
1/84
Water
SDEDC
8322
1203
10/83
SDEDC
8322
1201
9/83
SDEDC
8457
1203
4/84
Fuels
Control
Quality
Tire Inflation
CTI
Literature
and Market
Central
System
Search
A Poison
Developing
Test Kit for Forest
Workers
Oak/Ivy
Field
Developing
Equipment
Cones in Wildlands
of
to
Compost
Marden
Harvest
Toilets
Planter
Spot
the
Model
in
Pettibone
900 for Site
the
Lake States
Evaluation
of Timberland
Two-Row
Tree Planter
HODAG
Treatment--Update
Lighting Systems
Night Operations
Off-Road
for Helicopter
Vehicle Sound-Level
and Their Enforcement
Regulations
On-Site Chipper
Forest Residues
for Reduction
Outdoor Testing
Sign Materials
of
Preventing
Freezing
Livestock
Rangeland
Fencing
of-the-Art Review
Remote
Hook
Helicopters
of
from
Systems--State-
Systems
for
43
DATE
SDEDC
8457
1202
2/84
Testing Materials that Bond with
Poison Oak/Ivy/Sumac
Urushiol
MEDC
8467
2203
8/84
Machine--How
Tree-Planting
Can You Afford to Pay for
SDEDC
8124
1203
6/81
MEDC
8471
2203
8/84
Vandal-Resistant
Materials for
in Forest Recreation
Use
Areas
SDEDC
8123
1205
12/81
Vandalism
to Forest
Service
and Campground
Signs
MEDC
8471
2201
2/84
SDEDC
8251
1301
1/82
SDEDC
8457
1303
9/84
MEDC
8451
2303
8/84
SDEDC
8057
1304
12/80
SDEDC
8123
1303
11/81
SDEDC
8157
1302
9/81
SDEDC
8271
1302
9/82
MEDC
8471
2301
8/84
SDEDC
8477
1301
4/84
SDEDC
8457
1302
5/84
MEDC
8371
2309
8/83
Fire Handtools
SDEDC
8351
1302
8/83
for Roadside
MEDC
8471
2305
10/84
MEDC
8471
2302
8/84
MEDC
8471
2307
8/84
SDEDC
8123
1301
2/81
SDEDC
8377
1301
7/83
SDEDC
8222
1802
7/82
SDEDC
8071
1502
12/80
Small Target
Systems
Use
of
Identification
Much
One
Synthetic
Geotextiles
on a Road
Fabrics
Construction
Project
EQUIP
Road
Retardant
Mixing
Dry Chemical.
Equipment for Ground Tankers
TIPS
Equipment
cation
of
Wildlife
for Aerial
Identifiand Other
Raptors
Firefighters
Field
Gage for Checking
Ferrules
Hand
Pump
Hand-Held.
Pack
Leadline
Cargo
Shroud
IR
Detector
Hot-Spot
How
to Operate
and Maintain
Septic Tank/Soil-Absorption
Systems
Hydraulic
Post
Modifying
a
Puller
Commercial
Modular
Slingload
Helicopters
New
Sheaths
Reflective
Sign
for
Sheeting
Rake
for
Systems
Surveillance
Traffic
Plastic
Rock
Equipment
Repair
Roll-Up Construction
Barricades
Tamper-Resistant
Toilet
Paper
Signs
and
Hardware
Dispenser
Vehicle Simulator
for Determining
Road Widths and Clearances
SPECIAL
REPORTS
OTHER
Arid
Land
Seeder
Development--A
Prospectus
Catalog
Toilets
of
Low-Volume
Water-Flush
44
Clearwater
Manual
Yarder
Operators
MEDC
8151
2602
5/81
Determination
of Evaporation
Rates of Pesticide
Droplets
MEDC
8434
2801
4/84
of
Containerized
a
Development
Shrub Injection
Planter
for a Backhoe--A
Prospectus
Attach-ment
SDEDC
8222
1805
1/83
of
Disk-Chain
a
Development
Implement for Seedbed Preparation
on Rangeland--A
Prospectus
SDEDC
8222
1803
9/82
of
a Rangeland
Development
Interseeder
for Rocky and
Brushy Terrain
SDEDC
ASAE
80-1552
Field Evaluation
Parachute
MEDC
8257
Fitness Trail--Building Signing
and Using the Trail
MEDC
FS-389
Guide for Traffic
Control
Devices
Roads
on Forest Development
MEDC
8371
2603
11/83
Hand Drilling
for Wilderness
MEDC
8423
2602
8/84
MEDC
8371
2603
7/83
MEDC
8171
2604
8/81
and Quality
Lot Acceptance
Assurance
Procedures
for
Retardant
Long-Term
SDEDC
5100
Manual
MEDC
8471
Manufacturer
Submission
Procedures
for Qualification
of
Testing
Fire Retardant
SDEDC
5100
of Drop
Size Frequency
Measurement
from Nozzles Used for Aerial
of
Pesticides
in
Applications
Forests--Final
Report
MEDC
8434
2804
10/84
MEDC
8367
2502
2/83
SDEDC
ASTM
Paper
11/82
SDEDC
8222
1804
9/82
MEDC
8434
2802
5/84
Review
of Progress
in Technology
of Aerial
of
Application
Pesticides
MEDC
8334
2803
7/83
Aircraft
Smokejumper
Workbook--Bandeirante
Evaluation
MEDC
8257
2810
9/82
Sod
Manual
MEDC
8122
2601
2/81
of
XP-5
and Breaking
Rock
Trail Maintenance
Hydraulic
Rock
Rake
Hydraulic
Manual
Rock
Rake
of
the
Operators
Revegetation
Techniques
Long-Term
Measuring
Your
Fitness
Physical
Tire/Road
Off-Highway
Mechanisms
Healing
Damage
Punch Seeder
for Arid
Semiarid Rangelands--A
and
Review
and
of AGLINE
Code
with FSCBG
8/84
6/82
2601
5/84
4/82
Code
A
Operators
1/82
Prospectus
Compatibility
Requirements
Mover
2801
12/80
45
Standard
Test
General Spark
Static
Analysis
Your
Procedure
Arresters
for
Testing and Dynamic
of Smokejumper
Firepacks
Fire Shelter
37th Annual. Report--Vegetative
and Equipment
Rehabilitation
Workshop
..
46
3/82
SDEDC
5100
MEDC
8257
2812
10/82
MEDC
8451
2503
8/84
MEDC
8322
2804
10/84
NOTES
S310N
rtUs
The Series
Engineering Technical
Information System
THE
ENGINEERING
FIELD
as a means of
NOTES
SERIES
is
published
exchanging engineering-related
ideas and information on activities
problems encountered and
solutions developed
that
or other data
may be of value to
periodically
Engineers Service-wide. Articles are usually less than six pages
and include material that is not appropriate for an Engineering
Technical
for Engineering
Report or suitable
Management
publications
Distribution
Each
FSM
Notes
Field
1630 and 7113.
to the Engineering Staff
Regional Offices
Forests Stations and Area Headquarters
as well as to Forest Service Engineering Retirees. If
your office
is not
the Field Notes ask your Office Manager
receiving
or
Information
Regional
to increase the number
Coordinator
of
edition
is
distributed
at
for your location.
copies
limited
Technical
Submittals
from
quantities
Information
Copies of back issues are available in
the Washington
Office
Engineering
Center.
Every reader is a potential
have a news item or short
wish
share
to
with
submit
author of a Field
Notes
the article for publication.
Field Personnel
material to their Regional Information Coordinator
the Regional
Office to
accurate timely and
news
article.
you
If
description about your work that you
Forest Service
Engineers we invite you to
assure
of interest
inclusion of
should
send
for review
by
information that
is
Service-wide
short articles
and
items are preferred.
Type the manuscript
double-spaced
drawings and black-and-white photographs if
only color photographs
are available send transparencies
or
negatives and two machine copies of the manuscript.
include
Inquiries
original
Information
Regional
publication
publishing
and
direct
Coordinators
questions
schedules etc. to
should
concerning
send
articles
for
format editing
FOREST SERVICE-USDA
Engineering
Attn
D.J.
Staff-Washington
Carroll
M.J. Baggett
P.O. Box
Regional
Assistant
D.C.
20013
Area Code 703-235-8198
HOGAN
R-4
R-5
TED WOOD
LARRY GRUVER
R-9
CLINTON
JOHN FEHR
R-6
HOMER CHAPPELL
WO
R-8
JIM
R-1
JIM
R-2
MIKE
R-3
Editorial
2417-Washington
Telephone
COOrdlnators
Office
Editor
GILPIN
R-10
FRED HINTSALA
RON HAYDEN
AL COLLEY
f0RE5T
5ER\q
u4s
JI
$RTRENTOFAGRICýý
INFORMATION
SYSTEM
Volume 17
November-December
1985
Engineering
Field
Notes