_ United States

Agriculture

g)

_o,ost Service Forest Service: Are We

_o_h Forest Experi.ment Heading in the Flight

Station

General Technical Di rectio_¢_?

Report NC-172

Paul Mohai, Phyllis Stillman, Pamela Jakes, and Chris Liggett

///

CON'I'ENTS

Page

t. Introduction .................................................................................................. 1

Background ........................................................................................... 1

Obj ectives .............................................................................................. 2

2. Study Design and Sample .......................................................................... 4

3. Employee Views About Forest Service Policy Directions and the Need

for Change ............................. ,..................................................................... 6

Employee Views of RPA Issues .............................................................. 6

Seriousness of issue ........................................................................ 6

Commitment to addressing an issue ................................................ 6

Changes in policy ............................................................................ 7

Need for further action .................................................................... 7

Employee Views of the Agency's Multiple Use Objectives ........................ 7

Changes in emphasis ...................................................................... 7

Importance of multiple use objectives .............................................. 8

Employee Views of Below-Cost Timber Sales and Clearcutting ............... 9

Identifying Changes Within the Agency in General ................................. 9

Summary .............................................................................................. 9

4. Employee Recommendations for Further Actions and Needed Change ...... 10

Recommendations for Further Actions on Specific Issues .................... 10

Threatened and endangered species .............................................. 10

Condition of National Forest rangelands ........................................ 10

Old-growth forests ......................................................................... 10

Below-cost timber sales ................................................................. 1 1

Clearcutting .................................................................................. 1 1

Recommendations for Needed Changes in the Agency .......................... 1 1

Challenges Facing the Forest Service ................................................... 1 1

5. Employee Views About Other Important Issues ........................................ 13

The Forest Service's Multiple Use Mission ........................................... 13

Other RPA Role Statements ................................................................. 14

Public Involvement, Interest Groups, External Pressures ..................... 14

Face-to-Face Negotiations ................................................................... 15

Does Management Provide Enough Direction? ..................................... 15

6. The Environmental Attitudes of Forest Service Employees ........................ 16

Views of Environmentalists ................................................................. 16

The Modified New Environmental Paradigm Scale ................................ 17

Subgroup Comparisons ....................................................................... 18

Summary ............................................................................................ 19
CONTENTS cont.

Page

7. Workforce Diversification in the Forest Service .......................................... 20

The Extent of Workforce Diversification in the Forest Service ............... 20

Differences in Views Among Subgroups in the Agency ......................... 21

Differences based on hierarchical position ..................................... 21

Differences in views by gender ....................................................... 22

Differences in views by race ............................................................ 22

Differences in views by discipline ................................................... 22

Differences in views by years of service .......................................... 23

Summary ............................................................................................ 23

References ...................................................................................................... 24

Tables ............................................................................................................. 26

Figures ............................................................................................................ 61

Appendix ...................................................................................................... 110

I llll 
Paul Mohai, Phyllis Stillman, Pamela Jakes, and Chris Liggett

Chapter 1 Background

INTRODUCTION Several observers (see, for example, Kennedy

1988, and Tipple and Wellman 199 I) have noted

More than 1,800 USDA Forest Service employ- the changing social and political environment in

ees were surveyed to obtain views about the which the Forest Service has found itself since

Agency's mission and programs directly from the the environmental movement began gathering

people most involved and most responsible for momentum in the 1960's and 1970's. During

implementing them. This survey was conducted these 2 decades, public concern about the enviby the University of Michigan's School of Natural ronment resulted in the passage of significant

Resources and Environment. Much of the moti- new laws that have had important impacts on

vation for this study comes from our interest in how the Agency manages the National Forests.

understanding how the Agency is responding to These lawswsuch as the Wilderness Act of 1964,

rapidly changing social, economic, and political the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of

demands. Change in the Forest Service has 1969, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and

recently been the subject of much discussion and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of

debate in professional and academic circles. 1976,--have broadened and complicated the

Thus, we were interested in finding out whether tasks of the Forest Service (Tipple and Wellman

employees believe that the Agency is headed in 1991). They have also increased public involvethe right direction to deal with important con- ment in and scrutiny of Agency activities and

temporary issues. We also wanted to obtain decisions. The new mandates and unprecemployees' views about the extent of changes edented public scrutiny are pressuring the Forest

happening in the Agency and the need for further Service to place greater emphasis on non-comchange. We were especially interested in em- modity resources and values such as recreation,

ployee recommendations about what the Forest fish and wildlife, and water, and less emphasis

Service needs to do to enhance its programs and on commodity values such as timber. Frequent

improve its position, use of the courts by environmentalists and

increasing Congressional oversight have further

increased scrutiny of and pressure on the

Agency.

Paul Mohai, Associate Professor and Project In addition to external pressures for change,

Director, and Phyllis Stillman, Research Associ- observers have argued that internal pressures for

ate, School of Natural Resources and Environ- change have been building as a result of the

ment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. increasing professional and demographic diversity in the Agency since the 1970's and 1980's

Pamela Jakes, Project Leader, North Central (Kennedy 1988, McCarthy et al. 1991, Brown and

Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, Harris 1993). Kennedy (1988), for example, has

St. Paul, MN. argued that interdisciplinary teams required by

NEPA in assessing the environmental conseChris Liggett, Policy Analyst, Policy Analysis quences of major Forest Service decisions have

Staff, USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. resulted in the Agency's employment of a greater
variety of professionals such as wildlife biolo- organization that is unresponsive to external

gists, recreation planners, and economists, influences and is resistant to innovation and

These non-traditional (i.e., non-forestry trained) change. Twight and Lyden argue that few

professionals bring with them new perspectives changes have occurred in these processes since

that eventually influence the thinking of their the time of Kaufman's writing. The Forest Sermore traditionally trained Forest Service col- vice adheres tightly to a traditional value orientaleagues. Affirmative action and the increasing tion that stresses commodity development, and it

number of women being hired and promoted into is likely to continue to do so given its present

line positions may also be potential sources for promotion and reward system.

increased diversity of ideas in the Agency (Brown

and Harris 1993). Twight and Lyden's study demonstrated a high

degree of uniformity among Forest Service DisSeveral recent surveys have attempted to trict Rangers. They also showed that District

measure change in the Forest Service by assess- Rangers' responses to value items were more

ing the extent of value and attitude changes similar to those of commodity users of the Naexhibited by Agency personnel. These include tional Forests than to those of environmentalists.

Kennedy et al.'s 1989-1990 study (Kennedy et al. Although their survey took place in 1981, when

1992), Brown and Harris's 1990 survey (Brown change may have only just been beginning,

and Harris 1992a,b; 1993), and Sabatier et al.'s Twight and Lyden have argued that the Agency's

1989 study (McCarthy et al. 1991). All these promotion and reward system and traditional

researchers have inferred change in employee socialization mechanisms make it unlikely to

values by comparing responses to items in their shift to a more non-commodity focus any time

questionnaires to those of earlier studies, most soon.

notably Twight and Lyden's 1981 survey of

District Rangers (Twight and Lyden 1988, 1989). Kennedy et al. found that "loyalty" is perceived

Some of the replicated items included Twight and by employees to be the most rewarded value in

Lyden's questions to assess employee views on a the Forest Service, thus appearing to support

series of policy issues and alternatives contained Twight and Lyden's contention. Furthermore,

in the 1980 Strategic Plan, e.g., indicating how even though Kennedy et al. and Brown and

much they favor "increased production of wood Harris found employees to individually place a

from National Forest System lands" and "use of greater emphasis on non-commodity uses of the

herbicides on brush in National Forest manage- National Forests than revealed by Twight and

ment." Other replicated items asked employees Lyden's earlier study, they neve_heless found

how much they agreed or disagreed with con- employees to rank the Agency's priorities as

trasting values such as "emphasizing environ- persistently high on commodity values. This

mental protection versus emphasizing economic suggests that regardless of employees' personal

growth" and "emphasizing preserving nature feelings, institutionally the Agency may have

versus emphasizing using nature to produce changed little from the time of Twight and

goods." All the authors of these studies have Lyden's study.

argued that Forest Service employees are less

commodity oriented and more non-commodity Objectives

oriented than previously, based on comparisons

with Twight and Lyden's results and others. In light of the rapidly changing social and

political demands on the Forest Service and

Opinions about the extent of changes in the current discussions of change and need for

Forest Service are by no means unanimous, change in the Agency, we attempted to assess

however. Twight and Lyden (1988, 1989) have how the Agency is responding to the pressures.

argued that any apparent changes are relatively As indicated above, studies of the Forest Service

insignificant because the Agency retains many of to date have inferred change by comparing values

the identity building and socialization processes and attitudes of Forest Service employees with

that Herbert Kaufman described in his 1960 those of earlier studies. However, no prior study

work, The Forest Ranger {see also Twight 1983, queried employees directly about their percepfor a discussion of these processes). These tions of changes going on in the Agency. This

processes, they argue, result in a relatively closed study did so.
ployee perceptions of change was our attempt to tile survey. Chapter 2 describes our survey

find out whether employees believe that change methodology and sampling design, and it gives 

in the Agency and its policies are in the right brief demographic profile of Forest Service emdirection. If so, has the Agency gone far enough? ployees. Chapter 3 provides information about

Is it where it should be? Does it have further to employees' views on the issues facing the Fores

go? If the Agency is not headed in the right Service in the 1990's and their views on the

direction, in what direction should it be headed? Agency's policy directions to deal with these

And what specific recommendations do Forest issues. Do employees believe present policies

Service employees have for getting there? represent changes in policy over the past 10

years? Do they think these changes are for th

To find the answers to these questions, we better or worse? Has the Agency gone far enou

focused on the issue responses and role state- to address these issues? Chapter 4 reports wh

ments of the 1990, rather than 1980, Resource further actions employees recommend, both o

Planning Act (RPA) Strategic Plan (USDA Forest specific policies and on changes needed in the

Service 1990). The 1990 Plan defines the Forest Agency generally. Chapter 5 describes employe

Service's mission, roles, and program direction views on some specific issues such as the Fore

for a 5-year period, and addresses the most Service's multiple use mission, public involvesalient issues facing the Agency today, such as ment, and Agency leadership. Chapter 6 asthe below-cost timber sale issue, the old-growth sesses the environmental attitudes of Forest

controversy, biodiversity, and global climate Service employees. Chapter 7 reports on the

change. We believe that it is not possible to extent of workforce diversification in the Agenc

assess change in the Agency without considering and the effect of diversification on Agency attithe reality of change in the issues confronting it. tudes and perceptions. The Appendix contains 

Using the statements contained in the 1990 RPA, copy of the survey questionnaire.

we designed a series of questions to determine

employee perceptions of Forest Service programs

and activities. In addition, we asked background

questions to obtain information useful in stratifying the respondents. This information was used

to assess the extent of diversification in the

Agency and its possible effect on employees'

views.
selected %r an interview than line employees d

STUDY DESIGN AND SAMPLE Upper staff (staff employees with General Sched

ule (GS) ratings of 12 and above) had a 4.8

We designed the sample to provide a statisti- percent probability of being selected %r an

cally valid portrayal of views across various interview. Middle staff (staff" employees with G

strata of the Forest Service. The strata we were ratings between 7 and 11) had a 3.0 percent

interested in included functional position (line probability of being selected_ Lower staff (staff

officer, professional staff, support staff, etc.) and employees with GS ratings of 6 and below) had 

2.0 percent probability of being selected. Be- discipline [range conservationists, wildlife managers, foresters, etc.). Information was also cause our sample was stratified, employee recollected on background variables such as age, sponses were appropriately weighted in all the

race, gender, educational level, and years of subsequent analyses.

experience. Groups were compared on the basis

of these variables. We subcontracted with the Sampling Section 

the Survey Research Center of the Institute fo

Social Research at the University of Michigan 

To produce statistically reliable results, we

interviewed 1,809 Forest Service employees. We draw the sample. The sample was drawn using

used probability sampling techniques to select information contained in the Forest Service

individuals. The sample drawn was roughly half Workforce Data Base provided by the Office of

line officers (n=865) and half staff employees Personnel Management. Telephone interviewing

(n=944). Because we wanted to obtain reliable and data coding and entry were performed by

information about various subgroups of employ- Information Transfer Systems of Ann Arbor,

ees, these subgroups were oversampled in the Michigan. These two survey organizations wer

study. Subgroups failing into this category selected not only to provide their expertise, but

included upper line employees, upper staff also to help ensure confidentiality. We used

employees, minorities, and women, telephone interviews because of the advantages

they provide, including opportunities for clarify

The breakdown of our sample by functional ing questions and prompting respondents for

position is shown in table 1. A comparable answers. Telephone interviews also provide a

breakdown of the entire Forest Service popula- more controlled setting for conducting the surv

tion of 34,830 employees is also provided. The as compared to mail surveys, thus reducing

category "upper line" includes the Chief, Associ- error. Response rates are also typically much

ate Chief, and Deputy Chiefs. At the research higher, reducing potential bias. The response

stations, upper line includes Station Directors, rate for this survey was an unprecedented 94.5

Deputy Station Directors, and Assistant Station percent. Interviews took place between January

Directors. We included Regional Foresters, and May 1992. Employees spent an average o

_i 45 minutes completing the interview.

Deputy Regional Foresters, and Forest Supervisors in the upper line category, as well as the

! Area Director and Deputy Director for Northeast- Table 2 provides some background information

i about line and staff employees in the Forest

ern Area State and Private Forestry. We at-

,_ tempted to interview all these employees (i.e., Service, including educational attainment,

with a 100 percent probability of selection). We average years of service, age, and other demodefined the "lower line" category to include graphic variables. It also gives some information

Deputy Forest Supervisors, District Rangers, and based on self-reports, about how familiar line

_ and staff are with the 1990 RPA Strategic Plan 

i Project Leaders. We attempted to interview all

women and all minority employees in the lower well as how much input employees have in for

line category (100 percent probability of selec- planning. On average, line officers have been

i tion). White males in the lower line position also employed by the Agency 5 years longer than s

had a very high chance of being selected (92.2 employees and are somewhat older. The educa

percent), tional attainment of both line and staff is quite

i_ 4
grees. Many line and staff employees also hold

advanced degrees, .As might be expected, a much

larger proportion of line officers than staff employees indicate they are at least "somewhat" or

"very" familiar with the RPA Strategic Plan.

Likewise, a much greater proportion of line

officers than staff indicate they have either

"some" or "a great deal" of input in forest planning.

Despite recent gains made by women and

minorities in the Forest Service, table 2 shows

that women and minorities are still significantly

underrepresented in the Agency, especially in the

line category.
ppy

Agency should take further action on 

EMPLO_FEE VIEWS ABOUT FOREST SERVICE and if so, what that action should be.

POLICY DI[RECTIONS AND THE NEED

FOR CHANGE Seriousness ojr issue

In this chapter, we provide information ob- During this part of the interview, em

tained from Forest Service employees about their were asked questions worded as follow

views of important issues facing the Agency and threatened, endangered, and sensitive 

the policies addressing those issues. Do employ- an example (however, exact wording fo

ees believe current policies differ from past questions asked can be fbund in the A

policies and are the changes in the right direction? Moreover, do employees feel that the The Forest Service has indicated 

Agency has further to go to get to where it should commitment to recovering and protecting threatened, endanbe? gered, and sensitive species. I

We examined not only employee views about general, how serious a problem 

change in Forest Service policies and the desir- you personally think the loss o

ability of future change, but also their views on threatened, endangered, and

the Agency's multiple use mission and the need sensitive species is? Is it a very

for change in direction there. We also asked serious problem, somewhat ser

employees about change in the Forest Service in ous, only a little serious, or not 

general, problem at all? 1

In all the following, results for line and staff The vast majority of both line and st

employees have been presented separately and ees rated all 11 issues as "very serious" 

what serious" (fig. 1). However, employ

compared, perceive the condition of National Fore

Employee Views of RPA Issues lands, clearcutting, threats to wildernes

and below-cost timber sales as less se

We reviewed the 1990 RPA Program and identi- other issues. Although the responses 

fled 11 issues that we believe represent the similar for all employees, staff were m

Forest Service's present and future challenges: than line to rate an issue as "very serio

of the 11 issues, the differences betwee

staff were statistically significant (alph

1. Loss of biological diversity better).

2. Impacts on riparian areas

3. Maintenance of water quality Commitment to addressing an issue

4. Global climate change

5. Threats to wilderness areas

6. Meeting of recreational needs Next, employees were asked about t

7. Loss of threatened, endangered, and Service's commitment to the policy ou

sensitive species the 1990 RPA. Questions were worded 

8. Condition of National Forest rangelands lows:

9. Loss of old-growth forests How committed do you think t

10. Below-cost timber sales Forest Service is to recovering 

11. Clearcutting

i protecting threatened, endanInterviewers asked a series of questions about gered, and sensitive species?

each issue to obtain employees' perceptions of (1) Would you say very committed,

the seriousness of the issue, (2) the commitment somewhat committed, only a l

of the Forest Service to addressing the issue, and committed, or not at all commit

ted?

(3) change in the policy over the past 10 years.

1In the case of recreation, we asked respo

indicate how much emphasis should be place

the recreationalneeds of the public: much m

somewhat more than now, somewhat less tha

6 much less than now. SeeAppendix for exact 
Employees see the Forest Service as most If employees answered "yes," they were also

committed to protecting wilderness areas; recov- asked:

ering and protecting threatened, endangered, and

sensitive species; and managing riparian areas What further actions should the

better {fig. 2). In general, a respondent who Forest Service be taking regarding

indicated that a problem is "very serious" was threatened and endangered speless likely than others to indicate the Agency is cies?

"very committed" to addressing it. Line officers

were more likely than staff to indicate that the We asked about only 5 of the i 1 issues here 

Forest Service is very committed to addressing an lilnit the time required for the interview.

issue. Differences were statistically significant

for 8 of the 11 issues. More than half of all employees (about 50

percent of the staff and 60 percent of the line) 

Changea in ]policy that further actions are needed oil these issues

{fig. 5). So, although we saw earlier that the va

To find out if employees perceive an evolution majority of employees feet that the Forest Servic

or change in Forest Service policy in recent years, is headed in the right direction in addressing

we asked them, for each issue, a question these issues, employees nevertheless feel that 

worded as follows: Agency is not yet where it silould be. Respondents' specific recommendations about further

Is the stated Forest Service policy actions the Forest Service should take on these

on threatened, endangered, and issues are given in the next chapter.

sensitive species different from the

policies over the past 10 years? Employee Views of i:he Agency's

Multiple Use Objectives

The vast majority of both line and staff felt that

current policies to address these issues differ Changes in emphasis

from the policies of the past 10 years. For seven

of the issues, more than 60 percent of both line To get another view of changes occurring with

and staff felt that current policies are better (figs. the Forest Service, we asked employees to con3 and 4). Very few employees indicated that the sider the Agency's multiple use objectives, and

policies did not change over the past 10 years, the extent of change over the past 10 years in t

Agency's emphasis on a particular use. For this

Need for further action part of the survey, we identified seven multiple

use objectives: timber, grazing, recreation,

Although the above results indicate that era- wildlife and fish, water, minerals, and wilderness.

ployees believe the Forest Service is headed in Questions were worded as follows (using wildlife

the right direction on policies to address impor- and fish as the example):

tant issues, we also wanted to determine whether

employees think that the Agency has gone far Over the past 10 years, has emenough. For 5 of the Forest Service's most phasis on wildlife and fish incritical issues (threatened and endangered creased a great deal, increased

species, old-growth, National Forest rangelands, somewhat, stayed about the same,

clearcutting, and below-cost timber sales), we decreased somewhat, or decreased

asked employees whether they felt that further a great deal?

actions should be taken, and if so, what those

actions should be. Questions were worded as In general, employees believe that the Agency's

follows (again with the example issue of threat- emphasis on non-commodity uses of the National

ened and endangered species): Forests has increased in recent years, while

emphasis on commodity uses has decreased or

Do you think there are any further stayed about the same {figs. 6 and 7). Almost a

actions the Forest Service should line officers and close to 90 percent of all staff

be taking regarding threatened employees felt that the Forest Service has inand endangered species? creased emphasis on wildlife and fish, Similarly,

ii!iiii I

II
more than 90 percent of the line and 80 percent Now please think of these objecof the staff felt the Agency has increased empha- tives again, including: timber,

sis on recreation. A large majority of employees grazing, recreation, wildlife and

also indicated that emphasis on wilderness and fish, and water. This time I will

water has increased. At the same time, a major- ask about how important you

ity of all employees said that emphasis on com- think each use is to the Forest

modity uses (timber, grazing, and minerals) has Service. First, which of timber,

decreased or stayed about the same. grazing, recreation, wildlife and

fish, and water is the most impori Importance of multiple use objectives tant to the Forest Service?

Do employees feel that these changes in em- During the survey, some employees made 

phasis mean that the Forest Service is headed in point that the Agency's multiple use philoso

the right direction? We followed the emphasis means that all uses are important and that 

questions by asking employees to rank, in order would therefore be impossible for them to 

of importance, five traditional multiple uses of one use as the "most important." We did 

the National Forests (timber, grazing, recreation, explicitly offer employees the option of answ

wildlife and fish, and water). First, we asked "all are most important" or "all are equally 

employees to focus on what they as individuals tant," but we did record if employees volunt

feel should be the most important uses of the this as a response. A future study might 

National Forests, then how important they feel itly include such an option and determine 

the uses are to the Agency. The list of multiple different pattern of responses is yielded. N

use objectives was shortened because of the theless, by comparing employees' perception

difficulty in ranking more than five items over the what should be most important with their 

telephone. We first asked employees the follow- ceptions of what is most important to the 

ing: we can make statements about the need f

further change.

I will ask you some questions to

help you rank these 5 uses ac- More than 70 percent of all employees fe

cording to how important you as a non-commodity use (wildlife and fish, re

an individual think each of these ation, and water) should be the most impor

uses of the National Forests use of the National Forests (figs. 8 and 9). 

should be. Of timber, grazing, contrast, only 14 percent of the line and 2

recreation, wildlife and fish, and percent of the staff thought timber should 

water, which of these 5 uses is the most important use, and far fewer yet chos

most important to you personally? grazing. The remaining 10 percent of line 

ployees and 4 percent of staff employees v

We next asked employees to choose the least teered either "all are most important" or a 

important of the remaining four uses; then the know."

most important of the remaining three uses; and

finally the least important of the remaining two Contrasting sharply with employees' view

uses. Using this approach allowed us to produce what should be the most important uses 

an employee ranking of the five multiple uses their views of what are the most important 

from most important to least important, to the Forest Service. The vast majority of 

employees (more than 60 percent of line a

We then followed the same process, asking more than 70 percent of staff) felt that tim

employees to rank the five traditional multiple the most important use to the Agency. So

uses in order of importance to the Forest Service. although the vast majority of employees fe

Specifically, we asked: the Forest Service has increased its emphas

8
the non-commodity uses of tile National Forests In our analysis, we coded up to five responses

over the past 10 years, they personally feel that per question, although most employees volunnon-commodity uses should be even more impor- teered only one or two.

tant to the Agency. This would suggest that the

Forest Service has further to go in achieving what As can be seen in table 3, the most frequently

Agency employees consider an ideal balance in mentioned positive changes were increased

emphasis, responsiveness to the public (40 percent of line

and 29 percent of staff) and increased emphasis

Employee Views of Below-Cost Timber Sales on non-commodity uses of the National Forests

and Cleareutting (30 percent of line and 31 percent of staff). These

responses indicate that, in these areas, a signifiTwo management practices have received a cant proportion of employees feel that the Agency

great deal of attention within the Agency and in is headed in the right direction. Obviously, these

the public arena--below-cost timber sales and responses do not tell us whether employees feel

clearcutting. Although the Forest Service has that the Agency has gone far enough. However,

modified policies and accounting practices to we did ask employees, "What do you think is the

address both issues, employees feel that tile single most important change that still needs to

Agency has further to go. We should note that be made?" Responses to this question are given

this survey was conducted before former Forest in the next chapter.

Service Chief Dale Robertson issued a directive in

June 1992 about clearcutting on the National The most frequently mentioned negative change

Forests. This timing provides an opportunity to was the increasing political pressure on the

use these findings as a baseline, against which Agency (offered by 24 percent of the line and 15

changes in response to the Chiefs directions can percent of the staff) (table 4). Changes related to

be measured, the loss of direction/mission, poor leadership,

and the Agency's over responsiveness to political

The vast majority of employees indicated that pressure were also mentioned by a significant

below-cost timber sales are justified in some percentage of employees. Many of the negative

cases (fig. 10). However, more than half felt that changes mentioned affect employees in day-tothere are too many below-cost timber sales on day operations--affirmative action; poor work

the National Forests. Likewise, the vast majority conditions, low morale, and stress; and insuffiof employees felt that clearcutting is an accept- cient funding. However, some of the important

able management practice (fig. 11), but the vast negative changes listed in table 4 may be beyond

majority also felt that there is too much the Agency's control.

clearcutting on the National Forests.

Summary

Identifying Changes Within the Agency

in General To summarize, we found that the vast majority of

Forest Service employees, both line and staff, feel

Their responses to two open-ended questions that the Agency's policies have changed over the

further demonstrate that employees feel the past 10 years. The vast majority see the Agency

Agency is headed in the right direction, but has headed in the right direction. However, they also

further to go to get where it should be. First, we feel that the Forest Service still has further to go.

asked employees: In the next chapter, we examine employee recommendations for what the Forest Service needs to

Briefly, what do you think have do to get where it should be.

been the most important positive

changes in the Forest Service over

the past 10 years?

We followed this question by asking:

Briefly, what do you think have

been the most important negative

changes in the Forest Service over

the past 10 years? 9
Chapter 4 Threatened and endangered species

Table 5 lists the most frequently mentioned EMPLOYEE RECOMMENDATIONS

further actions employees believe the Forest

FOR FURTHER ACTIONS

Service should take about threatened and endan- AND NEEDED CHAI_GE

gered species. As before, we coded up to five

recommendations, although most respondents

In the previous chapter, we reported that the

vast majority of both line and staff employees feel gave fewer.

that, despite positive changes in the past l0

years, the Forest Service has further to go. In As can be seen in table 5, many of the proposthis chapter, we examine employees' specific als involved calls for greater effort at intbrmation

recommendations for what they believe the gathering and research pertaining to threatened

Agency should do to get where it should be. and endangered species. Many employees also feel that the Forest Service should take a more

First, we look at their recommendations for holistic/ecosystem approach in protecting threatfurther actions on some specific RPA policy ened and endangered species, rather than focus

issues. We next look at general changes employ- on single species management. Many also feel

ees believe that the Forest Service needs to make. that the Agency needs to increase its commitFinally, we report what employees see as impor- ment and become more aggressive in protecting

tant challenges facing the Agency today. Our threatened and endangered species.

belief is that employees' views of these challenges

provide useful insights about future directions Condition of National Forest rangelands

the Agency might take. The most frequently mentioned proposal by

both line and staff about this issue was to reduce

In all the following, information was obtained

from open-ended questions to allow employees or to eliminate entirely grazing in the National

maximum freedom in expressing their views. We Forests (table 6). Also, many employees recomrecorded all responses verbatim and then coded mended that grazing policies be implemented

up to five distinct comments, opinions, or ideas faster, stronger guidelines be provided, and enforcement strengthened. Many also believe

for analysis, that funding for improving rangeland conditions

R should be increased, riparian areas should be ecommendations for Further Actions on

better protected, and grazing fees should be

Specific Issues increased.

As indicated in the previous chapter, for 5 of I 1

issues we asked respondents not only whether Old-growth forests

1990 RPA policies represent changes in policies

of the past and whether the changes have been As with the issue of threatened and endangered

for the better, but also whether respondents species, the most frequently mentioned proposals

think further actions are needed. We found that call for greater efforts to collect information and

more than half of Forest Service employees conduct more research (table 7). A significant

believe further actions are needed on all five number of employees, particularly line, indicated

issues. And of those who indicated "yes," we that old growth needs to be better defined. Aside

asked about specific further actions. The five from these calls for better information and more

issues for which we asked this question include research, a significant number of employees also

(1) threatened and endangered species, (2) the feel that the Forest Service needs to increase its

condition of National Forest rangelands, (3) old- commitment to protecting old-growth forests,

growth forests, (4) below-cost timber sales, and including developing an overall management plan

(5) clearcutting, for old growth and identifying and setting aside

areas for protection.

I0
mentioned proposals by line were to educate the The two most frequent responses to this quespublic and Congress on the benefits of and need tion are similar to the two most frequently menfor below-cost timber sales, and to better docu- tioned positive changes in the past 10 years: (1)

ment benefits {table 8). Developing a better shifting emphasis from commodity to nonaccounting system of costs and apportioning commodity uses of the National Forests and (2)

costs better among various multiple use pro- increasing public involvement efforts and ingrams were also frequently mentioned by line. creasing the Agency's responsiveness to public

Staff, on the other hand, were far less likely to needs. These results verify that many line and

propose these actions. Instead they are signifi- staff employees believe that these are important

cantly more likely than line to propose reducing directions for the Agency to be headed, and that

or eliminating below-cost sales, although we despite the gains of the last 10 years, the Agency

found a significant number of line officers pro- has further to go. The particularly large percentposing this as well. age of line and staff employees who feel that

increasing emphasis on non-commodity uses of

Clearcutttng the National Forests is important also verifies our

findings that although the vast majority of emOn this issue employees appear to be equally ployees believe the Agency has increased emphadivided on proposals that support or reject sis on non-commodity uses in the past 10 years,

clearcutting. The most frequently mentioned its priorities on such uses are still not in line

proposals by both line and staff were to educate with what employees believe they should be.

the public and Congress on the benefits of and Also, noteworthy in table 10 is the large number

need for clearcutting, on the one hand, and to of line and staff who indicated that the Agency

reduce or ban clearcutting on the other (table 9). should continue to increase emphasis on enviAlso, although a significant number of employees ronmental concerns and ecological balance.

proposed conducting more research on and

adopting the use of alternative methods, almost Increasing political pressure on the Forest

equal numbers of employees proposed conduct- Service and the Agency becoming overly responing more research on the acceptability of and sive to political pressure were seen by many

retaining the use of clearcutting. However, as employees as among some of the most important

with the below-cost timber sale issue, some negative changes to occur in the last 10 years

disagreements between line and staff exist. (see table 4). Perhaps not surprisingly, standing

Although educating the public and Congress on up to political pressure and managing for the

the benefits of clearcutting was the most fre- best needs of the forest despite politics were also

quently mentioned proposal by line (32 percent of among the most frequently mentioned actions

the line who indicated further actions are employees propose the Agency take. Altogether,

needed), reducing or banning clearcutting was table 10 contains a rather diverse array of prothe most frequently mentioned proposal by staff posals from line and staff employees about other

(29 percent), important changes that need to be made.

Recommendations for Needed Changes Challenges Facing the Forest Service

in the Agency

We asked employees "What do you think is the

As we discussed in the previous chapter, Forest single greatest challenge facing the Forest Service

Service employees identified several important today?" In many respects this question is a

positive and negative changes in the Agency over variation of the question about important

the past 10 years. Clearly, the positive changes changes the Agency needs to make. However, it

identified indicate the course the Agency should was intended to focus on employees' views of the

maintain in the future, while the negative circumstances within which the Forest Service

changes identified indicate problem areas for the finds itself today, rather than on their views of

Agency to work on. Nevertheless, we wanted to what the Agency should do about those circumfind out more directly from employees about stances. Nevertheless, in analyzing the reimportant changes that still need to be made. sponses, we found many similar ideas and

Thus, we followed the questions pertaining to themes repeated.

positive and negative changes in the past 10

years with the question "What do you think is the

single most important change that still needs to

be made?" Table 10 provides the results. 11
As can be seen in table 11, responding to

public wants was the most frequently mentioned

challenge and is very much in line with employee

views that the Forest Service should continue to

increase its public involvement efforts and its

responsiveness to the public. Also familiar are

employees' mentions of increasing ecological and

environmental sensitivity and balancing commodity and non-commodity uses of the National

Forests. However, this time employees also

mentioned regaining public trust and dealing

with conflicting demands from various groups,

including interest groups, Congress, and the

general public as among the greatest challenges

facing the Agency. Table 11 provides a rather

extensive and diverse list of challenges Forest

Service employees :identify as facing the Agency

today.

12
Chapter 5 of those who said "yes," we further asked:

ENIPLOYEE VIEWS ABOUT OTHER On the whole, how does the

IMPORTANT ISSUES proposed policy compare to the

policies over the past 10 years? Is

it much better, somewhat better,

In the previous chapters, we examined employee views about a number of important RPA somewhat worse, or much worse?

issues and about the Forest Service's policy on

We found that the vast majority of employees those issues. In this chapter, we examine employee views about some other important mat- believe that the stated multiple use policy repreters, including the Agency's multiple use and sents change and that this change has been for

other missions; public involvement, interest the better (69 percent of the line and 66 percent

groups, and other external pressures facing the of the staff; see Appendix for more details on how

Forest Service; the use of face-to-face negotia- employees responded). We also found that the

tions in making planning decisions; and the vast majority believe the Forest Service is likely

amount of direction employees receive from to follow through on this policy.

Agency management. When we asked employees how committed they

The Forest Serviee's Multiple Use Mission believe the Agency is to protecting the environment as it carries out its multiple use objectives,

Earlier we saw that although the vast majority we found virtually all feel the Forest Service is

of employees believe that the Agency has shifted either very committed or somewhat committed.

its emphasis from commodity to non-commodity Striking percentages of line employees (more

than 60 percent) and staff employees (more than uses of the National Forests in the last 10 years,

50 percent) believe that the Agency is very they also feel that the Agency's emphasis on

timber and other commodity uses is still greater committed.

than they think it should be. In this section, we

provide further information about employee views Table 12 provides additional views of the Forest

of the Forest Service's multiple use mission. Service's multiple use mission. Several of these deal with tradeoffs between economic and enviAs with the 11 RPA issues examined in Chapter ronmental concerns as the Agency pursues its

3, we asked employees whether the Agency's multiple use objectives. As can be seen, a signifistated multiple use policy represents change in cant proportion of line and staff believe that local

economic concerns play too large a role in mul- policies over the past 10 years, and, if so,

whether it is for the better or worse. Specifically, tiple use management decisions. Furthermore,

we asked: the vast majority disagree that managing National Forest lands for local employment is more

The Forest Service has indicated important than managing for environmental

that its multiple use policy for the quality. Nevertheless, the vast majority also

fllture will be to enhance recre- disagree that preservation should be favored over

ation, wildlife, fisheries, soil, and multiple use development.

water resource programs. Timber

harvesting and livestock grazing When asked whether the Forest Service will be

will be maintained at their current able to achieve its future multiple use objectives

levels, while access for minerals without harming the environment, a majority

development will be increased indicated that they believed it could. However,

where that can be accomplished in many also said that to reduce multiple use

an environmentally acceptable conflicts, the Agency should consider shifting to

single or dual uses in some areas. We also found

manner, that most line and staff disagree that timber

Is the proposed policy on multiple harvesting is usually the best way to enhance

other multiple uses. use different from the policies over

the past 10 years?

13
Other RPA Role Statements whether public preferences should prevait when

they conflict with the judgment of resource

We asked Forest Service employees how they professionals. A clear majority of the staff disview other Forest Service role statements con- agreed that the public's preferences should

tained in the 1990 RPA Plan, although the prevail. Furthermore, when parts of the public

number and range of questions we asked were were identified as "interest groups," the majority

not as extensive as for the multiple use mission, of both line and staff felt the demands of such

Table 13 includes three proposals and opinions groups are usually not consistent with sound

related to these role statements. We wanted to resource management. A majority of line and

know whether employees agree with the direction staff also feel that forest plan objectives are more

that the proposals suggest and whether they important than Congressional intent for targets.

believe resource capabilities of the National

Forests can be maintained in the future. When employees were asked how much influence they think the public and various external

As can be seen, the vast majority of employees groups have on Forest SePcice policy, we found a

feel that the Agency should increase emphasis on similar split in views about the role of the public,

International Forestry programs. There is a in general, versus the role of specific groups. As

considerable amount of agreement between line can be seen in table 15, the vast majority of

and staff here. Although the majority of employ- employees feel that the public has too little

ees also agree that the Forest Service should influence on Forest Service policy. However,

place greater emphasis on modifying the man- when specific external groups were identified,

agement of National Forest areas to complement most line and staff felt they have too much

management activities on adjacent lands, line influence. For example, the vast majority of line

employees were somewhat less likely than staff to and staff feel that environmental groups have too

"strongly" agree. A significant proportion of line much influence. The vast majority of line and

and staff disagree with this proposal. Finally, staff feel that commodity groups, such as timber,

sustaining the future resource capabilities of the grazing, and mining, also have too much influNational Forests is also one of the Forest Service ence, and the proportion of line employees who

roles stated in the 1990 RPA Plan. We asked feel this way is especially large. Line employees

employees whether they thought it would be were equally divided about whether the President

difficult to sustain resource capabilities for and top level Administration officials have too

future generations under current levels of use. much influence on Forest Service policy or just

Line employees were fairly evenly split in their about the right amount. A little more than half

opinion, but a slight majority expressed the view of staff employees believe the President and top

that it would indeed be difficult. In contrast, officials have too much influence. However, a

nearly two-thirds of the staff thought so. sizable majority of both line and staff feel that

key members of Congress have too much influPublic Involvement, Interest Groups, ence. In comparison, the majority of employees,

External Pressures both line and staff, feel that line officers have

about the right amount of influence on Forest

As we saw earlier, many employees expressed Service policy. Although the margins are slightly

favorable views about public involvement. A smaller, most employees think that staff have

significant number feel an increase in the use of about the right amount of influence as well.

public involvement has been one of the most

important positive changes to occur in the In summation, results for these questions

Agency in the past 10 years and that this effort indicate that line and staff support giving the

should continue in the future, public more say in Forest Service policymaking.

However, their responses also reflect caution

Table 14 provides additional information about about having this go too far in terms of overrulemployees' views on public involvement. As can ing the judgments of resource professionals.

be seen, the vast majority believe that the ,agency This cautious feeling appears to extend to the

is responsive to public needs in determining President and Congress as well. Also a majority

multiple use objectives and priorities. However, of employees feel that identifiable interest

line employees were split in their opinion about groups, such as commodity and environmental

14
groups, have too much influence on Forest Does Management Provide Enough Direction?

Service policy while the general public does not

have enough_ Earlier, we found that employees believe loss of

direction and deterioration of leadership to be

Face-to-Face Negotiations among some of the most important negative

changes to occur in the Forest Service in the last

In large numbers, Forest Service employees 10 years. Among their recommendations for

expressed approval of using face-to-face negotia- future changes were a significant number inditions with interest groups to build consensus cating that the Agency needs better leaders, a

and help make planning decisions. Specifically, clearer vision and focus, and renewed credibility

employees were asked: with the public.

In a number of locations, the Relevant to the issues associated with Agency

Forest Service, as part of its leadership are those pertaining to the internal

planning process, has facilitated direction that Forest Service employees feel they

face-to-face negotiation among receive. Table 17 shows responses to three

interest groups so that planning questions that focused on the issue of whether

decisions could be made by con- employees believe they receive enough direction

sensus, on the job. The vast majority of both line and

staff employees believe that they do, although the

Please tell me whether you two groups differ somewhat. For example,

strongly agree, somewhat agree, although the vast majority of both line and staff

somewhat disagree or strongly disagreed with the statement that Forest Service

disagree with the following state- management does not provide enough direction

ment: Making planning decisions and structure to guide day-to-day decisions and

through this type of negotiation is activities, staff employees were significantly less

a move in the right direction for likely to "strongly" disagree. Also, a significantly

the Forest Service. greater proportion of staff than line were likely to

agree with the statement. Although the vast

The overwhelming majority of both line and majority of both line and staff strongly agreed

staff (88 percent and 87 percent, respectively) with the statement that "In general, I know what

agreed with this statement. Almost half (48 I'm accountable for on the job," a slightly greater

percent and 42 percent) "strongly" agreed, percentage of line than staff did so. Similar results were obtained for the statement "In

Using an open-ended format, we followed this general, the system provides appropriate feedquestion by asking employees why they felt the back for me to know how I am doing on the job."

way they did about the use of face-to-face nego- Although in the minority, a significant proportion

tiations. As can be seen in table 16, the vast of both line and staff (16 percent and 24 percent,

majority gave positive reasons for using such respectively) disagreed with this last statement.

negotiations. The most frequently mentioned

reasons were that these negotiations are a good

way to gauge public opinion and increase the

range of ideas and options in the decisionmaking. Other frequent responses were that

such an approach is the right thing to do in a

democratic society that wishes to be responsive

to the people, and that face-to-face negotiations

are effective in clearing road blocks and building

support for decisions. Two of the negative outcomes mentioned were that such negotiations

exclude the interests of parties not present and

that they can lead to technically or professionally

unsound decisions.

15
Chapter 6 diversification on Forest Service attitudes and

perspectives (Brown and Harris 1993, Kennedy

THE ENVIROI_IENTAL ATTITUDES OF 1988, McCarthy et at. 1991) we also present

FOREST SERVICE EMPLOYEES information about the environmental attitudes of

various subgroups in the Agency. Specifically,

We saw earlier that a significant number of line we compare the environmental attitudes of men

and staff indicated that an increase in ecological and women, whites and minorities, and foresters

and biologists. 2 We also compare the attitudes of and environmental sensitivity was a positive

change in the Agency in the last 10 years and employees who have worked in the Agency more

that they felt the increased emphasis on environ- than 20 years with employees who have worked

mental concerns should continue. According to 20 years or less. Further in%rmation about the

several observers, such as Kennedy (1988) and views of various subgroups is provided in the

Tipple and Wellman {1991) the environmental next chapter.

movement and resulting environmental legislation have pressured the Forest Service to shift its Views of Environmentalists

emphasis away from managing timber and other

commodity resource values toward managing One way we examined the environmental

non-commodity values such as wildlife and attitudes of Forest Service employees was by

recreation. Legislation, court actions, workforce simply asking them whether they thought of

diversification efforts, and other events have themselves as "environmentalists." The overcaused some to speculate that the Agency has whelming majority said "yes" (78 percent of the

shifted to a decidedly more pro-environmental line and 65 percent of the staff; see table 18). We

stance (e.g., Brown and Harris 1992a, Kennedy compared how the various subgroups answered

et at. 1992; McCarthy et el. 1991). However, this question, but as can be seen in table 18

others have argued that the Forest Service's differences in most cases were not statistically

values are still more in line with those of indus- significant (alpha=0.05 or better). There were

try than with those of environmentalists (e.g., only two exceptions: a larger proportion of line

Twight and Lyden 1989). Nevertheless, there has than staff and a larger proportion of white line

been considerable interest in the environmental employees than minority line employees indiattitudes of the Forest Service as well as antici- cated they were environmentalists. There were

pation that changes in values will result in no statistical differences between white and

changes in Agency behavior and policy (Brown minority employees at the staff level, however.

and Harris 1992a, McCarthy et el. 1991).

We next asked employees whether they had a

In this chapter, we examine the environmental favorable or unfavorable impression of environmentalists. The majority of employees indicated attitudes of Forest Service employees in more

detail. Our approach differs from that of earlier their impression was favorable (see table 19),

studies in a number of ways. First, rather than although a significant proportion indicated an

relying solely on attitude scales to make infer- unfavorable impression {over a third). As before,

ences about the environmental attitudes of

Forest Service employees, we asked employees

directly whether they considered themselves to

be "environmentalists." We also asked them 2We categorized employees as '1oresters" or "biologists"

whether they had a "favorable" or "unfavorable" based on the major field of their most advanced college

impression of environmentalists and why. A1- degree. Although other schemes have been used to specify

though we also used an attitude scale to examine professional identification, we believe this provides the least

environmental attitudes of employees, we modi- ambiguity about the nature of the professional backgrounds

fled our scale to include items we believe are of Forest Service employees. Because of space limitations,

we did not examineall professional groupings in this

uniquely appropriate to professional resource chapter. Weselected foresters and biologists for comparimanagers, son because previous studies show the greatest differences

between these twoprofessional groups (see, for example,

Finally, because there has been a fair amount Brown and Harris 1993, Kennedy 1985, McCarthy et el.

of discussion about the impact of workforce 1991).

16
there were few statistically significant differences series of statements about various views of the

among subgroups in how they answered this relationship of society, nature, and the environquestion. Differences between line and staff as a ment. These statements are listed in table 21.

whole were significant at the 0.05 level, but this The first four are those that have been widely

was probably due to the somewhat larger propor- used in Dunlap and Van Liere's "New Environtion of staff employees than line who gave a mental Paradigm" scale (1978) to measure public

response at the extreme ends of the scale {i.e., attitudes about the environment. The last three

"very favorable" and "very unfavorable"). Overall, statements were constructed specifically for this

the proportions of line and staff who were favor- survey to broaden the range of views contained in

ably impressed were virtually identical, the New Environmental Paradigm scale.

We then asked an open-ended question about Table 21 shows that the majority of line and

why employees felt the way they did about staff tend to take a "pro-environmental" position

environmentalists. As before, we recorded on most of the statements. For example, a

verbatim responses and coded up to five dis- majority agreed that "there are limits to growth

tinctly different reasons given by each respon- beyond which our industrialized society cannot

dent. Table 20 contains the results. Because of expand" and disagreed that "nature's resources

space limitations, only results comparing line are vast and thus there is little likelihood that

with staff employees are given, humans will exhaust them in the near future."

Nevertheless, there were statistical differences

As can be seen in table 20, the proportion of between line and staff.

line mid staff who gave reasons that reflected a

positive view of environmentalists is about equal Although the majorities agreeing or disagreeing

to the proportion who gave reasons that reflected with the various statements tended to be in the

a negative view. Many employees who indicated same direction for line and staff, the size of those

that they have a "somewhat favorable" impres- majorities and the degree of agreement or dission of environmentalists in the earlier close- agreement often differed. For four of the six

ended question nevertheless expressed negative statements where differences were statistically

views of the environmentalists on the later open- significant, staff employees indicated a stronger

ended question. Specifically, 19 percent of the pro-environmental stand than line. For example,

line and 24 percent of the staff did this. although majorities of both line and staff employees agreed that "human interference with nature

Among the most frequently mentioned positive often produces disastrous consequences," a

views of environmentalists were that they want to significantly greater proportion of staff than line

promote good management and have the best were likely to "strongly agree." Likewise, alinterest of the environment in mind. Other though majorities of both line and staff disagreed

frequently mentioned positive views were that that "society will have plenty of warning to make

environmentalists are very committed and speak adjustments before any lasting harm is done to

their convictions, they reflect the respondent's the environment," a larger proportion of staff

own concerns about the environment, and they than line disagreed "strongly." Staff employees

have brought about needed policy changes, were equally divided in their agreement or disThree of the most frequently mentioned negative agreement with the two statements: (1) "humans

views were that environmentalists are extremists, have the right to modify the natural environment

they are subjective and speak with emotion to suit their needs" and (2) "nature is resilient

rather than knowledge, and they are dominated and readily recovers when disturbed." However,

by single interests, a majority of line employees took the "anti- environmental" stand on these statements (i.e.,

The Modified New Environmental the majority agree with them).

Paradigm Scale

Nevertheless, on two of the six statements, line

To further measure the environmental attitudes officers were more likely than staff to take the

of Forest Service employees, we asked respon- pro-environmental position. A larger proportion

dents to rate how they agree or disagree with a

17
of line than staff agreed with the pro-environ- In striking contrast to the gender differences

mental statement that "there are limits to growth found, few statistically significant differences

beyond which our industrialized society cannot were found between the responses of minority

expand" and disagreed with the anti-environmen- and white employees (see table 23). A larger

taft statement that "nature's resources are vast proportion of white than minority staff strongly

and thus there is little likelihood that humans disagreed with the anti-environmental statewill exhaust them in the near future." ments "nature's resources are vast and thus

there is little likelihood that humans will exhaust

Generally, the statements on which staff are them in the near future" and "society will have

more likely to take a pro-environmental stand plenty of warning to make adjustments before

involve beliefs about human prerogatives and any lasting harm is done to the environment."

abilities to manipulate and modify the environ- Likewise, a larger proportion of white staff than

ment. Staff appear to be less optimistic than line minority staff strongly agreed with the proabout the consequences of human actions on the environmental statement "there are limits to

environment. Line officers, on the other hand, growth beyond which our industrialized society

appear to be somewhat more concerned about cannot expand." However, an overall larger

limits on natural resource supplies, proportion of minority line than white line agreed

with that statement. No statistically significant

Subgroup Comparisons differences were found for the remaining 10

comparisons.

Although we did not find many differences

between subgroups in the Forest Service in Table 24 compares the responses of employees

whether people considered themselves environ- whose most advanced college degree is in forestry

mentalists or whether they had a favorable or with the responses of those whose most adunfavorable impression of environmentalists, we vanced college degree is in biology. As can be

did find some differences in views about items in seen, the results are somewhat mixed. In only

the modified New Environmental Paradigm scale, about half the cases were differences between

Differences were most pronounced between men foresters and biologists statistically significant.

and women and least pronounced between However, in each of those cases, biologists are

minority and white employees. However, as more likely to take the pro-environmental stand

before, the various groups did not necessarily than foresters.

hold opposing viewpoints. Rather, differences

among groups tended to be in the size of the Finally, table 25 compares employees with 20

majorities agreeing or disagreeing with a state- years of service or less with employees with more

ment and in the degree of agreement or disagree- than 20 years in the Agency. Years of service

ment. As before, the majority of all groups appears to make more of a difference in the

tended to take a pro-environmental stand on environmental attitudes of line employees than it

most of the statements, does for staff. For all but one statement, newer

line employees are more likely to take the proTable 22 compares the responses of men and environmental position than older line employwomen in the Agency to the seven statements, ees. In contrast, few differences between newer

As can be seen, differences between men and and older staff employees were found to be

women were statistically significant in nearly all statistically significant. There were only two

cases, with women more likely to take the pro- exceptions. Newer staff employees are signifienvironmental side of the issue. The only excep- cantly more likely to disagree that "nature is

tion is with the statement "there are limits to resilient and readily recovers when disturbed."

growth beyond which our industrialized society At the same time, they are significantly more

cannot expand." A larger proportion of men than likely to agree that "humans must live in barwomen staff were likely to "strongly agree" with mony with nature in order to survive."

this statement. However, a larger proportion of

women than men line strongly agreed.

18
S_mary

In summary, we found that the majority of both

line and staff employees consider themselves

"environmentalists," take a pro-environmental

position on most of the statements contained in

the modified "New Environmental Paradigm"

scale, and have a favorable impression of environmentalists. However, when employees were

asked to be more specific about this last statement, the split between positive and negative

views of environmentalists tended to be more

evenly divided.

Although differences were found in views

among subgroups in the Forest Service, these

differences were not as great as we initially

anticipated. Few differences were found in

subgroups' self-identity as environmentalists or

their impression of environmentalists. However,

some significant differences were found among

subgroups in their position on the environmental

attitude items; men and women employees

exhibited the greatest contrast in views, and

minority and white employees exhibited the least.

Differences among Agency subgroups in their

perspectives and views are further explored in

the next chapter.

19
Chapter 7 fields indicated. 3 These fields include forestry,

biology, range science (for line only since few

WORKFORCE DIVERSIFICATION IN THE staff received their most recent degree in this

FOREST SERVICE area), other natural resource management fields,

the physical sciences or engineering, and the

Because of the recent discussion of diversifica- social sciences or humanities (for staff only

tion in the Forest Service by gender, race, and because few line obtained their most recent

professional background and because of the degree in this area). (See Appendix for a list of

anticipation that such diversification will in- the subfields that make up each of these categocrease the range of new ideas brought into the ries.)

Agency, we closely examine this topic in this

chapter. In the previous chapter we examined As can be seen in figure 13, fbrestry dominates

subgroup differences irl environmental attitudes the fields in which line employees received their

and fbund the differences to be statistically most recent degree--about 60 percent of line

significant in a number of cases. In this chapter obtained their most recent or highest degree in

we %cus on differences among subgroups in forestry. In contrast, only 20 percent of all the

their perceptions of the seriousness of the issues staff (or 36 percent of the staff with college

facing the Forest Service. We also examine degrees) have done so. Furthermore, 90 percent

difik_rences among subgroups in their perceptions of line employees received their most recent

of whether the Agency is committed to deal with degree in a natural resource field (forestry, range,

those issues, whether Agency policies represent biology, or other) compared to 64 percent of the

changes in policies over the past 10 years, staffwho have degrees. There is virtually no one

whether [hese changes are for the better, and in a line position that claims a degree in the

whether the Agency should take further action social sciences or humanities as his or her most

on some important issues. As before, we focus recent degree. This contrasts with 16 percent of

on the issue statements contained in the 1990 the college graduates among staff.

RPA Strategic Plan.

Table 26 indicates the proportion of all line and

First, however, we begin by examining the all staff who have any of their degrees_

extent of diversification that currently exists in bachelor's, master's, or doctorate, most recent or

the Forest Service. otherwise_in the disciplines or major fields

indicated. Because it is possible to have multiple

The ]Extent of Workforce degrees, the proportions indicated for each field

Diversification in the are somewhat greater than those indicated in

Forest Service figure 13. Nevertheless, the same patterns

emerge as in the distribution of fields based on

Figures 12, 13, and 14 provide an initial view of the most recent degree earned. Forestry degrees

the extent of diversification in the Forest Service. dominate among both line and staff, but much

tnlbrmation is broken out for line and staff less so among the latter.

employees. The.y show that there is currently

much greater diversification in the staff than in Thus, greater diversity exists among staff

line levels. Women make up only 12 percent of employees than line in terms of gender, race, and

all line employees cornpared to 37 percent of the professional background. We also found greater

staff. Likewise, minorities make up only 8 diversity at the staff level in terms of length of

percent of the line versus 13 percent of the staff, service (fig. 14). We found that only 6 percent of

the line entered the Forest Service within the

Wtlen we look at the composition of line and past 10 years compared to 31 percent of the

staff employees based on professional background, a similar pattern emerges. Figure 13

represents the proportions of line and staff 3Severalschemes have been devised by various reemployees who received their most recent degree searchers to identify the professional backgrounds of Forest

(or highest degree) in the disciplines or major Service employees. We believe our approach results in the

_ least ambiguity because the highest or most recent degree

obtained reflectsnot only the actual training of the employee

but also his or her likefiest professional interests and identity.

2O
staff_ The difference is largely due to the time Differences in Views Among Subgroups

required for promotion into line positions. Never- in the Agency

theless, the new (amd younger) employees (who

may bring with them new ideas), are currently Differences based on hierarchical position

concentrated in the staff levels of the Agency.

Figures 15 through 18 show the differences

Additional inforrnation about the composition among the five hierarchical groups, from upper

and extent of diversification within the Forest line to lower staff, in their rating of items in four

Service is given in tables 27 to 33. For example, areas: the seriousness of the 11 RPA issues, the

table 27 gives background information on vari- degree of Forest Service commitment to address

ous hierarchical positions in the Agency. The these issues, the possible change in policy over

categories "upper line" to "lower stafF' axe as the past 10 years as represented by 1990 RPA

defined in Chapter 2o By making a finer' distinc- policies, and the possible need fbr further action

tion among hierarchical levels, we may get a on five key issues from the RPA list. Clear

better picture of the extent of"diversification that patterns emerge.

has occurred in the Forest Service. It is clear

from this analysis that the vast majority of Generally, employees at the upper end o:f the

women and minorities are concentrated in the Forest Service hierarchy are less likely than

lower levels of the Agency. A professional back- those at the lower end to rate the issues as "very

ground in forestry tends to dominate the upper serious." They are more likely, however, to feel

levels. However, when we took at the proportion that the Agency is "very committed" to addressof employees who plan to retire within the next ing these issues and more likely to feel that 1990

10 years, we see opportunities for new people to RPA policies regarding these issues represent

enter into leadership positions. Fully two-thirds changes in policies over the past 10 years. 4 At

of the upper line employees plan to retire in the the same time, they are also more likely to feel

next 10 years, while nearly half of the lower line that further actions are nevertheless needed to

and upper staff intend to do so. address these issues. In nearly all cases, differences among these five groups in the way they

Tables 32 and 33 also may provide some responded to the items are statistically signifiinsight into the likely characteristics of the cant (0.05 level of significance or better). HowAgency in the future. There are much larger ever, as before, in most cases differences are

proportions of women in the category of recent mainly in degree rather than in the direction of

hires than in categories of longer service. Fully opinion. For example, even though we found

45 percent of the line officers and 63 percent of that the upper staff group has the smallest

the staff employees hired within the past 10 proportion of employees who think the Forest

years are women. Obviously, these figures alone Service is "very committed" to improving water

do not indicate how many of these women will quality and upper line has the largest, the

remain in the Forest Service, and it also should majority of all five groups believe the agency is at

be kept in mind that line employees with 10 least "somewhat committed."

years or less of service currently make up only

about 6 percent of the line. Also note that many Finally, we compared the five groups in their

of the new hires among staff are in the lowest views concerning below-cost timber sales and

level positions, and many of these are unlikely to clearcutting. As can be seen in figures 19 and

be promoted into line positions in the future. 20, there was considerable variation among the

Nevertheless, these figures provide evidence of

the changing characteristics of the Forest Service. And to the extent that different groups 4,4s indicated in Chapter 3, the vast majority of employees

bring with them differing views and ideas, their policies who perceived over the1990 pastRPA10years policiesbelitoevebethese different changes from are for

increasing numbers may diversify views in the the better. Because of the added complexity of graphing

Agency. Next, we will examine the extent of responses for multiple subgroups and the effect on the

differences in views among subgroups currently legibility of the figures, figure 17 displays only percentages

in the Forest Service. for those who indicated that 1990 policies represent

"change" rather than the percentages who indicated the

1990policies are "muchbetter" or "somewhatbetter" than

the policies over the past 10years.

21
groups in their views about whether below-cost Men's and women's views on below-cost timber

sales are justified and whether clearcutting is an sales and clearcutting are also mixed (figs. 25

acceptable management practice. About 90 and 26). Significantly greater proportions of men

percent of the upper line believe below-cost sales line and staff than women line and staff feel that

are justified and that clearcutting is an accept- clearcutting is an acceptable management pracable practice {specifically, 96 percent and 88 tice. However, although a greater proportion of

percent, respectively on these two issues). But the male staff than female staff are likely to feel

only about half of the lower level staff think so that below-cost timber sales are justified, there

(55 percent and 42 percent, respectively on the was no significant difference in views between

two issues). On the other hand, there was very male line and female line on this issue. Likewise,

little variation among the five groups in their although a greater proportion of female line than

views about whether there are too many below- male line feel that there are too many below-cost

cost sales on the National Forests or too much sales, a larger proportion of male staff than

clearcutting {figs. 19 and 20). Fifty-six percent of female staff feel that way.

, the upper line think there are too many belowcost sales axld 48 percent of the lower staff think Differences in views by race

so. At the same time, 75 percent of the upper

line feel there is too much clearcutting compared Differences in views were found to be much

to 65 percent of the lower staff, smaller between minority and white employees

than between women and men (figs. 27 through

Differences in views by gender 32). In virtually none of the cases were differences between minority line and white line

We also found differences in views between employees found to be statistically significant.

men and women in the Agency (figs. 21 through However, differences between minority staff and

26). Women in general, whether line or staff, are white staff employees were statistically signifimore likely than men (line or staff) to feel that the cant in many cases. In general, minority staff

issues represent a "very serious problem." Men, were significantly more likely than white staff to

on the other hand, are more likely than women rate the RPA issues as "very serious." And, in

to think the Forest Service is "very committed" to contrast to the trend found in gender differences,

solving these issues. In most cases, these differ- they were also significantly more likely to indiences were statistically significant, cate that the Forest Service is "very committed"

to addressing these issues.

Differences between men and women in their

views about other issues were less clear, how- Although in most cases there were also signifiever. For example, while significantly greater cant differences between minority and white staff

proportions of male staff than female staff feel in their likelihood of indicating that RPA policies

that 1990 RPA policies represent changes in represent changes in policies over the past 10

policies over the past 10 years, the differences years, no clear pattern to the responses emerged.

between male line and female line were not Whether minorities or whites were more likely to

statistically significant. Likewise, although perceive changes varied with the issue (fig. 29).

female line are more likely than male line to Few significant differences were found between

indicate that further actions are needed on five minority and white staff employees in their views

key issues (threatened and endangered species, about the need for further actions on key RPA

the condition of rangelands, old-growth, below- issues or their views about below-cost timber

cost sales, and clearcutting), male staff are more sales and cleareutting (figs. 31 and 32).

likely than female staff to indicate so. 5

Differences in views by discipline

5Thatfemale staff are less likely than male staff to

indicate that RPA policies represent changes in policies over Clear differences in views based on professional

the past 10 years and less likely to indicate that further training were found. Figures 33 through 44

actions are needed may reflect the disproportionate number indicate responses for employees whose most

of women concentrated in the lower staffpositions, where recent degrees were obtained in the fields indiemployees are less likely to be knowledgeable about the cated. These fields are defined as before. GenerRPAissues and policies, ally, the greatest differences found were between

22

............ _ ................... , , , NI i i,i1,, H i,, i I1,i" I I I
trained %testers and biologists (again, based on Differertcea {_ vfe_a by yeara of service

the most recent degree obtained). As a rule,

biologists are more likely to view the RPA issues Finally, we examine differences in views based

as "very serious" and foresters are less likely to on years of service in the Agency (figs. 45

do so. At the same time, foresters are more likely through 56}. Patterns are clear and striking.

to feet that the Agency is "very committed" to Line and staff employees with the fewest years of

addressing the issues, service are most likely to view the RPA issues as

"very serious" and least likely to feel that the

At the line level, range scientists tend to have Forest Service is "very committed" to addressing

views similar to those of foresters. Persons with the issues. Generally, employees with the most

"other" natural resource degrees (other than years of service are more likely to indicate that

forestry, range, or biology) tend to have views the 1990 RPA policies represent change. At the

more similar to biologists. Those line employees same time, newer employees are more likely to

with most recent degrees in the physical sciences indicate that further actions are needed to

or engineering tend to be closer in their views to address the five key issues. Newer employees are

foresters and range scientists, although this was also less likely to view below-cost timber sales as

not always the case. Few statistically significant justified or to view clearcutting as an acceptable

differences were found among the disciplinary management practice.

groups in their views about the extent of changes

represented by 1990 RPA policies. However, Summary

biologists are somewhat more likely than others

to indicate that further actions are needed on the In this chapter, we examined the extent of

five key RPA issues. Foresters are more likely to diversification in the Forest Service by gender,

indicate that in some cases below-cost timber race, and professional training. We also examsales are justified and that ctearcutting is an ined how views concerning the 1990 RPA issues

acceptable management practice, vary by these same background characteristics

as well as by hierarchical position and years of

At the staff level, those with recent degrees in service.

the social sciences or humanities tend to be most

similar in views to biologists. Those with recent Generally, we found greater diversification at

degrees in "other" natural resource fields (other the staff rather than line levels of the Agency.

than forestry and biology) also tend to be similar Also, although there are proportionately nmre

to biologists. Those with recent degrees in the women and minorities at the staff level, they are

physical sciences or engineering as well as those currently concentrated in the lower level posiwith no college degree tend to be more similar to tions. Nevertheless, among recent hires (i.e.,

foresters. Staff employees with recent degrees in those within the past 10 years) are greater

biology, "other" natural resource fields, and the proportions of women and non-foresters than

social sciences and humanities are more likely to among those hired more than 10 years ago. Also,

view the RPA issues as "very serious" and less greater proportions of women, minorities, and

likely to feel the Forest Service is "very commit- non-foresters plan to be working for the Agency

ted" to addressing the issues, compared to 10 years from now, compared to their counteremployees with recent degrees in forestry, the parts. Larger proportions of retirements are

physical sciences or engineering, or to those with planned among upper line and upper staff than

no degree. Although differences among groups at other levels in the next 10 years, indicating

were statistically significant, no clear pattern potential opportunities for non-traditional ememerges in differences in views concerning the ployees to move into leadership positions.

extent that 1990 RPA policies represent changes

in policies over the past 10 years. However, Will diversification of employees diversify views

biologists are the group most likely to feel that in the Forest Service? We did find differences in

further actions are needed on the five key issues, perspectives among the subgroups. Differences

And as with the line employees, staff employees by hierarchical position, gender, professional

with recent degrees in forestry are most likely to training, and years of service were particularly

indicate that below-cost timber sales are justified evident; differences by race were less so. Generand that clearcutting is an acceptable manage- ally, we found persons in the lower levels of the

ment practice (figs. 41 through 44). Agency, persons with fewer years of service,

23
women, and those with non-traditional degrees t_EFERENC_

more likely to view the 1990 RPA issues as very

serious problems. At the same time, these Brown, Greg; Harris, Charles C. 1992a. The U.S.

groups are less likely to feel the Agency is very Forest Service: toward the new reso_ce

committed to address these issues. Generally, management paradigm? Society & Natural

the pattern observed earlier--that views about Resources. 5:231-245.

the seriousness of issues are inversely correlated

with views about the Agency's commitment to Brown, Greg; Harris, Cha_rles C. 1992b. The U.S,

address these issuesmwas repeated in the sub- Forest Service: changing of the guard.

group analyses. Natural Resources Journal. 32: 449-466.

Patterns are less clear in differences in views Brown, Greg; Harris, Charles C. t993. The

among subgroups concerning the extent of implications of workforce diversification in

change represented by RPA policies and the need the U.S. Forest Service..Administration &

to take further actions. Generally, employees in Society. 25(1): 85-113.

the upper levels of the Agency hierarchy and

those with the most years of service are most Dunlap, Riley; Van Liere, Kent D. 1978. The new

likely to perceive change. Upper level employees environmental paradigm. Journal of Enviare also among those most likely to perceive the ronmental Education. 9:10-19.

need to take further actions. However, within

line and staff groupings newer employees and Kaufman, Herbert. 1960. The Forest Ranger: a

those with their :most recent degrees in biology study in administrative behavior. Baltimore,

are more likely than their counterparts to per- MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. 297 p.

ceive the need to take further actions. Patterns

of differences in views about change and the Kennedy, James J. 1985. Viewing wildlife

need for further actions are less clear between managers as a unique professional culture.

men and women and between white and minority Wildlife Society Bulletin. t3(4): 571-579.

employees in the Forest Service.

Kennedy, James J. 1988. Legislative confrontaThe observed differences in views among tion of groupthink in U.S. natural resource

subgroups, such as men and women, minorities Agencies. Environmental Conservatian. 15(2):

and whites, and foresters and biologists, may be 123-128.

the result of differences in some basic underlying

factors that have a more direct impact on em- Kennedy, James J.; Kxannich, Richard S.;

ployee views, such as differences in years of Quigley, Thomas M.; Cramer, Lori A. 1992.

service or placement in the Agency's hierarchy. How employees view the USDA-Forest

This is suggested as tables 27 to 33 indicate that Service value and reward system, ix)gall,

women, minorities, and non-foresters are con- UT: Utah State University, Department of

centrated in the lower levels of the Forest Service Forest Resources. 65 p.

and/or have the fewest years of service. The

inter-correlations of background characteristics McCarthy, Catherine; Sabatier, Paul; Loomis,

and their possible effect on employee views are John. 1991. Attitudinal change in the

currently being explored by the study investiga- Forest Service: 1960-1990. Paper presented

tors. at the 1991 Annual Meeting of the Western

Political Science Association, Seattle, WA.

Tipple, Terence J.; Wellman, J. Douglas. 1991.

Herbert Kaufman's Forest Ranger thirty

years later: from simplicity and homogeneity to complexity and diversity. Public

Administration Review. 51 (5): 421-428.

24
Twight, Ben W. 1983. Organizational values

and political power: the Forest Semite

versus the Olympic National Park. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University

Press. 159 p.

Twight, Ben W.; Lyden, Fremont J. 1988. Multiple use vso organigat:ional commitment.

Forest Science. 34(2): 474-486.

Twight, Ben W.; Lyden, Fremont J. 1989. Measuring Forest Service bias. Journal of Forestry. 87(5): 35--41.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. The 1990 RPA

Strategic Plan. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 247 p.

25
Tables Table 11 .mPercent of Forest Service employees

giving the following responses to

Table 1.-- Distribution of sample of employees by "What do you think is the single

hierarchical positions greatest challenge facing the Forest

Table 2.---Dernographic and background infor- Service today?"

mation for Forest Service line and staff Table 12.uPercent of employees who agree or

ernployees disagree with various views related to

Table 3.-- Percent of Forest Service employees the Agency's multiple use mission

giving the %llowing responses to Table 13.wPercent of employees who agree or

"What do you think have been the disagree with certain proposals and

most important positive changes in the opinions pertaining to the Forest

Forest Service over the past 10 years?" Service's mission

Table 4._ Percent of Forest Service employees Table 14._Percent of employees who agree or

giving the following responses to disagree with various views related to

"What do you think have been the public involvement and external

most important negative changes in pressures

the Forest Service over the past 10 Table 15._Percent of employees who believe that

years?" certain groups have too much or too

Table 5._ Percent of Forest Service employees little influence on Forest Service policy

giving the following responses to Table 16.--Percent of Forest Service employees

"What l_lrther actions do you think the giving the following responses to "Why

Forest Service should be taking re- do you agree of disagree with the

garding threatened and endangered statement '...that making planning

species?" decisions through face-to-face negoTable 6._ Percent of Forest Service employees tiation among interest groups so that

giving the following responses to planning decisions can be made by

"What further actions do you think the consensus is a move in the right

Forest Service should be taking re- direction for the Forest Service?'"

garding the condition of rangelands?" Table 17.--Percent of employees who agree or

Table 7._ Percent of Forest Service employees disagree with various statements

giving the following responses to pertaining to the sufficiency of direc-

"What further actions do you think the tion received from management

Forest Service should be taking re- Table 18.--Percent of Forest Service employees

garding old-growth forests?" who think of themselves as environTable 8.-_ Percent of Forest Service employees mentalists

giving the following responses to Table 19._Percent of Forest Service employees

"What further actions do you think the who have a favorable or unfavorable

Forest Service should be taking re- impression of environmentalists

garding below-cost timber sales?" Table 20.--Percent of Forest Service employees

Table 9._ Percent of Forest Service employees giving the following responses to "Why

giving the following responses to do you have a favorable {or unfavor-

"What further actions do you think the able) impresssion of environmentalForest Service should be taking re- ists?"

garding clearcutting?" Table 21 ._Percent of line and staff who agree or

Table 10._Percent of Forest Service employees disagree with various views concerngiving the tbllowing responses to ing society, nature, and the environ-

"V_q_at do you think is the single most ment

important change that still needs to Table 22._Percent of Forest Service men and

be made?" women (by line and staff) who agree or

disagree with various views concerning society, nature, and the environment

26
Table 23.mPercent of Fores

t Serviceminority and

white employees (by line and staff}

who agree or disagree with vm'ious

views concerning society, nature, and

the environment

Table 24.--Percent of Forest Service employees

by discipline (and by line and staff}

who agree or disagree with various

views concerning society, nature, and

the environment

Table 25.--Percent of Forest Service employees

by years of service (and by line and

staff) who agree or disagree with

various views concerning society,

nature, and the environment

Table 26.--Proportion of line and staff employees

who have any degree (Bachelor's,

Master's and/or Doctor's) in the major

fields indicated

Table 27.--Demographic and background characteristics of Forest Service employees

by hierarchical position

Table 28.--Demographic and background characteristics of Forest Service employees

by gender

Table 29.--Demographic and background characteristics of Forest Service employees

by race

Table 30.--Demographic and background characteristics of line employees by

discipline (based on highest degree

obtained)

Table 31 .--Demographic and background characteristics of staff employees by

discipline (based on highest degree

obtained)

Table 32.--Demographic and background characteristics of line employees by years

of service

Table 33.--Demographic and background characteristics of staff employees by years

of service

27

ii,,iiii
Table 1 .--Distribution of sample of employees by hierarchical posfttons

Hierarchical position in work force In samp__e

Upper Line

Number 209 185

Percent 1 10

Lower Line

Number 801 680

Percent 2 38

Total Line

Number 1,010 865

Percent 3 48

Upper Staff

Number 6,548 282

Percent 19 16

Middle Staff

Number 19,540 521

Percent 56 29

Lower Staff

Number 7,732 141

Percent 22 8

Total Staff

Number 33,820 944

Percent 97 52

28
Table 2,--Demographic and background tnformaKon for Forest

Service line a_d staff employees

k-IKe

Percent of all permanent employees 3 97

Demographics -- Percent of line or staff who are:

Men 88 63

Women 12 37

White 92 87

Nonwhite 8 13

Education -- Percent of line or staff who have:

High schoo_diplomas 100 98

Bachelor's degrees 100 55

Master's degrees 37 15

Docto_rees 18 3

Average years of service 21 16

Averae_e 47 43

How familiar are you with the RPA Strategic Plan?

(In percent)

Very familiar 11 2

Somewhat familiar 48 14

Only a little familiar 30 21

Not at all familiar 11 63

How much input do you have in forest planning?

(In percent)

A great deal 36 6

Some 22 11

Only a little 3 7

None 39 77

29
Table 3.--Percent of Forest Service employees giving the foUowing responses to "What do

you think have been the most important positive changes in the Forest Service over the past

10 years? ''I

_onse Line Staff

Increased responsiveness to the public; increased use 39.9 29.0

of public involvement (72,74,75,76,77,78)2

Increased emphasis on non-commodity uses; decreased 30.t 31.0

emphasis on commodity uses (1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,11)

Diversificationof the work force (51) 17.6 15.6

Better work conditions, better communications; more openness 17.3 12.6

(52,53,55,57,58,60,61,65,69)

More freedom for employees to express views; more decentralization,

participative management; more openness in Agency to change

Increased environmental awareness/sensitivity (19) 10.0 14.9

Increased emphasis on ecosystem/biological diversity (7) 10.5 6.8

Managing for entire ecosystem; managing for biological diversity

Improvements in the planning process (30,39,40,42,47) 8.7 6.3

More balanced programs; better resource balance(10) 9.2 3.7

Better balance between commodity and non-commodity programs

More disciplines involved in planning/decisionmaking (45) 8.0 5.3

Diversification in disciplines; more non-forestry disciplines involved

Increased emphasis on forest plans (36,37) 6.8 3.3

Better implementation/monitoring of forest plans

Increased emphasis on multiple use; more honest attempt to implement multiple

use (13) 3.8 5.8

Increased concern about soil and water quality (16) 2.5 4.5

Stronger soil and water standards/guidelines

Other/miscellaneous3 33.4 35.6

1The percentages in tables 3 and 4 indicate the percent of all fine and the percent of all staff who

gave a response in the indicated category; categories are listed in order of frequency of line employees'

responses.

2Numbers in parentheses correspond to the numerical codes for responses to Question D6 listed in

the Appendix. Categories in this table are the result of aggregating the indicated responses.

3This category is the result of aggregating all other responses not included in a previous category of

this table. In most cases, individual responses making up this category are those mentioned by less

than 2 percent of line and staff or those lacking sufficient specificity and clarity. Numerical codes for the

individual responses are too numerous to list here but can be found in the Appendix; they include any

and all codes not indicated in a previous category.

30
Table 4o---Percent of Forest Service employees giving the follow#_g responses to"What do you

th_ have been the most important negative changes in the Forest Service over the past 10

years? "1

_onse Line Staff

Increasing political pressure on Agency; outside interference 23.8 14.7

(1,4,6,8,9,20,22,23) 2

Political pressure to maintain/increase timber/commodity outputs;

Congressional micromanagement; conflicting demands from outside groups

Loss of direction/mission; poor leadership (161,253,254,255,257, 18.2 12.0

258,260,262,263,274,275,278)

Losing track of goals; don't anticipate problems; lack of ability to make and

implement decisions; failure to take stand on important issues

Agency becoming overly responsive to political pressure; 13.8 9.7

moving away from sound scientific management (2,21,108,159)

Too much red tape, paperwork, procedures; too many 8.6 4.2

obstacles to getting the job done (t51,154,155)

Affirmative action; work force diversity; reverse 7.8 10.9

discrimination (201,202,203,206,213)

Implementation of work force diversity handled badly

Insufficient funding (301,304,307) 7.8 7.7

Poor work conditions; low morale; (205,208, 209,210,211,212,215,216,256) 6.6 6.8

Insufficient staff; employees overworked; low pay; stress

Too many appeals and litigation (152) 7.3 3.7

Continued or increased commodity emphasis; commodity outputs still too high 5.0 6.9

(100,101,102,109,112)

Continued emphasis on timber and other commodities

Loss of public confidence/support (351,352) 4.4 3.3

Other/miscellaneous 3 36.0 36.5

1Thepercentages in tables 3 and 4 indicate the percent of all line and the percent of all staff who

gave a response in the indicated category; categories are listed in order of frequency of line employees'

responses.

2 Numbers in parentheses correspond to the numerical codes for responses to Question D7 listed in

the Appendix. Categories in this table are the result of aggregating the indicated responses.

3 See note 3 in table 3.

31
Table 5.--Percent of Forest Service employees giving the following resporrses to "What

further actions do you think the Forest Service should be tatdng regarding threatened and

endangered species? "z

_onse Line Staff

Better inventorying & monitoring (7,13)2 14.2 9.0

Identify species; monitor and update list (25.2)3 (19.1)

More research(2) 14.2 9.8

Gain better understanding of problems/implications (25.1) (20.8)

Take holistic/ecosystem approach (21,32) 8.7 3.9

Manage for entire ecosystem, not for single species (15.3) (8.3)

Increase commitment to protection/recovery(23,26) 6.6 7.1

Be more aggressive in protecting/improving habitat; (11.6) (15.1)

increase commitment to recovery

Better coordinate among units/agencies (9) 5.9 2.5

(10.5) (5.2)

Be more proactive in planning & enforcement (22,30) 5.9 5.5

Anticipate/plan for species before they become threatened; (10.4) (11.7)

implement laws, policy faster/better; improve enforcement

Need increased funding (28,71) 5.3 3.9

Including more support for staff on the ground (9.3) (8.2)

Decrease emphasis on commodities/increase on T&E and other 3.4 6.3

non-commodities (41,43,44,46) (6.1) (13.4)

Give higher priority to T&E, wildlife, wilderness, old-growth;

less emphasis on timber and other commodity production

Develop better programs & planning (3) 3.3 2.4

Define procedures; use scientific information on species and habitat (5.8) (5.2)

Othe r/miscellaneous4 16.2 18.8

(28.7) (40.1)

1The percentages indicate the percent of all line and the percent of all staff who gave a response in

the indicated category, and categories are listed in order of frequency of line employees' responses.

2 Numbers in parentheses correspond to the numerical codes for responses to Question C22A listed

in the Appendix. Categories in this table are the result of aggregating the indicated responses.

3 Numbers outside of parentheses represent percent of all 865 line and percent of all 944 staff in the

sample. Numbers inside parentheses represent percent of the 491 line and percent of the 454 staff

who indicated further actions are needed.

4See note 3 in table 3.

32

i_ii i_i_i!i!_
Table 6,--Percent ojForest Service employees giving the following responses to "What

fizrther actions do yoa think the Forest Service should be taking regarding the condition of

rangdands?"

_onse Line Staff

Reduce or eliminate grazing (8,28,35,91)1 15.8% 17.8%

Reduce/monitor number of permits and length; reduce season; (24.3)2 (35.8)

reduce AUMs; eliminate grazing where necessary; eliminate altogether

Better implement policy; strengthen enforcement (11,24) 12.2 9.5

Provide stronger guidelines/standards; implement policies faster (18.7) (19.0)

increase funding (71) 12.0 3.3

(18.5) (6.6)

Provide better protection for riparian areas (29) 7.0 5.8

(10.7) (11.7)

increase fees (1) 6.8 5.7

(10.5) (11.5)

Provide better protection/maintenance/improvement of rangelands 5.9 3.1

(30) (9.1) (6.3)

Improve allotment/range management plans (3) 4.8 2.4

(7.3) (4.7)

More research (2) 4.7 3.9

Gain better understanding of problems/implications (7.2) (7.9)

Inventory/monitor rangelands/grazing (7) 4.3 4.2

(6.6) (8.5)

Put more people in the field; provide more resources (31) 4.0 1.9

Provide more resources/training/support for people on the ground ,(6.2) (3.9)

Monitor users; educate permittees (12) 3.8 2.9

Educate/monitor permittees; users need to be more responsible (5.8) (5.9)

Stop subsidizing grazing interests (72) 2.8 1.7

Less bowing to commodity group pressure (4.2) (3.5)

Stand up to Congressional/political pressure (73,75) 2.7 1.8

(4.1) (3.6)

Manage for entire ecosystem; maintain biodiversity (21,37) 2.4 1.3

(3.7) (2.6)

Balance competition between wildlife uses and grazing (41) 2.2 3.0

(3.4) (6.0)

Publicize good management practices (62) 2.0 0.9

Communicate with the public; publicize the problem (3.0) (1.8)

Other/miscellaneous 3 13.1 11.5

(20.2) (23.0)

1Numbers in parentheses correspond to the numerical codes for responses to Question 026A listed

in the Appendix. Categories in this table are the result of aggregating the indicated responses. 2

Numbers inside parentheses represent percent of the 563 line and percent of the 492 staff who

indicated further actions are needed.

3See note 3 in table 3.

33
Table 7.JPercent of Forest Service employees giving the Jbllowtnq responses to "What

further actions do you think the Forest Service should be taking regarding otd-growth

forests?"

Response Line Staff

More research(1)1 12.4 8.1

Gain better understanding of problems/implications (21.6)2 (16.2)

Identify/inventory/monitor old-growth (7) 12.4 6.3

(2t.5) (12.5)

Develop better definition of old-growth (3) 10.7 4.8

(18.8) (9.6)

Manage for entire ecosystem; take holistic approach (21,38) 6.0 3.9

Protect biodiversity (10.4) (7.7)

Increase commitment to protecting old-growth (24,26) 5.8 7.2

Implement policy faster/better; enforce more strictly (10.1 ) (14.3)

Develop overall management plan for old-growth (4) 4.9 3.5

Old-growth needs to be serious component of forest plans (8.6) (6.9)

Identify and set aside areas for protection (14,23) 4.4 4.6

Set aside lands to grow old-growth; develop older trees; (7.6) (9.1)

increase rotation length; replace old-growth

Educate the public (63) 3.3 1.6

Make issue less emotional (5.7) (3.2)

Implement regional/zone planning (13) 3.0 0.7

(5.2) (1.4)

Decrease timber harvests/targets (43) 2.5 3.4

(4.4) (6.7)

Should not/cannot save all old-growth (90) 2.2 2.8

(3.9) (5.6)

Preserve all remaining old-growth (35) 2.1 7.0

(3.6) (13.9)

Other/miscellaneous3 18.2 18.9

(31.6) {37.7) _

I Numbers in parentheses correspond to the numerical codes for responses to Question C30A fisted

in the Appendix. Categories in this table are the result of aggregating the indicated responses.

2

Numbers inside parentheses represent percent of the 499 line and percent of the 486 staff who

indicated further actions are needed.

a

See note 3 in table 3.

34
Table 8.---Percent of Forest Service employees giving the following responses to "What

fitrther actions do yoLt think the Forest Service should be taking regarding below-cost

timber sates?"

R_eonse Line Staff

Educate pubJic/Congress on benefits of/need for BCTS (6t) 1 12.6 4.4

(21.3)2 (8.7)

Better explain/document benefits of BCTS (7) 11.1 4.2

Determine benefits to other resources, including non-commodity (18.8) (8.4)

Develop better accounting system, better economic analysis (6,13,16,18) 9.9 5.8

Identify timber sales costs that are shared with other programs such as (16.7) (11.7)

recreation and wildlife; make better use of TSPIRS; improve TSPIRS

Reduce or eliminate BCTS (17,26,41,90) 9.4 16.4

Make sure sales pay for themselves; increase commitment to (15.9) (32.8)

reducing BCTS; eliminate BCTS; stop subsidizing timber industry

More research; better definition of what BCTS are (2) 6.6 4.4

Better define when BCTS are justified; better identify the (11.1) (8.8)

goals of a particular sale

Retain BCTS where necessary to benefit other resources/the environment (27,52) 6.1 3.7

(10.3) (7.4)

Develop clearer/better policy; provide clearer leadership (9) 3.2 1.4

(5.4) (2.8)

Retain BCTS as profit is not part of FS mandate (1,4) 2.9 1.1

Economics should not be so important (4.9) (2.2)

Cut costs; reduce work force; increase efficiency (10) 2.4 2.7

(4.1) (5.5)

Assess effects of BCTS on local/national economy (15) 2.4 2.2

(4.1) (4.4)

Other/miscellan eous3 14.5 13.2

(24.5) (26.4)

1Numbers in parentheses correspond to the numerical codes for responses to Question C35A listed

in the Appendix. Categories in this table are the result of aggregating the indicated responses.

2Numbers inside parentheses represent percent of the 514 line and percent of the 481 staff who

indicated further actions are needed.

3

See note 3 in table 3.

35
Table 9.--Percent of Forest Service employees giving the Jbttowing respop_es to '_What

further actions do you think the Forest Service should be ta:_ng regarding ctearcutting?"

Response Line Staff

Educate public/Congress on benefits of/need for clearcutting (61,74)1 18.3 9.2

Defend clearcutting policy (31.8)2 (18.0)

Reduce or ban clearcutting (25,26,30,90) 8.6 14.7

Increase commitment to reducing clearcutting; reduce size of (15.0) (28.8)

clearcut parcels; use clearcutting only when no other way;

ban clearcutting

Retain clearcutting as a management tool (9,91) 7.0 4.9

Don't limit clearcutting (12.2) (9.7)

Conduct more research on alternative methods (2) 6.9 2.9

(12.0) (5.8)

Conduct more research on acceptability of clearcutting (1) 6.1 5.0

Provide clearer definition; identify where it should or (10.6) (9..8)

shouldn't be done; identify optimal size, ecological impacts

Increase use of alternative methods (28,29) 5.4 6.7

Increase use of uneven-aged management; match (9.4) (13.1)

method to needs of land

Improve clearcutting methods; make aesthetically more pleasing (27) 2.5 1.6

(4.3) (3.1)

Manage for entire ecosystem; take holistic approach (21) 2.4 0.8

(4.2) (1.6)

Other/miscella neous3 17.6 16.6

(30.7) (32.6)

1Numbers in parentheses correspond to the numerical codes for responses to Question C41A listed

in the Appendix. Categories in this table are the result of aggregating the indicated responses.

2Numbers inside parentheses represent percent of the 497 line and percent of the 487 staff who

indicated further actions are needed.

3See note 3 in table 3.

!_ii_!iiii_!i _ii:i!ii!ii!_
Table 10,_Percent of Forest Service employees giving the following responses to "What do

yoct think ts the singte most important change that still needs to be made?"

__sponse Line Staff

Increase emphasis on non-commodity uses/decrease emphasis on commodities 14.0 16.4

(101,105,106,114,115,120,121,122,123,127) 1

Balance commodity development with environmental concerns;

achieve better balance between commodities and non-commodities

Continue/increase public involvement efforts (1,13) 9.8 6.4

Increase responsiveness to the public; increase sensitivity to public needs

increase emphasis on ecological balance/environmental concerns (102,111) 7.6 6.9

increase emphasis on/manage for entire ecosystem

Stand up to political pressure (56) 5.0 5.0

Defend policies; keep politics out; stand up to Congress and interest groups

Educate the public (4) 4.9 5.3

Better inform the public/Congress

Manage for the best needs of the forest despite politics (113) 4.7 3.6

Emphasize stewardship/commitment to the land

Get better, more ethical leadership (307) 3.7 2.1

Provide budget for implementation of forest plans (503) 3.5 1.3

Emphasize district level decisions/planning (304) 3.3 2.5

Provide authority at grass roots level

Redefine Forest Service mission, develop focus (302) 3.2 2.4

Develop a vision; come to consensus on Forest Service mission

Regain leadership role, credibility with the public (6) 2.9 1.0

Decentralize decisionmaking; get rid of military structure (312) 2.8 1.6

Institute bottom up decisionmaking; empower staff

Re-emphasize multiple use management/go back to basics (103,116,800) 2.5 2.9

Re-emphasize managing resources; go back to way it was

Less interference/micromanagement from Congress (51,52) 2.3 2.1

Congress shouldn't set targets; budget shouldn't be tied to targets

Increase general funding (501) 2.3 1.5

increase funding for on-the-ground work (502) 2.2 1.0

Implement current plans (316) 2.2 0.7

Make sure people on ground are aware of/following plans

Promote work force diversity (401) 2.1 2.7

Change appeals process; reduce amount of litigation (8) 2.0 1.0

Change budgeting process (509) 2.0 0.7

e.g., speed up process, provide multi-year funding

Increase commitment/follow through on policy changes (305) 2.0 2.3

Do what Forest Service says it will do; respond in timely manner

Increase emphasis on research (203) 1.3 2.5

Other/miscellaneous 2 34.8 37.0

1Numbers in parentheses correspond to the numerical codes for responses to Question D8 listed in

the Appendix. Categories in this table are the result of aggregating the indicated responses.

2 See note 3 in table 3.

37
Table 1 1.mPercent of Forest Service employees giving the following responses to "VcT_atdo

you think is the single greatest challenge faci;_g the Forest Service today?"

_o, nse Line Staff

Responding to public wants (02)1 23.4 17.4

identifying and responding to what the public wants; responding

to changing values/perceptions of public/society

Regaining public trust (01,03) 12.3 8.9

Maintaining/regaining credibility, public trust; improving public image

Dealing with conflicting demands from external groups (28,43) 12.3 8.7

Dealing with conflicting demands from different groups,

including interest groups, Congress, and the public

Increasing ecological/environmental sensitivity (22,26,29,32,40) 8.4 13.5

Responding to environmental/ecological concerns; maintaining biodiversity;

managing for entire ecosystem; protecting endangered species

Balancing commodity and non-commodity uses (11) 7.5 3.9

Maintaining proper balance between commodity and amenity/non-commodity uses

Moving away from stewardship because of politics (07,31,41,44,47) 7.1 7.6

Needing to manage forests despite political pressures; getting politicians

out of forest management; balancing proper management with public opinion

Maintaining multiple use management/resisting single use interests (19) 5.3 4.6

Regaining sight of Forest Service mission (68) 5.2 3.0

Needing clear statement of mission, common direction;

regaining sight of mission, direction

Educating the public (05) 4.2 2.4

Educating the public; explaining programs/management methods

Adapting/responding to change (67) 4.1 2.9

Overcoming difficulties/slowness in adapting to change

Workforce diversity (62,63,65) 3.9 7.1

Dealing with workforce diversity; promoting workforce diversity;

slowing down workforce diversity

Maintaining stewardship, high quality management (18) 3.5 2.4

Maintaining high quality management, ethical resource

management, stewardship

Funding constraints (45) 2.1 5.3

Funding constraints, economic problems

Decreasing emphasis on commodity uses/increasing on non-commodity (20,23) 2.1 3.9

Decreasing emphasis on timber and other commodity uses;

increasing emphasis on non-commodities

Working conditions, morale (61) 1.7 4.5

Working conditions, heavy workloads, morale, human

resource management problems

Other/miscellaneous2 19.6 25.2

1Numbers in parentheses correspond to the numerical codes for responses to Question A8 listed in

the Appendix. Categories in this table are the result of aggregating the indicated responses.

2 See note 3 in table 3.
Tab]e 12.---Percent of employees who agree or disagree with various utews related to the

Agency's multiple use mission

Views on Strongmy Somewhat Somewhat Strongly

mission _ree a__ree NeutraJ d_isa_ree _ree

Local economic concerns play too large a role in making multiple use management decisions

Line 13 37 1 38 11

Staff 21 41 0 27 10

It is more important to manage Forest Service lands for tocal employment than for environmental quality

Line 1 10 2 37 50

Staff 5 20 2 30 43

Agency should place less emphasis on multiple use development and more emphasis on preservation

Line 4 14 1 27 54

Staff 13 25 1 28 31

Forest Service will be abJe to achieve its future multiple use objectives without harming the environment

Line 28 47 1 20 5

Staff 17 42 1 28 11

In order to reduce multiple use conflicts, Forest Service should consider shifting to single or dual uses in

some areas

Line 19 38 1 16 26

Staff 22 48 1 13 13

Timber harvesting is usually the best way to enhance other multiple uses

Line 8 30 2 41 20

Staff 9 29 1 35 25

39
Table 13.--Percent of employees who agree or disagree with certain proposats and op_tions

pertaining to the Forest Service's mission

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly

Proposal/opinion agree agree Neutral _ree disa_

InternationalForestryprogramsshouldreceive increasedemphasis

Line 31 46 1 16 5

Staff 34 46 1 13 4

Forest Service should place greater emphasis on modifying the management of National Forest areas to

complement activities on adjacent lands

Line 14 43 2 25 15

Staff 21 45 1 21 12

Under current levels of use, it will be difficult to sustain resource capabilities for future generations

Line 25 28 1 23 23

Staff 34 29 1 22 14
Table 14.--Percent of employees who agree or disagree with various views related to public

involvement and extemc_ pressures

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly

View a_ree a_ree Neutral _e d_is=a_,,qree

Forest Service is responsive to public needs in determining multiple use objectives and priorities

Line 42 50 0 7 2

Staff 32 56 0 10 2

In a democratic society, public preferences should ultimately prevail, even when they conflict with the

judgment of resource professionals

Line 13 38 1 34 15

Staff 7 28 0 43 22

The demands of interest groups are usually not consistent with sound resource management

Line 17 44 1 33 5

Staff 26 45 1 24 4

Forest plan objectives are more important than Congressional intent for targets

Line 48 33 1 13 5

Staff 44 35 1 13 6

41
Table 15.wPercent of employees who believe that certain groups have too much or too tittle

influence on Forest Service policy

Far too Too About Too Far too

.... Groups much much........... rj_ht _itt_e _ittie

The public

Line 0 2 26 60 11

Staff 1 4 33 49 12

Environmental groups

Line 12 49 32 7 1

Staff 18 43 25 11 2

Commodity groups (timber, grazing, mining)

Line 15 61 21 3 0

Staff 15 45 28 9 1

Key members of Congress

Line 28 51 19 2 0

Staff 31 48 15 4 1

The President and top level Administration officials

Line 13 30 46 9 1

Staff 17 35 35 8 2

Forest Service line officers

Line 1 8 62 26 2

Staff 6 18 55 17 2

Forest Service staff

Line 2 23 57 16 1

Staff 2 17 52 26 3

42
Table 16,--Percent of Forest Service err_ptoyees giving theJbltowing responses to "Why do

yoa agree or disagree with the statement ' that making planning decisions through.facetaface negoKat_n arr_ong #_terest groaps so that planning decisions can be made by

consensas is a move #2 the roht direction for the Forest Service?'"

Reason Line Staff

POSIT]VE

Good way to gauge public opinion, society's values (2)1 25.4 23.1

Need to work with public/get public involved; need to incorporate

society's values

Increases range of ideas/input (11) 21.8 30.8

Introduces more options/ideas; results in better exchange of information

It's the right thing to do in a democratic society (6,31) 11.7 9.1

Land belongs to the people; consensus management important

in a democratic society

Only way to get anything done (1,16) 9.9 5.3

Encourages/forces compromise, bargaining in good faith; clears

road blocks to action

Develops broader support for decisions (22) 9.1 5.3

All parties take ownership of outcome; creates "win-win" situation;

reduces conflict/problems later

Results in better decisions/solutions (14,34) 8.4 4.8

Leads to better resource balance, better forest management

Creates better dialogue among groups (12) 5.0 2.2

Results in better understanding of opposing viewpoints

Avoids litigation (24) 5.0 3.9

Provides opportunity to inform/educate public (4) 4.9 5.3

Helps public to better understand the issues

Puts Agency in touch with actual users/interested parties (15) 2.3 3.3

Improves Aile_ncy's credibility/relationship with the public (3) 1.8 2.3

NEGATIVE

Leads to biased decisions (41,43,51) 9.1 7.9

Parties present may not be representative; interest groups have

too specialized interests; national perspective may be lost

Leads to professionally/technically unsound decisions (52,53,56,72) 8.9 11.9

Input lacks scientific basis, based on emotion; goals are diluted

through compromise; long-term effects are not considered

Process contains too many difficulties (42,62,65,66,67) 6.1 3.8

Process takes up too much time, costs too much, is too politicized,

hasn't worked well; people won't compromise, don't bargain in good faith

OTHER/MISCELLANEOUS

Other/miscellaneous2 12.0 10.7

I Numbers in parentheses correspond to the numerical codes for responses to Question D3A listed in

the Appendix. Categories in this table are the result of aggregating the indicated responses.

2 See note 3 in table 3.

43
Table 17.--Percent of employees who agree or disagree with va_Xocts statements pertaining

to the su_ncy of direction received from management

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly

agree agree Neutral __d!sa___a ree

ForestServicemanagement does not providepeoplelike me with enough direction and structure to guide

day-to-day decisions and activities

Line 1 5 0 27 66

Staff 7 20 1 35 37

In general, I know what I'm accountable for on the job

Line 85 13 0 1 1

Staff 73 22 0 4 1

In general, the system provides appropriate feedback for me to know how i'm doing on the job

Line 40 43 0 13 3

Staff 34 42 0 16 8

44 •

_ , , _ , ' I I' I IIIIIIII I I IIIIIIIIIIII
Tabte 18._Percent of Forest Service employees who think of themselves as environmentalists

Number

in sample

Percent _hted)

LINE

Total 78 **.1 865

Women 82 NS 2 111

Men 77 754

Minorities 63 ** 71

Whites 79 794

Biologists 80 NS 86

Foresters 80 506

< 20 years of service 78 NS 412

>.._.,._..._ears of service 78 453

STAFF

Total 65 944

Women 61 NS 346

Men 67 598

Minorities 62 NS 126

Whites 65 818

Biologists 79 NS 73

Foresters 72 175

< 20 years of service 65 NS 689

> 20 years of service 65 255

NS = Not Significant

* p < 0.05

** p < 0.01

*** p < 0.001

1 Indicates that difference between line and staff (total) is statistically significant.

2 Indicates that difference between women line and men line is not statistically

significant.

45
Table 19.wPercent of Forest S_ervice employees who have a favorable or unfavorable

impression of environmentalists

Very Somewhat Somewhat Very

favorable favorable Neutral unfavorable unfavorable

LINE

Total 7 57 0 30 4 ,1

Women 8 65 0 25 0 NS2

Men 7 56 0 30 5

Minorities 9 61 0 27 4 NS

Whites 7 57 0 30 5

Biologists 12 63 0 23 1

Foresters 7 54 0 32 6

< 20 years of service 7 59 0 29 4 NS

> 20 years of service 7 56 0 30 5

STAFF

Total 9 54 0 28 8

Women 10 54 0 28 7 NS

Men 8 55 0 28 8

Minorities 12 58 0 19 7 NS

Whites 8 54 0 29 8

Biologists 11 59 0 24 5 NS

Foresters 6 49 0 34 9

< 20 years of service 9 56 0 27 7 NS

> 20 years of service 7 49 0 31 12

NS= Not Significant

* p < 0.05

p < 0.01

p < 0.001

i Indicates that difference between line and staff (total) is statistically significant.

2Indicates that difference between women line and men line is not statistically significant.

46
Table 20,---PerceT_t of Fbrest Service employees giving the followbag responses to "Why do

yotz have a Javorable (or _tr{favorable) impression of environrnentalists ?"

Line Staff

POSiTiVE

Environmentalists want to promote good management, have best interest 9.1 7.6

of environment in mind (13,17,21) _

They want to use scientific information to improve forests;

they want to preserve resources, protect world

They are very committed; they speak their convictions (27) 8.4 5.3

They have good intentions

They reflect respondent's personal views/philosophy (22) 6.6 11.7

Respondent thinks environmental concerns are important

They have led to heightened awareness of problems (1) 6.4 7.0

They have pointed out mistakes/problems that are being made,

changes that need to be made

They have brought about needed policy changes (11) 4.9 2.1

They have made FS move in the right direction

They have presented other (non-FS, non-commodity) side of issues (3) 4.4 3.1

They have provided balance

They are addressing critical issues (26) 4.0 2.7

They have good ideas, an admirable cause

They have made FS more accountable (5) 2.6 1.4

They ask questions and force FSto answer

They are better educated than they used to be (19) 2.5 1.0

They know what they are doing

Other positive views 7.0 5.1

Total positive views 45.6 39.5

NEUTRAL

Environmentalists are generally good, but some go to extremes (72,74,75) 12.4 13.2

Environmentalists' goals are good, but not their methods; some groups are

well-intentioned, others are not

Other neutral views 6.7 5.6

Total neutral views 19.0 18.8

NEGATIVE

Environmentalists are extremists; have hidden agendas (31,32,35,36,41,45,47,54) 28.0 29.7

They use unprincipled tactics; they are too radical, inflexible, politically

motivated; they go overboard, distort issues, lie, are unethical

They are subjective, speak with emotion rather than knowledge (34) 11.0 9.2

They use unscientific thinking, are naive

Single interests dominate; they don't think of the whole system (40) 5.4 5.2

Environmentalists are preservationists (52) 2.9 1.0

They impose unwise policies on land (51,53,55) 2.0 3.2

They don't know how to manage resources; some of their actions

increase costs to taxpayers; they want to stop human use of resources

They don t look at human/social costs of their actions (48) 1.2 2.5

Other negative views 5.8 8.2

Total negative views 43.0 45.7

OTHER/MISCELLANEOUS

Other/miscellaneous 2 4.7 4.2

I Numbers in parentheses correspond to the numerical codes for responses to Question E15B listed

in the Appendix. Categories in this table are the result of aggregating the indicated responses.

2 See note 3 in table 3.

4'7
Table 21 .--Percent of line and staff who agree or disagree with various vizws concerning

society, nature, and the environment

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly

View agree acjree Neutral .______3._ tee

There are limitsto growthbeyondwhich ourindustrializedsocietycannot expand

Line 53 38 0 6 2 ***

Staff 45 40 0 10 3

Humans must live in harmony with nature in order to survive

Line 67 30 0 3 0 NS

Staff 69 27 0 3 0

Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs

Line 13 54 1 20 12 ***

Staff 10 40 0 24 25

Human interference with nature often produces disastrous consequences

Line 25 43 1 25 5 ***

Staff 41 40 1 15 3

Nature is resilient and readily recovers when disturbed

Line 15 58 1 21 5 ***

Staff 10 40 2 29 20

Nature's resources are vast and thus there is little likelihood that humans will exhaust them in the near

future

Line 1 7 0 36 56 ***

Staff 4 12 0 25 59

Society will have plenty of warning to make adjustmentsbefore any lasting harm is done to the

environment

Line 3 18 0 41 38 ***

Staff 4 16 0 31 49

NS = Not significant

•** p < 0.001

48

= _n ...... , , , ............ i'rl .... I .... 'l I i i iii II I II II II ;
Table 22.---Percent of FOrest Semice men and women (by line and staff) who agree or

disagree wi#t varto_ts views concerning society, hat,ire, and the environment

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly

View a_ree ._._.__r ee Neutral disa,_ree d isa.,,g.ree

There are limits to growth beyond which our industrialized society cannot expand

Line

Women 69 27 0 3 1 **

Men 51 40 0 7 2

Staff

Women 39 46 0 10 3 *

Men 48 37 1 10 4

Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs

Line

Women 5 48 1 30 15 *

Men 14 55 1 t9 11

Staff

Women 7 35 0 29 29 * *

Men 12 43 1 21 23

Nature is resilient and readiMyrecovers when disturbed

Line

Women 7 46 1 37 9 ***

Men 16 60 1 19 5

Staff

Women 6 34 1 32 28 ***

Men 12 44 2 27 15

Humans must live in harmony with nature in order to survive

Line

Women 83 17 0 0 0 **

Men 65 32 0 3 0

Staff

Women 74 25 0 1 0 **

Men 66 29 0 4 1

Human interference with nature often produces disastrous consequences

Line

Women 32 44 4 16 3 ***

Men 24 43 1 26 6

Staff

Women 46 39 1 13 2 NS

Men 39 40 1 16 4

Nature's resources are vast and thus there is little likelihood that humans will exhaust them in the near

future

Line

Women 0 6 1 23 70 *

Men 1 7 0 37 54

Staff

Women 4 13 0 23 60 NS

Men 4 11 1 26 59

Society will have plenty of warning to make adjustments before any lasting harm is done to the

environment

Line

Women 1 8 0 32 59 ***

Men 3 19 0 42 35

Staff

Women 5 12 0 27 56 **

Men 3 18 1 33 45

NS = Not Significant

* p < 0.05 49

** p < 0.01

*** p < 0.001
Table 23.--Percent of Forest Service minority and white employees (by line and st af_ who

agree or disagree with various views concerning society, nature, and the enviror_ment

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly

View agree ,agree Neutral _ ._disagree

There are limitsto growthbeyondwhich ourindustrializedsocietycannotexpand

Line

Minority 51 45 0 3 0 **

White 54 38 0 7 2

Staff

Minority 31 44 1 14 8 ***

White 47 40 0 10 3

Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs

Line

Minority 10 51 0 30 10 NS

White 13 55 1 20 12

Staff

Minority 13 37 1 21 28 NS

White 10 40 0 24 25

Nature is resilient and readily recovers when disturbed

Line

Minority 11 48 0 31 10 NS

White 15 59 1 20 5

Staff

Minority 11 41 1 25 24 NS

White 9 40 2 30 19

Humans must live in harmony with nature in order to survive

Line

Minority 72 25 0 3 0 NS

White 66 30 0 3 0

Staff

Minority 71 27 0 2 0 NS

White 69 27 0 3 1

Human interference with nature often produces disastrous consequences

Line

Minority 21 48 1 23 7 NS

White 26 43 1 25 5

Staff

Minority 42 35 0 21 1 NS

White 41 40 1 14 3

Nature's resources are vast and thus there is little likelihood that humans will exhaust them in the near

future

Line

Minority 1 6 0 32 61 NS

White 1 7 0 36 56

Staff

Minority 8 23 0 20 49 ***

White 3 10 1 26 61

Society will have plenty of warning to make adjustments before any lasting harm is done to the

environment

Line

Minority 4 16 0 41 39 NS

White 3 18 0 41 38

Staff

Minority 5 24 1 25 44 *

White 4 14 0 32 50

NS = Not Significant

* p < 0.05

50 ** p < 0.01

*** p < 0.001
Table 24.--Percent of Forest Service employees by discipline (and by line and staffl who

agree or disagcee with various views concerning society, nature, and the environment I

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly

View agree ............... a_ree Neutral disagree disag.ree

There are limits to growth beyond which our industrialized society cannot expand

Line

Biologists 58 37 0 4 1 NS

Foresters 52 41 0 6 2

Staff

Biologists 72 21 0 5 2 *

Foresters 49 33 0 13 4

Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs

Line

Biologists 12 49 0 21 17 *

Foresters 15 55 0 20 10

Staff

Biologists 7 43 0 24 26 NS

Foresters 14 45 0 21 19

Nature is resilient and readily recovers when disturbed

Line

Biologists 14 52 1 25 8 NS

Foresters 16 61 0 18 4

Staff

Biologists 11 41 0 33 13 NS

Foresters 15 53 0 23 9

Humans must live in harmony with nature in order to survive

Line

Biologists 71 28 0 1 0 NS

Foresters 64 32 0 3 0

Staff

Biologists 87 10 0 2 1 ***

Foresters 64 34 0 2 0

Human interference with nature often produces disastrous consequences

Line

Biologists 34 45 0 18 8 *

Foresters 23 40 1 29 7

Staff

Biologists 50 32 1 11 5 *

Foresters 30 40 2 23 7

Nature's resources are vast and thus there is little likelihood that humans will exhaust them in the near

future

Line

Biologists 1 7 0 23 69 NS

Foresters 1 7 0 38 54

Staff

Biologists 2 2 1 28 66 NS

Foresters 2 10 0 27 60

Society will have plenty of warning to make adjustments before any lasting harm is done to the

environment

Line

Biologists 1 8 0 40 51 *

Foresters 3 21 0 42 34

Staff

Biologists 1 6 0 30 61 NS

Foresters 4 16 0 37 43

NS= Not Significant

• p < 0.05

•* p < 0.01

•** p < 0.001

1Discipline is defined by major field of most advanced coflege degree. 51
Table 25.--Percent of Forest Service employees by years of service (and by line and staff)

Lvho c_ree or d&_aqree with various views concerning society, nature, and the environment

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly

View a_ree agree Neutra.-i ................ d!sa_ree_ree

There are timits to growth beyond which our industrialized society cannot expand

Line

S_20 years of service 60 32 0 6 2 **

> 20 years of service 47 44 0 6 2

Staff

20 years of service 45 40 0 10 3 NS

> 20 years of service 45 41 0 10 3

Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs

Line

,_ 20 years of service 9 55 1 22 12 *

> 20 years of service 16 54 0 19 11

Staff

< 20 years of service 10 38 1 26 25

> 20 years of service 11 45 0 17 26

Nature is resilient and readily recovers when disturbed

Line

20 years of service 12 53 1 29 6 ***

> 20 years of service 17 63 1 14 4

Staff

20 years of service 8 38 2 31 22 ***

> 20 years of service 15 46 2 24 14

Humans must live in harmony with nature in order to survive

Line

20 years of service 73 26 0 2 0 **

> 20 years of service 62 34 0 4 0

Staff

< 20 years of service 72 26 0 2 0 **

> 20 years of service 63 30 0 5 1

Human interference with nature often produces disastrous consequences

Line

,_ 20 years of service 27 41 1 25 5 NS

> 20 years of service 23 45 1 26 6

Staff

20 years of service 43 39 1 15 3 NS

> 20 years of service 38 42 2 15 3

Nature's resources are vast and thus there is little likelihood that humans will exhaust them in the near

future

Line

20 years of service 1 4 1 35 59 *

> 20 years of service 1 9 0 36 53

Staff

20 years of service 4 12 0 25 60 NS

> 20 years of service 4 12 1 26 58

Society will have plenty of warning to make adjustments before any lasting harm is done to the

environment

Line

20 years of service 3 13 0 40 44 **

> 20 years of service 3 22 1 42 32

Staff

.< 20 years of service 4 15 0 30 51 NS

> 20 years of service 3 18 1 33 45

NS = Not Significant

p <0.05

p < 0.01

52 .... P < 0.001

' ................,,.................... - '11ri'- "1
Table 26:--Proportion of line and staff err_Ioyees who have any

degree _acb_[or's, Master's and Doctor's) in the major

fields #ldicated

Percent of line who have a degree in:

Forestry 69

Biology 14

Range science 7

Other natural resourcescience 18

Physical scienceor engineering 6

Other 7

Percent of staff who have a degree in:

Forestry 21

Biology 9

Other natural resourcescience 10

Physical science or engineering 6

Social science or humanities 10

Other 6

53
Table 27.mDemographic and background characteristics of Forest Service employees by

hierarchical position

Upper Lower Upper Middle Lower

line line staff staff staff

Percentwho are:

Women 7 14 19 32 64

Nonwhites 7 8 10 11 22

Percent who have:

High schooldiplomas 100 100 1O0 98 97

Bachelor'sdegrees 1O0 1O0 93 56 19

Master'sdegrees 37 37 40 11 1

Doctor's degrees 18 18 16 1 0

Percent who are (based on most recent degree obtained):

Foresters 59 58 34 19 3

Biologists 8 11 10 9 2

Range scientists 3 7 -- --

Other natural resource scientists 17 15 17 9 2

Physical scientists or engineers 7 4 12 5 1

Social scientists or in the humanities -- -- 9 8 10

Other 8 5 11 5 1

Average GS rating 15 13 13 9 5

Average years of service 26 20 19 16 10

Average a£1e 50 46 47 42 41

Percent who plan 10 years from now to:

Work forthe ForestService 29 52 40 59 59

Work elsewhere 5 5 10 10 11

Retire 66 41 49 29 28

54
Table 28.--Demogrc_hic and background characteristics of Forest Service employees by

genc_r

Men Women Men Women

line line staff staff

Percent who have:

High school diplomas 100 100 98 99

Bachelor's degrees 100 99 63 41

Master's degrees 36 48 17 11

Doctor's_rees 19 11 5 1

Percent who are (based on most recent degree obtained):

Foresters 61 39 24 9

BioJogists 9 18 9 6

Range scientists 7 1 --

Other natural resource scientists 14 23 9 9

Physical scientists or engineers 4 5 7 2

Social scientists or in the humanities m m 7 12

Other 4 14 7 4

Average GS rating 13 13 10 8

Average years of service 23 13 18 10

Avera e a e 48 39 44 40 ...... cj cj

Percent who plan 10 years from now to:

Work for the ForestService 42 84 50 65

Work elsewhere 5 9 7 14

Retire 52 4 40 20

55
Table 29.--Demographic and backgrotmd characteristics of Forest SePotce employees by

race

White Minority White Minority

Jine _ine staff staff

Percent who have:

High school diplomas 100 100 98 98

Bachelor's degrees 1O0 1O0 57 44

Master's degrees 38 28 16 9

Doctor's degrees 19 9 4 1__

Percent who are (based on most recent degree obtained):

Foresters 60 39 19 14

Biologists 9 16 8 3

Range scientists 6 16 --

Other natural resource scientists ! 5 21 10 1

Physical scientists or engineers 4 4 6 4

Social scientists or in the humanities -- -- 8 13

Other 6 4 5 9

Average GS rating 13 13 9 8

Average years of service 22 18 16 12

_e ..... 47 43 43 39

Percent who plan 10 years from now to:

Work for the Forest Service 45 65 55 58

Work elsewhere 5 11 9 16

Retire 48 24 34 25

56
Table 30.--Demographic and backgroLnnd characteristics of line employees by discipline

(based on highest degree obtained)

Other Physica_

Range natural sciences

Forestr Bioio science resources & eng_i_

Percent who are:

Women 8 22 2 19 15

Nonwhites 5 12 19 11 8

Percent who have:

High school diplomas 100 100 100 100 100

Bachelor's degrees 1O0 1O0 1O0 1O0 1O0

Master's degrees 25 58 24 59 61

Doctor'sde_g_rees 10 41 11 30 21

Average GS rating 13 14 13 13 14

Average years of service 23 19 22 19 19

Average age _ 47 46 46 46 46

Percent who plan 10 years from now to:

Work for the ForestService 44 49 47 55 50

Work elsewhere 4 11 5 2 16

Retire 51 38 46 38 32

57
Table 31 .--Demographic and background characteristics of staff emptoyees by discipline

(based on highest degree obtained)

Other Physica_ SociaJ

natural sciences sciences & No

Forestry _Bi01°gY resources & en_manities de_

Percentwho are:

Women 18 27 36 14 49 48

Nonwhites 10 5 1 9 t9 17

Percent who have:

High school diplomas 100 100 100 100 100 96

Bachelor's degrees 100 100 100 100 100 0

Master's degrees 21 35 39 23 21 0

, Doctor's,degrees 5 9 16 3 2 0

Average GS rating 11 10 11 11 9 7

Average years of service 17 12 14 17 11 16

.... Average age 42 39 41 44 43 ,43

Percent who plan 10 years from now to:

Work forthe Forest Service 58 66 64 51 56 52

Work elsewhere 8 12 11 10 18 8

Retire 33 17 22 37 23 39

58
Table 32,--Demographic and background characteristics of l{ne employees by years of

service

20 years 30 years

or less, or less, More

10 years but more but more than 30

or Jess than 10 than 20 years

Percent who are:

Women 45 22 1 0

Nonwhites 2 13 6 1

Percent who have:

High school diplomas 100 100 100 100

Bachelor's degrees 100 100 100 100

Master's degrees 69 41 29 37

Doctor's degrees 62 12 15 24

Percent who are (based on most recent degree obtained):

Foresters 32 51 67 67

Biologists 21 12 6 9

Range scientists 2 7 7 5

Other natural resource scientists 19 20 12 10

Physical scientists or engineers 10 5 3 4

Other 15 5 4 5

Average GS rating 13 13 13 14

__e._ .... 41 41 50 56

Percent who plan 10 years from now to:

Work for the ForestService 73 82 21 1

Work elsewhere 10 8 3 2

Retire 12 8 75 97

59
Table 33.--Demographic and background characteristics of staff employees by years of

service

20 years 30 years

or _ess, or _ess, More

10 years but more but more than 30

or less than 10 than 20 years

Percentwho are:

Women 63 34 13 0

Nonwhites 20 13 8 5

Percentwho have:

High schooldiplomas 100 99 97 86

Bachelor'sdegrees 56 57 49 59

Master's degrees 16 13 16 14

Doctor'sdegrees 2 3 5 7

Percent who are (based on most recent degree obtained):

Foresters 12 21 21 33

Biologists 11 9 3 5

Other natural resource scientists 10 10 7 4

Physical scientists or engineers 4 5 7 9

Social scientists or in the humanities 15 7 4 5

Other 5 5 8 2

Average GS rating 7 9 10 11

Average age 37 41 50 56

Percent who plan 10 years from now to:

Work for the ForestService 70 70 19 3

Work elsewhere 16 11 1 0

Retire 11 17 79 97

ii_,
1FIGI/NF__ Figure 10.--Opinions of Forest Service employees on below-cost timber sales, by

Figure 1 .--Percent of Forest Service employees line and staff.

indicating that an RPA issue is very

serious or somewhat serious, by line Figure 11 .---Opinions of Forest Service employand staff" ees on clearcutting, by line and

staff.

Figure 2.--Percent of Forest Service employees

indicating that the Agency is very Figure 12.--Distribution of Forest Service

committed or somewhat committed employees by gender and race and

to addressing an RPA issue, by line by line and staff.

and staff.

Figure 13.--Distribution of Forest Service

Figure 3.--Percent of Forest Service line era- employees by discipline and by line

ployees indicating that the policy and staff.

stated in the 1990 RPA is better

(-much better or somewhat better) or Figure 14.--Distribution of Forest Service

not different from related policies employees by years of service and

over the past 10 years, by line and staff.

Figure 4.--Percent of Forest Service staff Figure 15.mPercent of Forest Service employees

employees indicating that the policy indicating that an RPA issue is very

stated in the 1990 RPA is better serious, by hierarchical position.

(nmch better or somewhat better) or

not different from related policies Figure 16.--Percent of Forest Service employees

over the past 10 years, indicating that the Agency is very

committed to addressing an RPA

Figure 5.--Percent of Forest Service employees issue, by hierarchical position.

indicating that further actions should

be taken on an issue, by line and Figure 17.nPercent of Forest Service employees

staff, indicating that the policy stated in

the 1990 RPA has changed over the

Figure 6.--Percent of Forest Service line em- past 10 years, by hierarchical

ployees indicating that the Agency's position.

emphasis on a use has changed.

Figure 18.--Percent of Forest Service employees

Figure 7.--Percent of Forest Service staff indicating that further actions

employees indicating that the should be taken on an issue, by

Agency's emphasis on a use has hierarchical position.

changed.

Figure 19.--Opinions of Forest Service employFigure 8._Percent of Forest Service line era- ees on below-cost timber sales, by

ployees indicating that an objective hierarchical position.

should be the most important to the

Agency, and the percent indicating Figure 20.--Opinions of Forest Service employthat an objective is the most impor- ees on clearcutting, by hierarchical

tant to the Agency. position.

Figure 9._Percent of Forest Service staff Figure 21 .--Percent of Forest Service employees

employees indicating that an objec- indicating that an RPA issue is very

tive should be the most important to serious, by gender and line and

the Agency, and the percent indicat- staff.

ing that an objective ts the most

important to the Agency.

61
Figure 22.mPercent of Forest Service employees Figure 33.MPercent of Forest Service lilac

indicating that the Agency is very employees indicating that an RPA

committed to addressing an RPA issue is very serious, by discipline.

issue, by gender and line and staff.

Figure 34.--Percent of' Forest Service staff

Figure 23.uPercent of Forest Service employees employees indicating that an RPA

indicating that the policy stated in issue is very serious, by discipline.

the 1990 RPA has changed over the

past 10 years, by gender and line Figure 35.--Percent of Forest Service line

and staff, employees indicating that the

Agency is very committed to adFigure 24.--Percent of Forest Service employees dressing an RPA issue, by disciindicating that further actions pline.

should be taken on an issue, by

gender and line and staff. Figure 36.--Percent of Forest Service staff

employees indicating that the

Figure 25.--Opinions of Forest Service employ- Agency is very committed to adees on below-cost timber sales, by dressing an RPA issue, by discigender and line and staff, pline.

Figure 26.--Opinions of Forest Service employ- Figure 37.mPercent of Forest Service liae

ees on clearcutting, by gender and employees indicating that the policy

line and staff, stated in the 1990 RPA has

changed over the past 10 years, by

Figure 27.--Percent of Forest Service employees discipline.

indicating that an RPA issue is very

serious, by white and minority and Figure 38.--Percent of Forest Service staff

line and staff, employees indicating that the policy

stated in the 1990 RPA has

Figure 28.mPercent of Forest Service employees changed over the past 10 years, by

indicating that the Agency is very discipline.

committed to addressing an RPA

issue, by white and minority and Figure 39.--Percent of Forest Service line

line and staff, employees indicating that further

actions should be taken on an

Figure 29.--Percent of Forest Service employees issue, by discipline.

indicating that the policy stated in

the 1990 RPA has changed over the Figure 40.--Percent of Forest Service staff

past 10 years, by white and minor- employees indicating that further

ity and line and staff, actions should be taken on an

issue, by discipline.

Figure 30.uPercent of Forest Service employees

indicating that further actions Figure 41.---Opinions of Forest Service line

should be taken on an issue, by employees on below-cost timber

white and minority and line and sales, by discipline.

staff.

Figure 42.---Opinions of Forest Service line

Figure 31 .---Opinions of Forest Service employ- employees on clearcutting, by

ees on below-cost timber sales, by discipline.

white and minority and line and

staff. Figure 43.--Opinions of Forest Service staff

employees on below-cost timber

Figure 32.---Opinions of Forest Service employ- sales, by discipline.

ees on clearcutting, by white and

minority and line and staff. Figure 44.---Opinions of Forest Service staff

employees on clearcutting, by

discipline.

62

.................. ..... ..........
Figure 45.---Percent of Forest Service line Figure 50.--Percent of Forest Service staff

employees indicating that an RPA employees indicating that the policy

issue is very serious, by length of stated in the 1990 RPA has

service, changed over the past 10 years, by

length of service.

Figure 46.mPercent of Forest Service staff

employees indicating that an RPA Figure 51.--Percent of Forest Service line

issue is very serious, by length of employees indicating that further

service, actions should be taken on an

issue, by length of service.

Figure 47.--Percent of Forest Service line

employees indicating that the Figure 52.--Percent of Forest Service staff

Agency is very committed to ad- employees indicating that further

dressing an RPA issue, by length of actions should be taken on an

service, issue, by length of service.

Figure 48.NPercent of Forest Service staff Figure 53.--Opinions of Forest Service line

employees indicating that the employees on below-cost timber

Agency is very committed to ad- sales, by length of service.

dressing an RPA issue, by length of

service. Figure 54.--Opinions of Forest Service line

employees on clearcutting, by

Figure 49.mPercent of Forest Service line length of service.

employees indicating that the policy

stated in the 1990 RPA has Figure 55.--Opinions of Forest Service staff

changed over the past 10 years, by employees on below-cost timber

length of service, sales, by length of service.

Figure 56.--Opinions of Forest Service staff

employees on clearcutting, by

length of service.

63
0 20 40 60 80 100

Maintaining water quality ___-_,_,_'_-\,-\_5-__ __._ :i:i:i:i:i:!:i:i_i: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Loss of biological diversity _-_-_-_-,_xxxxx_\x\_,5,5,_.x._

Loss of threatened and _,_,_,_-,_-_,_-,,_-_.-_-_._-_x_-,_.-_,_-,\\x\\x_\\xx\_

Meeting recreational needs ___ ! .......... !i:i:i:-:}:?:i:i:i:!:i:i:i:::!:i:i:-:-:i:i:i:i:i:S-:_:_':.:.:.:':'. •

of the public

Global climate change _"_'_"_"_"_'_"_"_'_'_'_'_\_\\_\_\_\\_

Loss of old-growth forests --_-_ " ;. "- _:t_t_:r_:_:i:i3i:i:i:i:_::_::i:i:i:::::i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:::i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:::::i:!:!:::i_i:i:i:i:::::i:::_:;i:i|

Impacts on riparian areas __ • " _:!:_:_:_:_:!:_:::_:i:i:i:!:!:i:!:i:!:::!:i:i:_:!:i:i:i!!:_:_:i:!2!:!:_:i:!!i:i:!:!:::i:i:!:!:i:i:_

Condition of National Forest _.,\\\\.,_\\,_._\\.,\.,\...,._

ranclelands :_ " :....:_-- _::_:::................. :::::::_:_::::..................... ::::::................. ::_:::::: : :::::::::::::::::::::::::

Clearcutting ___E`_.:t-_-_- _t_:_:i:i:i:_:!:_:i:i_i:!:i ,x\\-,.x-_x\\\-_ :i:i:i:_:_:i:i:i:i:9i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:_:_:!:i:i:i:i:ii

Threats to wilderness areas _:._`_;_:_:_:_:;:_:_:_:3:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:::_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_::::_:_;_:_:_:::_:_:;:_:::3

Below-cost timber sales _-_>-'_:_"'-\"\\\\\\_-\\'_ ========================================================================

,_ !,,, ! ! ,, ,! ,,,! I, ; ; _;

0 20 40 60 80 1O0

Percent of employees

RPAissue is

Key

Somewhat

Very serious serious

Staff _._.._._ _.',\\\\".',L*.'_

Line _

Figure 1._Percent of Forest Service employees indicating that an RPA issue is very serious

or somewhat serious, by line and staff.

64
Key Level of ForestService committment to

addressingthe issue:

Very Somewhat

committed committed

Staff

Figure 2._Percent of Forest Service employees indicating that the Agency is very committed or somewhat committed to addressing an RPA issue, by line and staff.

65
0 20 40 60 80 1O0

I i ..... t t _ )_'"_'_"_I__

Maintainingwater quality __

Conserving biological diversity __. _.\\-z'_.._._:_ii::_ ,a :::_.......... ..................................................................1

Recovering and protecting threatened, _._.__`_:``_._:_:__.`_`_

endangered, and sensitive species -_-\\\\\\\\\\"\\\_'-\_'\\_ - -

Meeting recreational needs of the public ___-_-_"_:_:_:_:_:::_= _\%_\"...%_%_\\\\\\\\\% II ........... '_"=::_.::'=_ _:==_:':_ .............. _:_

Reducing effects of global climate change __,-z_-._ ............................................................................

Protecting old-growth forests ___.._:_:_,_:_,_:_:_:,_,_,_,_:_............. :__i_i_!_ ,:_ ,:!_:_!__

Improving management of riparian areas ``\\\\``_\\``\\``___`_`a:_:_:;:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_i=_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_

Improving condition of

National Forest rangelands __:==:::_:_::_

========================================================================================= Reducing clearcutting

================================================== Protecting wilderness areas _._,.,,,,\\,.,,,\_.,,,,\,,,,\\,,,,_\\\\\\\\\\\_

.... i I ! ! ! ! .... F ...........

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of line employees

Key ForestService 1990 RPA

policy is:

Much better

Somewhat better

Not different

Figure 3._Percent of Forest Service li_ employees indicating that the policy stated in the 1990 RPA is

better (much better or somewhat better) or not different fTom related policies over the past 10 years.

66
0 20 40 60 80 1O0

_--_-_--_ ........ 4--------4--"-'-'--"_ ............._-'--------4_

Maintaining water quality _ ................................................................................ "I

Conserving biological diversity _ .................................................................... _;_:._i?_

Recovering and protecting threatened, _.,..,,_..,,.-._ ....................................................................... _:_:_:_:_:_:::::1

endangered, and sensitive species - "..........

Meeting recreational needs of the public __• -_""."._"=::"_._:_.:.:.:_:.:.:.:_:.:.:_:.:.:.:.:.:.:_:.:_:.:_:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:_:.:_:_:_:.:.:.:.:.:.

Reducing effects of global climate change __:: ....................................................................................................]

Protecting old-growth forests _`_`_:_:_:_:?_:_:_::-_::_:_:_.:_[_._:`::?._-:_.?_:_._:_1_._._:_:_-_:,_

Improving management of riparian areas :::_...._.-.._.:::::::....................................................................................................:,,,=.-.::....::=,.-._-_a::,_.

Improving condition of :::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::

National Forest rangelands _'_,\_'_,,_'_2_%%%_......

Reducing clearcutting __a_i_:_i_i!i_i_i_i_i_i:_i_i_:1_i_:;_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_:_:_:_:_

,-, • _..-.._:..,:•.:,:.:[:,: ;-, .:.:.:,:.:.:.:.:.I.:.:.:.i,:,':.':.:,%:.:.:.':,:.:.':'

Protecting wilderness areas _:::_

Reducing below-cost timber sales __ .........................................................................

.-......_, _ _ _ _ _ _ _,,

0 20 40 60 80 1O0

Percent of staff employees

Key Forest Service 1990 RPA

policy is:

Much better

Somewhat better

Not different

is Figure 4._Percent of Forest Service staff employees indicating that the policy stated in the 1990 RPA is

_. better (much better or somewhat better) or not different from related policies over the past 10 years.

67
0 20 40 60 80 00

_,_ I I, I I- --I--

LOSS of threatened, endangered,

and sensitive species - - " -------"-

Loss of old-growth forests _\h _.\_\\\\\',._\\\\\\\__

Condition of

National Forest rangelands _\\\\\\'_\"\\\\\\\\x_ ....

Clearcutting _\,.xx._-.-,\xx\x_ _

Below-cost timber sales _\\\x,_\\\\_'\\\\\\\\-_

....... I_ I 'I I I I I --t ....... i---_

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of employees

Key

Staff

Line

Figure 5.--Percent of Forest Service employees indicating that further actions should be taken on an

issue, by line and staff.

0 20 40 60 80 100

I I I ' I I I I I I

. ======================================================================================

Wildlife and Fish j

Recreation _'_ _:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_=_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_,_

- - _:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:]:_:_:_:_:i:_:_:_:_:_!:_:_:_:::::::::::::::::::::!:_:_:_:_:!:_:!:_:_!:!:_:_:_:_:_

Wilderness _'

_::i:i:i:!:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:_:::::::i_:::::_::::::::_:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:::::::i_:::ii:::i::i::,::| _::i:i:i:i:i:i:!:!

Water ......

_lt_,:;!:,.':::!!!!!!:!:!!!!!:!:!!!:!::.:_:i:!:;a Minerals .............. ,

Tim ber _-_\k-_\\\\\-_\\\\-..\\_

Grazing _::::_:_:!:_:!:::_:::_:_:!_ _"_%._.\%.'%_.% .\_I I

I I I I I I I I i

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of line employees

Forest Service emphasis has:

Key _ Increased a great deal _ Decreased a great deal

Increased somewhat _ Decreased somewhat

Stayed about the same

Figure 6.mPercent of Forest Service line employees indicating that the Agency's emphasis on a use has

changed.

68

__, - _ ........... _,. i ,,,, .i i iiii
0 20 40 60 80 1O0

............... ........... -t'----t ....... i.................. 4----'-"

Recreation __-

Wilderness __±_ _;:_;_

_&_&.'_&_K_'4_ :!_:i:!:i:i!r: _i!::::i:!:i:!:i:i:i:i:}:!:!:!:!:! :_:!ITI _:_i:::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::!:: :::::]

Water _ _t "

Minerals

Grazing

I _ I t ! I I i 1...............

0 20 40 60 80 1O0

Percent of staff employees

ForestService emphasis has:

Key mEWIncreased a great deal _ Decreased a great deal

Increased somewhat _ Decreased somewhat

i"-q Stayed about the same

Figure 7._Percent of Forest Service stal_ employees indicating that the Agency's emphasis on a use

has changed.

69
0 20 40 60 80 100

Wildlife and Fish

Recreation _

Water -- -"_- " -

Timber _\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\_

Grazing _!

! I I I I } I t I .......

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of line employees

Key

Should be the most important to the Forest Service

EEEE_Is the most important to the Forest Service

Figure 8.NPercent of Forest Service line employees indicating that an objective should be the most

important to the Agency, and the percent indicating that an objective is the most important to the

Agency.

0 20 40 60 80 100

I I I I I t I ! I '

Wildlife and Fish

Recreation _ ....... - r...\N.\\%l

Water __

Timber _,,\-,.\., ...\.,\,,,,\\.,\\\\\,_

Grazing

I I I I I I I ', ',

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of staff employees

Key

_i Should be the most important to the Forest Service

Is the most important to the Forest Service

Figure 9.--Percent of Forest Service st_ employees indicating that an objective should be the most

important to the Agency, and the percent indicating that an objective is the most important to the

Agency.

7O

.,.......:. :::..L:::_,:::_ - .......... ,.,,,, .............. Mr, ,. ........................................ i' 'ili i ,i i I
Percentof employees who answered "yes" to the question:

Do you think that in some cases below-cost timber saJes are justified?

Line j

0 20 40 60 80 1O0

Percent of employees who answered "yes" to the following question:

Do you think there are too many below-cost timber sales in the National Forests?

Staff r,,-,x-,_,,,,.-,.,,>._\\\_ j

Line _'__ i:__ __..,__.__,__l

0 20 40 60 80 100

Figure l O.--Opinions of Forest Service employees on below-cost timber sales, by line and staff.

Percent of employees who answered "yes" to the question:

Do you think clearcutting is an acceptable management practice?

Staff _ i

Line

I I ! I I I ! I I

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of employees who answered "yes"to the following question:

Do you think there is too much clearcutting on the National Forests?

Staff k\\\\\\\', .\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\_ I

Line . _,,. v ........ ..,.

I I I I I ! I I I I

0 20 40 60 80 1O0

Figure 1 1 .--Opinions of Forest Service employees on clearcutting, by line and staff.
en_12% n-white._8%

u°o tiii!i!iil iLi!i i!il

7% -white_13%

Staff

Figure 12.wDistribution of Forest Service employees by gender and race and by line and staff.

72
Line

Other--

5%

Physical sciences/

engineering--

Biology-- 4%

10%

Other natural resources--

Range-- 15% 6%

Social scienc

Staff humanities-- ^.._"^............

9% Other--

5%

Physical sciences/

engineering--

5%

Other natural resources--

7%

Biologym

8%

Figure 13.reDistribution of Forest Service employees by discipline and by line and staff.

73
More than 30 years-- Lessthan 11 years--

Line

More than 30 years--

5%

21-30 ears--

Staff

Figure 14.--Distribution of Forest Service employees by years of service and by line and staff.

74

........._-,................................ ,...................................................... ............................................................. ,, i:_
0 20 40 60 80 100

Maintaining water quality

Loss of biological diversity

Loss of threatened, endangered,

and sensitive species

Meeting recreational __

needs of the public

Global climate change

Loss of old-growth forests

Impacts on riparian areas

Condition of _

National Forest rangelands _:%,,;::_:..:.::_L;,:_,%_::_:::_:_:_L:;:j:_:_j

Clearcutting _

Threats to wilderness areas

Below-cost timber sales

I I i I I I I i !

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of employees

Key

Lower staff _ Lower line

Middle staff _ Upper line

Upper staff

, ,

Figure 15.--Percent of Forest Service employees indicating that an RPA issue is very serious, by

hierarchical position.

75
0 2O 40 6O 80 100

Maintaining water quality

Conserving biological diversity _-_

Recovering and protecting threatened, __

endangered, and sensitive species ___j

Meeting recreational -.'"1%\ \' -. \-. -. -. -..\ -,,\ 1

needs of the public _ ........

!:i:i:i:::i:i:i:!:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:::i:i:i:i:i:!:i:i:i:i:::!:i:i:i:i:i_i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:_:i:i:]:}:i_i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:!:i:i:i:7:`::_:i:_7:7:_:i:`;_``:_:i_i:i:i_:]

Reducing effects of global

climate change _ ........:_

Protecting old-growth forests _ -

Improvingmanagementof _- _ -.. _ \\,,\\-,_,\,,\,,-,,,,,\-,\\-,,,\\x_ ....

riparian areas __,

National Improving Forestcondition rangelands of __:_:::: ................... _:::::::_:,:,:,::_:_::_,:,::_:_: . ......

Reducingclearcutting _'_"_

_:.:.:.:7i

<_ ",,.L" "..._\ \ "-..\\%\\_\,\%x1

Protecting wilderness areas

_;: :.:.:1

[ _'_....",, "% ',, "% -%i

Reducing below-cost timber sales

I _ I I I I .....

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of employees

Key

Lower staff _ Lower line

Middle staff m Upper line

Upper staff

Figure 16._Percent of Forest Service employees indicating that the Agency is very committed to

addressing an RPA issue, by hierarchical position.

76
0 20 40 60 80 100

| ! ! L______L_ .....

Maintaining water quality

Conserving biological diversity _

Recovering and protecting threatened, endangered, and sensitive species

Meeting recreational _J

needs of the public __:_ ....

Reducing effects of global - \\\\x\\\-_

climate change ___ ...............

k "... "-.._ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ k ,._ % "% _. \ \ "% I

Protecting old-growth forests _...._.;:_._. _ . . _ _

!_:i::::::i:::::::!:: :::i::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :_:!:i, :: '::i:::::i:i ::_::_:i .i :::iri::r_::i :i_::::: ::i:i:::_:':-:_:._r:: _ _i:_:_::i::,'_

, ".. \ \ \ \ \ \ _. \ \ \ "_ \ "_ \ \ % 1

Improving management of

riparian areas _¢._=____ ....

Improving condition of _

National Forest rangelands __.,:_

...........?;?27_?""" Reducingclearcutting ,.\,.\,.\,.x\xxx,.,.,.\-,..x,._x___

:i:i:i:i:i:i::_::_::_:i:i:i::_:i:i:i::_:i:i:i::_:i:_:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:!:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:}:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:}:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:.:i:i:i:i:i!

_,.-_..-_ -- 

Protecting wilderness areas

Reducing below-cost timber sales _\\,.\,,\-,.\\\,.,.-.\-.,.,.,.,4 

i:i :.:i::.:i:i:;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 

t I I ! I I ', ', 1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percentof employees

!i

Key

Lower staff _ Lowerline

Middle staff _ Upperline Upper staff _

Figure 17.--Percent of Forest Semice emp/_yees indicating that the policy stated in the 1990 RPA

has changed over the past 10 years, by hierarchical position. '_

..

...

i

i_

_
0 20 40 60 80 1O0

Loss of threatened, endangered, ,,-------------------_;-_.------_ and sensitive species ...............

Loss of old-growth forests _::i:i:i"

Condition of " _ " ....

National Forest rangelands __::::::::::!:i:{:i:i:{:i:i:i:_:i:i:i:i:i:i:_:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:_:i:i:_:_:;:_:;:;: .................................. ;:;:::_:;:_:_:_:::;:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:;_: _ _:_:_:;:i:i:i:i:i:i:i;i:i:::i_:_

....

Clearcutting

Below-cost timber sales

I I I I I I __

0 20 40 60 80 1O0

Percentof employees

Key

Lower staff _ Lower line

Middle staff _ Upper line

Upper staff

Figure 18._Percent of Forest Service employees indicating that further actions should be taken on an

issue, by hierarchical position.

78
Percentof employees who answered "yes" to the question:

Do you think that in somecases below-cost timber sales are justified?

Lower staff ._. ,._

Middle staff -- -.

Upper staff _ .....

Lower line _,-_ ....... --,

Upper line ....._ ........................................................................................... __

l I [ -- I I | I 1 1

0 20 40 60 80 1O0

Percent of employees who answered "yes" to the following question:

Do you think there are too many below-cost timber sales in the National Forests?

Lower staff _::,,,:-,,-,,\ -. -. \ \ -, \

Middle staff .......

Upper staff _-,_.\\_,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\',\\\\\\\_

Lower line ___._,_-___,_,_

Upper line _-_-............................................... i!_._._.._. _:::_:_:_:::::::::_:_:_:_:_:::_::_:::_:_:_:`::/i:::i_!_::i_i._i_i_:_:_i_i

----T_--1 J...... ! ! i 1 I I !

0 20 40 60 80 100

Figure 19.mOpinions of Forest Service employees on below-cost timber sales, by hierarchical position.

Percent of employees who answered "yes" to the question:

Do you think clearcutting is an acceptable management practice?

Lower staff ,. \ -. \ -,.\ \ \ -,,\ -,,

Middle staff

Upper staff _\\-.\-,-,,%-,\,.-,,,\\-.\\\\\\\\\\\,,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\_

Lower line _._-.._;_>___,_:_

Upper line :_............................ _:::::_:_ ....................................................... _............................................................ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

I I ! I I ! I I !

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of employees who answered "yes" to the following question:

Do you think there is too much clearcutting on the National Forests?

Lower staff \ -. \ -,.-. \ \ \ \ -,_\-.. ,,.\ \ \ \ \ _

Middle staff - -

Upper staff _,,-,.\-,.\..\.......................,_

Lower line _- -_-- -._.-_._,_,_,- .__..... - ._,_

Upper line :::_': ............. _........................................... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:.:::.:_`:.:::::::::::::::::::: ...................................... 1

I I I I I I I I

0 20 40 60 80 100

Figure 20._Opinions of Forest Service employees on clearcutting, by hierarchical position.

79
0 20 40 60 80 100

I t I t---L .... t

Maintaining water quality __

Loss of biological diversity _:_:_

Loss of threatened, endangered, ,_\ \ "_"- \ x \ \ \ \ \ \ \ _.,

and sensitive species ___ _:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:!:!:i_::_:i_!_::!:i_:_:_

\_%\\\\\\\/

Meeting recreational needs of the public __ ............

• . o. ......

. \ _ \ \ \ _- \ %- %-\ \ \ '% _i

Global climate change __:i: _x\\\\\\\\-, E:i:{:!:i_i_i:i,:E\\\\\\\\\\_ _i_i:]:i_i_i:i:i_i:i:i_!:E_i_!_i_!:i:i_i:i:i_E_[:i:E_E:i_]_i:E:5:__]:!:i:i:i:_

Loss of old-growth forests _:_::,

\',\\\\\\\\\1

Impact on riparian areas -'-\\\\\\"-'-\\\\\\'-\\\\\\\'4

Condition of . ", ",.\ "--\ ", "-

•_\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" "I

National Forest rangelands ......................................................................................... __. - _; _ ::::::::::::::::::::::t

\\\\\\\\\1

Clearcutting _\\\\\\\\\\\\\',]

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Threats to wilderness areas

-_%\-,. \ M

Below-cost timber sales __\"]

I I I I I I I I i

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of employees

Key

Female staff _ Female line

Male staff _ Male line

Figure 21 .--Percent of Forest Service employees indicating that an RPA issue is very serious, by gender

and line and staff.

8O
0 20 40 60 80 100

__-_ ......

Maintainingwater quality

Conserving biological diversity _.,.

Recovering and protectingthreatened, "-\ \ \ \ "-"- ...... ",-_'_'-\_

endangered, and sensitive species .................................................................................................................................

._K \ \ \ \ ",.. \ \ \ _,,_\ \ \l

Meeting recreational needs of the public __

Reducing effects of global climate change

....... ,, ,. -...,, \ \ -.,j

Protecting old-growth forests

_,: ,,, .-.-.:.:.,,v:. "._.

Improving management of riparian areas __..%..,3

Improving condition of

National Forest rangelands _:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:;:_:_:_:;_:_

Reducingclearcutting _.,:_!

!\ \ \ \ \\\\\\ \\ \",_\\ \1

Protecting wilderness areas t.\\\-..\\\\\\\-.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\_

Reducing below-costtimber sales _............. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ........

l I l I I I I I I I

0 20 40 60 80 I00

Percent of employees

Key

Femalestaff _\ \ \ -,J Female line

Male staff _ Male line _.,;_.a

Figure 22.tPercent of Forest Service employees indicating that the Agency is very committed to addressing an RPA issue, by gender and line and staff.

81

i_ii_ii !II_
0 20 40 80 80 1O0

F--'-1 t 0 t i | "J -t--_-_-

......... \ _',. "% \ \ _,. _',1

Maintaining water quality ___x_x__

I-_-\-\ \ \ -., \ \ \ \ \ \ \ _-,, \ \ \ \ \ \'i

Conserving biological diversity _

Recovering and protectingthreatened, k_, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ x _:_

endangered, and sensitivespecies l_:_:!_!_!:!:i=!:i:!=i:!:i:i:i_,_ ....... _;_*`_,,_ :_::_:_:_:_, :_:_:_ :_=_i_!:_i:_,_:_:_:_:_:_=_=_=_=_:_:_:_` :_:_.._:_:_:_:_:_4 :_ ._:_=::_:

_--_--_\ \ \ \ \ \ \.. \ \ \ \ \ _,._."_

Meeting recreational needs of the public I_N_'_%Nx.%'a__.'>_N'%)_\_.

L \ \ \ \ \ \ \-,, \ -,.\ \ \-,_ \ \ \ \|

Reducing effects of globalclimate change _-- _: .,2.:_-., ....... _ ._j; _\\_\\\\\\\\-_-_\\- /ii::=j:_:;::_; i: /;i:.::x,iii ........ :/_;i;_i; ;i:i.............................................

...."*"_T_' '"' _ ............... ,. ........ 4. .............................................

" %\\ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \\ ",.\ _.i

Protecting old-growthforests .__::i:_i_i:i_i:i_i:i:i:i ..'-,,,"%_-,_\\\\\\\\\,.\\-.,.\\\\x\\\,.\\\\\\, :i:i_:::::::::::_::_:::::::::::::i:i:!:::!:i :!:::::::_::::::::: :i:i:::i:::::i_:::::i::::: :_:::::::::::::::::: :.::xx,_ ::::::::::::: ::::2::::::!:::::::::::_::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

__'Z,.'.'._.__:_ .... -- , _

;\\ %.\-,, % -,.,%\--,.-,,.\--,.\ \\]

Improving management ofriparian areas _\\ _:._ \\\\:!:_::::::::::::::::::::::: \\\\\\x\x\\\\ ::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::;:::: _ ;;::::::::_::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::_:_:::::::::::::2!:!: ::::::] :::::::::::::::::_::::::2!

Improvingcondition of _'L".\'L"_\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\',i ", "-"- "- "- "-", \_

National Forestrangelands :::...................... ::::_ _:_:::::::::_:_:_:_:_:_:_:::_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_::_::_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_

Reducingclearcutting _\\\\-,.-..,,\\\ 2i_:_.:i:`:i_iti:i:i:i:i:i:!:\\i:!:!:-,.:_:::: \\\\-..x, ::::::::::::::::::::i:::{::::::::_::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::i:::!::_::::_::_::::::::::::::::::::::i::::::::::::::::::::_::::::::::_::::::::::::::::::::::::

Protecting wilderness areas :.:_\\\\_

Reducing below-costtimber sales __

- I I I I I I I I I

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of employees

Key

Femalestaff _ Female line :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Malestaff _ Male line

Figure 23._Percent of Forest Service employees indicating that the policy stated in the 1990 RPA has

changed over the past 10 years, by gender and line and staff.

82

,,, .._;,_,
0 20 40 60 80 100 ------{--....._ ............. -t_ ---4..... -_------................. 4 _............

Loss of threatened, and sensitive endanger species ed, ._

Loss of old-growth forests

Condition of

National Forestrangelands

Clearcutting __ .........

_.x*\\\_ \\\\-M

Below-cost timber sales _N..&N._..._.&_N%\_%%_._X,t_

_:!:i:!:i:!:7:i:i:i:i:i:!:?:!:!:!:!:!:i:i:!:i:!:!:!:i:i:i!i:i!?:i:!:!:i:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:_:_:?!T:_!?T_:_:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of employees

Key

Female staff _ Female line

Male staff _ Male line

Figure 24.--Percent of Forest Service employees indicating that further actions should be taken on an

issue, by gender and line and staff.

Percent of employees who answered "yes" to the question:

Do you think that in some cases below-cost timber sales are justified?

Female staff ,.-, x-,,,-, \ \-, \-, -. -.-. \ \-,J

Male staff _\\-,\\\\\-._.\\\\\\\\-_

Female line i::_:_:: ....................................................................................................................................................t:::_:: I

Male line _-_'__=_;,_ --_ --- ,._,_._==

I I I I I I I I I

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of employees who answered "yes" to the following question:

Do you think there are too many below-cost timber sales in the National Forests?

Female staff _.",.\ \ -. \ \ _-\ \ -,._-\ \ -1

Male staff _\\\\\\'_\\\\\\\\\\'_a

Female line .I;_!9:!:_:T:_:_:_................... :_:_:_:_:T:<:T:T:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:T _:_:_:_:_:<:_:_:T:_'.<:<:_:_:_:_:T:T:_:T:T :_:_:T'.T:T:_ :T:::_:T,

Male line _,,_,.,_,__,,_._

I I I I ! I I I 'i

0 20 40 60 80 100

Figure 25.--Opinions of Forest Service employees on below-cost timber sales, by gender and line and

sta_

83
Percentof employees who answered "yes"to the question:

Do you think clearcutting is an acceptable management practice?

Female staff ,,'-,.-,._,\\ ,, -, _.\-, _

Male staff _-_,,-..-_.-.,,_-,-,,_-_-_-_-_-,1

Male line .... _-,_._

I ' I "" 'I l I I I ' 'I I....

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of employees who answered "yes" to the following question:

Do you think there is too much clearcutting onthe National Forests?

Female staff -, -,,\ -, & -, -,.'i-,.-..\ -,.-,_-,.\ -,.\ \ \ -_

Male staff _\-,\\\\\-.._-,\-,\\-,\\\,..,_

Male line . - . ....

I I I" ' ' " I "' I .... I I I I '

0 20 40 60 80 100

Figure 26.--Opinions of Forest Service employees on clearcutting, by gender and line and staff.

84
0 20 40 60 80 100

Maintaining water quality

Loss of biological diversity

Loss of threatened, endangered, _\\\\\\\\\\\\_.\_\_ F_-X-_E--XZ_--__%.-'X-X-_ \ \ i

and sensitive species __ .......................

i_.................................................. - . _ ............._ _

i_\\\\\\\\" ,,,\\\ \_.]

Meeting recreational needs of the public _\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \_

Global climate change _

_7

[."-.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\l.,,..._

Loss of old-growth forests I__N5 N N "_\ x \ \ \ \ \ \ -J

kNN\\\\\\"-.", .-',.\\\\\\\\x'_.\'_

Impacts on riparian areas .F.___,_O

::::::::::::::::::::::: ..................

Condition of k\\\\\\-,,.\\\\\\\\x_

!'_-"_._',,._,__. _,__

National Forestrangelands _i_ _*_'_

I .............................

Clearcutting _

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Threats to wilderness areas

Below-costtimber sales

I I I I I I I I I

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of employees

Key

White staff _ White line _

Minority staff _ Minority line

Figure 27._Percent of Forest Service employees indicating that an RPA issue is very serious, by white

and minority and line and staff.

85
0 20 40 60 80 100

Maintaining water quality

Conserving biological diversity x \ \ \ \ \ \ -,.x _ _

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Recovering and protecting threatened, _\\\\\\\\-,\.,.\\\\\\\\-4

endangered, and sensitive species __

_\_\\-".:".-\\\\\\x\" _\"--" N1

Meeting recreational needs of the public \ ", \ ". \ \ ",,\ ",.\ \ \\ \ \ N

Reducing effects of global climate change

C"_.\%%."_.%.%,\% ,% ._._...\__X\_ I

Protecting old-growth forests "-'- "- ", '. ",". \ ", ","- "- "-

:::::::::_::::`_i:i:::::i::::_;:::::::::::::::::i:i:!:::::::i:i:i:i:::::!:::::::::::::::::::::!::_i:i:i:!::::_

Improving management of riparian areas ,,x \x.. _ \ \ \ \ ,,.\ _.\ ",L,,,,,,,I

Improving condition of ,'-'-',-,,,',,.-,--'.-J %_\ "% %_ "... _ \ "..j

National Forestrangelands ___ !:_:_a:_.,'_,__ :!:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_..:!:_:_:_:_:_:I_!!!!!;:_:!:_:!:!!;:!!!!_:!:;:_:_:::!!:!!:i!i!i:_:;:::

Reducingclearcutting _

_\\_\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\',t

Protecting wilderness areas _\ -..\ \ \ \ -,,-,.-,.-,.-,.x.\\ \ \ \ \ ,,

Reducing below-costtimber sales

! t I I I I I

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of employees

Key

White staff _ White line

Minority staff _ Minority line

Figure 28._Percent of Forest Service employees indicating that the Agency is very committed to addressing an RPA issue, by white and minority and line and staff.

86
0 20 40 80 80 1O0

Maintaining water quality

Conserving biological diversity

Recovering and protecting threatened, "....

endangered, and sensitive species . -'.-_.__-_ --

Meeting recreational needs of the public _

Reducing effects of global climate change __%,N_._._.&.),_._.x..__ ...........

_\\ \\__\"._ Xi\\\\\\\\\\" KM

Protecting old-growth forests -,.\ \ \ \ \ \ -,.\ \ --,-_-\-_\-\-\-'_-_--_-r--

::::::::2:: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::i:::::::::::i::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::;:;:;:::;:;:::::::::::: 2::::::::::::::::::::::::;':';':':':';;:';;:::_

_\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\",.\\\\\\\\\\\\\_1

Improving management of riparian areas '- \ "- "- "-\ \ \ \ \ ", \ ", ",", ",", ",", "_

Improving condition of ,\',',\\',\\',\'-\,.\\\',\\',\\',._

National Forest rangelands ...........................................................................................................................................

i

_\N\\\\" ',_\\\\\\\\\\\\ 3

Reducing clearcutting "\ \ \ \ \ \ \ "- \ \ \ x \ \ \ \ \ \ x -,.N[-

_::_:_:::_:_:::_:_:_:::__::::::_:_:::::::::::::::::::::::::_:::::::_:_:::_:::::_:::::::::::::::::::::::::_:_:+__:_:_:_:_____:_:_:+__:_:___:_:__,:______:::______:___:::

Protecting wilderness areas

Reducing below-cost timber sales _{_

I I I I I I I I I

0 20 40 60 80 1O0

Percent of employees

Key

White staff EE;S_ White line

Minoritystaff CS:2_ Minorityline _

Flgure 29.--Percent of Forest Service employees _nd_cc_tON that the policy stated m the 1990 RPA has

cN:m_ed over the past 10 gears, bg white and mmor_tg and [_ne and staff.

i
0 20 40 60 80 I O0

Loss of threatened, endangered, _

and sensitive species __

_\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\",3

Loss of old-growth forests _\\\\\\\\\\\-_

:::::::!::4:::::::-:::::::!:::::::::.:<::::.:::::::::::::::::::!::!!!:: ::::!!:::!::::::::::::!::_::::::!:i:!!i:i:!:!!i:::::_::::::!::::

Condition of _\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\_ \\\\\\\\\\'1

National Forest rangelands __",_,_

_\\\\" "-..\\\\\\\\\\\\\' ••,."_!

Clearcutting -,.,_-.,,.\\ -_-.-_\\\\-_1

Below-cost timber sales [\\\\\ \\\\\\N

I I I I I I I -'f---"-t"--_

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percentof employees

Key

White staff _ White line

Minority staff _ Minority line

Figure 30.--Percent of Forest Service employees indicating that further actions should be taken on an

issue, by white and minority and line and staff.

88
Percent of employees who answered "yes" to the question:

Do you think that in some cases below-cost timber sales are justified?

Percent of employees who answered "yes" to the following question:

Do you think there are too many below-cost timber sales in the National Forests?

Figure 31 .mOp#lions of Forest Service employees on below-cost timber sales, by white and minority and

line and staff.

Percentof employees who answered "yes" to the question:

Do you think clearcutting is an acceptable management practice?

White staff k,<_.\,.,.-.,.-,,.,.,.,.,,-.\,.\,.\\_\_\\\_ /

Minority staff L--.\ \ \ \ -,.\ \ -,.\ -,,-, \ \ i

White line ___ .... . - -

[| r i i i l i i l I

o 20 40 6o 8o _oo

i 

ii !

Percent of employees who answered "yes" to the following question:

Do you think there is too much clearcutting on the National Forests?

White staff _\*,,,-,-,-.-,-.-,,,,,-.,,,.,,-.,,,.x,,,,-,_\\\\\_\_\\_

Minority staff . \ -. -,.\ -, -,.\ \ \ \ ,. -,.\ -,.\_

White line .................

Minority line :::::::::::::::::::::: ............... ::::::::::::::::::::::: ..................... ::::::,:_:::::::::_::::::::::::v:_!_:_!i::!_:!i::!_!!!_!!!::!_!!!!!!!*::!!!!i_:!:_:_!i:::!:i::::_!!_

' '1 i I I I

o 4'o ;o

Figure 32._Opm_ons of Forest Service employees on clearcu_, by white and minority and Une and

sta_

89
0 20 40 60 80 100

Maintaining water quality __:_ - ....

Loss of biological diversity _-_!_iiii_::iF :::!_:!_::!::_:z:::!::_ .......... :_::_-::::

__

Loss of threatened, endangered, _._:_%'I:?':_:_::_:IC._._................................................ _

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

and sensitive species __--,-_--,-,

Meeting recreational needs of the public _<_q_;_<_<_,,:<_:_<<:_<_L__

Global climate change :::_:::::::::: ::::::::::::::::: :::::::................................ '

Loss of old-growth forests __-_, .......... ,,_

Condition of ............................. _.4,_...a

National Forest rangelands _._

,-', e"earcu"_n" -,u ::_.................................. '......................................

Threats to wilderness areas

Below-costtimber sales _ .............

I 1 I I I I i I I

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of line employees

Key Forestry

Biology

Range

Other natural resouroes

Physical sciences/engineering

Figure 33._Percent of Forest Service line employees indicating that an RPA issue is very serious, by

discipline.

90
0 20 40 60 80 100

---_- .......+----'ff'---f' ............... _ ', } J 1-............

Maintainingwater quality

Loss of biological diversity

Loss of threatened, endangered, _.

and sensitive species _

Meeting recreational needs of the public

Global climate change

:':':-:-:':+:.: +.:.:-:,:,:.:1:-:1:-:-:1:.:.:-:';':';';':1:-:,:.:.:.:.:.:.:,:.:.:.:+ :.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:,:.;-;.;., ............. ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:1

Loss of old-growth forests _.__,_i___

Impacts on riparian areas _::.:.;._::_;_:_i_:_:_i_:_:_,_:_:_i_:_._:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_!::J

Condition of _

National Forest rangelands _

Clearcutting _ 

Threats to wilderness areas

Below-cost timber sales

-.---.F ........... I I I I i I I I

0 20 40 60 80 1O0

Percent of staff employees

Key No degree

Forestry

Biology

Other natural resources

Physical sciences/engineering

Social sciences/humanities _ 

Figure 34._Percent of Forest Service staJ_ employees indicating that an RPA issue is very serious, by

discipline.

I IIIIIII
0 20 40 60 80 100

--- t .......4-- t -"F----¢-'_--¢-_'_'------_ - °

Maintainingwater quality

Conserving biological diversity ._r_.-_:_:_:_:_:_#:_:_#_ ............. ................... , ._._#:_:_;;:_

.... 7._ ............ _-_-'____'_t. :_r-;,.,.'._. Recovering and protecting threatened, _/.;_Z_:_:_7_:_;_:_i_:_:_:_:_!_:;;:_:_:._:_3:_!7:.:1_7+_:.:3_

endangered, and sensitive species ....__-_-,-:_ ---<

Meeting recreational needs of the public

Reducing effects of global climate change ........ _._._._._................. ._.:._.:-_-_._._.:._._._._._._

Protecting old-growth forests _F__:-...:::_:..,

Improving management of riparian areas _.....;_:._:_...4.!_::_:_i::::::_::t::_i_:_!:!:4_::::3:_::!_:3:!3::_:i:_:`:_3 %........................................ _.:=_ 7_;:_:.t

Improvingcondition of __.'.-.__:_'__ .i_i_i.i&._:_:_:.__:_.+:_:_:`:_:_:_:_x`:_:._,.:-.:_:_x .-.-.......: .:_:i:i:::i .-.:__...':::: ___________.___`____.._._______

National Forestrangelands

Reducingclearcutting _:`:_F _<:_::_:_:: ............... _........................................................................ :::_ '

`_:_X<_:_;_:_:_:_:_:_:+:_:_:+:_:_:_:.:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:+:_:_:_:;:_:_:;:_:_:_:_:;_:_:;:_;:;:|

Protecting wilderness areas `_=============_=_===_=_===_===_=_7_=_7;=_======_=_7;=_=_=

Reducing below-costtimber sales :::::::::::::::::::::::: ........................ :::::::::::::::::

1 I I I I ! ! I I.........

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of lineemployees

Key Forestry

Biology

Range

Other natural resources

Physical sciences/engineering _a

Figure 35._Percent of Forest Service _ employees indicating that the Agency is very committed to

addressing an RPA issue, by discipline.

92
0 2O 4O 60 80 1O0

......... _ ', |.............

Maintaining water quality

Conserving biologicaJdiversity

Recovering and protecting threatened, ._,_:._._..._

endangered, and sensitive species

Meeting recreational needs of the public

Reducing effects of global climate change __

Protecting old-growth forests

Improving management of riparian areas

Improving condition of

National Forest rangelands

Reducing clearcutting _

Protecting wilderness areas __. ....

Reducing below-costtimber sales

I.... i s _ _ l,,,t i l i

0 20 40 60 80 1O0

Percent of staff employees

Key No degree

Forestry--

Biology Other natural resources

Physical sciences/engineering

Social sciences/humanities m--,t-,a

Figure 36._Percent of Forest Service staJ_ employees indicating that the Agency is very committed to

addressing an RPA issue, by discipline.

93
0 20 40 60 80 1O0

I' I' ; i , .....

Recovering and protectingthreatened, __{:_:_:_::':::_ ................................................. _:_:_:::_:_:::_:{:_:::::_:{ ...................... :::::_

_:_7_:.`:f:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ;.: ....... :,:,:+:.:,i_ill

endangered, and sensitive species {_.x,._.-_k_a_.._._<&_.........._

Meeting recreational needs of the public _:_:::::::::_:::_::_+:v:v:::::_::, ........... _:;::V:_::::_t:_+::. :............. ,....................... _'-

Reducing effects of global climate change :=_,(.<._.(_.;._.;:_-_.<._.;_.(_,_._:_._:;._._:_.<._._-;._._._

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: ;: ; ; ::: :..; ;; :;:: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

[_!.____:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:___:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:__:__:_:_:_:___:_:_:__:::;_::::::::::::::::::::::::::::_:_:_:::::::::::::::: :::;:.:_ %::

National Forest rangelands ,x\\-,x-._x_,-_x_x\\',._.\\\--\\\\-a

:_:_:4_:_`:_:_:`:_:_:_:+:_:_::_:_:_:::::i::::_::::_:::::_::_:_i_i_:::::_:::_:::_:_:_::::_:_:_:::::_:_:::_:_:_:_::i_:::_i:::::::_:::::_::::_:_:_:_i_i_i_:::_+_;_

Reducing clearcutting <<_<;_:<_:._`_<_<<:_._<<_._:<_:<<_<<_aax`_a`.`_._ .................................................................................................... _ :_.._:_.::_:._:_._._._:_.

_,,._-_._'_._.'_,_',o_,_'_,,_ -

Protecting wilderness areas _;_i_:_ .... '_

t,','.'.',v,'-','-:.',;':';'"-"i" " ':'-.................................. :'" ===================================================================================

Reducing below-cost timber sales i:i_;_i:;_i:;:i:;:;:i:i:;_;:i:;:4 ................................ ................ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ............................... _,:::_

_---r ........[ i i i ! !

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percentof line employees

Key Forestry

Biology

Range

Other natural resources _m._

Physical sciences/engineering

Figure 37._Percent of Forest Service I_ employees indicating that the policy stated in the 1990 RPA

has changed over the past 10 years, by discipline.

94

_:i -,_ ..... i i III I III '1111II I %
0 20 40 60 80 1O0

Maintaining water quality

Conserving biological diversity ' " ' :'" " ...... - .............. :"- ............. _J_'_!_,'_'_.'_.';_'_,_'w_

Recovering and protecting threatened, ._ ...................

endangered, and sensitive species _'"

,._

Meeting recreational needs of the public _ -.-,.-.-.-.-._-._,_.._.-.-..,_.-.-_-_1

Reducing effects of global climate change

Protecting old-growth forests :_---.: .................................. `c_._.!._````<`!_._````_._<_............ `<.`_``_!_<_.<_<_:_``_<_<<_!_<_`:._ _,._._.-.-..-,_, <.``_<_`:._

-

Improving management of riparian areas _>_:._

Improvingcondition of _,

National Forest rangelands ............. 5.... \".

Reducingclearcutting _ ............ _._

Protecting wilderness areas -;:_:',2,:-R-_<,--,.___.-,_t:'_,,

................................. _ ...... = .............

Reducing below-cost timber sales

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of staff employees

Key No degree

Forestry

Biology

Other natural resources _

Physical sciences/engineering

Social sciences/humanities _

Figure 38._Percent of Forest Service staJ_f employees indicating that the policy stated in the 1990 RPA

has changed over the past 10 years, by discipline.

9 5
0 20 40 60 80 100

Loss of threatened, endangered, _ .....

and sensitive species

Loss of old-growth forests

Condition of National Forestrangelands _ _

Clearcutting _\l,_\\x, x_N

Below-cost timber sales !:?:ii:i:i:i!:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i :i:i::i:i :i:i:i:i:i:!:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:!:i: i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i?:?: i:_:_iiiii_:i:_:i:i:i:i :i:i::_<_i:!s1

i - t t m I- q........__

0 20 40 60 80 1O0

Percent of line employees

Key Forestry

Biology

Range

Other natural resources

Physical sciences/engineering

Figure 39.JPercent of Forest Service _ employees indicating that further actions should be taken on

an issue, by discipline.

96

i
0 20 40 60 80 1O0

...... L _._._ |....

Loss of threatened, endangered,

and sensitive species

Loss of old-growth forests

Condition of _=_ _ ....."_:_'_'__" '_ '::

National Forest rangelands

Clearcutting _

Below-cost timber sales

0 20 40 60 80 1O0

Percent of staff employees

Key No degree

Forestry

Biology

Other natural resources _

Physical sciences/engineering _

Social sciences/humanities

Figure 40.--Percent of Forest Service _!l_]'employees indicating that further actions should be taken on

an issue, by discipline.

97
Percent of line employees who answered "yes" to the question:

Do you think that in somecases below-costtimber sales are justified?

Forestry _.-....,. ..

Range ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Other natural resources _,.-.-.\\.,.-,._\-,.-,_,._\,.,.__

Physical sciences/engineering .......

I I I I - -'T _ _-" i"_

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of line employees who answered "yes" to the following question:

Do you think there are too many below-cost timber sales in the National Forests?

Forestry _z___.__

Biology _:::::_:_::::_:_:_:_:_.:_:_:_`_:<:_:i::::_:_:_:_:<:::_:i_:<:_:::_:::::_:_:_:<:_:_:_:_:_:<:_

Range :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Other natural resources _-,-.,.-.-,-,.-,.-.-,.\-.-,-,.\,.-.-.-,_

Physical sciences/engineering ' '

I I I I I "' I ' "' I I I

0 20 40 60 80 100

Figure 41 ._Opinions of Forest Service line. employees on below-cost timber sales, by discipline.

Percentof line employees who answered "yes" to the question:

Do you think clearcutting is an acceptable management practice?

Forestry __a__,___

Biology :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Range i:........... : :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::: ........... _:_:::::::_:_:_ ............... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .:::::::::::

Other natural resources _\-."-.',.-.\'-.\\'-.\\\\\\\-,',l

Physical sciences/engineering

I I I I ' "' ' I' I I I I

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of line employeeswho answered "yes" to the following question:

Do you think there is too muchclearcutting on the National Forests?

Forestry __._a_.: -_ .

Biology :_:;:_:_:_::_:::;:_:_:_:_;:;:_:;:;:_:_:::_:_:_:::;_`_:::::_:_:;_:;_:_:;_:_:_:_:_:_:::_:_:_:t

Other naturalresources _-_._-.,_-.-,-.-,,,-.-,_

Physical sciences/engineering

0 d' 20I I '!40 ' I 60l I 810 I ' 100

Figure 42._Opinions of Forest Service Une employees on clearcutting, by discipline.

98

i

i_'_-"-- _ i ii in I I III I I II I III
Percent of staff employees who answered "yes" to the question:

Do you think that in some cases below-cost timber sales arejustified?

No degree - -

Forestry __

Biology _:_:_ i.;:_:_:::_:_z_!:_:_::.-_:_;_:::..ii_!i_`_;_._i!_:_;.__

Other natural resources _",_\_\\\\\\\_\\_,_ _\-_\_\_\___ ',

Physical sciences/engineering ' -

Social sciences/humanities 2. x-, \ -, 5':_\ '. \ \ \ \ -,,

"' I l_ ! _.... I I ..... ! ........ I .... ! II...............

0 20 40 60 80 1O0

Percent of staff employees who answered "yes"to the following question:

Do you think there are too many below-cost timber sales in the National Forests?

No degree .......

Forestry __

Biology .......... _:::_:._._ ............... -:........... :.:-........................................ ._:_.............. _..........................................................

0ther naturaIresources x\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\_\\\_ _xx_

Physicalsciences/engineering

Social sciences/humanities .\ \\ \ \\ :\ \ \ \x \ \ \ ix,x,

.............i .......... I .......... I ......... I ...... I ! | I ! '

0 20 40 60 80 1O0

Figure 43._Opinions of Forest Service stej_f'employees on below-cost timber sales, by discipline.

Percent of staff employees who answered "yes" to the question:

Do you think clearcutting is an acceptable management practice?

No degree

Forestry ___:_:_:!

Biology ................................................................................................................................................:!_.................................

Other natural resources _.\\\\\\\\-._\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\_

Physical sciences/engineering ....... _ - •

Social sciences/humanities _\ \ \ \ -. \ \ \ -,,-_xj

! ! I I I I ! I" ' I

0 20 40 60 80 1O0

P

Do you

e

think there

rcen o

is too much

 ees ans ere

clearcutting on the

the

National Forests?

on

No degree

Forestry ___-_e._._.:_-_._=,>_

Biology ,'_.......................................... _:::_ ....................................... _............. ,..':: _;:::...:::_ .............. _..::.:................. ::_ _::::_.._:_:_.:_,

Other natural resources _\-,_\x\\\\\\\\\\-,.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\-_

Physical sciences/engineering _ -

Socialsciences/humanities k'\% -, .. _.\ \ \ \"_ -.\ \ \ x x'\ -,.\"\ -. x_

- , , ,, , _, , .....

o 2'0

Figure 44._Opinions of Forest Service stal_'employees on clearcutting, by discipline.

99

/
0 20 40 60 80 100

_-1 ..... I I I _'-"-t_"1 _

• _._.... _"_................ i_

Maintaining water quality

Loss of biological diversity

Loss of threatened, endangered, _'_';"

and sensitive species _<._._,_,t

recreational needs of the public Meeting

Global climate change .....

Loss of old-growth forests _" _ _":_'__" ' "

Impact on riparian areas .:._:_:: ................................ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Condition of __._o._,

National Forest rangelands _ ................

Clearcutting _

_._,_-._-- - - _--.-._..-;.--.._-_..r._...- -- ; :

Threats to wilderness areas _----

Below-cost timber sales

I I I I I I

0 20 40 60 80 1O0

Percent of line employees

Key

Length of service:

Less than 11 years

11 to 20 years

21 to 30 years

More than 30 years

Figure 45._Percent of Forest Service _ employees indicating that an RPA issue is very serious, by

length of service.

I00

m ,i ,, ,,,,,,,,, .................... i 'ii tt t iii rl I II ii
0 20 40 60 80 100

-. .... -t..... i.........-i-.......... I-----"

Maintaining water quality

Loss of biological diversity .._

Loss of threatened, endangered, __'*'_

and sensitive species

Meeting recreational needs of the public

_..._ ..............

Global climate change _-_'q---

Loss of old-growth forests _-_-*-'_

i...............

Impact on riparian areas _[_:_i_:;_::::_l "".,a

Condition of :___a,:,..,<:, :._ ..:_:.:a

Clearcutting _"_

Threats to wilderness areas ii_ii:_i_i[_ili £_

Below-cost timber sales

I I I , ! 4- ........1,_- I I I

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of staff employees

Key

Length of service:

Less than 11 years

11 to 20 years

21 to 30 years

More than 30 years

Figure 46._Percent of Forest Service staff employees indicating that an RPA issue is very serious, by

length of service.
0 20 40 60 80 100

Maintainingwater quality ......................................................................................................................_ ....

Conserving biological diversity "_

Recovering endangered, an protecting and sensitive threatened, species

Meetingrecreational needs of the public _<t<.\\,,__

Reducingeffects of global climate change

Protecting old-growth forests ","- "- ", ', ",", "-

Improvingmanagement of riparian areas

Improving condition of _".. \ ".,. \ "-.. \ \ -1

National Forest rangelands __£_-'x_

Reducing clearcutting _

Protecting wilderness areas _::::_:::-:

Reducing below-costtimber sales _"- "-:1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of line employees

Key

Length of service:

Less than 11 years

11to 20 years [:E;:::E3

21 to 30 years

More than 30 years EEEEEi

Figure 4 7._Percent of Forest Service _ employees indicating that the Agency is very committed to

addressing an RPA issue, by length of service.

102

..... , III
0 2o 40 60 80 1O0

Maintainingwater quality

Conserving biological diversity

Recovering and protecting threatened __...,,.,.

endangered, and sensitive species __--"-"'_-_:_ ...............

Meeting recreational needs of the public

Reducing effects of global climate change "_,,_,._v_

Protecting old growth .-....- ....._,.,. ....- .- ,.,.,.,.;.;,:.:.:.:.,'.-.._.:-_::::_3:::&__

__x__&.

Improving management of riparian areas )._.__

Improvingcondition of

National Forest rangelands _----"!::,i!:i:i:_:_:_:_:!:_:_::,ii:::,_,__

Reducingclearcutting __,.:N

Protectingwilderness areas __.:.:_..:_:_:_:_:_:::_:::-:-:-:-!

__\\X.\\\\\'k.\\\\\\\\_

Reducing below-costtimber sales

, , I I I I I I I I I

0 20 40 60 80 1O0

Percent of line employees

Key

Length of service:

Lessthan 11 years

11to 20 years

21 to 30 years

Morethan 30 years

Figure 48._Percent of Forest Service _taj_ employees indicating that the Agency is very committed to

addressing an RPA issue, by length of service.

103
0 20 40 60 80 1O0

.... _t_ ......Y_-I_I_---

Maintainingwater quality

Conserving biological diversity

Recovering endangered, and protecting and sensitive threatened, species

Meeting recreational needs of the public

Reducing effects of global climate change

i

Protecting old-growth forests Improving management of riparian areas i_;_::::_:-_::::::_:_:::::;:_:::_:_::::_ ................................................................................................

Improving condition of _....:_.'-_'_:-:.-

National Forestrangelands \-,.\-,.\\-v.L._x_-__-,._

Reducingclearcutting

Protecting wilderness areas

Reducing below-cost timber sales

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of line employees

Key

Length of service:

Less than 11 years

11 to 20 years

21 to 30 years

More than 30 years EE;2_

Figure 49._Percent of Forest Service lir_e employees indicating that the policy stated in the 1990 RPA

has changed over the past 10 years, by length of service.

104

,ull llll '11 I I
0 20 40 60 80 100

, j

_--r _ -_ 1 _........_ --}-.......... 4.....

Maintaining water quality

Conserving biological diversity

Recovering and protecting threatened, endangered, and sensitive species

Meeting recreational needs of the public

_:+:.:+:.

Reducing effects of global climate change :_`=_:_`_._:`_`_`_`_.=`.._`;.`_`=`:`_`_`.`=`_`:_:_:_.`.`._._..:_:_:`._._`=`:_:{:_a:_:_a.`.::`=`=`

Protecting old-growth forests

Improving management of riparian areas _.._.._.._._.._...'_..7>.._.._.%_,&._

National Forest rangelands

Reducing clearcutting %__;_

Protecting wilderness areas ......................................... _IIF_-_ .......

t._:Z_._ ......... - ...............

Reducing below-cost timber sales -_-_-%_:\-_ _{_[:i _:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:_:i:i:i:i_i:i:i:i:!:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:!:_!_!i:i:_8T!_]¢_;_

,, _ I l ! I I J I i

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of staff employees

Key

Length of service:

Less than 11 years

11 to 20 years EE;Z_

21 to 30 years

More than 30 years

Figure 50._Percent of Forest Service staj_f employees indicating that the policy stated in the 1990 RPA

has changed over the past 10 years, by length of service.

105
0 20 40 60 80 100

Loss of threatened, endangered, and _

sensitive species __:

Loss of old-growth forests ...._.."---_.._--_.-_..'_.---',--_-_...>_-_-....>--_

_,:_:_:

National Forest rangelands

0 20 40 60 80 1O0

Percentof line employees

Key

Length of service:

Less than 11years

11 to 20 years

21 to 30 years

More than 30 years

Figure 51._Percent of Forest Service _ employees indicating that further actions should be taken on

an issue, by length of service.

106

ii

' ' ,,, ill:,; !;j
0 20 40 60 80 1O0

---q-----I .......I ........ F-q , ,i I _............. 4-_

Loss of threatened, endangered, and _.'.'-_.:-.:.:::.-

sensitive species

Loss of old-growthforests _'"_'_ "

Condition of __°_"_'_

i15\\1:1

National Forestrangelands

Clearcutting _

i

Below-cost timber sales _--

0 20 40 60 80 1O0

Percentof staff employees

Key

Length of service:

Less than 11 years

11 to 20 years

21 to 30 years

More than 30 years IEE;:S;S3

Figure 52.--Percent of Forest Service staJ_ employees indicating that further actions should be taken on

an issue, by length of service.

107
Percent of line employees who answered "yes" to the question:

Do you thinkthat in some cases below-cost timber sales are justified?

Less than 11 years __

11to2Oyears _-,.-..\\_-,.',.\,.\\\\\\-._

0 20 40 60 80 1O0

Percentof lineemployees who answered "yes" to the following question:

Do you think there are too many below-cost timber sales in the National Forests?

!

!

Less than 11 years _r_<_,_-;:_a_.,_a:_:_aa-._,,'.'-.',.:_.a,'_'_*'-_

11 to 20 years _-,:\ • -.,\ \ -, \ ,, \ -, \ \ \ \ "_-_

21 to 30 years _::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ................................. _:::::::_::::i:i ................ ::::::::::;:::::::::::,::::::

More than 30 _-,\\\\\\\-,\\\\\',.\',\\\\\\\\\I

0 20 40 60 80 1O0

Figure 53.--Opinions of Forest Service line employees on below-cost timber sales, by length of service.

Percent of line employees who answered "yes" to the question:

Do you think clearcutting is an acceptable management practice?

Lessthan 11 years !_._..,.a-_:.___-_..'_..;t

11 to 20 years I_._,, ,, ,. ,, ,, ,,,, ,, ,, ", -, -.', -, -, -, ",", "- ". ","_

21 to 30 years _::_-..::-_-:_:_:_:_:_:_:::_ ................... _:::_:_:::: ................... _:_:::::: ................... _:_................ :........................................................................................... i:.l

More than 30 Uv,-,-,-,,,-,-,.,,,,-,v,-,-,-,-,,,-,-,_\\\_\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\_\\\_\\,

0 20 40 60 80 1O0

Percent of lineemployees who answered "yes" to the following question:

Do you thinkthere is too much clearcutting on the National Forests?

Less than 11 years ___:_'_

/

11 to 20 years _,, -,,-, -, ,, -, ",", ",", ", ", ,- ,, "- "- "-"- "- !

More than 30 _\\\-,_\\\\\\\_-,-,x\-_,

0 20 40 60 80 100

Figure 54.--Opinions of Forest Service _ employees on cIearcutting, by length of service.

108

,,i - ,, , ill I III I ,,r,
Percent of staff employees who answered "yes" to the following question:

Do you think there are too many below-cost timber sales in the National Forests?

Lessthan 11 years _,.-.--._ ....

11 to 20 years _\::.-_-,. \-._\_

21 to 30 years ................................................................................................................... _::_

More than 30 _\5%%_v_.\\_-.-_

............ -I......... ! I g I_- _ I I

0 20 40 60 80 1O0

Figure 55.--Opinions of Forest Service st_ employees on below-cost timber sales, by length of service.

Percent of staff employees who answered "yes" to the question:

Do you think clearcutting is an acceptable management practice?

Lessthan 11 years

11 to 20 years r_i-.._\\ --.'<-'-\;',.i_ \ \\\ ",.\ ",_

21 to 30 years ........................................................................................................................... _ ...........

More than 30 _,.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\-..\\-...,.\\\\\\\--.\\\\\\\\\._

! I I " I I I I I I

0 20 40 60 80 1O0

Percent of staff employees who answered "yes" to the following question:

Do you think there is too much clearcutting onthe National Forests?

Less than 11years __-_

11 to 20 years i\-.\\\\\\\\\-.-.-.\-.-.\|

/

More than 30 _,.,.-,-<_,.-.-.\-.-.-..-.-.-.-.-_.,.\\\\\\\\\\\\..\\\\\\_ I n I m,, I i I i n n

0 20 40 60 80 1O0

Figure 56.mOpinions of Forest Service _ empIoyees on clearcutting, by length of service.

109 i

> -8

._8 8 -_

_o_ _ _- =

,_ _®_ _, = _ _" ,_

.,_

8,, _ ,o- g g

= 'ZS'_ _ "

®_ .=_ -_._ _ .,,_=

__=-,_ :_jo o,_,._ _ _ _,,,_ _ _

...,J I,,i,.

_d4_ d"zddddd dd d K d 4d _ ;d ¢"Z d d dd d d 6 dd d _'_dd _ _ B,.Z _'_ s "_

111

_ , ........ IIIIII ..........
_ _o

._e !o oc ._ _. c,._ '=_ ,. > > >

_: ._ ®.__.o _ o= o= o= _ _._ _

,_, _ -:_.& =" ,_

_ ® ® ® _ .o__ ._ =. o ... _, _'_ _o_

._.._ -o ,-, ,., ,.) _ "6,_

._o=®o _'_= o "_ ° "_'_'_

• • -_ _; _ c;_

I=i (0 ,o_ o,) o') o,)

o_ "° _"

>" 15- _E

®o _ o_.,__: _. ._ ._

_--_ _ _ "-" _.. _. °_

0 o., _

_ r,., _ (o _ (_ ,- :='- .c: _ _ co ao _ co .- _ ,_ "7(o(.') :.3,-'¢(")

".-6 ,.: ....

112 -_
_ _ o

_ _ o_° _ -

" - F_i"

•- ".E."-_

_. -®o=,_ [_ _>_oz_ _.,.=-_>- -"® _>_>_ _,8#". 8_

:__ "F"'- =

o

,,,$ ,,.; &

0 U tJ o_

-'r"

,°oo ,. , _.

.=_6 --

.:. _ _. _: _ _ _ 

Z 

II .............................. 

- . z.= "_ - _o_

>, _>. =_'G

_. _ _ _ o_ ._; _ _ oo

_ --J;::"E:=

•_,-_ CL>00(/):>0 _ E _.:>_OZO _ . . . E ..... e m E •

_._ ,_E __= _, - ,,='_

=_ ® ® ,,, .. -.",, ,o

E_O01_ _0

. - _ _ _) ,_ = _ _ _ _ .o=

_ _ _ -,, =_ __.._ _ _._

- "o_ ._ _) _ o= o_

:- i) )) - "

l! )! {!i 

_=,,,o-o _,,)=_....- _ '_=,.,., ).==,,,.-o _)=_ ._, 

115 

10

_= _ o . o_ _ _ o

....

"8 _ 7_o

- . :o_

o ' _, _ _e "-- _- "5

_ _ _ ._ ._

&>_ozo

_j I 0 o o

.N -6

'_"_=_ ,.... ._=9 ._ _ i_-=_ ===_._,, 5 ,,_ _ ,= .-_ ='E_,",_o._o,=_ &_8=,_®u "°-=_°- ,,,_.... ,=__8="=o_

-o _o _.__._

_._ _0 o. o.- _,, o__. __

................ &d _.-:,< _,.:

117
0 e"_'_ _ 0

,_ = = _ . =o'_

-. =_

S _ S o" o
o

_ _ _. %=. ,_

- o_

,.- _ ' "_: "_ " _ :3 _ _ i_ t''°J :5 _- _ _ __ _....__ 0 J

0 lJ 0 0 0 0




= c o

-o E o _ E

:_ _ . ,_ ,, _ _ - E = -'='=o c c o c n > ,_

N _ o x _ o

._- .... m o _: _ ;_._ _-_ _ _ _= _ _ = _ o __ _c '-o-_-6oE EE _9 "6® 7.®_6-oao.°o -_E

E _ _fl,_ ¢_ _Q

__ _o-'_rs_ '_ _=_® ,- ___s_ .a-_o_a._gEg_®_ .,o--_- o, ...._ _, _o =

0 _'_ --_ 0 _ _" -_ _ 60.-- o 0 c_= c _ _ _)-

E _,_4--__ E ,__8_ ._==-_._< =-=.___E_g_ ==__,-_=_o _ 8.,,, _,,, =,,, _

..m _ _ _0 ° ,,.,, . "..,, "E ''= ,,,,, "_ ._ _ ,. _ _._ ._ ,_ _'F_ "_ @ _ _.,O _ _ ¢_ O. 0 ,.. -=

_o-,=®oo=® _£_._b-g.. o__=a_ _.___p_w_,_,_. a _o,-_-gl_=-_-o_o-a88-o,o a_8g_

,,z 0_o_:o= _.__-_<,_ o_ zz_._" z___-___= <<_-_,, _.= _:_m _,=_-,.,, < _-:_ -_:_<_o

_,_ '_ ,,_._. _ " ._,_ - _,_,_,_,_" ",__ _ .....,.,i" _'_,_

_,_,_ _o_ r.. _.,-:r.:.,_o_,_._ _o!_oN,,g.,-:,-:,-:._!_ " --:._._o.o :,'_®o _,_,_ _m_ e-- _o_._r,...

._=.o _6_-_-_._- _ _ ,._ ,¢ -- t_c_:_ ,-.:,.-:,_ " " "_ m _-,.-.: .... ,,..:,-: o

124 _ .0{



8

o el.

_ °

0

_, _._

:_ _, =.' .__

,. "-- 8_=

._ _ "._ . = _

.... a_ -° ° "-

mC:_oC _ _ (DO

. "-- '>,Z 0 == '_ _ --- _ 0 _ "'--_ =- _o

_ 000 4ddKdd d "':rdd4ddr'-:ddd., z K gg ,..

'__ 02

]28
,,= - _ =_ ,., i__

=_ _ _> _ _ _ _ _ __

_8 _ _ ._ _ _ _ _

_ o._ _ _"_ > _ =_ o _ _ _'_

=._ _ | .= E =_=

,.,.,. __ _. _._. -;_ == _, "= o= ...=_= _ a o -- i

_,",.="=_ _ °='_'_= =_='_" o= -=_- °'__._-;___.... __B_ _° .=O__oo_,__ ...._=o__-'_;= _z°_-"" "_°o_" = '_ = - _

"-- ¢::: E E ¢:

=_ • _ _ _ _._o_ _ oooO.O. _l. -_

= =

_ _ _ _==_ =.__ _o_ -o=

= _ ._._ .=. _ o o _ _ _ - -

: -- E_ .- ,0o ® _- = _._

,t= 8

o ._ _ __ o_ " - - _ _ _ _. _=" _= .= .- &

-So,o.-.--' ___,_ _= ' .__ "=__,_a._ .__o_ _._ _E =¢'=-_=®'_ _E "o_=_ ,- =-° .,_. _ :_==_o ==|=_ _o_.®=

• ._>_©=® _ . = = =.c_=_ _.= _8_'a-_ = .. >,8_-8"a = . _&SE-'='e ._=o ,,

-_ooo E E

_._,-__ = _ j_.== ._

_=-= ==-- ! o_ = o _

= =o=

.=._.1_-;'_ _=._®®e ..... _.- = o,_ _,._,0 Z o_ 8"_,

= ........ = ................ _ c_=o_ : -=--...:_,,'-;_ ,_,_ "_,- _,.:_j,= o®.= <

_o_ _,-:o,i ,..:_,= • : .,.: • ,_: _ "eJ " " " ,._ =¢=.9°. ®

_i_ " "c,i " _ _ "_": _. >,-.-¢n ,,..

C C I'_0')0

z_._=_ • ._ • u3_=o_ ,_ .:_ = .... _...... ,_-== _. ==.o=,,=_ =

_= _ m.,.O

129

I
Mohai, Paul; Stillman, Phyllis; Jakes, Pamela; Liggett, Chris.

1994. Change in the USDA Forest Service: are we heading in the right

direction? Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-] 72. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station.

129 p. 

Reports the results of a survey of 1,809 Forest Service employees

to obtain their views about the Agency's mission and program direction.

KEY WORDS: 1990 RPA, National Forests, forest planning, National

Forest policy, employee views.

i

_J