United States

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

Station Misc.

April 2002

Achieving Science-Based

National Forest Management

Decisions While Maintaining

the Capability of the Research

and Development Program

Thomas J. Mills, Richard V. Smythe, and Hilda Diaz-Soltero
Thomas J. Mills is the Director, Pacific Northwest Research Station, P.O. Box 3890,

Portland, OR 97208; Richard V. Smythe is the former Director, Wildlife, Water, Fish

and Air Research Staff, P.O. Box 96090, Washington, DC 20090-6090; and Hilda

Diaz-Soltero was the Associate Chief when this paper was written. She is now the

Director, Pacific Southwest Research Station, P.O. Box 245 Berkeley, CA 94701-0245.

Authors
Mills, Thomas, J.; Smythe, Richard V.; Diaz-Soltero, Hilda. 2002. Achieving 

science-based national forest management decisions while maintaining the 

capability of the research and development program. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 20 p.

Although science information and knowledge are only one consideration in natural

resource decisions, credible science information is increasingly necessary to gain

public support and acceptability. Two issues must be addressed simultaneously.

First, how can the Forest Service ensure that full use of science information is the

norm in all national forest management decisions? Second, how can Forest Service

Research and Development be a major science provider for national forest decisions without damaging the credibility and research capabilities of the research and

development program? A vision for science-based decisionmaking is articulated,

and barriers to achieving that vision are discussed. Vital actions are proposed for

overcoming the barriers and achieving the vision of science-based decisionmaking

while maintaining the capability of the research and development program. These

capabilities include providing adequate funding and staffing for the National Forest

System and Forest Service Research and Development, new approaches for managing scientific staff, and new ways to transfer science information.

Keywords: Scientist role, land management, research organizations.

Abstract
The mission of the USDA, Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and

productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present 

and future generations. A major focus of that mission is management of the

national forests and national grasslands. A less direct but also important role is

assisting in the stewardship of nonfederal forest lands and international forestry

issues. The provision of scientific knowledge through its research and development

program is another aspect of the Forest Service mission. Forest Service Research

and Development provides scientific knowledge that enhances our fundamental

understanding of renewable natural resources and undergirds their sustainable

management on all lands, private as well as public.

This report builds on the suggestions in the two Rensselaerville Roundtables (USDA

Forest Service 1995, 1997) about science-management collaboration. It goes further,

however, in that it identifies the steps necessary to institutionalize collaboration

between agency land managers and research scientists at all levels while still

retaining a vital research and development program that continues to add to 

the body of scientific knowledge related to forests and rangelands.

Foreword

Dale N. Bosworth

Chief

USDA Forest Service
The USDA Forest Service has a proud heritage of professional leadership among

conservation agencies. This heritage is in part because of the agency’s unique combination of program responsibilities. The Forest Service both manages the largest

acreage of public forest lands in the United States (National Forest System) and

also administers the world’s largest forestry research program (Forest Research 

and Development). The research program is an independent organization within 

the agency. This independence maintains an appropriate organizational distance

between the two programs that is necessary for credible research and credible 

science contributions to contentious policy decisions. This unique composition gives

the Forest Service significant opportunities to assist in the evolving public debate

about natural resource management.

For the past two decades, the Forest Service has been embroiled in a public debate

over contentious issues about national forest management. The issues are diverse

and include management of old growth and persistence of the northern spotted owl,

the viability of pacific salmon stocks, and management of fire-dependent ecosystems

and roadless areas. Forest Service Research and Development has increasingly

contributed to the resolution of these contentious issues by providing the science

foundation for the associated resource management decisions.

Although scientific information and knowledge are only one consideration in natural

resource decisions, credible science is increasingly necessary to gain public support

for proposed actions. The importance of a scientific basis for decisions has been

well recognized in other fields. Jasanoff (1990), for example, describes the experience that other agencies have had incorporating science with decisionmaking on

topics such as health care and environmental protection. It has been frequently recognized that science-based national forest decisions should be the norm and that

Forest Service Research and Development can play a role in making those decisions

(e.g., Committee of Scientists 1999; Johnson et al. 1999; Mills et al. 1998; National

Academy of Public Administration 1999; USDA Forest Service 1995, 1997a, 1997b).

Full consideration of the relevant and available scientific information provides understanding of the natural and human systems. A science foundation can help people

with diverse perspectives come together and understand a system in which they are

all interested. Science information improves the ability to estimate consequences

and risks of decision alternatives. Science insights may occasionally lead to new

management alternatives that increase compatibility among people holding diverse

values for the land. Moreover, the full and open consideration of available science

information, especially when brought to the decision process by someone who is

recognized as both expert and objective, adds credibility to the decision and the

decision process.

1 This report was prepared at the request of Robert Lewis, Deputy 

Chief for Research and Development, and Mike Dombeck, Chief, 

USDA Forest Service. This report has benefited materially from 

several reviews, especially the Interregional Ecosystem Management Coordination Group, but the views herein are the sole 

responsibility of the authors.

1

Introduction1
The Forest Service has considerable experience with the interface between science

and management decisions.2 Scientists in universities and in other federal and state

agencies and resource professionals in the National Forest System have played a

role in providing science information for decisionmaking. The primary science

provider for decisions on high-profile and contentious issues, however, has been

research scientists from the research and development program of the Forest Service.

The research and development program has been called on with increasing frequency and insistence on its being the primary provider of the science foundation

for National Forest System decisions. Another potential mechanism for review of 

scientific information would be a science advisory committee. Because of time

constraints required to provide information on contentious issues, however, such 

a committee would not likely function well as the primary provider of science

information to the decision.

Thus, Forest Service Research and Development will likely continue to be a primary

provider of science information for national forest management decisions, and on 

an even greater scale as the demand for science-based decisions increases. This

added responsibility, however, must be successfully dovetailed with the existing

responsibility of conducting research demanded by a broad array of customers.

Forest Service Research and Development is valued for its contribution of science

information relevant to decisions by other landowners, such as state agencies and

private forest landowners. Sacrificing continued research or other research clients

to take on the expanded role in providing science-based information on national

forests issues has unacceptable consequences.

Nonetheless, successful involvement of Forest Service Research and Development

at the science-policy interface provides valuable benefits to research as well as to

National Forest System land management decisions. Forest Service Research and

Development scientists gain insights into the decisionmaking process and the form

of information most helpful to decisionmakers. After such interface, researchers are

better able to formulate questions for study that lead to research that is often more

relevant and readily applied to resource management issues than it was when there

was not this interaction.

Although collaboration exists between individual agency managers and Forest

Service Research and Development scientists to achieve a science-management

interface, it is yet to be broadly institutionalized and is driven by individual initiatives

rather than by typical organizational behavior. Examples of institutionalized collaboration that demonstrate approaches for guiding such efforts are few. A rare example

is the Interagency Research and Monitoring Committee established to assist in the

adaptive management of the Northwest Forest Plan. Similarly, current funding,

staffing, organizational structure, and reward systems are not sufficient to ensure 

2 The agency has experience with many decisions about individual 

species, such as the recovery plan and management of the redcockaded woodpecker (picoides borealis). These issues, particularly the more recent examples, have been broader ecosystem 

and often landscape-scale efforts, such as the interior Columbia 

River basin assessment, the Sierra-Nevada Assessment, Southern 

Appalachian Assessment, the Northwest Forest Plan, and the 

Tongass National Forest Plan (Clark et al. 1998). 

2
an adequate level of science support for policy decisions while simultaneously sustaining a responsible research and development agenda. Past efforts have clearly

demonstrated that the successful interface between science information and decisions on contentious issues is difficult and costly.

Two challenges exist. The first is to adequately provide and fully consider the relevant science in decisions about the management of the national forests and grasslands. This challenge is significant, though achievable if carefully addressed. A

tempting short-run solution, and one that has been used in several contentious decisions in the recent past, is to have the research and development assume the role

of primary science provider for National Forest System decisions.

But therein lies the second challenge. Providing the relevant science for all National

Forest System decisions is a substantial job relative to the size of Forest Service

Research and Development staffing. If Forest Service Research and Development

fills that role, it will pull a substantial number, and perhaps all, of the research and

development scientists away from conducting research studies and instead focus

them on providing science for decisionmaking on national forests and grasslands.

That in turn will reduce the research activities, the very activities through which the

scientists gain their specialized expertise, their scientific credibility, and their scientific

information. Probably in the intermediate term, and certainly in the long term, that

added responsibility would endanger the production of new scientific knowledge 

and the continued credibility of the research and development program unless the

added responsibility is matched with increased funding, staffing, and management

attention.

The Forest Service must enhance and institutionalize the routine consideration of 

the scientific foundation of policy decisions. Although we acknowledge difficulties

and serious challenges, we are confident proactive steps can both improve the 

science basis of national forest decisions and protect the credibility and capability 

of Forest Service Research and Development. But definitive actions are needed 

and soon. 

If the goal of science-based national forest decisions is to be achieved, two issues

must be addressed simultaneously (fig. 1).

3

Issues

Figure 1—Two issues need simultaneous attention.

• What is necessary to ensure science-based national forest management 

decisions are the agency norm? 

• What is needed to protect the capability and credibility of the research and 

development program to advance the body of scientific knowledge and

serve as a credible source of science information for decisionmaking?
The first issue is how can the Forest Service ensure that the full use of science

information is the norm in all national forest management decisions? Decisions

about land management are increasingly contentious and complex. The public controversy about forest management, in particular the management of the multiple-use

public lands, is greater than ever. Social values associated with public lands are

diverse. Federal case law continues to evolve in its interpretations of the statutes

and regulations governing national forest and grassland management. The march of

science progressively expands the body of relevant scientific information. New technologies distribute this information to all interested parties with accelerating speed.

In turn, land managers are nearly overwhelmed as they assimilate all relevant information and public values and document the consideration of these factors in their

decisions.

Although science information does not direct any decisions, it is one set of vital

information to consider before making a decision, especially on large or complex

issues. Full consideration of the best available science is an important foundation of

the legal defense of decisions and adds to the credibility of the decision in the eyes

of the public.

The scope of topics that require increased consideration of science information is

broad. Science should be considered in (1) assessing the trends and conditions of

the resource and associated human systems, (2) making individual land management decisions, and (3) designing and implementing of adaptive management and

monitoring systems.

The second issue is how can the Forest Service engage its research and development program as a major provider of the science foundation for national forest decisions without damaging the credibility and research capabilities of this program?

Neither research scientists in Forest Service Research and Development nor professional staff3 in the National Forest System are now able to meet the challenges

of the science-based decisionmaking issue. 

The research and development program of the Forest Service provides considerable

scientific information that enhances the understanding of both natural and human

systems. That increased scientific understanding not only provides the basis for 

the evaluation of management alternatives but it affects the way the public and decisionmakers view the options. The research and development program provides information that is used to predict the consequences and risks of management alternatives

and can potentially provide information for developing management options that

can increase the compatibility among the different values that people hold for land.

Within its current mission, the research and development program strives to provide

the best science on key issues that address critical needs beyond specific national

forest concerns and are inclusive of issues relevant to other agencies and other lands.

3 The “professional staff” refers to professionals in the National

Forest System organization at the national, regional, and forest

level, such as the range, wildlife, fisheries, recreation, and 

forest management staffs. It also refers to staff in the State and

Private Forestry organization at similar levels that focus on 

national forest management as well as the management of 

state and private forest land; e.g., Forest Health Protection 

and Aviation and Fire Management.

4
The solution to this second issue is not simply to shift among different priorities

within the research and development program. The scale of the national forest

decisionmaking job is enormous in relation to the size of the research and development program. A simple reallocation of program priorities would sacrifice the ongoing research program. The research and development program includes about 550

scientists nationwide, down from over 1,000 scientists two decades ago. And although

the number of scientists is down, the value of the scientific information and the complexity of knowledge gained is quickly expanding. The current research and developments program would cease to be viable if it were responsible for providing all

or even most of the science information for National Forest System management

decisions. By contrast, there is considerably more professional staff with graduate

degrees in the National Forest System than there is in Forest Service Research

and Development. As of October 1999, about two-thirds (1,900) of the total Forest

Service staff with graduate degrees is in the National Forest System. Most of those

staff should be capable of synthesizing and utilizing the available science information relevant to a decision.

The current level of involvement of research and development with management

decisions is already seriously undercutting the ability of Forest Service Research

and Development to maintain its research program. For example, the interior

Columbia basin scientific assessment, evaluation of management alternative consequences, and science consistency evaluation; the science assessments and science

consistency evaluation for the Tongass National Forest plan revision; and the science

assessments and evaluation of management alternative consequences for the

Northwest Forest Plan alone absorbed a substantial portion of time of the 80 permanent full-time research scientists of the Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest Research

Station. Other assists to decisionmaking, such as to the development of Oregon’s

Forest Practices regulations, absorbed yet additional time of research and development scientists. Other large science efforts, especially when directly associated with

decisions on contentious issues, absorb similarly large shares of the capabilities of

the research and development program in other parts of the Nation.

These contentious decisionmaking efforts usually demand the involvement of the

best and most mature of the already limited total number of scientists. The scientists

involved are often engaged full-time for years providing science for a difficult decision. Sometimes the lead scientists of the efforts become so entangled in providing

science to protracted decision processes that they never return to their research

assignment.

Without increases in funding and staffing, the current substantial contribution of

research and development to the scientific foundation for major management and

policy decisions is unsustainable. Current involvement in decisionmaking is already

“mining” the research accomplishments of the past without continuing to build the

scientific discoveries on which the next generation of resource management decisions will be based, decisions not only about the management of the national forests

but also of other lands. Three unacceptable consequences would quickly ensue.

5
The first consequence would be that other clients of research and development would

no longer receive important research results. State resource agencies, private landowners, elected officials, and policymakers, for example, would all cease to receive

research products that they have found valuable and on which they depend. Examples

include Forest Service research on tree improvement genetics, silvicultural systems,

dynamics and management of insect and diseases, fire management, fish and

wildlife habitat, and forest ecology. Some have already suggested that Forest

Service Research and Development has deviated too far from its core mission 

and from providing research results to those other clients.4

The second consequence would be the erosion of the credibility of Forest Service

Research and Development as a science provider. The ability of the research program and development to successfully provide the science for national forest decisions rests on the demonstrated ability of its research scientist to produce scientific

results within an arena of open and rigorous peer review and critique. It also rests

on their personal, professional credibility. The credibility of science information and

the credibility of the science information provider derive their association with the

broader scientific community, not from involvement in decision processes.

Scientific credibility has become key for acceptance of science information in 

decisions about the management of public lands. If Forest Service Research and

Development no longer retained a vital program of independent research, its ability

to credibly contribute the science foundation for decisions would erode. That in turn

would erode the attributes that make the research and development program successful and desirable as a provider of science to national forest management

decisions. Indeed, the research program was made separate from the forest management branch of the Forest Service decades ago for the purpose of ensuring 

the independence necessary for the credibility of agency research.

The third consequence would be a reduction in the credibility of the professional

staff of the National Forest System. Focusing on the research and development

scientists alone would imply that the National Forest System professional staff is

neither capable of being nor credible to be a primary science information provider.

The credibility and capability of the National Forest System professional staff to be

science providers to the decision should be increased, not eroded.

If not handled appropriately, the long-term research capability, integrity, credibility,

independence, and productivity of research and development will be sacrificed for

the short-term enhancement of national forest management decisions (Mills et al.

1998). The intended outcome, that Forest Service Research and Development 

provide credible science for the science-based national forest decisions, would 

in turn be unsustainable.

4 U.S. Senate. [2000]. Department of the Interior and 

Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2001. Washington, 

DC.

6
The two issues—achieving science-based national forest decisions and protecting

the capabilities of the research and development program—are interlinked. Their

solutions are mutually dependent. Solving one without solving the other will not 

provide a lasting solution. A simultaneous solution can improve the science foundation while protecting the credibility and capability of the research and development

program.

Although the desirability of “science-based” decisions is recognized (e.g., Committee

of Scientists 1999), clarity is lacking on what that means. Our vision of the prerequisites for science-based decisionmaking for the National Forest System focuses on

understanding and appreciating what science can and cannot offer, fulfillment of the

proper roles for the different participants, and evaluation of how science information

is used in a decision. The following describes this vision realized (fig. 2).

Decisionmakers and the public appreciate the contributions of science to

decisions about the management of the national forests and grasslands.

Understanding and applying relevant science helps land managers and publics

evaluate the status of and risks to ecosystems, identify sustainable land management goals, evaluate the effects of proposed activities, and reconcile competing

values. The scientific community applies their detailed knowledge of scientific

7

A Vision for 

Science-Based

Decisionmaking

Figure 2—The vision of science-based decisionmaking.

• Decisionmakers and the public fully appreciate the contributions of science 

to decisions about land management.

• Forest Service Research and Development research scientists and National

Forest System professional staffs provide the science information needed

for the decision.

• Policy-relevant science information is readily available and is presented in a

manner that facilitates easy use. 

• The available science information is fully used and considered by the 

decisionmaker.

• The consistency of major land management decisions with the available 

science information is evaluated.

• Science information is recognized as important but only as one of the

pieces of information considered in a decision.
methods and concepts to help managers and the public identify the appropriate

temporal and spatial scales for addressing issues, determine whether all relevant

information is being considered, evaluate whether that information is being interpreted

in a manner consistent with current scientific understanding, understand the limits of

our ability to predict the future, and ensure that the uncertainty of our knowledge 

is recognized. Broad acceptance of credible scientific information contributes to

increased public consensus about the management of the national forests and

grasslands.

Forest Service Research and Development research scientists and National

Forest System professional staffs provide the science information needed 

for the decision. Forest Service Research and Development scientists and

National Forest System professional staffs work to synthesize and apply science

information to decisionmaking. University scientists and scientists in other federal

and state agencies continue to be an important source of science information 

relevant to Forest Service decisions, but Forest Service personnel coordinate 

development and application of that science information.

Policy-relevant science information is readily available and is presented in 

a manner that facilitates easy use. The science information is synthesized into

policy-relevant packages (e.g., Clark et al. 1998; FEMAT 1993; Iverson et al. 1996;

Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Science Team and Special Consultants 1996;

Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Cooperative 1996a, 1996b, 1996c,

1996d, 1996e; Swanston 1997, University of California 1996a, 1996b, 1996c) and

presented in a way that is readily understandable by all interested parties (e.g., Julin

and Shaw 1999, Quigley and Bigler-Cole 1997, Swanston et al. 1996). Science

assessments are one example of synthesis of understanding about a particular

system and its associated issues. Assessments also include estimates of the likely

consequences of possible management options. They identify areas of risk and

estimate risk levels in achieving the policy goals (e.g., Quigley and Arbelbide 1997,

Quigley et al. 1996). This science information is subjected to the same standards 

of scientific quality assurance; i.e., independent peer review of written documents,

as any other science findings (Mills et al. 1998).

The science information is documented and is readily accessible to all interested

parties. Science findings summaries, briefings, and packages of science information

in decision support systems provide meaningful access to knowledge. The science

information is presented in a manner that is not only easily assimilated, but also

hard to ignore.

The available science information is fully used and considered by the decisionmaker in making natural resource management decisions. The National

Forest System professional staff and the decisionmaker are aware of the relevant

science information. They understand the relations presented in the science documents. Decisionmakers and professional staff use that knowledge and understanding

8
to design management options and estimate the consequences of these options.

The decisionmaker reveals the consequences of the final decision, and those consequences are consistent with the relations revealed in the science information.

The consistency of major land management decisions with the available 

science information is evaluated and documented. The decisionmaker ensures

that the decision is consistent with science. The decisionmaker accomplishes this 

by evaluating whether the information and rationale underlying the final decision are

consistent with available science information. The evaluation determines whether

the available scientific information was considered as the decision was being made

and whether the revealed consequences, including risk, of the final decision are

consistent with available scientific information (e.g., Everest et al. 1997).5 This

includes all scientific subjects, social and economic as well as physical and biological. The final science consistency document is developed iteratively as the decision

evolves to provide the decisionmaker with draft consistency information before

reaching a final decision.

Such an evaluation demonstrates a commitment by the decisionmakers to fully 

consider science information in reaching a decision and a commitment to revealing

the projected consequences of the decision. It also demonstrates a commitment by

scientists to avoid advocating any particular solution as if only one solution could be

the outcome of the scientific information or that only one solution were consistent

with the full and complete consideration of the science information about system

function and consequences and risks of different decision alternatives. Like any other

science document, the science consistency evaluation is subjected to scientific peer

review. A formal and documented science consistency evaluation is not needed for

all decisions but will be done for any decision that poses high risk to ecological,

economic, or social sustainability.

Science information is recognized as important but only as one of the pieces

of information considered in a decision. Other factors considered are clearly

revealed. Science information is just that, “information.” It alone does not direct 

an answer. Any decision will require integration of many considerations of which

science information is only one. Those other factors that lead to a decision are fully

revealed so that the logic trail from all the information to the final decision is clear.

This value-based balancing of all information relevant to making a decision is the

stuff of decisionmaking. Therefore, scientists do not advocate a particular solution 

to the policy or management issue (Mills and Clark 2001).

5 Quigley, T. et al. [1998]. Evaluation of the use of scientific 

information in decision-making for the Interior Columbia Basin 

Ecosystem Management project. Manuscript in preparation. 

On file with: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850.

9
Many barriers must be considered if the vision for science-based decisionmaking is

to be achieved and the capabilities of the research and development program are to

be protected (fig. 3).

The research and policymaking processes and cultures are significantly 

different and sometimes even seemingly unintelligible to each other. The role

of the decisionmaker is to make the normative choice among the options and to seek

common ground and agreement. The decisionmaker makes what are inherently value

choices among divergent tradeoffs and seeks consensus (USDA Forest Service

1995). The research culture, on the other hand, demands sound scientific methods,

independence, and repeatability and embraces debate among competing ideas.

These cultural differences are substantial, especially in how information is treated

and the priority placed on agreement. Once recognized, however, the productive

tension of these differences can be harnessed to generate a synergy that is not

available from either cultural perspective alone.

10

Barriers to 

Science-Based

Decisionmaking

Figure 3—Barriers to science-based decisionmaking.

• The research and policymaking processes and cultures are significantly 

different.

• If the research and development program is too closely associated with final

decisions, that association could undercut scientific credibility.

• Researchers sometimes inappropriately advocate policy positions in the

decisionmaking process.

• National Forest System professional staffs sometimes inappropriately 

advocate positions during the decision process.

• Not all research and development scientists have the expertise or 

incentives to provide the science information for decisionmaking.

• Not all National Forest System professional staff has the expertise or 

incentives to synthesize the available scientific information and apply it to

decisionmaking.

• There are too few mechanisms and personnel to accomplish the timely

transfer of new scientific knowledge for decisionmaking.

• Forest Service decisionmakers do not always use the full breadth of the 

scientific information available.
If the research and development program is too closely associated with final

decisions, that association could undercut the credibility that was the foundation of scientific independence. Forest Service Research and Development

involvement is valued because it brings expertise and knowledge to complex issues.

Moreover, it brings credibility and legitimacy to the deliberations. That credibility is 

in part the product of the organizational independence of the research and development program. If Forest Service Research and Development scientists are too

closely involved in or associated with controversial policy or management decisions,

the credibility of the program will be undercut and eventually lost. The credibility loss

can be avoided if the input of scientists into the decisionmaking process carefully

protects their independence and objectivity.

Researchers sometimes inappropriately advocate policy positions when they

become immersed in the decisionmaking process. Choices among options

inevitably require the weighing of different values and tradeoffs. Although a researcher

usually has personal opinions about which tradeoff is the “best,” the personal values

that drive that opinion are not “science.” Damage to the credibility of the researcher,

and to the research institution, is certain and swift if the researcher advocates valueladen policy positions. A variant on this theme is that the decisionmaker asks the

researcher to advocate a policy position because the decisionmaker wants the

credibility that the mantle of research brings (USDA Forest Service 1997a). This

potential problem can be avoided if researchers are provided and follow clear guidelines about their roles (Mills and Clark 2001, Mills et al. 1998).

National Forest System professional staffs sometimes inappropriately advocate

positions during the decision process. The professional staff should ensure the

appropriate consideration and use of science information in the decision process

and the decision. Sometimes, the professional staff advocates policy positions

based on their individual personal values or their disciplinary perspective rather than

synthesizing and applying the full body of scientific information so that the decisionmaker can be better informed. Just as when research scientists do this, it is to the

detriment of their credibility as an independent source of sound scientific information.

This potential problem can be avoided if National Forest System professional staff 

are provided and follow clear guidelines about their roles.

Not all research and development scientists have the expertise or incentives

to effectively provide the science information for contentious decisionmaking

issues. Few research scientists have the skills and temperament to work effectively

at this interface. Being a capable researcher is not enough. Because work at the

science-policy interface is not and should not be the only role of research and

development, not all researchers need to have these skills, but too few have them

now. This barrier will be overcome once researchers have developed the skills to

understand and work effectively at the interface with decisionmakers and are 

consistently rewarded for those efforts.

11
Not all National Forest System professional staff have the expertise or incentives to effectively synthesize the available scientific information and apply it

to decisionmaking. Too few National Forest System professional staff keep current

with scientific advances to be able to synthesize the relevant science for decisionmaking. As the advance of research knowledge outpaces the ability of the professional staff to stay up-to-date, this gulf widens. A common solution is to have the

research scientist fill the void left by an inadequate professional staff. Although a

successful short-term strategy, in the long run this will undermine the credibility of

the professional staff and diminish the capability of the research and development

program to develop new scientific knowledge through research. The result will be

disastrous to the ability of the agency to bring science into decisionmaking on a 

sustainable basis. This barrier can be overcome once professional staffs have

been given the time and provided the necessary skills and appropriate rewards 

to accomplish the syntheses of science information.

Too few mechanisms and appropriately trained personnel exist to accomplish

the timely transfer of new scientific knowledge to professional staff and decisionmakers. The current mechanisms for technology transfer are inadequate.

Resource managers complain about the inadequacies of the research and development program’s technology transfer. Research and development scientists, in turn,

complain about the failure of resource managers and their professional staffs to

assimilate and consider the latest research results in their decisions. Close collaboration among research and development scientists, professional staff, and line officers is effective at transferring new science information to those particular staff and

line officers, but dispersion of the new knowledge beyond those few is spotty. The

agency needs to develop and appropriately reward a cadre of specialists who can

effectively span the boundary between research results and management application and can communicate with both research scientists and resource managers.

Forest Service decisionmakers do not always use the full breadth of the 

scientific information available. Proper use of the science information requires 

full revelation of all consequences and risks of alternatives and decisions. It also

requires a consideration of all scientific information, not just selected portions,

before a decision is made. Those steps require more disclosure than is sometimes

included in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents. The increased

disclosure could lead to increased public scrutiny and debate at various points in 

the decision process. This debate and openness are essential to achieving a science

-based decision and maintaining the credibility of the science. Especially given the

increasing complexity of the decision issues and the attendant science information,

some decisionmakers do not have the capability or inclination to fully and completely

consider the science information. The Forest Service will overcome this barrier once

the decisionmakers are afforded the opportunity and exhibit the commitment to

develop the skills and understanding necessary to fully consider all relevant scientific

information.

12
13

Figure 4—Proposed solutions.

1. Increase funding in order to expand the Forest Service’s capability to 

generate the science foundation for decisions:

a. Increase the scientific capability of the Forest Service Research and 

Development program.

b. Increase the capability of National Forest System professional staff to 

effectively utilize available science information.

c. Determine how the costs of providing science information should be

shared between the National Forest System and Research and

Development.

2. Establish clear role expectations and expand the mechanisms to transfer

and assimilate scientific knowledge:

a. Clarify what science information will be provided for each decision.

b. Clarify who is responsible for developing the necessary science 

information.

c. Clarify how Research and Development scientists will provide science 

information to the decisionmaking process.

d. Clarify how National Forest System professional staff will develop and

use scientific information.

e. Clarify how Research and Development administrators will contribute to

ensuring that science information is effectively brought to the National

Forest System decisionmaking process.

f. Clarify how Forest Service decisionmakers will use scientific information

in their decisions.

g. Conduct formal evaluations of the consistency of major decisions with 

available science.

h. Improve the management of the research development scientists while

they are involved in major decision issues.

i. Develop mechanisms to promote the effective transmission of new 

science information so as to expand the science capability of the

National Forest System professional staff.
Two groups of actions are necessary to address the dual issues of how to ensure

that science-based decisions are the norm for national forest management and how

to simultaneously protect the ability of the research and development scientists to

conduct a research program that generates new scientific information and retains

scientific credibility. The first and most important action is to provide the funding to

expand the capability of Forest Service Research and Development and the National

Forest System professional staff commensurate with the expanded magnitude and

complexity of the job of making science-based decisionmaking the norm. The next

is to clarify performance expectations and more proactively manage available staff

and scientific information.

Partial solutions will not be successful at addressing these two issues. Instead, a

complete set of actions must be taken. Although the proposed solutions are listed

separately below, they are interrelated and mutually supportive (fig. 4).

a. Increase Forest Service Research and Development capability. Add a funding

increment to the Forest Service Research and Development program commensurate with the cost of fulfilling this greatly expanded mission of contributing 

science information at the policy and management interface. Although it has not 

yet been determined what increase in funding would be necessary, it is clear that

the increase would need to be significant if Research and Development is to be

materially involved in all major national forest management decisions (especially

if that includes involvement in all national forest plan revisions).6 This funding

increase should be provided in a timely manner and focused exclusively on

building the capacity to effectively provide science information to the decision

process. Just as in past efforts, universities would play an important role, with

Forest Service Research and Development assuming a major responsibility in

most situations.

b. Increase the capability of National Forest System professional staff to

effectively use available science information. Add a National Forest System

funding increment to upgrade professional staff capability to permit full use of

available scientific information in the decision process. This funding increase

should be focused exclusively on building the capacity to effectively accept,

assemble, and use science information in decisionmaking. Just as with the

increase for the Research and Development program, these funds would be used

to bring the science information to bear through the help of others, especially

university scientists.

6 Background information that helps explain the size of the 

needed research program funding increase are estimates of 

the forest planning costs that range from $250 million annually 

by the Government Accounting Office (1997) to as much as 

40 percent of the National Forest System appropriation by the 

National Association of Public Administrators. The future costs 

of the science contributions are likely to be higher than in the 

past, especially for the science component of assessments 

and decisionmaking, given the emphasis placed on increased 

consideration of science in the National Forest Management 

Act planning rule.

14

Proposed 

Solutions 

Increase Funding 

to Expand the Forest

Service’s Capability of

Generating a Science

Foundation for

Decisions
c. Determine how the costs of providing the science information should be

shared between the National Forest System and Research and Development.

Because the primary purpose for developing science information for national

forest management decisions is to improve those decisions, most of the cost

for generating that information should be paid with National Forest System funds.

On the other hand, some of the efforts to generate science information also will

provide research benefits to the Research and Development program objectives.

Guidelines that clarify the appropriate share of funding are needed to remove

funding as a point of tension between the programs.

c. Clarify what science information will be provided for each decision. For

each decision, clarify what science products are needed. Options include assistance with the clarification of issues and problem framing, a synthesis of already

available scientific information, development of new information, identification of

management options, the estimation of the consequences and risks of specific

management alternatives, and an evaluation of whether the decision is consistent with available science information.

d. Clarify who is responsible for developing the necessary science 

information. Clarify whether research and development scientists or National

Forest System professional staff are responsible for providing all or parts of the

science information. Although either might be the lead, scientific input would

most likely be sought from other sources as well, especially from universities.

Lead responsibility should be determined by available expertise and the relative

importance of the independence achieved through organizational distance from

the decisionmaker; i.e., the more that independence from the decision is needed,

the more likely that Research and Development should take the lead rather than

professional staff.

e. Clarify how research and development scientists will provide science 

information to the decisionmaking process. Clearly define the roles for

research scientists when they play a part in bringing the science information 

to the decision process, including how to avoid inappropriate advocacy of any 

particular solution or position. Increase the cadre of Research and Development

scientists who have the requisite capabilities to fill the science role in decisionmaking by assigning them to the science role of decisionmaking efforts under 

the supervision of an experienced science provider.

f. Clarify how National Forest System professional staff will develop and use

scientific information. Professional staff are expected to present the full context

and substance of relevant scientific information, unbiased by the pressures of the

decisionmaking process. Whenever they take the lead in developing and presenting the science information for a decision, they should provide that science

role fully. For example, they should present the consequences and risks of management alternatives through rigorous use of the scientific information, and they 

7 Guidelines for the use of science information and the 

behavior expected from the various players have already 

been enumerated, especially in USDA Forest Service 1995 

and 1997. The behavior expectations listed here are deemed 

to be the most vital to success.

15

Establish Clear 

Role Expectations 

and Expand the

Mechanisms to

Transfer and 

Assimilate Scientific

Knowledge7
should refrain from advocacy that could detract from their objectivity and credibility. Increase the cadre of professional staffs who are capable of filling the

science role in decisionmaking by assigning individual National Forest System

professional staff as boundary spanners under Research and Development

leadership in ongoing efforts to provide science information to particular decisions.

g. Clarify how Research and Development administrators will contribute to

ensuring that science information is effectively brought to the National

Forest System decisionmaking process. Administrators should emphasize 

the priority of contributing science information to the decision process and reward

those individuals who successfully accomplish this task. The role, if any, that

Research and Development administrators should play should be clarified even

when Research and Development scientists are not involved and others, such as

National Forest System professional staff, are primarily responsible for providing

the science information for a decision.

h. Clarify how Forest Service decisionmakers will use scientific information 

in their decisions. Decisionmakers must openly and fully use all the scientific

information that is presented to them. They must demonstrate through their decision and decision rationale that the science information was an important foundation of their decisions.

i. Conduct formal evaluations of the consistency of major decisions with

available science. Evaluate whether major national forest management decisions

are consistent with available scientific information. Research and Development

scientists should lead the evaluation on the most contentious decisions because

of their greater organizational distance from the decisions, and National Forest

System professional staff should lead the evaluation on decisions with a lower

level of controversy. Subject the consistency evaluations to scientific peer review,

just as is done for other important science documents, regardless of who develops

it. A formal and documented science consistency evaluation is not needed on

all decisions but should be done for any decision that poses a high risk to

ecological, economic, or social sustainability.

j. Improve the management of the Research and Development scientists

while they are involved in major decision issues. Research and Development

administrators must provide improved training to help scientists work more effectively at the science and policy interface and improve the reward system to

recognize effective contributions. At the beginning of long-term assignments, the

charter for the work should clearly describe the expectations for the roles of the

research scientists, especially the products they are expected to provide and

how they will interface with the decision process. There also should be clear

employee-manager agreements covering the transition of the scientists from 

their research assignment to their science and policy assignment, and their

return to research (USDA Forest Service 1998).

16
k. Develop mechanisms to promote the effective transmission of new science

information so as to expand the science capability of the National Forest

System professional staff. The following organizational changes would contribute

to a more rapid and complete transmission and assimilation of new scientific

information:

• Further develop continuing education training programs that provide professional staff the latest scientific information and give them the tools to effectively

use that information in their work in all programs.

• Increase technical certification for professional staff with required periodic

renewal to ensure that they have up-to-date scientific skills.

• Establish expert planning teams to assist decisionmakers and professional

staff in bringing science information to bear in particularly difficult land management decision processes; e.g., in evaluating risk and species viability, somewhat like an internal extension service.

• Establish temporary national teams to further develop science syntheses and

science-based tools on selected topics, (e.g., watershed analysis techniques)

and transfer those improved techniques to National Forest System professional

staff for use in the decision process.

• Use decision-support systems technology to package science information so it

is most useful and accessible to professional staff and decisionmakers.

Several actions must be taken promptly to ensure that National Forest System 

decisions are appropriately informed by science without jeopardizing the capability of

Forest Service Research and Development. The resulting benefits cannot be realized

if the Research and Development program is focused solely on assembling science

information for National Forest System decisions. In addition, current staffing and

funding are insufficient to address the significant job the Forest Service is facing.

Other actions are needed if the Forest Service is to achieve the vision of accomplishing science-based decisions about land management on the national forests.

Those actions include providing adequate funding and staffing for the National

Forest System and for Forest Service Research and Development. They include

new ways to manage the scientific staff, and new mechanisms to transfer science

information and its consideration in decisionmaking. The proposed actions are 

vital for the Forest Service to improve the science basis of national forest management decisions and simultaneously protect the capability and credibility of the

research and development program.

17

Conclusion
Clark, R.C.; Meidinger, E.E.; Miller, G. [and others]. 1998. Integrating science 

and policy in natural resource management: lessons and opportunities from

North America. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-441. Portland, OR: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 22 p.

Committee of Scientists. 1999. Sustaining the people’s lands: recommendations 

for stewardship of the national forests and grasslands into the next century.

[Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 193 p.

Everest, R.H.; Swanston, D.N.; Shaw, C.G., III [and others]. 1997. Evaluation 

of the use of scientific information in developing the 1997 forest plan for the

Tongass National Forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-415. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

69 p. (Shaw, C.G. III, tech. coord.; Conservation and resource assessments for

the Tongass land management plan revision).

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team [FEMAT]. 1993. Forest 

ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior

[and others]. [Irregular pagination].

Government Accounting Office. 1997. Forest Service decision-making: a framework for improving performance. Rep. B-276170. [Washington, DC]. 146 p.

Inverson, G.C.; Hayward, G.D.; Titus, K. [and others]. 1996. Conservation 

assessment for the northern goshawk in southeast Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-387. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 101 p. (Shaw, C.G. III, tech. coord.; Conservation

and resource assessments for the Tongass land management plan revision).

Jasanoff, S. 1990. The fifth branch: science advisors as policymakers. Cambridge, 

MA: Harvard University Press. 320 p.

Johnson, K.N.; Swanson, F.; Herring, M.; Greene, S. 1999. Bioregional assessments: science at the crossroads of management and policy. Washington, DC:

Island Press: 398 p.

Julin, K.R.; Shaw, C.G., III. 1999. Science matters: information for managing 

the Tongass National Forest. Misc. Publ. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 28 p.

Mills, T.J.; Clark, R.N. 2001. Roles of research scientists in natural resource 

decision-making. Forest Ecology and Management. 153(1-3): 189-198.

Mills, T.J.; Everest, F.H.; Janik, P.; Pendleton, B. [and others]. 1998. Science 

management collaboration: lessons learned from the revision of the Tongass

National Forest plan. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 13(3): 90-96.

National Academy of Public Administration. 1999. Restoring managerial accountability to the United States Forest Service. [Washington, DC]. 61 p.

18

Literature Cited
Quigley, T.M.; Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem 

components in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and 

Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 4 vol.(Quigley,

T.M., tech. ed.; The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project:

scientific assessment).

Quigley, T.M.; Bigler-Cole, H. 1997. Highlighted scientific findings of the Interior 

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR404. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management. 34 p.

Quigley, T.M.; Haynes, R.W.; Graham, R.T., tech. eds. 1996. Integrated scientific 

assessment for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-382. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station. 303 p. (Quigley, T.M., tech. ed.; The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Project: scientific assessment).

Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Science Team and Special Consultants 

[SNEP]. 1996. Status of the Sierra Nevada: assessment summaries and 

management strategies. Wildl. Resour. Cntr. Rep. 36. Davis, CA: University of

California, Davis, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. 209 p. Vol. 1.

Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Cooperative. 1996a. The southern Appalachian assessment: summary report. Tech. Publ. R8-TP 25. [Atlanta,

GA]: [U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region]. 117 p.

Rep. 1 of 5.

Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Cooperative. 1996b. The southern Appalachian assessment: aquatic technical report. Tech. Publ. R8-TP 26.

[Atlanta, GA]: [U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region].

166 p. Rep. 2 of 5.

Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Cooperative. 1996c. The southern Appalachian assessment: atmospheric technical report. Tech. Publ. R8-TP 27.

[Atlanta, GA]: [U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region].

83 p. Rep. 3 of 5.

Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Cooperative. 1996d. The southern Appalachian assessment: social/cultural/economic technical report. Tech.

Publ. R8-TP 28. [Atlanta, GA]: [U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southern Region]. 220 p. Rep. 4 of 5.

Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Cooperative. 1996e. The southern Appalachian assessment: terrestrial technical report. Tech. Publ. R8-TP 29.

[Atlanta, GA]: [U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region].

288 p. Rep. 5 of 5.

19
Swanston, D.N. 1997. Controlling stability characteristics of steep terrain with 

discussion of needed standardization for mass movement hazard indexing: a

resource assessment. In: Julin, K.R., comp. Assessments of wildlife viability, 

old-growth timber volume estimates, forested wetlands, and slope stability. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-392. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 44-58. (Shaw, C.G., III, 

tech. coord.; Conservation and resource assessments for the Tongass land 

management plan revision).

Swanston, D.N.; Shaw, C.G., III; Smith, W.P. [and others]. 1996. Scientific information and the Tongass land management plan: key findings derived from the

scientific literature, species assessments, resource analyses, workshops, and

risk assessment panels. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-386. 30 p. (Shaw, C.G., III,

tech. coord.; Conservation and resource assessments for the Tongass land 

management plan revision).

University of California, Davis. 1996a. Status of the Sierra Nevada: assessments 

and scientific basis for management options. Wildl. Resour. Cntr. Rep. 37. Davis,

CA: Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. 1528 p. Vol. 2.

University of California, Davis. 1996b. Status of the Sierra Nevada: assessments,

commissioned reports, and background information. Wildl. Resour. Cntr. Rep. 38.

Davis, CA: Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. 1101 p. Vol. 3.

University of California, Davis. 1996c. Status of the Sierra Nevada: summary of 

the Sierra Nevada ecosystem project report. Wildl. Resour. Cntr. Rep. 39. Davis,

CA: Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. 22 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995. Navigating into the future: 

Rensselaerville roundtable—integrating science and policymaking.

Rensselaerville, NY. 16 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1997a. Final report of the 

California Spotted Owl Federal Advisory Committee. [Place of publication

unknown]. 50 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1997b. Integrating science and 

decision-making: guidelines for collaboration among managers and research 

and development in the Forest Service. FS-608. Washington, DC. 11 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1998. Reno scientists’ workshop 

recommendations. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2000. 36 Code of Federal 

Regulations 217 and 219: National Forest System land and resource management planning; final rule. Federal Register. 65(218): 67514-67581.

20
This page has been left blank intentionally.

Document continues on next page.
This page has been left blank intentionally.

Document continues on next page.
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle

of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of

wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation

with the States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests

and National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly

greater service to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability,

political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases

apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should

contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room

326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC

20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity

provider and employer.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail desmith@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300