u.s. department of agriculture · 2015. 2. 26. · usda forest service r&d customer...

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Research and Development

Customer Satisfaction Survey

Final Report FY 2015

USDA Forest Service R&D Customer Satisfaction Study

This page intentionally left blank


FY 2015 1 Final Report

Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 Overall Findings 5 Recommendations 6 I. Introduction & Methodology 7 II. Results 8 a. Model Indices 8 b. Customer Satisfaction (ACSI) 9 c. Customer Satisfaction Model 11 d. Drivers of Customer Satisfaction 13 e. Outcomes 33 Appendix A: Survey Questionnaire 35 Appendix B: Responses to Non-Modeled Questions 45 Appendix C: Attribute Tables by Select Segments 51 Appendix D: Verbatim Comments 63



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



Overall Findings

• Customer satisfaction with USDA Forest Service R&D as measured by the ACSI experienced a 3 point decline since 2012. This year’s score of 76 is still above the baseline score of 72 from the initial survey in 2006.

• Respondents were asked about the Organizational Unit that they use most frequently. The findings were similar to those of 2012. Just over one-quarter (27%) mentioned the Northern Research Station and 17% mentioned the Southern Research Station. Resource Management and Use was again the Strategic Program Area with which most respondents indicated they were most closely aligned (35%) while Inventory and Monitoring rose 6 points to 18%.

• The USDA Forest Service R&D Staff held steady and continues to be the highest rated of all satisfaction driver areas with a score of 92. Respondents found the Staff to be courteous, knowledgeable and timely in their responses. Forest Service R&D Staff (along with Relevance and Quality) had the highest impact on Satisfaction.

• Relevance and Quality, while having a high impact on satisfaction, declined 2 points and remains one of the lower scoring drivers at 74. As a result, it should be a continued focus for improvements. The highest rating in this area is for Addressing the Issues Customers Face (77). Providing More Detailed and Actionable Solutions (72) and Solutions that are Workable with the Customer’s Resources (71) continue to be the lowest rated attributes.

• Products experienced a decline of 2 points this year, yet continued to receive high ratings for being scientifically sound and authoritative. Products have a sizeable impact on satisfaction. The Comprehensiveness and the Ability to Easily Understand FS R&D Products were the two lowest rated attributes with scores in the low 80s.

Services remain highly rated at 86, and has a modest impact on satisfaction. Users were particularly pleased with FS R&D personnel’s Knowledge of Subject Matter (89) and their Ability to Answer Questions (87).

Communication remains one of the lowest rated drivers with a score of 70 and has a minor effect on satisfaction. This score is a return to its historical level after a five-point increase in 2012. Communication is rated the highest for Products Being Clearly Identified as Coming from Forest Service R&D (79). Informing Users About Recently Released Articles/Reports/Newsletters and Informing Users About the Availability of New Product and Service Offerings both drop significantly with scores now in the high 60s.

• The organization and design of materials allows for easy access to the information. Accessibility scores also decreased 2 points in 2015. However, this is not a particularly high-impact area with respect to satisfaction. Downloading publications from the web is the most popular method of accessing products with 57% typically downloading products. While downloading is the most popular method of access, users who download products tend to be slightly less satisfied, and rate Accessibility lower than those who typically access information via hard copy or through direct contact with specialists.

• Satisfaction scores were also calculated by various breakout variables. Satisfaction scores by Organizational Unit were in the 70s. The Northern Research Station had the highest rating with 79. Scores for Strategic Programs tended to fall in the mid to 70s with Outdoor Recreation being the lone SPA to score in the 60s with a 66. Respondents not located in the US were more satisfied (84) than US-based respondents (75).



Recommendations • Focusing on those areas that have a high impact on satisfaction and are lower performing is

recommended in order to improve customer satisfaction. The Relevance and Quality of the products and services of Forest Service R&D remain the highest priority. Providing workable and actionable solutions were the lowest scoring items. When asked to indicate the one area most important for Forest Service R&D, 20% of respondents mentioned “focusing on R&D questions raised by natural resource managers.” As a result, any initiatives that address ”real world” issues and clearly state how research can be applied to create innovative resource management strategies in support of long term Forest Service goals would be helpful in raising satisfaction.

• Customers feel that the Staff of Forest Service R&D is highly knowledgeable and very timely in their responses. Services rate highly for presenter’s knowledge and providing clear, useful information. This is especially noteworthy since many respondents acknowledge funding/staffing challenges. These feelings are summed by this user “The few times I have called for info, I never expected to get a real person, in real time. I was so pleasantly surprised, even more so when transferred to a more appropriate person. It was seamless, and I received the info very quickly.” Although Staff has a high impact on satisfaction, due to the high ratings, Forest Service R&D should maintain current practices rather than actively targeting this area for improvement.

• Products were generally well received as being scientifically sound and authoritative and had a high impact on satisfaction. A number of respondents however indicated that they did not use many products due to unawareness of research resources available to them. This may be a case where increased communication on the products available would help researchers find new areas of research and would in turn increase Product satisfaction as more products are used. It is recommended that FS R&D investigate new channels to reach more users in order to educate them on the products available.



Chapter I Introduction & Methodology

The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) is the national indicator of customer evaluations of the quality of goods and services available to U.S. residents. It is the only uniform, cross-industry/government measure of customer satisfaction. Since 1994, the ACSI has measured satisfaction, its causes, and its effects, for seven economic sectors, 41 industries, and more than 200 private-sector companies, two types of local government services, the U.S. Postal Service, and the Internal Revenue Service. ACSI has measured more than 100 programs of federal government agencies since 1999. This allows benchmarking between the public and private sectors and provides information unique to each agency on how its activities that interface with the public affect the satisfaction of customers. The effects of satisfaction are estimated, in turn, on specific objectives (such as public trust). This report was produced by CFI Group. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact CFI Group at 734-930-9090.

Segment Choice This report is about the customers of the USDA Forest Service Research and Development. This segment includes individuals who contacted the Forest Service Research and Development organization to obtain products and services. This is the fourth measure of this segment with previous measures in 2006, 2009 and 2012.

Customer Sample and Data Collection

The Forest Service Research and Development (FS R&D) organization provided lists of names and email addresses for customers of FS R&D. Invitations were sent to 9,561 e-mail addresses. Data were collected from October 28, 2014 through November 21, 2014. A total of 1,173 individuals responded (12%). Of these, 842 qualified to take the survey. Respondents provided a representation across private and public sectors. Half (50%) were with a federal, state or local agency. Another 23% were with a college or university. Non-profits accounted for 12% and businesses or commercial organizations accounted for 8% of respondents. Almost half (45%) of the respondents were in a primary role as technical or professional and 15% were primarily researchers with another 11% in executive roles.

Questionnaire and Reporting

The questionnaire used is shown in Appendix A. It was designed to be agency-specific in terms of activities, outcomes, and introductions to the questionnaire and specific question areas. However, it follows a format common to all the federal agency questionnaires that allow cause-and-effect modeling using the ACSI model. Most of the questions in the survey asked the respondent to rate items on a 1-to-10 scale, where “1” is “poor” and “10” is “excellent.” Scores are converted to a 0-to-100 scale for reporting purposes. Appendix B contains the percentage responses to “non-modeled” questions. Appendix C contains score tables for all questions at an aggregate level and segmented by selected groups. Appendix D contains verbatim comments to the responses for open-ended questions.



Chapter II ACSI Results

A. Model Indices

The government agency ACSI model is a variation of the model used to measure private-sector companies. Both were developed at the National Quality Research Center of the University of Michigan Business School. Whereas the model for private sector, profit-making companies measures Customer Loyalty as the principal outcome of satisfaction (measured by questions on repurchase intention and price tolerance), each government agency defines the outcomes most important to it for the customer segment measured. Each agency also identifies the principal activities that interface with its customers. The model provides predictions of the impact of these activities on customer satisfaction.

The Forest Service Research and Development model, illustrated on page 12, should be viewed as a cause-and-effect model that moves from left to right, with satisfaction (ACSI) in the middle. The rectangles are multi-variable components that are measured by survey questions. The numbers in the lower right corners of the rectangles represent the strength of the effect of the component on the left to the one to which the arrow points on the right. These values represent "impacts.” The larger the impact value, the more effect the component on the left has on the one on the right. The meanings of the numbers shown in the model are the topic of the rest of this chapter.



B. Customer Satisfaction (ACSI)

The Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) is a weighted average of three questions, SAT1, SAT2, and SAT3, which are shown in the questionnaire in Appendix A. The questions are answered on a 1-to-10 scale and converted to a 0-to-100 scale for reporting purposes. The three questions measure: Overall satisfaction (SAT1); Satisfaction compared to expectations (SAT2); and Satisfaction compared to an “ideal” organization (SAT3). The model assigns the weights to each question in a way that maximizes the ability of the index to predict changes in agency satisfaction.

The 2015 Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) for Forest Service Research and Development is 76 on a 0-100 scale. This represents a three-point decrease from the score of the previous measure in 2012.

76

81

75

70

79

83

75

76

Customer Satisfaction Index

Overall satisfaction

Compared to the ideal

Compared to expectations

2015 2012

Customer Satisfaction Index – Aggregate Scores 2015 v 2012

N=842



Below are scores from other federal government information providers. With a satisfaction index of 76, US Forest Service R&D is on par with these agencies and is well above the federal government average (66). Note that the federal government aggregate is a score derived from a survey of U.S. citizens about their satisfaction with all services provided by the federal government.

66

74

76

78

84

90

Federal Government Average

Internet News and Information (2013)

US Forest Service R&D

NASA Earth Observing Data and InformationSystem Users

NOAA, Weather Service Users

Pension Benefit Guaranty CorporationParticipants (2013)

Customer Satisfaction Index Benchmarks – Information Providers



C. Forest Service R&D Customer Satisfaction Model Attribute scores are the mean (average) respondent scores to each individual question that was asked in the survey. Respondents are asked to rate each item on a 1-to-10 scale with “1” being “poor” and “10” being “excellent.” CFI Group converts the mean responses to these items to a 0-to-100 scale for reporting purposes. It is important to note that these scores are averages, not percentages. The score is best thought of as an index, with 0 meaning “poor” and 100 meaning “excellent.” A component score is the weighted average of the individual attribute ratings given by each respondent to the questions presented in the survey. A score is a relative measure of performance for a component, as given for a particular set of respondents. In the model illustrated on the next page, the component area “Staff” is an index of the ratings of the three questions (“courteousness,” “timeliness in responding”, and “knowledge”). Impacts should be read as the effect on the subsequent component if the initial driver (component) were to be improved or decreased by five points. For example, if the score for Staff increased by 5 points (92 to 97), Customer Satisfaction would increase by the amount of its impact, 1.5 points, (from 76 to 77.5). If the driver increases by less than or more than five points, the resulting change in satisfaction would be the corresponding fraction of the original impact. Impacts are additive. Thus, if multiple areas were to each improve by 5 points the related improvement in satisfaction will be the sum of the impacts. As with scores, impacts are also relative to one another. A low impact does not mean a component is unimportant. Rather, it means that a five-point change in that one component is unlikely to result in much improvement in Satisfaction at this time. Therefore, components with higher impacts are generally recommended for improvement first, especially if scores are lower for those components.



Customer

Satisfaction

Index

Make a

difference

Confidence

Sample Size: 842

76

78

87

Products

84

1.2

Communication

70

0.6

Relevance and Quality

74

1 . 5

Services

86

0.8

Accessibility

80

0.2

3.6

3.3

Staff

92

1.5

Future Use

Recommend

92

87

2.5

4.0

2015 Forest Service Research and Development Customer Satisfaction Model



D. Drivers of Customer Satisfaction The Customer Satisfaction Index is shown below along with the six drivers of satisfaction and on the bottom of the chart, the four outcomes from satisfaction. A comparison between 2015 and 2012 scores are provided. The highest scoring driver was “Staff”, maintaining the same score as in 2012 (92). Most other scores experienced a decrease of two to three points with the exception of “Communication”, which had a decrease of six points since the last measure.

76

84

86

80

70

74

92

87

92

87

78

79

86

88

82

76

76

92

88

92

86

77

Customer Satisfaction Index

Products

Services

Accessibility

Communication


Staff

Likelihood to Recommend

Likelihood to use products and services in future

Confidence in using products and services

Difference FS products and services make

2015 2012



Products Impact 1.2 The area of Products continues to be one of the key drivers of satisfaction with an impact of 1.2. Products are rated as being scientifically sound and an authoritative source with scores of 87 for those attributes. Likewise, attributes that measure the integrity of the products such as being accurate and up-to-date and unbiased rated highly – in the low 80s. The products are both comprehensive (81) and easy to understand (80).

84

87

87

83

82

81

80

86

89

89

86

85

84

83

Products

Scientifically sound

Authoritative source (provided by subject matter experts)

Accurate and up - to - date

Unbiased

Comprehensive

Easy to understand

2015 2012

Products – Aggregate Scores 2015 v 2012

N=822



Scores for Products by Strategic Program Areas (SPAs) are in the 80s across most SPAs except Outdoor Recreation, which scores in the high seventies (78). Invasive Species rates the highest at 85. Resource Management and Use, which is the most mentioned SPA rates 83 in Products.

Sample Size

Products 83 85 78 83 83 84 83 84

Accurate and up-to-date 84 85 77 83 86 82 83 84

Easy to understand 80 84 74 78 81 79 79 81

Scientifically sound 87 87 81 87 86 88 87 87

Authoritative source (provided by subject matter experts) 89 87 80 86 85 89 86 88

Unbiased 80 84 76 83 81 85 82 83

Comprehensive 80 85 80 82 79 82 81 83

85

Wil

dla

nd

Fir

e

106

Invasiv

e S

pecie

s

38

Ou

tdo

or

Recre

ati

on

294

Reso

urc

e M

an

ag

em

en

t

an

d U

se

62

Oth

er

47

Wate

r, A

ir a

nd

So

il

62

Wil

dli

fe a

nd

Fis

h

148

Inven

tory

an

d

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Products – Scores by SPAs



Scores for Products by Organizational Unit are provided below. Some of the scores have very small sample sizes and should be interpreted with caution. For those organizational units with more sample (Northern Research Station, Rocky Mountain Research Station and Southern Research Station) Product scores are relatively consistent – ranging from 81 to 86.

Sample Size

Products 84 86 82 80 89 81 85 81 83

Accurate and up-to-date 84 85 81 81 88 82 84 81 84

Easy to understand 82 81 80 78 88 79 80 74 77

Scientifically sound 87 90 85 84 92 84 88 83 83

Authoritative source (provided by subject matter experts) 88 89 86 83 92 84 88 87 85

Unbiased 82 86 80 78 88 80 85 76 83

Comprehensive 83 84 80 77 86 78 84 79 82

139

So

uth

ern

Researc

h

Sta

tio

n

35

Wash

ing

ton

Off

ice

68

Oth

er

91

Pacif

ic S

ou

thw

est

Researc

h S

tati

on

18

Inte

rnati

on

al

Insti

tute

of

Tro

pic

al

121

Ro

cky M

ou

nta

in

Researc

h S

tati

on

56

Fo

rest

Pro

du

cts

Lab

ora

tory

228

No

rth

ern

Researc

h

Sta

tio

n

86

Pacif

ic N

ort

hw

est

Researc

h S

tati

on

Products – Scores by Organizational Units



Services Impact 0.8 Services remain highly rated at 86. “Knowledge of subject matter” is again the highest rated attribute (89). Scores were also strong for the “ability of the presenter/consultant to answer your questions” (87), “usefulness of the information presented/provided” (85) and “clarity of information presented/provided” (85). “Ease of scheduling the event/consultation” remains the lowest rated Services attribute (82).

86

89

87

85

85

82

88

91

88

87

87

83

Services

Presenter’s/consultant’s knowledge of subject matter

Ability of the presenter/consultant to answer your questions

Clarity of the information presented/provided

Usefulness of the information presented/provided

Ease of scheduling the event/consultation

2015 2012

Services - Aggregate Scores 2015 v 2012

N=704



Scores for Services by SPAs are mostly in the high 80s or above. Invasive Species (88) and Inventory and Monitoring (87) have the highest scores in 2015.

Sample Size

Services 85 88 85 86 83 87 86 89

Ease of scheduling the event/consultation 82 82 87 83 77 83 82 85

Clarity of the information presented/provided 85 87 86 83 83 86 85 89

Usefulness of the information presented/provided 85 88 84 84 81 86 86 88

Presenter’s/consultant’s knowledge of subject matter 89 90 87 89 87 90 89 92

Ability of the presenter/consultant to answer your questions 86 88 84 87 82 87 87 89

294

Reso

urc

e

Man

ag

em

en

t an

d U

se

62

Oth

er

47

Wate

r, A

ir a

nd

So

il

62

Wild

life

an

d F

ish

148

Inven

tory

an

d

Mo

nit

ori

ng

85

Wild

lan

d F

ire

106

Invasiv

e S

pecie

s

38

Ou

tdo

or

Recre

ati

on

Services – Scores by Strategic Program Areas (SPAs)



Among organizational units with high sample, Northern Research Station and Southern Research Station rate the highest for Services at 88 each.

Sample Size

Services 87 88 83 82 96 82 88 87 90

Ease of scheduling the event/consultation 84 84 78 76 94 79 84 81 87

Clarity of the information presented/provided 86 87 83 81 95 82 87 86 89

Usefulness of the information presented/provided 86 87 82 81 95 82 86 89 89

Presenter’s/consultant’s knowledge of subject matter 89 91 88 87 98 85 91 90 92

Ability of the presenter/consultant to answer your questions 88 89 84 82 98 82 88 87 89

139

So

uth

ern

Researc

h

Sta

tio

n

35

Wash

ing

ton

Off

ice

68

Oth

er

91

Pacif

ic S

ou

thw

est

Researc

h S

tati

on

18

Inte

rnati

on

al In

sti

tute

of

Tro

pic

al F

ore

str

y

121

Ro

cky M

ou

nta

in

Researc

h S

tati

on

56

Fo

rest

Pro

du

cts

Lab

ora

tory

228

No

rth

ern

Researc

h

Sta

tio

n

86

Pacif

ic N

ort

hw

est

Researc

h S

tati

on

Services – Scores by Organizational Units



Accessibility Impact 0.2 Accessibility scored 80 in 2015 and has a relatively low impact on satisfaction of 0.2. The highest score is again for the “design and presentation of material” (82). “Ease of finding information”, while still rated the lowest in this area, maintained a solid score of 76.

80

82

80

76

82

85

83

78

Accessibility

Design and presentation of material

Organization of material

Ease of finding information

2015 2012

Accessibility - Aggregate Scores 2015 v 2012

N=840



Downloading publications remains the most popular mode of access with 57% using this method. 26% have direct contact with scientists/technicians/technology transfer specialists and 9% request hard copies. However, Accessibility ratings are lowest among those who typically access data by downloading from the web (76), while those requesting hard copies or having direct contact rate Accessibility the highest (85 and 84 respectively).

Scores for Accessibility by SPAs are mostly in the low 80s except for Outdoor Recreation and Water, Air and Soil, both with scores of 74 in 2015.

Sample Size

Accessibility 85 76 81 84

Ease of finding information 81 71 78 83

Organization of material 85 76 80 85

Design and presentation of material 88 80 82 85

220

Direct

contact

73

Requesting

hard copies

479

Downloading

from the web

59

Attending

conferences/

workshops/

demonstrations

Sample Size

Accessibility 80 82 74 74 80 80 80 83

Ease of finding information 74 78 68 70 75 77 76 82

Organization of material 80 82 74 73 80 79 80 82

Design and presentation of material 84 84 77 78 83 83 82 83

294

Reso

urc

e

Man

ag

em

en

t an

d U

se

62

Oth

er

47

Wate

r, A

ir a

nd

So

il

62

Wild

life

an

d F

ish

148In

ven

tory

an

d

Mo

nit

ori

ng

85

Wild

lan

d F

ire

106

Invasiv

e S

pecie

s

38

Ou

tdo

or

Recre

ati

on

Accessibility – Scores by SPAs



Scores for Accessibility by Organizational Unit are consistent; with scores for 7 of the 9 Units ranging from 77 to 81. It should be noted that one of the Units outside this ranges (Intl Institute of Tropical Forestry) has a low sample.

Sample Size

Accessibility 79 81 77 78 91 77 80 78 85

Ease of finding information 75 76 73 74 85 74 76 76 81

Organization of material 79 80 77 79 90 78 79 79 85

Design and presentation of material 82 84 80 81 95 79 83 80 86

139

So

uth

ern

Researc

h

Sta

tio

n

35

Wash

ing

ton

Off

ice

68

Oth

er

91

Pacif

ic S

ou

thw

est

Researc

h S

tati

on

18

Inte

rnati

on

al In

sti

tute

of

Tro

pic

al F

ore

str

y

121

Ro

cky M

ou

nta

in

Researc

h S

tati

on

56

Fo

rest

Pro

du

cts

Lab

ora

tory

228

No

rth

ern

Researc

h

Sta

tio

n

86

Pacif

ic N

ort

hw

est

Researc

h S

tati

on

Accessibility – Scores by Organizational Units



Communication Impact 0.6 Communication remains one of the lowest rated drivers with a score of 70. This score is a return to its historical level after five-point increase in 2012. Although all attributes of Communication declined from 2012, Communication is rated the highest for Products Being Clearly Identified as Coming from Forest Service R&D (79). Informing Users About Recently Released Articles/Reports/Newsletters and Informing Users About the Availability of New Product and Service Offerings both drop significantly with scores now in the high 60s.

70

79

67

67

66

76

82

76

69

74

Communication

Products/services being clearly identified as coming from FS R and D

Informing you about recently released articles/reports/newsletters

Providing schedules for conferences and workshops

Informing you about the availability of new product and service offerings

2015 2012

Communication- Aggregate Scores 2015 v 2012

N=832



Communication scores by SPA tend to range from the mid 60’s to mid 70s. Outdoor Recreation was the only SPA outside this range with a score of 59. As it did in 2012, the “Other” category actually had the highest score at 76.

Sample Size

Communication 67 70 59 67 64 71 72 76

Informing you about the availability of new product and service offerings 63 65 53 61 59 67 70 73

Informing you about recently released articles/reports/newsletters 64 68 52 59 60 68 70 73

Providing schedules for conferences and workshops 63 70 54 62 62 67 68 71

Products/services being clearly identified as coming from FS R and D 76 77 68 80 74 80 81 85

294

Reso

urc

e

Man

ag

em

en

t an

d U

se

62

Oth

er

47

Wate

r, A

ir a

nd

So

il

62

Wild

life

an

d F

ish

148

Inven

tory

an

d

Mo

nit

ori

ng

85

Wild

lan

d F

ire

106

Invasiv

e S

pecie

s

38

Ou

tdo

or

Recre

ati

on

Communication – Scores by SPAs



Forest Products Laboratory (76) rates the highest (Intl Institute of Tropical Forestry has a small sample size), while Pacific Northwest Research Station, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Washington Office and Rocky Mountain Research Station all score in the mid 60s.

Sample Size

Communication 76 72 67 64 81 67 73 66 71

Informing you about the availability of new product and service offerings 71 69 65 58 76 63 69 61 68

Informing you about recently released articles/reports/newsletters 73 68 66 59 76 64 70 60 68

Providing schedules for conferences and workshops 74 68 61 63 83 63 68 59 68

Products/services being clearly identified as coming from FS R and D 84 81 73 78 88 77 81 73 76

139

So

uth

ern

Researc

h

Sta

tio

n

35

Wash

ing

ton

Off

ice

68

Oth

er

91

Pacif

ic S

ou

thw

est

Researc

h S

tati

on

18

Inte

rnati

on

al In

sti

tute

of

Tro

pic

al F

ore

str

y

121

Ro

cky M

ou

nta

in

Researc

h S

tati

on

56

Fo

rest

Pro

du

cts

Lab

ora

tory

228

No

rth

ern

Researc

h

Sta

tio

n

86

Pacif

ic N

ort

hw

est

Researc

h S

tati

on

Communication – Scores by Organizational Units



Relevance and Quality Impact 1.5 Relevance and Quality (along with Staff) has the highest impact (1.5) of all driver areas. It dipped 2 statistically significant points this year to 74, but is still above the 72 rating in 2009. All attributes decreases slightly with Addressing Problems, Issues and Needs That They Face and Provides Detailed and Actionable Solutions being statistically significant decreases. Nonetheless, Addressing Problems, Issues and Needs That They Face was still the highest rated at 77.

74

77

74

72

71

76

79

76

74

72


Addresses problems, issues or needs that you currently face

Helps anticipate emerging problems, issues or needs you might face

Provides detailed and actionable solutions

Provides solutions that are workable with your resources

2015 2012

Relevance and Quality - Aggregate Scores 2015 v 2012

N=830



Scores for Relevance and Quality by SPAs are in the 70s across all SPAs with the major exception of Outdoor Recreation (63).

Sample Size

Relevance and Quality 73 78 63 73 70 75 74 74

Addresses problems, issues or needs that you currently face 77 81 65 78 74 80 77 75

Provides detailed and actionable solutions 71 77 58 66 67 72 73 73

Provides solutions that are workable with your resources 70 75 59 68 65 72 72 73

Helps anticipate emerging problems, issues or needs you might face 74 77 63 73 72 75 75 73

294

Reso

urc

e

Man

ag

em

en

t an

d U

se

62

Oth

er

47

Wate

r, A

ir a

nd

So

il

62

Wild

life

an

d F

ish

148

Inven

tory

an

d

Mo

nit

ori

ng

85

Wild

lan

d F

ire

106

Invasiv

e S

pecie

s

38

Ou

tdo

or

Recre

ati

on

Relevance and Quality – Scores by SPAs



Scores for Relevance and Quality by Organizational Unit among the units with a sample size over 30 seem to fall into 2 groups; those that score in mid 70s and those that score in the high 60s. The highest score is for the Northern Research Station (78).

Sample Size

Relevance and Quality 76 78 69 68 91 68 76 74 72

Addresses problems, issues or needs that you currently face 79 81 75 72 91 72 79 77 73

Provides detailed and actionable solutions 76 76 64 64 89 65 75 71 70

Provides solutions that are workable with your resources 74 76 66 61 90 66 72 71 69

Helps anticipate emerging problems, issues or needs you might face 71 78 71 70 91 69 77 75 70

139

So

uth

ern

Researc

h

Sta

tio

n

35

Wash

ing

ton

Off

ice

68

Oth

er

91

Pacif

ic S

ou

thw

est

Researc

h S

tati

on

18

Inte

rnati

on

al In

sti

tute

of

Tro

pic

al F

ore

str

y

121

Ro

cky M

ou

nta

in

Researc

h S

tati

on

56

Fo

rest

Pro

du

cts

Lab

ora

tory

228

No

rth

ern

Researc

h

Sta

tio

n

86

Pacif

ic N

ort

hw

est

Researc

h S

tati

on

Relevance and Quality – Scores by Organizational Units



Staff Impact 1.5 Staff held steady across the board with no change in any of the attribute scores this year. Staff again is the highest scoring driver this year with a score of 92. It also has the highest impact on satisfaction (along with Relevance and Quality).

92

93

93

88

92

93

93

88

Staff

Courteousness

Knowledge

Timeliness in responding

2015 2012

Staff - Aggregate Scores 2015 v 2012

N=749



Scores for Staff by SPAs are strong across all SPAs with scores in the 90s. Resource Management and Use, the most mentioned SPA, rates 92.

Sample Size

Staff 91 92 90 92 91 91 92 95

Courteousness 93 93 91 94 91 92 94 97

Timeliness in responding 87 87 87 86 87 87 88 94

Knowledge 92 93 91 93 93 92 92 95

294

Reso

urc

e

Man

ag

em

en

t an

d U

se

62

Oth

er

47

Wate

r, A

ir a

nd

So

il

62

Wild

life

an

d F

ish

148

Inven

tory

an

d

Mo

nit

ori

ng

85

Wild

lan

d F

ire

106

Invasiv

e S

pecie

s

38

Ou

tdo

or

Recre

ati

on

Staff – Scores by SPAs



All Organizational Units rate highly for Staff. The lowest rated Unit was the Rocky Mountain Research Station, which still posted a very strong 88.

Sample Size

Staff 92 93 91 89 99 88 92 91 95

Courteousness 95 94 92 91 99 89 93 92 97

Timeliness in responding 89 90 88 82 99 84 88 88 91

Knowledge 95 94 92 91 99 88 93 92 95

139

So

uth

ern

Researc

h

Sta

tio

n

35

Wash

ing

ton

Off

ice

68

Oth

er

91

Pacif

ic S

ou

thw

est

Researc

h S

tati

on

18

Inte

rnati

on

al In

sti

tute

of

Tro

pic

al F

ore

str

y

121

Ro

cky M

ou

nta

in

Researc

h S

tati

on

56

Fo

rest

Pro

du

cts

Lab

ora

tory

228

No

rth

ern

Researc

h

Sta

tio

n

86

Pacif

ic N

ort

hw

est

Researc

h S

tati

on

Staff – Scores by Organizational Units



Priority Matrix Plotting the Performance scores for each component or driver of satisfaction against the impact that it has on satisfaction produces the following matrix. It is recommended to focus first on those items in the lower right-hand quadrant that are higher impact and lower performing. Relevance and Quality remains a high priority in order to improve satisfaction. Areas such as Communication that are lower performing but also lower impact can serve as a secondary target for improvement. Areas such as Services (and to a lesser degree, Accessibility), where performance is high and impact on satisfaction is lower are areas where performance should be maintained rather than targeted for improvement. While improvements to the high-impact, high-performing areas of Products and Staff would increase satisfaction, due to their already high levels of performance, any gains in satisfaction may be minimal.

Maintain

Areas of Concern Top Priority

Strengths

Products

Services

Accessibility

Communication


Staff

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

Sco

res

Impact on Satisfaction



E. Outcomes The Forest Service measured four outcomes from customers: likelihood to recommend, likelihood to use in the future, confidence in using products and services, and difference Forest Service R&D products and services make.

Likelihood to Recommend Likelihood to recommend FS R&D remains high. The index of Likelihood to Recommend indicates how likely respondents are to recommend FS R&D products and services to colleagues. This year’s score is 87 on a scale of 0 to 100. This is a significant drop of 1 point from 2012. Likelihood to use in the future Customers are highly likely to use FS R&D again in the future. The index of Use in Future (how likely respondents are to use FS R&D products and services in the future), held steady at 92 on a scale of 0 to 100. Confidence in using products and services Confidence in FS R&D ticked up slightly. The score of how confident respondents are using FS R&D products and services is 87 on a scale of 0 to 100. This 1 point increase from 2012 is not a statistically significant increase however. Difference the products and services make The difference the FS R&D products and services make in the ability to carry out work continues to improve with a 1 point increase (not statistically significant) to 78.

87

92

87

78

88

92

86

77

Likelihood to Recommend

Likelihood to use products and services in future

Confidence in using products and services

Difference FS products and services make

2015 2012



Appendix A: Survey Questionnaire



USDA – Forest Service Research and Development

Customer Satisfaction Survey 2015

The USDA FOREST SERVICE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (Forest Service R&D) organization is committed to providing you, our customers with products and services that meet your needs. Gathering your feedback helps to ensure that we are delivering on our commitment to you. To this end, we have commissioned the CFI Group, an independent third-party research group, to conduct a survey that asks about your satisfaction with our products and services as well as ways that we can improve our service to you.

The CFI Group will hold confidential your response to the survey. Your response will be combined with information from other respondents for research and evaluation purposes so that we may continue to meet your needs in the future. This brief survey will take approximately 15 minutes of your time.

This survey is authorized by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget Control No. 1090-0007.

Demographics

DEMO1.1 Which of the following best describes the organization you work for? Federal Agency (If ‘Federal Agency’ selected, ask DEMO 1.2 else go to DEMO2) State or Local Government Agency Tribal Government College/University Education K-12 Education Business/Commercial Non-Profit Agency/Organization Other (please specify)________________

DEMO1.2. Do you work for the Forest Service?

Yes (If ‘Yes’ selected, ask DEMO 1.3) No (go to DEMO2)

DEMO1.3. Do you work for the Forest Service R&D Deputy Area?

Yes (go to END1) No (go to DEMO1.4)

DEMO1.4. Which of the following best describes your position within the Forest Service?

National Forest System staff in Washington Office National Forest System Regional Office staff National Forest System Forest Supervisor Office staff National Forest System Ranger District staff State and Private Forestry staff in Washington Office State and Private Forestry field staff Washington Office staff Other (please specify)______________



DEMO2. What is your primary role at your organization? Researcher Educator Joint Educator/Research Executive Technical/Professional Administrative Other (please specify) __________________________

DEMO3. Are you located within the 50 United States or District of Columbia?

Yes (Go to DEMO3.1) No (Go to DEMO3.2)

DEMO3.1. In which state are you located? (Select one from drop-down menu) DEMO3.2. Please specify your location below: _______________________(Open ended)

Usage of Products/Services

USE1.1 Do you typically use Forest Service R&D products and services more than once a year?

Yes (go to USE2) No (ASK USE 1.2 then go to END2)

USE1.2 Please describe the main reason why you don’t make more use of the products and services

provided by Forest Service R&D? (Check only one)

Have only a passing interest in natural resource issues. The products/services provided by Forest Service R&D are not relevant to the

problems I face. The quality of the products/services provided by Forest Service R&D leave something

to be desired. The products/services offered by Forest Service R&D are not provided in a form I can

readily utilize. Other (please specify) _______________________

USE2. Please indicate which of the following Forest Service R&D organizational units you use the

most frequently. (IF YOU USE MULTIPLE UNITS FREQUENTLY, PLEASE SELECT THE ONE YOU USE MOST OFTEN OR ONE THAT YOU ARE BEST ABLE TO RATE IN THIS SURVEY)

Forest Products Laboratory (FPL, HQs in Madison, WI) Northern Research Station (HQs in Newtown Square, PA) Pacific Northwest Research Station (PNW, HQs in Portland, OR) Pacific Southwest Research Station (PSW, HQs in Albany, CA) International Institute of Tropical Forestry (IITF, HQs in Rio Peidras, Puerto Rico) Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS, HQs in Fort Collins, CO) Southern Research Station (SRS, HQs in Asheville, NC) Washington Office (National HQs in Washington, DC) Other (please specify if you use another unit not provided above)_______________

USE 3. Please indicate which of the following Forest Service R&D Strategic Program Areas (SPA) to

which you are most closely aligned. SPA descriptions have been updated since the FY 2012 Survey. (IF YOU ARE ALIGNED WITH MORE THAN ONE PROGRAM, PLEASE SELECT THE ONE YOU MOST OFTEN ADDRESS IN DEALINGS WITH Forest Service R&D OR ONE THAT YOU ARE BEST ABLE TO RATE IN THIS SURVEY):



Wildland Fire SPA provides the knowledge and tools that managers use to reduce negative effects and enhance beneficial effects of fire and of fire and fuels management on society and the environment. The SPA has five major focus areas: (1) understanding and modeling fundamental fire processes, (2) interactions of fire with ecosystems and the environment, (3) social and economic aspects of fire, (4) evaluation of integrated management strategies and disturbance interactions at multiple scales, and (5) application of fire research to address management problems.

Invasive Species SPA provides scientific information, methods, and technology to understand, reduce, minimize, or eliminate the introduction, establishment, spread, and effects of invasive species (and interactions with disturbance) and to restore ecosystems affected by invasive species or restore their functions. The SPA focuses on plants, animals, fish, insects, diseases, invertebrates, and other species that are not native to the ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm.

Outdoor Recreation SPA provides human and ecological sustainability through research directed at understanding and managing outdoor environments, activities, and experiences that connect people with the natural world. Research in this SPA is interdisciplinary and focuses on nature-based recreation and changing trends in American society; connections among recreation visitors, communities, and the environment; human benefits and consequences of recreation and nature contact; the effectiveness of recreation management and decision-making; and sustaining ecosystems affected by recreation.

Water, Air and Soil SPA enables the sustainable management of these essential resources by providing clear air and safe drinking water. The SPA features ecosystem services with a high level of integration among water, air, and soil research. It stresses the effects of climate variability and change on water budgets, and it focuses on carbon sequestration from an ecosystem perspective.

Wildlife and Fish SPA relies on interdisciplinary research to inform policy initiatives and management strategies affecting wildlife and fish habitat on private and public lands and the recovery of threatened or endangered species. Scientists in this SPA investigate the complex interactions among species; ecosystem dynamics and processes; land use and management; and emerging broad-scale threats, including global changes in climate, loss of open space, invasive species, and disease.

Inventory and Monitoring SPA provides the resource data, analysis, and tools needed to effectively identify current status and trends of forests; management options and effects; and threats and effects of fire, invasive insects, disease, and other natural processes, enhancing use and value of the Nation’s forests and grasslands. Assessing current and potential effects of changes in climate is dependent on monitoring forest ecosystems that are at the greatest risk to rapid changes in climate. Focus areas include the development and use of integrated interdisciplinary science, technologies, and remote sensing to increase the timeliness and spatial resolution of forest fragmentation caused by land use change; to describe the incidence of invasive insects, disease, and fire; to understand forest carbon pools; and to reduce the effects caused by extreme weather events.

Resource Management and Use SPA provides the scientific and technological base to sustainably manage and use forest and range resources and forest fiber-based products. Focus areas include plant sciences, soil sciences, social sciences, silviculture, genetics, productivity, forest and range ecology management, harvesting and operations, forest and biomass products and utilization, global change, economics, and urban forestry.

Other – please specify another program area you use if not listed above.__________

USE4.1. Please indicate which of the following Forest Service R&D PRODUCTS you USED during the past year. You may select all that are appropriate.

Technical articles/reports describing research methods and results

Popular articles/reports/newsletters highlighting research results



Reports presenting current forest resource statistics (e.g., Forest Inventory and Analysis

(FIA) Reports)

Reports analyzing long-term forest and rangeland resource trends (e.g., Resources Planning Act (RPA) Assessments)

Environmental/Conservation education materials (e.g., The Natural Inquirer)

Comprehensive syntheses of prior research

Decision support tools (i.e., computer models/software applications)

Monitoring/evaluation protocols

Not applicable

Other (Please specify) ____________________________ IF ANSWERED ‘USE’ ANY OF USE 4.1 ASK ALL BELOW USE4.1.1 Please rate FOREST SERVICE R&D PRODUCTS you have used during the past year on a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means “Poor” and 10 means “Excellent” in terms of each of the following variables. If a question does not apply to you, please select “Does not apply.” INFO1. Accurate and up-to-date INFO2. Easy to understand INFO3. Scientifically sound INFO4. Authoritative source (provided by subject matter experts) INFO5. Unbiased INFO6. Comprehensive USE4.2. Please indicate which of the following Forest Service R&D SERVICES you USED during the past year. You may select all that are appropriate.

Presentations by Forest Service R&D personnel at professional and other meetings

Forest Service R&D sponsored workshops/training sessions

Forest Service R&D sponsored on-site demonstrations

Consultations with Forest Service R&D personnel (by phone, e-mail, or in person)

None of the above

Other (Please specify) _______________________ IF ANSWERED ‘USE’ ANY OF USE 4.2 ASK ALL BELOW USE 4.2.1 Please rate Forest Service R&D SERVICES you used during the past year on a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means “Poor” and 10 means “Excellent” in terms of the following variables. If a question does not apply to you, please select “Does not apply.” PRES1. Ease of scheduling the event/consultation PRES2. Clarity of the information presented/provided PRES3. Usefulness of the information presented/provided PRES4. Presenter’s/consultant’s knowledge of subject matter PRES5. Ability of the presenter/consultant to answer your questions

Accessibility/Format of Products/Services

ACC1. How do you typically access the products and services provided by FOREST SERVICE R&D?

(Select one)

Requesting hard copies of publications and other information

Downloading publications and other information from the web

Attending conferences/workshops/demonstrations

Direct contact with scientists/technicians/technology transfer specialists

Other (please specify)



ACC2. Please rate the ease of (ANSWER TO ACC1) on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means “Poor” and

10 means “Excellent.” If a question does not apply to you, please select “Does not apply.”

ACC3. The ease of finding information

ACC4. The organization of material

ACC5. The design and presentation of material

Communication

Please rate Forest Service R&D on a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means “Poor” and 10 means “Excellent” on the following. If a question does not apply to you, please select “Does not apply.” COM1. Informing you about the availability of new product and service offerings COM2. Informing you about recently released articles/reports/newsletters COM3. Providing schedules for conferences and workshops COM4. Products and services being clearly identified as coming from Forest Service R&D

Relevance and Quality of Products/Services

Please rate how useful the products and services from (Forest Service R&D) are to you for the following purposes. Use a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means “Not Very Useful” and 10 means “Very Useful.” If a question does not apply to you, please select “Does not apply.” RELEV1. Addresses problems, issues or needs that you currently face RELEV2. Provides detailed and actionable solutions RELEV3. Provides solutions that are workable with your resources RELEV4. Helps anticipate emerging problems, issues or needs you might face

Experience with Forest Service R&D Staff

STAFF1. Have you ever directly contacted a Forest Service R&D employee (in person, by phone, or by email) for information or some other type of assistance? Yes (go to STAFF2) No (go to next section)

STAFF2. Please rate the Forest Service R&D staff on the following. Use a scale from 1 to 10, where 1

means “Poor” and 10 means “Excellent.” If a question does not apply to you, please select “Does not apply.”

Courteousness

Timeliness in responding

Knowledge

Overall Satisfaction with Forest Service R&D Products/Services

SAT1. Please think of your experiences with Forest Service R&D products and services. Using a 10-

point scale on which 1 means "Very dissatisfied" and 10 means "Very satisfied", how satisfied are you with the services and products provided by Forest Service R&D?

SAT2. Using a 10-point scale on which 1 now means "Falls short of your expectations" and 10 means

"Exceeds your expectations," to what extent have the products and services provided by Forest Service R&D fallen short of, or exceeded, your expectations?



SAT3. Imagine an ideal forestry research organization. How well do you think the products and services provided by Forest Service R&D compares to the ideal you just imagined? Use a 10-point scale on which 1 means "Not very close to the ideal," and 10 means "Very close to the ideal."

Outcomes

OUTCOME1. Using a 10-point scale on which 1 means "Not very willing" and 10 means "Very willing", how willing would you be to recommend Forest Service R&D products and services to your colleagues?

OUTCOME2. Using a 10-point scale on which 1 means "Not very likely" and 10 means "Very likely", how likely are you to use Forest Service R&D products and services in the future?

OUTCOME3. Using a 10-point scale on which 1 means "Not very confident" and 10 means "Very confident", how confident are you in using the products and services provided by Forest Service R&D?

OUTCOME4. How much of a difference do the products and services provided by Forest Service R&D make to you in your ability to successfully carry out your work? Please use a 10-point scale on which 1 means "No difference at all" and 10 means "A great difference".

Website

WEB1. Have you visited the Forest Service R&D website (www.Forest Service.fed.us/research)? Yes No Don’t Know

(IF WEB1=YES ASK WEB2 ELSE SKIP TO SAT1.) WEB2. What comments do you have about the website?

Improving Future Service

IMPROVE1. Forest Service R&D is looking for ways to improve its service. Please indicate the one area you think is most important for Forest Service R&D to focus on in order to improve customer service?

Make more information/data available via the Internet Create a one-stop shopping website Make users aware when new information/data is available/do more to advertise new

products/services, new projects, and successes Increase the capacity to do research Make websites more “user friendly” Focus R&D on questions raised by natural resource managers Increase collaboration with researchers from outside Forest Service R&D Make more publications, especially older legacy publications – available on Internet

OPENEND1. Do you have any other suggestions concerning how Forest Service R&D could better serve you? (Open Ended)

END1. Thank you for your time. Forest Service R&D is specifically looking for information from customers who do not work in the R&D Deputy Area. Please hit the next button to go to the end of the survey.

http://www.fs.fed.us/research



END2. Thank you for your time. Forest Service R&D is specifically looking for information from customers who typically use services more than once a year. Please hit the next button to go to the end of the survey.



Appendix B: Non-modeled Questions



Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Organization you work for Federal Agency 27% 190 26% 216 State or Local Government Agency 20% 137 24% 206 Tribal Government 0% 2 0% 4 College/University Education 22% 152 23% 195 K-12 Education 1% 5 0% 3 Business/Commercial 12% 81 8% 66 Non-Profit Agency/Organization 9% 65 12% 102 Other 9% 64 6% 50 Number of Respondents

Work for the USDA Forest Service Work for Forest Service 55% 105 67% 144 Do not work for Forest Service 45% 85 33% 72 Number of Respondents

Work for the FS R and D Deputy Area Do not work for Deputy Area 100% 105 100% 144 Number of Respondents

Position within the USDA Forest Service National Forest System staff in Washington Office 9% 9 3% 4 National Forest System Regional Office staff 16% 17 22% 32 National Forest System Forest Supervisor Office staff 28% 29 26% 38 National Forest System Ranger District staff 25% 26 22% 31 State and Private Forestry staff in Washington Office 6% 6 6% 8 State and Private Forestry field staff 9% 9 12% 17 Washington Office staff 3% 3 2% 3 Other 6% 6 8% 11 Number of Respondents

Primary role at your organization Researcher 13% 92 15% 123 Educator 6% 45 7% 56 Joint Educator/Research 9% 64 9% 72 Executive 9% 65 11% 89 Technical/Professional 50% 351 45% 375 Administrative 5% 34 6% 48 Other 6% 45 9% 79 Number of Respondents

Located in the 50 United States or the District of Columbia Located in the US 85% 594 93% 784 Not located in the US 15% 102 7% 58 Number of Respondents 696 842

105 144

105 144

696 842

2012 2015

696 842

190 216

Non-modeled Questions – 2012 and 2015



~ Multiple responses allowed.

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Typically use FS R and D products and services more than once a year Use products more than once a year 100% 696 100% 842 Number of Respondents

FS R and D organizational unit used most frequently Forest Products Laboratory 9% 62 7% 56 Northern Research Station 25% 172 27% 228 Pacific Northwest Research Station 15% 102 10% 86 Pacific Southwest Research Station 6% 41 11% 91 International Institute of Tropical Forestry 1% 7 2% 18 Rocky Mountain Research Station 22% 155 14% 121 Southern Research Station 14% 96 17% 139 Washington Office 4% 25 4% 35 Other 5% 36 8% 68 Number of Respondents

FS R and D Strategic Program Area most closely aligned with Wildland Fire 9% 62 10% 85 Invasive Species 11% 75 13% 106 Outdoor Recreation 4% 27 5% 38 Water, Air and Soil 7% 48 6% 47 Wildlife and Fish 9% 64 7% 62 Inventory and Monitoring 12% 84 18% 148 Resource Management and Use 39% 274 35% 294 Other 9% 62 7% 62 Number of Respondents

FS R and D products used during the past year~ Technical articles/reports describing research methods and results 90% 628 86% 725 Popular articles/reports/newsletters highlighting research results 56% 388 56% 474 Reports presenting current forest resource statistics 44% 309 51% 432 Reports analyzing long-term forest and rangeland resource trends 31% 219 30% 251 Environmental/Conservation education materials 20% 141 19% 161 Comprehensive syntheses of prior research 31% 216 29% 248 Decision support tools 27% 191 30% 256 Monitoring/evaluation protocols 30% 206 27% 224 Not applicable 1% 8 2% 18 Other 5% 38 5% 40 Number of Respondents

696 842

696 842

696 842

696 842

2012 2015

Non-modeled Questions – 2012 and 2015 (cont.)



~ Multiple responses allowed.

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency FS R and D services used during the past year~ Presentations by FS R&D personnel at professional and other meetings 51% 357 68% 559 FS R&D sponsored workshops/training sessions 24% 165 33% 274 FS R&D sponsored on-site demonstrations 11% 76 17% 141 Consultations with FS R&D personnel (by phone, e-mail, or in person) 51% 353 68% 560 None of the above 28% 197 14% 113 Other 5% 32 4% 30 Number of Respondents

How you typically access productsservices provided by FS R and D Requesting hard copies of publications and other information 17% 115 9% 73 Downloading publications and other information from the web 55% 382 57% 479 Attending conferences/workshops/demonstrations 5% 36 7% 59 Direct contact with scientists/technicians/technology transfer specialists 21% 148 26% 220 Other 2% 15 1% 11 Number of Respondents

Directly contacted a FS R and D employee for information or assistance Directly contacted an employee 78% 541 89% 749 Did not directly contact an employee 22% 155 11% 93 Number of Respondents

Visited the FS R and D website Visited website 79% 553 79% 666 Did not visit website 13% 87 15% 128 Don´t know 8% 56 6% 48 Number of Respondents

Most important area for FS R and D to focus on to improve customer service Make more information/data available via the Internet 12% 81 9% 76 Create a one-stop shopping website 9% 60 7% 61 Make users aware when new information/data is available/do more to advertise new products/services, new projects, and successes

13% 87 12% 100

Increase the capacity to do research 16% 112 20% 172 Make websites more user friendly 5% 38 7% 58 Focus R&D on questions raised by natural resource managers 16% 113 20% 172 Increase collaboration with researchers from outside FS R&D 12% 84 13% 110 Make more publications, especially older legacy publications, available on Internet

17% 121 11% 93

Number of Respondents

696 842

696 842

696 824

696 842

696 842

2012 2015

Non-modeled Questions – 2012 and 2015 (cont.)



Appendix C: Attribute Tables by Select Segments



2012 2015 Sample Size 696 842 Products 86 84 -2 ? 1.2 Accurate and up-to-date 86 83 -3 ? -- Easy to understand 83 80 -3 ? -- Scientifically sound 89 87 -2 ? -- Authoritative source (provided by subject matter experts) 89 87 -2 ? -- Unbiased 85 82 -3 ? -- Comprehensive 84 81 -3 ? -- Services 88 86 -2 ? 0.8 Ease of scheduling the event/consultation 83 82 -1 -- Clarity of the information presented/provided 87 85 -2 -- Usefulness of the information presented/provided 87 85 -2 ? -- Presenter’s/consultant’s knowledge of subject matter 91 89 -2 ? -- Ability of the presenter/consultant to answer your questions 88 87 -1 ? -- Accessability 82 80 -2 ? 0.2 Ease of finding information 78 76 -2 ? -- Organization of material 83 80 -3 ? -- Design and presentation of material 85 82 -3 ? -- Communication 76 70 -6 ? 0.6 Informing you about the availability of new product and service offerings 74 66 -8 ? -- Informing you about recently released articles/reports/newsletters 76 67 -9 ? -- Providing schedules for conferences and workshops 69 67 -2 ? -- Products/services being clearly identified as coming from FS R and D 82 79 -3 ? -- Relevance and Quality 76 74 -2 ? 1.5 Addresses problems, issues or needs that you currently face 79 77 -2 ? -- Provides detailed and actionable solutions 74 72 -2 ? -- Provides solutions that are workable with your resources 72 71 -1 -- Helps anticipate emerging problems, issues or needs you might face 76 74 -2 -- Staff 92 92 0 1.5 Courteousness 93 93 0 -- Timeliness in responding 88 88 0 -- Knowledge 93 93 0 -- Customer Satisfaction Index 79 76 -3 ? -- Overall satisfaction 83 81 -2 ? -- Compared to expectations 76 70 -6 ? -- Compared to the ideal 75 75 0 -- Likelihood to Recommend 88 87 -1 ? 4.0 Willingness to recommend FS R and D products and services to colleagues 88 87 -1 ? -- Likelihood to use products and services in future 92 92 0 2.5 Likelihood to use FS R and D products and services in the future 92 92 0 -- Confidence in using products and services 86 87 1 3.3 Confidence in using the products and services provided by Forest Service R and D 86 87 1 -- Difference FS products and services make 77 78 1 3.6 Difference the products and services provided by FS R and D make 77 78 1 --

Difference Aggregate Impact

Significant Difference

Significant Differences – 2015 compared to 2012



Sample Size

Products 84 86 82 80 89 81 85 81 83

Accurate and up-to-date 84 85 81 81 88 82 84 81 84

Easy to understand 82 81 80 78 88 79 80 74 77

Scientifically sound 87 90 85 84 92 84 88 83 83

Authoritative source (provided by subject matter experts) 88 89 86 83 92 84 88 87 85

Unbiased 82 86 80 78 88 80 85 76 83

Comprehensive 83 84 80 77 86 78 84 79 82

Services 87 88 83 82 96 82 88 87 90

Ease of scheduling the event/consultation 84 84 78 76 94 79 84 81 87

Clarity of the information presented/provided 86 87 83 81 95 82 87 86 89

Usefulness of the information presented/provided 86 87 82 81 95 82 86 89 89

Presenter’s/consultant’s knowledge of subject matter 89 91 88 87 98 85 91 90 92

Ability of the presenter/consultant to answer your questions 88 89 84 82 98 82 88 87 89

Accessability 79 81 77 78 91 77 80 78 85

Ease of finding information 75 76 73 74 85 74 76 76 81

Organization of material 79 80 77 79 90 78 79 79 85

Design and presentation of material 82 84 80 81 95 79 83 80 86

Communication 76 72 67 64 81 67 73 66 71

Informing you about the availability of new product and service offerings 71 69 65 58 76 63 69 61 68

Informing you about recently released articles/reports/newsletters 73 68 66 59 76 64 70 60 68

Providing schedules for conferences and workshops 74 68 61 63 83 63 68 59 68

Products/services being clearly identified as coming from FS R and D 84 81 73 78 88 77 81 73 76

Relevance and Quality 76 78 69 68 91 68 76 74 72

Addresses problems, issues or needs that you currently face 79 81 75 72 91 72 79 77 73

Provides detailed and actionable solutions 76 76 64 64 89 65 75 71 70

Provides solutions that are workable with your resources 74 76 66 61 90 66 72 71 69

Helps anticipate emerging problems, issues or needs you might face 71 78 71 70 91 69 77 75 70

Staff 92 93 91 89 99 88 92 91 95

Courteousness 95 94 92 91 99 89 93 92 97

Timeliness in responding 89 90 88 82 99 84 88 88 91

Knowledge 95 94 92 91 99 88 93 92 95

Customer Satisfaction Index 76 79 73 70 89 72 77 71 78

Overall satisfaction 82 85 79 75 94 78 82 77 84

Compared to expectations 71 74 67 65 86 66 73 64 72

Compared to the ideal 73 78 72 69 85 72 76 71 77

Likelihood to Recommend 84 90 84 82 97 83 88 84 89

Willingness to recommend FS R and D products and services to colleagues 84 90 84 82 97 83 88 84 89

Likelihood to use products and services in future 92 94 91 90 98 90 93 90 93

Likelihood to use FS R and D products and services in the future 92 94 91 90 98 90 93 90 93

Confidence in using products and services 88 90 86 83 97 83 90 82 89

Confidence in using the products and services provided by Forest Service R and D 88 90 86 83 97 83 90 82 89

Difference FS products and services make 74 81 75 75 91 74 77 77 84

Difference the products and services provided by FS R and D make 74 81 75 75 91 74 77 77 84

56

Fo

rest

Pro

du

cts

Lab

ora

tory

228

No

rth

ern

Researc

h

Sta

tio

n

86

Pacif

ic N

ort

hw

est

Researc

h S

tati

on

91

Pacif

ic S

ou

thw

est

Researc

h S

tati

on

18

Inte

rnati

on

al In

sti

tute

of

Tro

pic

al F

ore

str

y

121

Ro

cky M

ou

nta

in

Researc

h S

tati

on

139

So

uth

ern

Researc

h

Sta

tio

n

35

Wash

ing

ton

Off

ice

68

Oth

er

Scores by Organizational Units



Sample Size

Products 83 85 78 83 83 84 83 84

Accurate and up-to-date 84 85 77 83 86 82 83 84

Easy to understand 80 84 74 78 81 79 79 81

Scientifically sound 87 87 81 87 86 88 87 87

Authoritative source (provided by subject matter experts) 89 87 80 86 85 89 86 88

Unbiased 80 84 76 83 81 85 82 83

Comprehensive 80 85 80 82 79 82 81 83

Services 85 88 85 86 83 87 86 89

Ease of scheduling the event/consultation 82 82 87 83 77 83 82 85

Clarity of the information presented/provided 85 87 86 83 83 86 85 89

Usefulness of the information presented/provided 85 88 84 84 81 86 86 88

Presenter’s/consultant’s knowledge of subject matter 89 90 87 89 87 90 89 92

Ability of the presenter/consultant to answer your questions 86 88 84 87 82 87 87 89

Accessability 80 82 74 74 80 80 80 83

Ease of finding information 74 78 68 70 75 77 76 82

Organization of material 80 82 74 73 80 79 80 82

Design and presentation of material 84 84 77 78 83 83 82 83

Communication 67 70 59 67 64 71 72 76

Informing you about the availability of new product and service offerings 63 65 53 61 59 67 70 73

Informing you about recently released articles/reports/newsletters 64 68 52 59 60 68 70 73

Providing schedules for conferences and workshops 63 70 54 62 62 67 68 71

Products/services being clearly identified as coming from FS R and D 76 77 68 80 74 80 81 85

Relevance and Quality 73 78 63 73 70 75 74 74

Addresses problems, issues or needs that you currently face 77 81 65 78 74 80 77 75

Provides detailed and actionable solutions 71 77 58 66 67 72 73 73

Provides solutions that are workable with your resources 70 75 59 68 65 72 72 73

Helps anticipate emerging problems, issues or needs you might face 74 77 63 73 72 75 75 73

Staff 91 92 90 92 91 91 92 95

Courteousness 93 93 91 94 91 92 94 97

Timeliness in responding 87 87 87 86 87 87 88 94

Knowledge 92 93 91 93 93 92 92 95

Customer Satisfaction Index 76 78 66 75 73 77 76 78

Overall satisfaction 81 83 73 82 78 81 82 83

Compared to expectations 71 75 59 67 69 72 70 72

Compared to the ideal 76 77 63 74 71 75 75 79

Likelihood to Recommend 88 87 78 85 85 86 87 89

Willingness to recommend FS R and D products and services to colleagues 88 87 78 85 85 86 87 89

Likelihood to use products and services in future 94 91 86 92 94 93 92 93

Likelihood to use FS R and D products and services in the future 94 91 86 92 94 93 92 93

Confidence in using products and services 89 87 78 87 87 88 88 89

Confidence in using the products and services provided by Forest Service R and D 89 87 78 87 87 88 88 89

Difference FS products and services make 78 81 71 78 73 79 77 81

Difference the products and services provided by FS R and D make 78 81 71 78 73 79 77 81

85

Wild

lan

d F

ire

106

Invasiv

e S

pecie

s

38

Ou

tdo

or

Recre

ati

on

294

Reso

urc

e

Man

ag

em

en

t an

d U

se

62

Oth

er

47

Wate

r, A

ir a

nd

So

il

62

Wild

life

an

d F

ish

148

Inven

tory

an

d

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Scores by Strategic Program Area (SPA)



Sample Size Products 84 84 65 85 75 82 80 85 Accurate and up-to-date 85 83 69 84 83 81 80 85 Easy to understand 79 78 69 84 61 76 77 84 Scientifically sound 87 87 67 88 72 86 83 86 Authoritative source (provided by subject matter experts) 88 88 61 88 67 87 83 87 Unbiased 83 81 61 86 89 82 79 82 Comprehensive 81 83 64 82 89 81 78 85 Services 86 86 74 88 96 87 83 85 Ease of scheduling the event/consultation 82 81 67 85 89 84 80 83 Clarity of the information presented/provided 86 84 75 89 100 85 83 83 Usefulness of the information presented/provided 86 85 81 88 89 85 83 84 Presenter’s/consultant’s knowledge of subject matter 89 90 75 91 100 90 87 88 Ability of the presenter/consultant to answer your questions 86 87 69 89 100 88 84 84 Accessibility 79 81 75 80 90 78 78 80 Ease of finding information 75 78 72 76 89 74 73 78 Organization of material 79 81 75 80 89 77 77 80 Design and presentation of material 82 83 78 83 93 81 82 82 Communication 66 73 65 72 83 68 67 74 Informing you about the availability of new product and service offerings 63 70 61 68 89 65 63 71 Informing you about recently released articles/reports/newsletters 64 70 58 68 85 65 63 71 Providing schedules for conferences and workshops 62 70 69 68 81 66 65 69 Products/services being clearly identified as coming from FS R and D 76 82 72 82 78 76 75 79 Relevance and Quality 70 76 60 77 79 70 71 78 Addresses problems, issues or needs that you currently face 74 78 67 80 72 74 75 81 Provides detailed and actionable solutions 68 75 53 75 78 66 69 76 Provides solutions that are workable with your resources 67 73 53 75 83 68 68 74 Helps anticipate emerging problems, issues or needs you might face 71 77 67 75 83 70 74 78 Staff 90 92 75 93 98 90 91 93 Courteousness 91 93 78 95 94 94 94 95 Timeliness in responding 85 88 70 90 100 89 87 90 Knowledge 92 94 74 94 100 91 91 93 Customer Satisfaction Index 75 77 62 78 87 74 72 81 Overall satisfaction 80 82 64 84 93 78 77 86 Compared to expectations 69 73 58 71 81 69 67 75 Compared to the ideal 73 75 64 77 85 74 71 78 Likelihood to Recommend 85 88 67 88 85 85 84 93 Willingness to recommend FS R and D products and services to colleagues 85 88 67 88 85 85 84 93 Likelihood to use products and services in future 92 92 83 93 89 92 92 94 Likelihood to use FS R and D products and services in the future 92 92 83 93 89 92 92 94 Confidence in using products and services 88 88 72 88 89 86 84 88 Confidence in using the products and services provided by Forest Service R and D 88 88 72 88 89 86 84 88 Difference FS products and services make 77 80 53 79 85 75 77 79 Difference the products and services provided by FS R and D make 77 80 53 79 85 75 77 79

102

No

n-P

rofi

t

Ag

en

cy/O

rga

niz

ati

on

50

Oth

er

195

Co

lle

ge

/Un

ive

rsit

y

Ed

uc

ati

on

3

K-1

2 E

du

cati

on

66

Bu

sin

ess

/Co

mm

erc

ial

216

Fe

de

ral

Ag

en

cy

206

Sta

te o

r L

oc

al

Go

ve

rnm

en

t A

ge

nc

y

4

Tri

ba

l G

ove

rnm

en

t

Scores by Organization Work For



Sample Size

Products 85 86 86 80 84 83 80

Accurate and up-to-date 84 86 85 80 84 83 82

Easy to understand 84 83 84 72 79 79 77

Scientifically sound 88 87 88 85 87 86 83

Authoritative source (provided by subject matter experts) 88 88 87 85 87 88 84

Unbiased 84 88 88 79 83 80 76

Comprehensive 83 86 83 78 82 81 79

Services 88 89 89 84 86 85 82

Ease of scheduling the event/consultation 84 85 87 82 81 83 76

Clarity of the information presented/provided 88 91 90 84 85 83 81

Usefulness of the information presented/provided 88 90 89 82 85 82 83

Presenter’s/consultant’s knowledge of subject matter 91 92 92 87 89 89 84

Ability of the presenter/consultant to answer your questions 89 89 90 85 87 85 81

Accessability 80 82 82 78 80 81 77

Ease of finding information 77 78 79 74 76 77 71

Organization of material 79 81 81 78 80 80 77

Design and presentation of material 81 85 86 80 82 85 81

Communication 72 72 74 70 69 73 66

Informing you about the availability of new product and service offerings 66 68 71 65 66 71 62

Informing you about recently released articles/reports/newsletters 68 69 70 67 66 70 63

Providing schedules for conferences and workshops 69 67 73 68 65 72 59

Products/services being clearly identified as coming from FS R and D 81 81 85 77 77 81 75

Relevance and Quality 77 74 81 68 74 74 70

Addresses problems, issues or needs that you currently face 80 77 82 72 77 77 73

Provides detailed and actionable solutions 73 73 80 65 71 74 69

Provides solutions that are workable with your resources 75 74 78 66 70 71 67

Helps anticipate emerging problems, issues or needs you might face 76 73 80 70 75 75 67

Staff 92 95 93 91 91 90 91

Courteousness 94 96 95 92 93 93 93

Timeliness in responding 89 93 88 89 87 85 86

Knowledge 93 97 93 92 92 91 91

Customer Satisfaction Index 77 79 78 73 76 73 75

Overall satisfaction 84 84 85 78 81 78 81

Compared to expectations 71 73 72 68 71 69 69

Compared to the ideal 77 78 76 73 74 71 74

Likelihood to Recommend 88 88 90 85 86 82 86

Willingness to recommend FS R and D products and services to colleagues 88 88 90 85 86 82 86

Likelihood to use products and services in future 94 93 92 90 92 91 92

Likelihood to use FS R and D products and services in the future 94 93 92 90 92 91 92

Confidence in using products and services 88 90 88 85 88 85 85

Confidence in using the products and services provided by Forest Service R and D 88 90 88 85 88 85 85

Difference FS products and services make 81 77 78 78 78 77 74

Difference the products and services provided by FS R and D make 81 77 78 78 78 77 74

79

Oth

er

89

Execu

tive

375

Tech

nic

al/P

rofe

ssio

nal

48

Ad

min

istr

ati

ve

123

Researc

her

56

Ed

ucato

r

72

Jo

int

Ed

ucato

r/R

esearc

h

Scores by Position



Sample Size Products 87 83 81 83 93 Accurate and up-to-date 87 83 80 83 95 Easy to understand 85 80 75 78 86 Scientifically sound 90 86 83 87 97 Authoritative source (provided by subject matter experts) 89 87 84 87 99 Unbiased 85 82 81 82 90 Comprehensive 85 81 82 80 91 Services 85 85 82 89 97 Ease of scheduling the event/consultation 81 82 78 84 92 Clarity of the information presented/provided 84 84 81 88 97 Usefulness of the information presented/provided 84 84 82 88 97 Presenter’s/consultant’s knowledge of subject matter 88 89 85 91 99 Ability of the presenter/consultant to answer your questions 85 86 83 89 97 Accessibility 85 76 81 84 93 Ease of finding information 81 71 78 83 90 Organization of material 85 76 80 85 94 Design and presentation of material 88 80 82 85 97 Communication 71 69 74 71 82 Informing you about the availability of new product and service offerings 69 65 72 67 80 Informing you about recently released articles/reports/newsletters 68 65 73 69 79 Providing schedules for conferences and workshops 61 64 72 70 84 Products/services being clearly identified as coming from FS R and D 80 79 77 78 87 Relevance and Quality 77 72 71 76 86 Addresses problems, issues or needs that you currently face 80 75 74 79 92 Provides detailed and actionable solutions 75 70 70 73 88 Provides solutions that are workable with your resources 72 69 69 73 88 Helps anticipate emerging problems, issues or needs you might face 80 72 71 78 82 Staff 92 91 90 92 98 Courteousness 93 93 92 93 99 Timeliness in responding 89 88 87 88 96 Knowledge 93 92 91 93 99 Customer Satisfaction Index 79 75 74 77 87 Overall satisfaction 85 80 79 82 94 Compared to expectations 74 70 70 70 84 Compared to the ideal 77 74 73 76 81 Likelihood to Recommend 89 86 82 87 97 Willingness to recommend FS R and D products and services to colleagues 89 86 82 87 97 Likelihood to use products and services in future 94 92 89 92 98 Likelihood to use FS R and D products and services in the future 94 92 89 92 98 Confidence in using products and services 89 87 85 89 95 Confidence in using the products and services provided by Forest Service R and D 89 87 85 89 95 Difference FS products and services make 79 76 75 81 96 Difference the products and services provided by FS R and D make 79 76 75 81 96

220

Direct contact

11

Other

73

Requesting hard copies

479

Downloading from the web

59

Attending conferences/ workshops/

demonstrations

Scores by Method of Accessing Products



Sample Size Products 84 81 ? Accurate and up-to-date 83 82 Easy to understand 80 76 ? Scientifically sound 87 84 ? Authoritative source (provided by subject matter experts) 87 84 ? Unbiased 83 79 Comprehensive 82 80 Services 86 82 ? Ease of scheduling the event/consultation 82 83 Clarity of the information presented/provided 86 83 Usefulness of the information presented/provided 86 80 ? Presenter’s/consultant’s knowledge of subject matter 90 84 ? Ability of the presenter/consultant to answer your questions 87 83 Accessibility 80 77 Ease of finding information 76 73 Organization of material 80 76 Design and presentation of material 83 80 Communication 70 70 Informing you about the availability of new product and service offerings 66 67 Informing you about recently released articles/reports/newsletters 67 67 Providing schedules for conferences and workshops 67 67 Products/services being clearly identified as coming from FS R and D 79 76 Relevance and Quality 74 72 Addresses problems, issues or needs that you currently face 77 75 Provides detailed and actionable solutions 72 69 Provides solutions that are workable with your resources 71 70 Helps anticipate emerging problems, issues or needs you might face 74 73 Staff 92 -- Courteousness 93 -- Timeliness in responding 88 -- Knowledge 93 -- Customer Satisfaction Index 76 72 ? Overall satisfaction 82 76 ? Compared to expectations 71 69 Compared to the ideal 75 71 ? Likelihood to Recommend 87 81 ? Willingness to recommend FS R and D products and services to colleagues 87 81 ? Likelihood to use products and services in future 93 87 ? Likelihood to use FS R and D products and services in the future 93 87 ? Confidence in using products and services 88 84 ? Confidence in using the products and services provided by Forest Service R and D 88 84 ? Difference FS products and services make 79 68 ? Difference the products and services provided by FS R and D make 79 68 ?

749

Directly contacted an

employee

93


Did not directly

contact an employee

Scores by Contacting Employee



Sample Size Products 83 86 Accurate and up-to-date 83 86 Easy to understand 79 84 ? Scientifically sound 87 87 Authoritative source (provided by subject matter experts) 87 88 Unbiased 82 84 Comprehensive 81 85 Services 86 92 ? Ease of scheduling the event/consultation 82 90 ? Clarity of the information presented/provided 85 91 ? Usefulness of the information presented/provided 85 91 ? Presenter’s/consultant’s knowledge of subject matter 89 93 ? Ability of the presenter/consultant to answer your questions 86 92 ? Accessibility 79 87 ? Ease of finding information 75 84 ? Organization of material 79 88 ? Design and presentation of material 82 88 ? Communication 69 78 ? Informing you about the availability of new product and service offerings 66 74 ? Informing you about recently released articles/reports/newsletters 66 75 ? Providing schedules for conferences and workshops 66 78 ? Products/services being clearly identified as coming from FS R and D 78 86 ? Relevance and Quality 73 81 ? Addresses problems, issues or needs that you currently face 77 82 ? Provides detailed and actionable solutions 71 79 ? Provides solutions that are workable with your resources 70 78 ? Helps anticipate emerging problems, issues or needs you might face 73 83 ? Staff 91 96 ? Courteousness 93 97 ? Timeliness in responding 87 93 ? Knowledge 92 96 ? Customer Satisfaction Index 75 84 ? Overall satisfaction 81 89 ? Compared to expectations 70 80 ? Compared to the ideal 74 83 ? Likelihood to Recommend 86 94 ? Willingness to recommend FS R and D products and services to colleagues 86 94 ? Likelihood to use products and services in future 92 95 ? Likelihood to use FS R and D products and services in the future 92 95 ? Confidence in using products and services 87 91 ? Confidence in using the products and services provided by Forest Service R and D 87 91 ? Difference FS products and services make 78 81 Difference the products and services provided by FS R and D make 78 81

784

Located in the US

58


Not located in the US

Scores by Where Located



Sample Size Products 84 83 Accurate and up-to-date 84 82 Easy to understand 80 79 Scientifically sound 87 87 Authoritative source (provided by subject matter experts) 87 86 Unbiased 83 82 Comprehensive 82 82 Services 86 86 Ease of scheduling the event/consultation 82 81 Clarity of the information presented/provided 85 85 Usefulness of the information presented/provided 86 86 Presenter’s/consultant’s knowledge of subject matter 89 90 Ability of the presenter/consultant to answer your questions 87 87 Accessibility 79 82 ? Ease of finding information 75 79 ? Organization of material 79 82 ? Design and presentation of material 82 84 Communication 71 68 Informing you about the availability of new product and service offerings 67 64 Informing you about recently released articles/reports/newsletters 68 65 Providing schedules for conferences and workshops 68 62 ? Products/services being clearly identified as coming from FS R and D 80 75 ? Relevance and Quality 74 74 Addresses problems, issues or needs that you currently face 78 76 Provides detailed and actionable solutions 72 73 Provides solutions that are workable with your resources 71 72 Helps anticipate emerging problems, issues or needs you might face 74 73 Staff 92 92 Courteousness 93 93 Timeliness in responding 88 86 Knowledge 92 94 ? Customer Satisfaction Index 76 75 Overall satisfaction 82 80 Compared to expectations 71 70 Compared to the ideal 75 73 Likelihood to Recommend 87 87 Willingness to recommend FS R and D products and services to colleagues 87 87 Likelihood to use products and services in future 92 92 Likelihood to use FS R and D products and services in the future 92 92 Confidence in using products and services 87 88 Confidence in using the products and services provided by Forest Service R and D 87 88 Difference FS products and services make 78 78 Difference the products and services provided by FS R and D make 78 78

666

Visited website

128


Did not visit website

Scores by Visited Website



Appendix D: Verbatim Comments



Demo1.1. Which of the following best describes the organization you work for? (Other)

A coalition of counties, industry, private business and other county organizations [67]

B-B Publishing [93]

California Off-Road Vehicle Association [63]

consultant and TSP with NRCS [79]

Consulting forester [86]

Consulting-hydrology and geomorphology [74]

contractor for a federal agency [93]

Editor, OldSmokeys Newsletter, Pacific Northwest Forest Service Association [75]

Extension - Landowner Education [90]

FFRDC [82]

Forest Research Center [93]

Forestry Consultant [74]

Forestry Consulting firm [71]

FREELANCE JOURNALIST [45]

Government Research Organisation in another country [97]

Graduate Student [97]

house of representativs [23]

independent consultant [53]

Journalism [100]

media [35]

Media [89]

private forest landowner [67]

Private Forestry Consultant [96]

Private Landowner [67]

Private Sector - Engineering Firm [82]

r&d consultancy for housing industry - not-for-profit [100]



Research Institute [86]

retired [82]

Retired [86]

retired [89]

Retired [96]

retired biologist [96]

Retired- College Design Wood Lab Director [82]

retired Federal Agency [96]

Retired Forest Owner [97]

Retired Forest Service [56]

Retired Forester [100]

Retired frm fed agency [89]

Ryuji [86]

self [100]

Self employed [72]

self employed [74]

Self employed [86]

self-employed; family tree farm [72]

self--retired [67]

start-up business owner [97]

US Government Contractor [86]

Virginia Master Naturalist Program [78]

Watershed Management [86]

Work for state and federal government at the same time [78]



Demo1.4. Which of the following best describes your position within the Forest Service? (Other)

FIA [100]

Forest Service Nursery [79]

National Forest System Nursery [75]

National Forest System Zone office for Supervisor and Ranger District [74]

NFS, detached in Missoula, MT (MTDC) [82]

Regional Office emplyee zoned to Forest Supervisor Office [60]

Research [82]

Science specialist at the Supervisor Office [82]

Supervisory Entomologist [60]

WO NFS detached [22]



Demo2. What is your primary role at your organization? (Other)

animal packer [90]

Area Representative [49]

board member [75]

Cofounder and student [100]

Communicator for the research projects [71]

conservation advocacy [93]

conservation commission-advise on natural resources [96]

Consortia program [63]

District Forest Manager [86]

District manager [82]

District Ranger [20]

Editor [89]

Editor [93]

Elected Official [38]

Enjoy learning new successes [96]

environmental restoration [60]

Executive Director [100]

Extension Forester [63]

farmer/environmentalist [96]

field representative [23]

Fire Behavior Analyst [63]

Forest mangement [71]

Forester [86]

former technical/profesional, now retired [89]

Government Policy [89]

Graduate Student / researcher [93]



graduate student [83]

I own the business and provide, technical, professional and supervisory advice and services to my clients. [96]

Implement practices here; write newspaper articles; [97]

Import Specialist [100]

industrial development [78]

Interested retiree [56]

landowner [67]

Landscape Architect [56]

liaison [71]

Line Officer [78]

Line Officer [93]

manager [58]

manager [78]

Mediator [96]

Membership information [75]

Meteorologist [93]

Nat/Cultural Resource Manager [64]

Outdoor Recreation Enthusiast [63]

owner [100]

Owner [74]

owner [74]

owner-operator [72]

park ranger [100]

Policy Director [74]

Policy/Advocacy [70]

professor emeritus [78]

Program Manager [30]




Program manager [75]


Project Manager [71]

Public Lands Planning [56]

public relations [80]

reporter, editor [35]

Resource Manager [93]

Sales & Marketing [89]

Sales [74]

self [67]

self employed [67]

Snr. Manager in the Forestry Dept. [78]

Spokesperson [67]

Student [100]

supervisor of biologists in regulatory agency [56]

Technical, professional, researcher and educator [79]

Technology Transfer [86]

Tour Guide, Rain forest [67]

volunteer [96]

Volunteer director and activist [78]

Wildfire Protection [93]

wildlife tech [44]

Writer/journalist [45]

Xxxxxx [86]



Demo3.2. Please specify your location. Asheville, NC [82]

Canada (Quebec) [93]

canada [74]

Canada [75]

Charlottesville, VA [49]

Denver, Colorado [83]

Eberswalde, Germany [82]

Esquel city, Chubut province, Argentina [93]

Guam [75]

Haiti (Foreign Service) [86]

Menominee Indiuan Reservation [82]

Milwaukee, WI [92]

minnesota [86]

Montana [67]

montreal, quebec [86]

New Zealand [97]

Ontario, Canada [100]

Ontario, Canada [96]

Opelika, Al. [74]

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada [100]

Ponce, Puerto Rico [96]

pr [100]

Puerto Rico [100]

Puerto Rico [100]

Puerto Rico [100]

Puerto Rico [71]



Puerto Rico [72]

Puerto Rico [74]

Puerto Rico [74]

Puerto Rico [82]

Puerto Rico [82]

Puerto Rico [89]

Puerto Rico [89]

Puerto Rico [92]

Puerto Rico [93]

Puerto Rico, U.S. Territory [67]

Quebec City, Quebec, Canada [90]

quebec, canada [67]

Republic of Korea [97]

República Argentina [97]

Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico [86]

Sacramento, CA [89]

San Juan Puerto Rico [100]

Santiago of Chile [86]

Spain [89]

St.Croix,U.S.Virgin Islands [89]

Stouffville, Ontario CANADA [89]

Tahoe National Forest [74]

Taiwan [100]

Toronto, Ontario CANADA [97]

UK [68]

University of Aberdeen, Scotland, UK [93]

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [79]

Vermont [85]



Volusia County , Florida [38]

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada [78]



Use1.2. Please describe the main reason why you don’t make more use of the products and services provided by Forest Research and Development (FS R&D)? (Other) Although I am interested in natural resource issues, I often have competing interests

An appropriate frequency, given the kind of work I do.

Current projects that I am working on are in the Marsh and little Forest Service data exists for these systems.

Do not know what this is

Don't know how to access

Don't know much about FS R&D

don't know much about it

Fairly unaware of all services offered

Forest Service R&D could focus on how to provide more wood to the wood products industry off Federal Lands

Frequency of licensing new technology is less than once per year from any single source in a company our size.

Good services

have had no reason to

haven't had a need

I / we are really not aware of what reporting is available to us.

I am attempting to leave the natural resources field

I am based outside of the US

i am living permanently far from USA

I am not aware of all that you have to offer.

I am not aware of FS R&D products

I am not aware of the products and services of the USFS

I am not aware of the services provided

I am not aware of their products

I am not aware of what is available

I am not sure if the products I use were developed by the R&D teams or not

I am not sure what is available and how to access it



I am not very aware of the products available.

I am sometimes unaware of the products, and when I am aware I often want a more concise overview of how they can be utilized in my work

I do not know about them

I do not know if it is Forest Service R&D

I do not think the available products are well known.

I do not understand "products and services."

I do recieve R/D bulletins some are useful and others are not

I don't even know about FS R&D

I don't know what products or services you offer

I don't know what R&D is

I don't routinely need them.

I don't want to spend too much of your time working through my design

I have difficulty finding the resources that I search for

I just need to make more of an effort to use them.

I may be using them, but I am not aware of it. I'm sure I have run across them in Forestry application somehow.

I pass information to others who would use it.

I use services on an "as needed" basis.

I utilize other resources

I'm just getting started

I'm just not aware of all the valuable publications you publish

I'm not aware of the R&D products.

I'm not sure what they provide

I'm unaware of the products and services.

It depends on the specific research underway. Usually, it takes a year or two to finish a study. In that period, we request appropriate materials once.

it needs to be usable forestry research to assist landowners with growing timber as an industry. it used to be useable research.

Just found the resource.



just now in position to utilize

Just started working with the Forest Servise on Forest Management Plans

Lack of availability and information

Lack of awareness

limited activity

Limited time to know what all is available

Live in other coutry

no time to search them out

no tmade aware of them

Not always aware of the products and services available.

Not as aware of them as I could/should be

not available

not aware of everything available

Not aware of its relevance till recently

not aware of products

Not aware of products and services FS provides

Not aware of relevant Forest Service R&D

Not aware of research resources

Not aware of services offered

Not aware of the products/services you offer

Not aware of what is available

not aware what they offer

not familiar with the programs

Not needed for my work

Not needed more often

not sure

not sure that recreation residences use R&D

Not sure what products you produce



Not sure which products you are referring to

Nothing relevant to my needs

ok

Only occasionally need a report

Only use when needed, which is not often.

Other sources

Our local research station works on a wide variety of programs, most aimed at forest and fire ecology, but from time to time the museum collaborates with USDAFS on projects that emphasize public education.

our research is sometimes involves forest-atmosphere interactions, but typical forest research products are in a different area than what we study

Probably use the products 1x/yr, but do not always know that I am using a product that was developed through R&D

problems with website- can't get logged in

Really not sure what R&D entails - all research?

Relevant, but only occasionally

Research is mainly useful as background for our regulatory decisions.

The last time we researched a panama marking unit, and the research did provide any usable information that was not discovered in the field

The products are not forwarded to the Staff and I don't know where to find them.

This is a very poorly worded, developed question. It is impossible to give a meaningful answer.

This was our first use of USFS R and D

time

Time

too busy

Topics and time

unaware

Unaware of their availability

Unaware of what they are

unfamiliar with the products

use as resource



Use of products is related to my research. Much of the time that is not on an annual basis.

Use the Forest Service as need arises

Utility of the products is limited to specific purposes

very limited need

we are a provider to the USFS

We are a very small organization, and only occasionally reach out for information of the kind the USFS might provide.

We are given the tools that we need from our State Office.

We are not aware of any products or services available from Forest Service R&D.

We do take students on hiking trips/students in NR trade work in the forest.

we probably use them indirectly I'm just not aware of it

What does R&D stand for? I'm not even sure what the products and services are.

Work for USDA-NRCS in the field

work on sponsored research

Would utilize if I needed information



Use2. Please indicate which of the following Forest Service Research and Development organizational units you use the most frequently. (Other)

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) [100]

Ansonia Station, Hamden Station [82]

Baltimore Field Station [100]

Baltimore Field Station and Baltimore Ecosystem Study (BES) [74]

Baltimore Field Station, Philadelphia Field Station, and NYC Urban Field Station [93]

cannot remember [89]

Collaborate on projects. [82]

controlled burn [100]

Coumbia, MO North Central Research station [100]

Coweeta and Bent Creek [20]

Economics reports from wherever they are produced [86]

El Morro [100]

El Yunque National Forest, Puerto Rico [67]

Family Forest Research Center [96]

Fernow Experimental Forest [82]

Forest Health Unit Alexandria, LA [93]

Headquarters WO [97]

I regularly use product and interact with 5: PNW,PSW NRS, SRS, RMRS - it really is impossible to pick one as my scope is National [63]

I use many of them all about equally as a national specialist [72]

I use National FIA Products most often, they come from all units. [75]

I use numerous that I cannot pick just one. Sorry I know you want this, but impossible. Also, the eastern and western threat centers not listed. [82]

I use research provided by a number of the offices listed [93]

I use the Northern Reseach and Southern Research equally [97]

information hand outs [90]

Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry - Hilo, Hawaii [67]



Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry [0]

Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry [89]

Irvine PA [61]

Joint Fire Science Program [72]

Local Forest Rangers [86]

Monticello, Arkansas Southern Research Center [89]

Morgantown, WV [85]

Moscow Forestry Science Laboratory (Moscow, ID) [97]

My position requires that I utilize most of the Station's outputs [86]

National Agroforestry Center - Lincoln, NE [83]

National Agroforestry Center [65]

NE Forest Experimental Station, Kane, PA [89]

NIACS [78]

none [75]

none, mistakenly answered previous question [97]

north central research station grand rapids, mn [86]

North Central Station St. Paul [68]

Northeastern Research Station, Irvine, PA [71]

Northern Research Station Hamden, CT [86]

Northern Research Station research units, especially FIA, in St. Paul, MN [63]

Ocala National Forest [38]

Online sevices FIDO [89]

Pacific Northwest Research Station, sub-station in Moscow, Idaho [96]

Pacific Southwest Research Station in Arcata, CA [68]

Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Lab (Seattle) [67]

regional Service Forester (SW Pennsylvania) [97]

Research office in Columbia Missouri [71]

Rhinelander, Wi [75]



Rhinelander, Wisconsin, and Penobscot, Maine [86]

RMRS (Manitou Experimental Forest) [100]

San Demis & Missoula Tech [56]

San Dimas T&D [57]

San Dimas Technology Center [67]

south jersey fsa [96]

Southern Hardwood Research - Stoneville, MS [86]

Urban Field Station - NYC [60]

urban field station NYC [96]

urban forest research center hq at uc Davis [65]

WEB SOIL SURVEY [71]

WERC, Princeton, WV [97]

work with regional office for information [79]

Working with local Forest Service Office on Planning and on the Groud Projects [0]

WV [78]



Use3. Please indicate which of the following Forest Service Research and Development Strategic Program Areas (SPA) to which you are most closely aligned. (Other)

Bioenergy [89]

Biomass boiler systems [74]

Carbon Protocols [97]

Chemical modification of wood (adhesives and coatings) [76]

climate adaptation [85]

climate change [90]

Climate Change [97]

Climate, Fire, and Carbon Cycle Sciences [86]

communication and publications [78]

Community Forestry [60]

Community Forestry [78]

composite material [67]

construction technologies - wood frame buildings residential and light commercial [100]

education [100]

Family Forests [97]

Forest Management Service Center in Fort Collins, CO [74]

forest pests [60]

Forest products [74]

Forest Products [86]

Forest Products [86]

Human dimension, social science, urban natural resources [47]

I am an independent journalist so not aligned with any of the above. [45]

I use just about all in environmental analysis [100]

I'm a Master Gardner We educate about many topics inc in saves and environmental stewardship [86]

It is inappropriate to require only one SPA. The INvasive Species work I do is just as dependent on FIA Inventory and Monitoring products! [86]

iTree [90]



Lake Tahoe Watershed [67]

Marcell Experimental Forest [86]

Natural amenites and rural development [71]

Natural Resource Social Science (not recreation) [89]

None [82]

non-timber forest products [41]

Not sure which of these I might be aligned with [71]

outbreaking indigenous insects, mixedwood silviculture [86]

outreach; conservation education [89]

People and Their Environments: Social Science Supporting Natural Resource Management and Policy [78]

People and Their Environments: Social Science Supporting Natural Resource Management and Policy [93]

Preservatives [93]

Publications [100]

Research related to urban forests and research related to NTFPs of SFPs [89]

Scenery Management [12]

SILVAH [61]

SILVAH [82]

Social research into family landonwer lands [96]

Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act funds (admin thru PSW) [78]

species for contaminant mitigation [75]

Strategic Foresight and Rapid Reponse Group [90]

Taxonomy of sawflies (e.g., Horntail wasps) [100]

Tree Improvement, Forest Genetics, Reforestation [68]

Turbidity Threshold Sampling (TTS) methods and tools developed by the USFS PSW Redwood Sciences Laboratory in Arcata CA [92]

Urban and community forestry [100]

Urban and Community Forestry [52]



urban forest stewardship programs/research [93]

urban forestry & urban natural resources stewardship [46]

Urban Forestry [51]

urban forestry [65]

Value added wood products [80]

Wood durability (in buildings) [71]

Wood product characteristics [97]

woody biomass [74]

Work with IPIF scientists on a range of research questions regarding island ecosystems [63]



Use4.1. Please indicate which of the following Forest Service Research and Development products you used during the past year. (Other)

Caribbean Lanscape Conservation Cooperative website with shapefiles for PR [86]

Collaborative research [71]

data [86]

data from Research Forester Ken Clark [66]

Data sets [97]

Data sets provided by northern research station [93]

direct contact with researchers [86]

Direct talks with the researchers on projects that they are working on along withseeking advice on situations I'm encountering in the field and possible solutions to those situations. [96]

EDNA [56]

FIA Data [63]

FIA Data [71]

FIA data downloaded from fs.fed.us [93]

FIA non FS infomation [67]

FIA plot data [67]

Field Review [74]

forest ecology [100]

Forest insect and Disease Reports [100]

interagency climate change vulnerability assessment, and adaptation reports and processes [90]

iTree Software [90]

i-Tree suite of inventory and monitoring [100]

journal articles [89]

Nonnative invasive plants of southern forests: a field guide for identification and control [89]

Personal Communications [85]

personal contact with research personnel [86]

personal contacts / meetings [97]

Product developed by the forest Service [82]



publications [80]

Research data and resources from the Marcell Experimental Forest [100]

Research Progress Reports and Presentations [76]

results of invasives species research [93]

seminars presented by the NYC Urban Research Station [93]

Service Forester advice/input [97]

Smoke Management [93]

special uses handbook [64]

Stewmap data [96]

The book: A Field Guide to the Identification of Invasive Plants in Southern Forests [83]

trail maintenance [31]

we also engage with the researchers live [63]

wildland fire information/ Prescribed fire [67]



Use4.2. Please indicate which of the following Forest Service Research and Development services you used during the past year. (Other) above not offered in maine [41]

collaborative research with Forest Service researchers [100]

computer only tech and learning [89]

engage them directly as partners in our strategies [63]

facilitation [65]

FIA plot data, DED-tolerant American elms [67]

FIDO [89]

Field Trip [74]

Field trips in Pisgah NF Ranger Districts (organized by the District staff) in which SRS researchers took part [83]

forest health assessment on site [96]

GIS / compurter models [73]

information hand outs [90]

Interactions with Forest Service Personnel [82]

Invasive species research results reports [93]

Joint research projects [97]

News letters [100]

online information and webinars [67]

presentations/consultation with FS adminstrators and field personnel [64]

publications [71]

publications [80]

publications [96]

Publications [97]

Published articles [56]

published reports [100]

research [82]

reserach papers [100]



Review of articles I am writing [67]

Technical publications [86]

webinars [46]

Written and electronic sources [86]



ACC1. How do you typically access the products and services provided by Forest Service Research and Development? (Other) all of the above [53]

All of the above [72]

All of the above four choices [92]

all the above [85]

Direct contact with members of the Baltimore Field Station/Office [100]

email links from coworkers and researchers that know I'm interested in the topic [78]

i use three of the four listed equally [86]

Most use of RS resources limited to facilities [100]

personal dialogue [96]

requesting specific invasive species results reports [93]

When Available I request hard copies but download others. [97]



WEB2. What comments do you have about the website? a bit difficult to navigate, given that most of the relevant information is housed with the various research stations or with FIA. I usually go directly to those sources for information. [89]

adequate, although it's not very easy to do searching by subject on the site. Somewhere, I also need to say that I hate being addressed as a 'customer' or 'client' - professionalism seems to have meant going to zombie-talk. [41]

All websites can be frustrating. I'm usually going direct to some refrence not brousing. [57]

Always a tedious search to find what I am looking for [63]

An excellent way to find out about the people, products, and services associated with Forest Service Research. It is a starting place for most of my information searches. [100]

An overriding feeling is that there is a little too much emphasis on all the negative trends (biodiversity, fact that some trees will not be in their preferred climate envelope, etc) and not enough emphasis on interesting positive solutions that will invove the application of this research and collaboration with other entities, some in the private sector. the old 'Co-ops' on seedlings, silviculture, etc are examples. See the CIFOR web site for a more positive, solutions oriented packaging of forestry [86]

Appreciate all the excellent work and support! [78]

As for most FS web site, search functions are poor and I have to spend too much time trying to find what I am looking for. Employee directories are not easy to find - better standardization of these would be very helpful. [89]

As websites go, meh [83]

as with all sites can be challenge to find what you are looking for, but not bad [68]

Attractive, somewhat easy to move around in, pretty accurate, somewhat helpful. [44]

Average site, sometimes hard to navigate. [30]

can be challenging to find a publication [40]

Can be confusing [97]

Cannot think of any right now. [90]

can't recall details [78]

Comprehensive about usfs, less so about non-fs linkages. [82]

Comprehensive, easy to access. I appreciate the ease of contacting the support personnel. [63]

Comprehensive, up-to-date, useful, and user-friendly. [100]

comprehensive. up to date [86]

Could be easier to navigate and search/find information [86]



could not find the most recent publications I was looking for [56]

Could use some updating in the graphics and more recent photos, but strictly speaking it's functional and well-organized. [74]

Difficult to find information. [61]

Difficult to navigate [75]

difficult to navigate unless you know a lot about the organizational unit structures and paths to get to information needed [63]

Direction for categories, clear terminology [82]

Easy to access, hard to fid individual contact information [89]

easy to link to info; detail for abstracts for sources is important to me, and that is helpful; quick -- i don't wait forever for things to load [96]

Easy to navigate [96]

Easy to use and extremely informative--especially links to other sites. [90]

Easy to use, a little tricky getting connected to people, but works. [100]

easy to use, useful in creating a forest management plan, and good for references to landowner clients. [86]

Excelent [86]

excelent site! [89]

Excellent [100]

Excellent [90]

Excellent [97]

Except for TreeSearch, I rarely use USFS public websites since more detailed information is usually available on the intranet sites. [64]

Exceptional, like the products and other services provided by the USDA Forest Service [97]

Extremely helpful. Thanks! [100]

fairy easy to find material, current, topical [86]

FIA program provides critical resources for business and innovation planning. [93]

For the most part it is user friendly and easy to search! [57]

Forest Service R&D in Genetics should have more emphasis. Especially in breeding for disease resistance and performance on marginal sites. [68]

Full of great information [89]



Generally easy to use and finding the needed information [100]

good [100]

good [67]

good [67]

Good [79]

Good [93]

good but needs to include more woody biomass related study [74]

Good information and relatively easy to use. [60]

Good information in a not so user friendly format [89]

good job [100]

Good place to start collecting background and issue specific information. Identifies researchers to contact. [89]

Good resources, though sometimes great info is buried deep in the site. [100]

good site, [71]

good source for information [92]

Good website, but sometimes not as easy as it could be in locating specific topic areas [92]

Good, fairly easy to navigate [86]

Good. Sometimes get lost in the weeds, but usually can get back on track. [92]

Good. I am able to easily navigate the site to find the information I desire. [100]

Great information, good display recent news, upcoming events, publications [93]

Great pathway to more specific research by region. [93]

Great site that provides a super resource of information. [86]

Had no trouble finding what I needed [100]

Hard to find info using links. Easy yo find usingsearch. [60]

hard to navigate ,difficult to find material even when i know it there [82]

Hard to navigate easily, cluttered to some extent, still good info, organized logically. [86]

hard to navigate; cannot easily obtain staff e-mails [68]

Have a hard time finding information through the search engine. Seems to want to kick me into a "news" page, listing the keyword on some articles sent out by FS. [44]



Haven't visited enough to comment. I often visit Treesearch, though. [97]

Having web access to articles is very important to me. [96]

Here in the PNW region of the FS I interact daily or at last weekly with PNW station personnel. I find most of them respectful and responsive to my needs from a management and coordination perspective. [89]

high quality [92]

I am able to find material. [52]

I am low-tech so I can't really comment. [96]

I do not like using TreeSearch. Too many results and no good way to narrow them down. New web design looks good, but still links to non-updated pages often. [74]

I don't have any specific comments. I generally am able to find what I am looking for on the site. [71]

I don't utilize this site very often. It is more convenient to go to sites where I can access multi-agency research papers and/or subject specific information. Researchers are utilizing cross-jurisdictional forums to facilitate distribution of information and this has been a great way to keep people aware and involved. [85]

I find it easy to navigate and to find information I am looking for. Given the large amount of material provided there, this is an impressive accomplishment. [82]

I find it very useful, especially with regards to getting reprints of research articles. [100]

I find locating articles to be cumbersome. Take a look at how the USGS WERC website is organized. Each researcher has their own webpage and on each researcher's page there is a chronological list of all of their publications and a link to a pdf. You ca also look up who works at which research station. [56]

I find the information from all research stations very helpful. I could only pick one within this survey (i.e. the most), but I use all of them quite often [79]

I find the publications I want to order and ordering is quite simple. [80]

I had better luck calling the individual for the info I needed. [79]

I had question about Smoke from wildfire on a Super Fund Haz-Mat SIte and the Northeastern Area folks came up and did a great job working with EPA and local colleges to study the question. GREAT JOB!!! [93]

I have found that collaborations on projects within the Northern Research Station and with other Forest Service Programs (i.e. Forest Health Protection and Forest Health Monitoring) to be very effective and useful in responding to existing and future threts and supporting research efforts. Working with expertise within the regions at the State and University level is an effective and efficient way to pursue problem solving and implementing managemeint or monitoring or survey strategies that are needed topromote understanding and management of natural resources in declining budgetary environments and where political agendas are diluting the advancement of research and aquistion of knowledge of natural resource ecology and resource monitoring and long termmanagement. [86]

I like it and I find content navigation to be very intuitive. [86]



I like it very much - it's comprehensive and I appreciate all the information and links. Because there is so much information it is not always easy navigating ... I tried going back to a page on special forest products but was unable to find it again, eve after putting into search. Not sure how to solve for this though. [83]

I mostly use TreeSearch and I like it a lot. [90]

I primarily use it to search for publications by researchers whose work I am familiar with. The site is kind of challenging to search if you don't already know the researcher name or have a publication number. [78]

I sometimes have trouble finding what I need, if I do not have the exact title of a publication. [100]

I think it is well designed [100]

I think it was complicated and hard to navigate [83]

I think the website has improved, but it is still often difficult to find information by topic area or a specific report without all of the necessary citation information. [74]

I use it when I can't talk to an individual to pin-point information. I usually end up navigating to it indirectly through treesearch or after a google search. I don't go to the main site regularly. I do appreciate RMRS sending the science you can use emals so it's easy to link to new info. [60]

I visit the FIA portion of the website frequently; it is invaluable to my work. Lots of critical data and useful tools. I also use Treesearch for accessing publications- fast and easy. [93]

I would like the website to be more useful for searching for content and outreach- right now it interfaces more as a description of the programs. [82]

I'd like to be able to browse easier [100]

improvements over time have made it more user friendly. [82]

informative [78]

Informative but not the most user-friendly [100]

Isearching for datasets for downloading and reports was not intuitive [74]

It would be nice if treesearch were incorporated into other search engines better. It can be difficult to find material (but that has gotten much better in recent years!). [71]

it always takes me ahile to find what I need [71]

It can be confusing to try and find things!! [78]

It can be hard to find resources on it. [68]

It can be painfully slow at times compared to other web sites I use. [71]

It could be just a bit easier to navigate and like many research web sites it is text heavy, but I have NEVER had any problems finding information I am looking for. [89]

It is a challenge to find what I am looking for. I usually get google search terms from researchers, or first find related journal articles, then try to do a targeted exploration of the FS research site. Not being



familiar with the research unit structuremakes it a challenge to sometimes track down the person or resource I seek. Also, it would be nice if there were a single map product with consolidated resources for all the geospatial products distributed as services that I would be able to use in doing egional analyses of priorities for action. [74]

It is a good site to use. [86]

It is comprehensive and useful. Need to explore possibilities for easy navigation. [82]

It is difficult to access documents I know exist. I end up going outside to Google to get them. You also have quite a story to tell but I don't see it really being told. [60]

It is difficulty to find specific subject matter. [56]

It is easy to download the publications once you find them. [78]

It is easy to navigate. [100]

It is fine. [78]

it is fine. we just need more research, and more time for researechers to do outreach, education and be involved with helping managers of public forests. [74]

It is friendly and very easy to get information [93]

It is not very easy to find things on. It is easier to use Google and that will pop up things/people that you need faster from FS Research [63]

It is one of the portals to USFS publications. It works. The publications are typically old and quick scans. [12]

It is pretty easy to use with many fine products,. [89]

It is very hard to find specific information and publications. It seems to be designed more for browsing than for serious searches. I have seen citations to publications and then gone to the web site to try and find them. It has been almost impossible. Bigest problem seems to be geographical division/isolation of various research centers. Needs to be an overall search engine on the web site. [86]

It takes a little time to figure out how to search for a certain topic on the site....but once that's figured out, I can navigate fairly easily on the site. [49]

It was referred to me by a co worker. I took an initial look. it appears to be comprehensive and useful. I need to spend more to truly test its value. [68]

It was relatively easy to find the information I was looking for. [78]

It was very user friendly; well thought out & well presented [89]

It works for me. I can almost always find what I am looking for. [90]

It would be great if printables were easier to locate by topic [86]

It would be nice to have direct links to content that is region specific (PNW, W. Oregon, etc.). [79]



It's a lot of information. I appreciate the personnel resources that it takes to keep this updated. [89]

IT'S ADEQUATE. [75]

It's awfully general and hard to drill down to the info I want. I prefer to visit the individual research station websites. [82]

It's been a while since I've needed to use the website since I have specific research contacts for what I do. From what I remember, it provided the guidance I needed to access desired information. [85]

It's been awhile - I know that I've been able to get what I'm finding there, but it sometimes takes some searching. [85]

It's best to know exactly what to look for, before using the website. [61]

It's getting better, but could have a more contemporary appearance. I work primarily with urban audiences, and the web site has kind of an 'old guard' look. Seems it could make better use of the display space of a computer, such as widening the content ara. [46]

it's good. in the past I've relied on the Streams Systems Technology Center (STREAM team) website on a regular basis [57]

its OK [74]

Just fine [86]

Keep up hiring more Forest Pathologist with APPLIED skill sets... [74]

Keep up the good work [83]

keep up the good work and keep the funding for it. [82]

Keep up the great work! [92]

like all USFS websites it is cluttered with too much info. its hard to find 1 repository for publications. it seems not all items are found in Treesearch. it seems there is a disconnect between R&D and NT&D. [79]

Like availability of publications, both internal and external. [68]

Like many websites, the content is often outdated. Most use the site to get contact information for FS researchers [63]

looks outdated, but the information's all there [68]

Lots of info and data. [92]

Lots of information and well organized. [53]

Make it easier to search existing publications [86]

Make it less busy [89]

Make organization more graphics-centered. [53]



Mediocre [7]

Mostly I go directly to the people and products I need. It is however important to have such a web site for first timers etc [86]

My graduate program accesses the website regularly and, with some seraching around, find excellent data. [93]

N/A [52]

Na [82]

NA [82]

Need a better organization to help locate the needed information in a more user-friendly manner. [89]

Need to better integrate all the publications of each of the regional research stations. [59]

needs a better internal search engine that can advance search on return types [89]

Needs better search engine. I have to use google [50]

nevagation could be inproved [78]

nice [100]

Nice [89]

No comments at this time. [67]

None [0]

none [44]

none [45]

none [49]

None [56]

none [60]

None [67]

none [67]

none [67]

none [67]

none [67]

None [70]

None [71]



None [72]

none [77]

none [78]

none [79]

none [82]

none [82]

None [82]

None [85]

none [86]

none [90]

None [93]

none [97]

None at this time [82]

None at this time [82]

none at this time other than may be too basic for my needs but fine for the public [85]

None at this time. [74]

None really [67]

None. [56]

None. [63]

None. [76]

None. I haven't looked at it recently. [100]

None....Frankly, I don't visit often. However, I find what I need. [88]

Nope, [45]

Not easy to find what I am looking for. I usually just do a google search or go to treesearch. [55]

Not easy to search for older pubs by authors or title [56]

Not my go-to site. It's hard to find. I usually go straight to a Station website for what I need. Also, the intranet site is pretty bad -- can't find basic information I need. [42]

Not particularly well organized. Search function could be improved [78]



not user friendly; hard to locate what I need. [70]

Nothing [86]

Nothing specific comes to mind. [86]

OK -- not great [67]

OK [100]

On occasion it has been a challenge to identify a specific Research Work Unit without 2 or 3 attempts - - some of the names versus locations, numbers, etc. can be confusing.....but I've figured it out. But I'm familiar with the lingo/terms, someone outsie the FS may not be that lucky. [85]

once on it is fairly easy to search. I think without newsletters and updates, I'm not redirected to it often. [49]

One of the featured Research Highlights is advertised as a new database for tracking climate change. The link directs me to this page. I could not find the "database" nor is the Forest Nursery Notes available for download. Williams, Mary I.; Dumroese R. Kasten. 2013. Climatic change and assisted migration: Strategic options for forest and conservation nurseries. Forest Nursery Notes. 33(2): 33-35. The other resource on this highlight page is also a publication that is not available for download. Preparing for climate change: Forestry and assisted migration Author: Williams, Mary I.; Dumroese, R. Kasten Date: 2013 Source: Journal of Forestry. 111(4): 287-297. [75]

Overall good [71]

overall pretty good. since a large agency website not as easy to use as smaller organizations. [68]

person to person is better. [82]

Please never ever ever make me set up an account requiring a use-name/password to use the site. [85]

Pretty good [78]

Pretty good. Lots of info. Pretty easy to navigate. [52]

pretty good. please NEVER forgot to use type that the average eye can see; current type font size should NEVER go any smaller; it is right at the tipping point now. People are discouraged from reading when a website has small type. [71]

quit playing games and do your job! [23]

Reasonably accessible and helpful. [45]

Reasonably well organized and easy to navigate Downloads easy and fast Excellent access to archival publicaitons [67]

reduce text on home page. simplfy. [89]



Research information is scattered all over the different station websites and the umbrella site does not do a good job directing people to the critical information across station boundaries. [51]

Responses are split between outstanding work done by FIA and lack of relevance of work done by other units. [31]

search engine for publications is still old fashonied [74]

Search feature could be improved, Google works better. [71]

Search is a bit clunky, but overall it's good. [78]

Search tool is weak [82]

Should be easier to find the information I am after. [82]

Site isn't always accessible; site is down [89]

soem of teh layout is not intuitive to me ( a problem I also have with my agency's web site) [82]

Sometime it is hard to find exactly what you think you want. [67]

sometimes difficult to find current information on an invasive pest issue [49]

Sometimes difficult to find, or figure out how to use some of the stuff, but otherwise a very good resource [68]

Sometimes difficult to navigate. [79]

Sometimes finding what I'm looking for can be difficult. [85]

Sometimes have trouble finding what I'm looking for in that I don't always know where you put certain subjects. Site is very busy. When I find the document I'm looking for the download process is efficient. [75]

sometimes material is hard to find by just browsing, the search bar helps greatly though. [92]

Somewhat hard to find info [68]

so-so, has good information, but sometimes it is hard to find [45]

Thank you for your great service . [82]

Thanks for asking [38]

The FIA database is one of the best documented spatial databases available in natural resources and I use it regularly in research and in my classes. Great work. [90]

The information seems to be there but, like much of the Forest Service website, it is difficult to find and hard to navigate. [74]

The link to the western center for urban forest research is good. I don't generally use if for anything else [65]

The personnell at the GIS Laboratory for the International Institute of Tropical Forestry (I think they are attached to the Caribbean Landscape Conservation Cooperative) are top-notch, courteous and



knowledgeable. Ms. Maya Quiñones went above and beyondin order to explain to me how they gathered the data related to protected areas in Puerto Rico and went to the trouble of scanning some old maps of lands bought for conservation purposes in the '50s without me asking for it. They are very cooperative wit academia, and I am extremely grateful to them. [86]

The regional R&D websites could be more uniform so that navigating within them is easier. [53]

The search function needs a better advanced search option. [89]

The Search function seems to be compartmentalized, not searching all possibilities and categories. For instance, in searching for publications, I frequently find it necessary to navigate to several categories, even within the PNW website. But it's impotant to note that PNW website has provided many valuable publications that helped me in my work. [93]

The US Forest Service Research Stations have so few dollars to invest in work, that we usually react to dire needs, rather proact to emerging issues. [86]

The website has improved considerably over the past 10-years. Our managers are consistently looking for two things: 1) easy access to data; and 2) the ability to make maps. Anything you can do to improve the ability to query and download data (especiall spatial data) is appreciated. [89]

The website is good and helpful. The problem is that the FS sings a good song but there is no substance behind the song. Basically, the FS is a bunch of hot air. How sad. [4]

The website is great for finding research results and methodologies relevant to my needs. [96]

The website is host to multiple topics and information - at times it is hard to locate the information / subject. May help to have the main topics highlighted in categories. Click on the main interest which then leads you to those articles/ sub-topics. [82]

The website is not the difference maker, it is the inability of the Forest Service to implement programs to stop invasive pests that are destroying the nations forests. The Forest Service is a politically risk averse organization with scientists unwillingto implement new solutions because actually implementing a control solution has some accountability. Whereas monitoring and counting pests has no real accountability in terms of protecting a forest. [0]

The website is user friendly. [100]

The website is well organized and easy to use. [83]

The webstie is difficult to search for information. [74]

there is so much information it can be hard to find what I'm looking for. I love TreeSearch too. [82]

This is one of the most opaque and frustrating websites I use. It is easier to google an author or title than to find a publication on this site. The personnel listings and contact information are not readily accessible. Even the stations (which is where ost users want to go for information) are not top-level accessible. This website is a major impediment to the public face of FS R&D; it was poor a decade ago, and it is no better now. [72]

This is the most current FS website I've visited, which is great because the others usually are disappointing (dead links, limited or bad information). It's a little busy, and I generally don't like sites that auto scroll--but I realize some people do lik that. I explored some of the links in the panel on the left side, and for specific research areas/topics and these pages have too much text. Also, some of the researchers' information I found on the "people" link wasn't current, but this is a good tool. I don't



understand the difference between research areas and priority areas--it would be nice to have some indication of what the actual priorities are, and especially where you are headed. Maybe you could show this based on number of research scientist or allocated/grant dollars by field. [71]

timely, clear and concise [89]

Too busy for me as a 59 year old field forester most likly the target demographic I am not complaining. [63]

TREESEARCH should be improved to easily allow sorting by author name and year. Although these features seem to exist, the results never seem quite correct. Also, older articles should be added to teh database. [82]

Typical of most federal websites [78]

Typical USFS layout. Pretty easy to navigate and find items of interest. [82]

Useful. I use the publications more than anything else. [100]

Useful. I would like easier access to published documents. [60]

user friendly and relevant [96]

USFS had many great products and many excellent employees. The problem is the declining number of FS researchers and their funding base. Some of the research products are not found efficiently using Google search. [90]

Very complete. [79]

Very comprehensive [96]

Very easy to navigate [86]

Very fine. [100]

Very functional [79]

Very good site. [72]

Very good! [86]

very helpful [100]

Very helpful. [93]

Very informatinve [82]

very informative [100]

Very informative and organized; provides easy access to research directly relevant to my work. [89]

very informative. Keep up the great effort. South New jersey expert (ERIC S.) deserves much credit in our successes. Please pass this on...Thanks [96]



very thorough [96]

very useful [78]

Very useful and comprehensive. I have usually found what I was looking for. [97]

Very well organized and easy to navigate. Thank you for offering such valuable, practical information to me and other resource managers. [100]

We need more focus on integrated research designs to address complex problems such as how to deal with uncharacteristic fire and conservation of at-risk species both is the short and long-term. The conservation community would like to see more collaboative engagement of FS research with land managers to better inform decisions and in monitoring designs. [93]

We work with the lab in Irvine regularly on research projects that are located on state forest land. They are always professional and their research has been the backbone of the on the ground managment that we perform in the northern hardwood forests of orthcentral PA. The solutions that they come up with always are practicle and useful to field foresters. I really appreciate the work that they have done and continue to do as I know it has ensured the most sustainable management of state forest land inPA. I hope that they can continue to be responsive to our needs and find funding to continue this important and needed research. [89]

Website if fine but changes more often than needed. Sometimes it is hard to locate/relocate items. It would also help a great deal if the email and phone numbers of R&D staff were readily avvailable. They seem to be unnecessarily hidden, while in univesities, are contacts are ment to be accessible. The hiding of contact info really slows connections and resolution of user problems. [63]

website is good and simple and easy to find information. [67]

Website is good, organized well. [93]

Well designed and easy to navigate [82]

Well designed website, but it lacks the ability to download data (i.e., GIS data) that was used in research projects or could be used in the field. Maps are okay, but the geospatial data that was used to make the maps are more useful in bridging the gap btween R&D and what actually happens on the ground. [11]

Well done, fairy easy to find items of interest. [97]

well formatted. Current issues [97]

Well laid out; easy to navigate. [93]

Well organized [56]

well organized [63]

well organized [93]

Well organized, attractive [93]

well organized; good resource for R&D underway in USFS [90]



Well-developed, easy to use, information access excellent [97]

when using it, i am usually passing through on my way to find something. i don't surf the site. [35]

Works as it should. [89]

works fine [60]

Works well and easy to use. Would recommend to others seeking info as land managers. [81]

Would be good to have a decent subject matter search engine on the site. The current search engine on the site is NOT very useful. I usually go out side to Google for any searches I need -- even for Research station material. [60]

Your employees are professional and tactful. Their outreach and speaking skills that i have observed are right on the money. I work with partners in many states and continue to hear great things about your information online and your presence in the field I have heard that you have a very caring and kind staff and I have seen that in the way they try to assist other agencies and patrons over and over. I myself have observed several individual representatives in the field, and they do a fine job. Especialy Jeanna Leurck (I believe she is in the Rocky Mountain Region) she is a credit to the future image of USFS and does a wonderful job. [89]



OpenEnd1. Do you have any other suggestions concerning how Forest Service Research and Development could better serve you? "Research" - particularly the Northern Research Station and units - seem to have very little contact with the practicing natural resource professionalss, either in identifying needs, setting research priorities or sharing research results. They appear tooperate in their own world. Oftne, we don't even know what they are working on (in Stations in our own state, like NYC) and the "work" doesn't appear to be very relevant to real worlld problems or immeditate concerns. More direct interaction with Stat Forestry agencies by Research would be helpful, and more responsiveness to our needs and issues, instead of just the researchers' interests. [16]

1. FS mission and mangmet has diverdged from the rest of the forestery commuity. No longer address as well that community. 2. Fewer journal articles are availabe without cost, even though they have FS author. This priviatzing of infomation that was prodced with tax payer funds is toxic to good sciece and policy. At least the FS is not as arrogant on this issue as NOAA! [67]

A list serve announcing new publications. This would be especially useful if filters were available so you only got notified of stuff in your fields of interest. [86]

Access to archives were hampered by remodeling/construction of the library at IItF. I have not needed access recently, but I assume that situation has improved considerably. The time to process simple permits for conducting research must be accelerated. It should be in a matter weeks (preferably days), not several to many months as has been my experience. [74]

Acknowledge that urban forestry and urban natural resources stewardship are activities that are key to the political and fiscal survival of the agency in this century. The U.S. is now at > 80% human population in urban areas. The Northern region is commited to urban research, planning and policy, but it is now hit and miss in the other regions. Working more with and for urban populations will probably require a review of science delivery methods and graphic presentation that meets the needs and expectatios of more ethnically diverse, and communications savvy, urban audiences. [46]

Alerting users to changes in underlying data sets would be helpful. Thank you for your hard work protecting natural resources and watersheds of the nation! [97]

Any survey that requires you to answer a question, and that does not have N/A or DNK as an answer, is faulty. I tried to skip the last question because I did not have a good answer and it wouldf not let me. Fail. I have used many Forest Service studis and surveys in my work. But I do not know what came from the R&D division. I did not know there was an R&D division. It is also odd that the survey did not ask how to improve the products, or why I find the products unsatisfactory. [22]

APPLY LIMITED FUNDS TO RESEARCH RATHER THAN SURVEYS SUCH AS THIS. [75]

As we continue to restore ecosystems we almost have to do research ourselves in some areas because there is no research available - a lot of trail and error in the field (at a high cost) trying to find out what works. [93]

Basically, the Research department has brilliant researchers who do great research work. however, there is a BIG gap between research and APPLICATION. In most areas, research should be done with an application of findings intent. I have never felt that ths is a focus. This means that the VALUE of the research to CHANGE FS actions is limited. Applied research should be a healthy focus of the agency and it is not. I am THRILLED that you have chosen to survey a user and commend you on this action. Now if yo can move a portion of the research to a more applied use - *(recreation would be a great



place to start) then I would be even more pleased. [45]

Be clearer about how/who/where to use the information [74]

Be more involved in providing webinars on the internet that are easy to access. [53]

Be more responsive and have a better balance between fixed costs and project funds [30]

Be more responsive to questions being raised by the NFS side of the agency, and make yourselves more approachable to rank and file biologists, foresters, hydrologists, etc. [67]

Be unbiased and include information and studies provided by stakeholders in synthesis documents [0]

Besides increasing capacity some kind of notice of release of publications and new information would be nice. If that exists I am not aware of it. A news feed or monthly e-news? [89]

Besides working with outside researchers, USFS could do a better job of reaching out to external federal partners in research development and use of information for their research. This way both USFS and external agencies can learn from each other and resarch more likely used and not being just FS centric. [82]

Better advertising/promotion of live training events like Oak SILVAH and Upland Hardwood Ecology - and possibly more events as I am unclear when the last ones were held or the next ones will be held. [38]

Better collaboration with the National Forest System [48]

Build out the social science aspect of your work so we can better understand how to put best practices to work on all lands [96]

Carbon flux is a fast approaching management concern. We will be managing storage and sequestration in the near future. We need information on how climate change and management strategies affect ALL carbon pools. Most of the focus right now is on the tees, because we have lots of data and its easy. We need to do a better job with soil, because in many areas it's the biggest pool. But it's difficult to understand. [78]

Close down FIA, it no longer fills a need and its too expensive. Close down FHTET and fold the best of them into R & D, their product is often too much of a Vanity Press Consider doing research with FHP after they have been moved from S&PF into NFS Cosider reducing FHM, they have over promised but under delivered. In general bring back into R & D those associated units that do peripheral research but avoid salary creep. We need a better ratio of operational budget to salary. Which means why do & D with GS13/14 when FHP can do it with GS12/13 Reduce overheads by retirement and increasing the GS 12 pool. [74]

comingle more often with those outside of the R&D circles [78]

Competitive research grants for non-Forest Service researchers to carry out research relevant to Forest Service mission [78]

connect more with emails on providing info on what is available and where [45]

Connectivity with the ground. Researchers should be from the top down should be more exposed to the field and the work that is happening out on the forests and grasslands. [77]



Continue (and enhance capacity) to produce research products that are relevant to non-federal forest land managers. More opportunities for tech transfer, either through topical workshops, training, and or publications. [79]

Continue to include research on federally listed endangered plant species running buffalo clover in research plans of Fernow Experimental Forest. [82]

Continue to make available HARD COPIES of research results. [100]

Continue work on practical solutions to pressing wood industry challenges. [86]

Cooperative Extension agents across the country need better access. Urban natural resources information Volunteer support resources. [89]

Coordinate more technology transfer sessions on current topics to share the latest findings from research. Print, or make available online with permission to reprint, many of the documents that are no longer printed regularly, but are currently used in ractice (like some of the Spruce Budworm publications, for example). Focus even more on research that is aimed at answering current problems in the field. Silvicultural research into things like encouraging regeneration of preferred species after devastaing invasive species damage, in the face of climate change, etc. [86]

Create a portal for easy access to GIS Information clearly categorized. [72]

Create an email list for Districts and Forests that alerts us to new research and how to access it. go back to producing something like the old condensed technical reports on line that have subject, short summary, field implications, where to get in dept research...etc. Survey FS District Rangers, FWS Refuge managers, USFS Forest Staff Officers on forests on a periodic basis (2 yrs?) for input into needed research. [20]

Data availability needs to improve. Some stations hold data until they can publish on it, using delay tactics that prevent others from conducting research in a timely manner using the data collected by FIA. [50]

Data from FIA is extremely valuable. Keep up the good work there. Reasearchers in Stoneville need to quit presenting personal opinion as fact. [79]

Develop more accessible presentations and information about current needs of resource managers. [35]

Direct e-mails. [79]

Do more research that has practical applications, IE if it is wildlife research how does it interact with harvest or recreation, if climate change research how is it affected by resource manipulation or human contact. [37]

Do not hire non-scientists into science-administration roles. They are too expensive and produce no scientific output. Put your limited dollars into hands-on scientists at all levels. [72]

DOING A GREAT JOB- [89]

Dont continue to cut thier basic funding to support the science that benefits everyone. It impacts more than the employee morale, it impacts other agencies, and those that rely on that research to support



management and resource decisions well beyond foret system lands. [83]

Drop the intense modeling focus, especially related to climate change. We have more hands-on issues that your staff should be working with. [60]

Due to declining budgets and scientific expertise across the research community and user community it will be necessary to better identify and share professional expertise and utilize limited funding opportunities among State cooperators, University experise, and Forest Service Research through shared resource and expertise memoranda of understanding. There is a need to identify problems that require research effort, both basic and applied, and to implement collaborative treams within regions and subregin entities and to identify expertise within the Forest Service Research program and amongst State Cooperators and University (large and small) to implement team approaches to implementing and utilizing research efforts and products. [86]

Easier access to information on website [44]

easier to search [71]

Eliminate redundancy within the FS researchers. For instance, in the Athens FS office alone there are TWO full time Research Scientists looking at the EXACT SAME question, and one that seems marginally relevant at best. There needs to be accountabilty s that these researchers are actually doing what they're supposed to do, and not just "get by and not get fired". [68]

End users --especially Forest Service natural resource specialists -- need to be able to provide input on needs for various types of research that addresses current and anticipated issues & knowledge gaps these specialists will have to deal with. [60]

Excellent services that are very professional and reliable. I have been working closely with Dr. David Bengston and found him to be extremely knowledgable, professional, and helpful! Would like to see more information regarding initiatives dealing ith the forest futures and future research agendas/projects. More joint projects with outside researchers and public. Thank you for the opportunity to comment! [90]

Expand R&D capacity in social science and economic research. [61]

Fix all broken links to publications on line; make more information available on line [79]

focus more on increasing forest productivity focus less on "threats" [35]

Focus on the basics of resource management rather than issues that are in vogue (e.g. restoration) [82]

Focusing on questions from the managers would help me in the classroom; collaborations are always good to bring in a broader perspective. [71]

Focusing R&D on questions raised by natural resource managers is key to our success in meeting agency goals. [15]

For first time living far from any USFS areas/offices so relying on internet, trying to facilitate utlization in rural area ruled by agriculture where all trees viewed as junk when alive(and in the way) or after they've bull dozed them into a pile to wast in a fruitless burn, Some urban tree utlization fits, but it's a slow uphill battle. [61]



Forest Service R&D does great science, the results are available, but the link between doing great science and having impact is rather tenuous. It is okay to do science to add to our body of scientific knowledge, but it would be much more impactful if te research was being used to address problems. Your scientists seem to be focused in areas that they are experts at, but their areas of expertise do not necessarily coincide with problems that society wants to address. Fundamental science is necessaryto fully understand problems, but Forest Service R&D is not doing enough to solve the problems. Forest service appears to be spending over half of their budget on fire suppression activities, how much of your R&D is focused on fire suppression? If Foret Service R&D wants to argue that their role is forest resource management, then get out of the fire business. If you are not allowed to get out of the fire business, then temporarily allocate some of your resources to addressing the fire business, makesome progress, maybe even fix the problem, and then go back to managing our trees. [67]

Forest Service R&D has great people that do a great job. The main issue is relevance. Is your mandate to serve the Forest Service Land Management staff or the broader natural resources community? I have seen this fluctuate over the years. I would favorthe broader community approach and would urge R&D to take a more flexible approach to emerging issues, by increasing collaborations with researchers outside of R&D. [45]

Forest Service R&D is relied upon both to react to current issues and to undertake long term projects. Forest Service R&D projects are too often not supported long enough to provide most impact or service. The rest of the forest research community is liited to 3 year projects based on the external funding model. We need US Forest Service R&D to take the lead on longer term projects, since the forest resource is a long term enterprise. [90]

Forest Service R&D needs to address the effects of multiple use land management and different levels of land management effects. Often, research conclusions are based on no management, or what is considered reference conditions, or "ideal" habitat. Ofte, this does not help the manager who manages for multiple use. Often, we do not manage for reference conditions everywhere nor is that necessarily desirable from an ecological standpoint. [56]

Forest Service R&D will be more valuable with greater collaboration outside the NFS as private forest owners are the ones who will apply new approaches [86]

Forest Service research scientists in the field are the best. However, many of the Forest Service R&D staff in WO are barrier to interagency collaborations. [11]

FS researchers are among the best in the world; they need more resources in order to continue the great work they do. [83]

Fund some local issues irrespective of national implications. [75]

Getting down to the "one" best answer doesn't really get the best answer. I equally use FS via tours, workshops, conferences, and downloading docments from the webpage. There were a couple other questions that one answer doesn't allow me to tell you thewhole story; how many other customers feel the same way? One answer feels more like a lie than a truth. [75]

good job [100]

Greater focus on questions land managers are struggling with and more/better communication about the research that is being done. [79]

Greater funding for sudden oak death research by USFS and non-USFS collaborators. [100]

Have notices of webinars, new publications; ask what research needs to be done [41]

Have them be more accountable for their work - when I needed help from a PSW scientist because one of their journal articles had been cited in a lawsuit against the Forest Service, and I was writing a



response for the lawsuit, they refused to return my cals or emails. [55]

Having more search options available on the websites to aide in locating publications and/or authors. [78]

help get the red of risk maps...by providing key tools to assist in the management of disease and insect ... [74]

Help plant 500.000 Sandalwood nut trees seeds on Mauna Kea, With the Hawaiian Reforestation Program Fnd. Inc.501(c)3. President Mark R. Hanson is not waiting on anybody or any Government org. With a hand full of friends, will plant back this mountain. T teach you how, to grow back the Hawaiian Sandalwood forest at the lowest cost. If anybody wants to study what were doing in the Forest service? One has to see for one to know. Aloha Mark the Sandalwoodman [0]

Hire additional timber land managers and fund their recommendations for better fire control, market greater percentage of products, promote through education the value of utilizing forest products as a tool to manage forest lands. [53]

Hope to see increase in research activities done by Forest Service [89]

I always have a good experience with USFS R&D people [93]

I am concerned that the Forest Service R&D is decreasing the amount of staff and focus on air pollution research. Air pollution affects many ecosystems and I would like to see research continuing. [97]

I am not sure if it could be done but sometimes when using FIDO data take too long and is timed out so I have to retry several times until I get a quicker download. Thank you for trying to improve your service. Often times I go through my local Field offce and depending upon my program needs I get answers sometimes not so good. 98% of the time program leaders help, only one does not reply I have worked with Field representative but this one program leader continues to not reply to requests for assistance I would be interested if other States have similiar problems. Due to the sensitive matter of personnel I wish this to remain anoymous , we are a small state and this information could hurt our otherwise EXCELLENT relationship with the field office. [89]

I am still not certain if the research station scientists and publications have a peer science review process, particularly one that involves non-agency scientists. Developing this, and including a summary paragraph/policy in every publication, would giv all of us greater confidence in study results and conclusions. [85]

I am unclear how Research sets priorities. Sometimes it appears they chase soft money - if someone is willing to fund it, they will research it, vs figuring out what are the questions needing to be answered that will make the most difference. [56]

I am very concerned with the number of pests and diseases that are plaguing our tree, Forest, urban and city. More effort needs to be put in research to find ways to stop the spread of these problems. Diseases such as Emerald Ash Borer, Asian Longhorn Batle, Thousand Cankers Disease and various problems with oak threaten to destroy trees across the nation. Similar to the pine beetles in Western states. Trees are part of the countries infrastructure and as such the government should be working hard to rotect them. [80]

I believe that FS research would be better andj cheaper if outsourced to universities and/ or forest service scientiest were housed in academic units similar to the USGS Cooperative Fish and Wildlfie Research Unit program. [22]



I believe that the FS has a very serious lack of research funding issue that it cannot support the good scientists that you have. These folks end up doing administrative work and not what they were hired to do. I think the FS has to decide if it wantsto remain conducting research and invest in it, or just get out of the game. [56]

I had a hard time with some of the questions on this survey since I deal with so many shops in the Forest Service. I was often caught comparing Forest Service R&D to other mission areas when my assessment should have been comparing R&D to all of the entites I consult for information. I am not sure whether that was a personal limitation or had something to do with the way the questions were structured, but I felt I needed to add this thought to provide background information on my approach to these questios. [74]

I hand out USFS publications at almost every presentation I give. Having enough printed to meet the demand is important when the product is good and in demand. [100]

I have noticed that there has been a downturn in the number of scientists employed at the research stations and most of the scientists are from an older generation. This has reduced the amount of research available, made it more difficult to interact wit scientists (because they are busy), and limited their ability to use cutting edge techniques and integrate those techniques into tools. [82]

I hope there will be collaboration between the US and Canada about the spruce budworm problem. In the 1980's, CANUSA used to deliver research and development to a variety of users. It would be important to exchange ideas, have some workshops. I likethe way your publications are made available via Treesearch. Most publications of the US Forest Service are available and downloadable as pdf files. It is certainly helpful if you know the author's name. I did organize field visits to some US experimenal forests in the past like Bartlett, Penobscot, Dukes, and Argonne. I really enjoyed those activities with a researcher who spent his whole carreer in silviculture research. [93]

I indicated that the most important thing for R & D to do to improve customer service was focus on questions raised by natural resources managers. I believe this is the #1 thing that R & D can do to be as effective as possible, however especially with th Northern Research Station, I believe this is already happening, although I'm not sure about other areas. Other things that would be important if this goal is already sufficiently reached would be providing more visible updates about new products, tools,services, etc, and providing online access to more & older publications. [93]

I think in Puerto Rico the International Institute of Tropical Forests should focus also on forest management and not just on ecological research [100]

I think it would be good to have an email contact list of people that would like to see what recent publications and research is being performed. Many times I get busy with daily activities and do not even think to look for recent research and publicatios. If I received an email reminding me of what is coming out, I would likely access it when I had some time to review the information. [90]

I think R&D does great work, with staff that is wonderful and engaging to work with, and scientists who are widely respected. It's also doing really innovative work - like urban wood waste utilization and nanotechnology - as well as comprehensive work onl a federal agency is uniquely positioned to undertake, like urban and rural forest inventory and analysis. However, I'm not sure that message is getting out in the most coherent and accessible way for practitioners and the public. I know budgets are tiht but perhaps multimedia other than text-heavy websites could be utilized. Consistency across all information would also be beneficial so that the navigation and way of consuming information is similar across all sections and projects in R&D. As it i, it appears that each section has a different visual look and structure. [74]



I think that Dr. David Nowak with the Northern Research Station in Syracuse exemplifies how Forest Service R&D can best serve customer needs. [100]

I think that the more USFS can work with and understand the provate sector and support the forest products industry as well as other forest uses is imperative. over the last 30 years I have seen the size of the federal govenerment in natural resource manaement almost triple, while the private sector contunues to struggle against challenges. We need to protect and manage our forests wisely, but there is only so much the USFS can accomplish in this regard. I think the customer service in the USFS has improvd dramatically in the last two decades, with more accountability and responsibility, but there still exists a massive gap in understanding the role that research can play in the provate sector. We need to break down the internal barriers within the USFS -sometimes there is an internal culture that imposes values and preconceptions on forest users and groups outside of the USFS. Definitley need also to incorporate more understanding with non Euro-American groups. I am also not sure about the relationshipof the R&D branch with the regualr management branch of USFS. These two branches need to have a more positive working relationship. [63]

I think the major problem afflicting program delivery for the USFS is its ability to get the information to the consumer. When most USFS employees prefer to use Google over USFS website search engines, that to me is telling. [78]

I wish I could have checked all the boxes on the previous question. We rely on Forest Service R&D to support and direct our programs. It is critical that R&D covers needs of professionals in the field, incorporates many outside influences and collaboratrs (not just USA), and can be easily transferred to people putting the information to use. I want to have a clear understanding of who is doing what in the field of Urban Forestry and when new research emerges, I don't want to wait for a chain of peole to e-mail it down to me. Also, once research is published, the tech transfer component is critical to making the connection with practitioners. [51]

I would also like to see increased R&D capacity to support management information needs. This is the information age! [64]

I would also like to see more of the older material posted on the web, for easy access. Especially more of the harder to get reports. [100]

I would like to commend highly Richard Harper, So. Res. Sta. He is extremely helpful and courteous! [93]

I would like to see focused research on specific question raised by public and private field practitioners to assist their work in a timely fashion and in a way that the research helps build the case for innovative resource management strategies that advace public private partnerships and large landscape conservation goals. [89]

I would like to see Forest Service R&D place more emphasis on transitioning research results into practice. I see many results that never get implemented. It seems that the Service needs a division dedicated to implementation of new research results. I don't think the current organization does this very well at all. Good products often languish for lack of further development to make them most useful to the. user community [72]

I would like to see more research directed on real-world practical needs. One priority that goes with the USFS's emphasis on longleaf pine restoration is the development of a longleaf plantation growth and yield model for the Atlantic coast states - NC, A, SC. [75]

I would like to see you be able to continue to offer real people on the phone, as budgets get tight and political winds blow in different directions. The few times I have called for info, I never expected to get a real person, in real time. I was so plesantly surprised, even more so when transferred to a more appropriate person. It was seamless, and I received the info very quickly. KEEP UP THE GOOD



WORK. USFS is probably the best (and least appreciated) public service for conservation in the country The depth of info available is amazing. THANKS for the wonderful work, and the ACCESSIBILITY of information! [96]

I'd like to see more comparability in research across state and regional lines. For example, there is not a uniform parameter for assessing high-risk wildfire areas. How does high-risk in California compare to high-risk in Virginia? Even after years of th National Cohesive Strategy, no consistency exists. [78]

If you were to ask the public what they value about NFs, scenery would certainly be among the top three and likely the top value. However there is almost no serious research into scenic value, scenic impacts, the meaning of particular landscapes to users,etc. For instance, there is almost no research on the role that scenery plays in the experience of different recreation activities. The USFS has a Scenery Management System, but there has been no validation research for SMS. Visual impact assessments ae regularly done for NF activities, but there is no USFS research to produce valid and reliable VIA methods as required by NEPA. [12]

In regards to the last question, in addition to increasing the capacity to do research, I would also like to see the USDA FS research stations be able to increase their collaboration and focused research with non-federal natural resources agencies. This wuld mean bringing resources (funds) to the table to conduct long-term research. We here in Washington State DNR have had a long history of collaborative research with the PNW Research Station on long-term research topics however recent reduced funding bot on the federal and state side has reduced our collective ability to conduct or maintain these research projects. Reinitiating this relationship and these long-term research projects is important for both agencies. I would also like to see a more active rle of the PNW research station in the research forestry cooperatives here in the PNW. This would mean in addition to expertise, funding from the federal government for the cooperatives. [71]

In the insect and disease arena they need more funding to assess remote lands in Alaska. We have been proposing a project to develop a better method of assessing remote areas but have not been able to get funding for the project which could save large aounts of money over expanding the current methods to cover the more remote parts of the state. For FIA one of the key factors limiting implementation in interior Alaska is goo high definition imagery. funding this and continuing with the development f methods for more remote ares is a critical measure for forest managment in Alaska. [67]

In the past couple of years in particular, I appreciate the responsiveness of PNWS, PSWS, and RMRS to R6 requests to synthesize science related to Moist Mixed Conifer Forests. And the commitment to development of a synthesis of science related to resoure management within the Northwest Forest Plan area. As much of my work is related to Forest Planning, I appreciate in particular that the PNWS has shared an employee who works with us in the regional Planning group as the Science liaison, regional climat change coordinator, and Regional Ecosystem Office representative for PNWS. This individual is a tremendous asset to our planning group for the region and a key connection to PNWS work and scientists. [89]

Increase capacity for basic research while maintaining non-fs collaboration. [82]

Increase collaboration with academia [82]

Increase R&D funding to FS scientists and their collaborators [97]

Increase the number of researchers that have forest management/silviculture experience. [78]

Increase the research output and improve current researcher performances; reduce federal regulations for research use of facilities and personnel. Improve hiring decisions and performance. [22]



information seems to be biased toward PAST FS practices, not real innovative. History product, not forward thinking. [26]

It is always nice to make hard copies of material available. so please do not stop that. [71]

It would be helpful if USFS R&D improved its communication channels for advising when new information or research/data has been made available to the respective websites. [49]

It would be nice to be able to access researchers within a topic area (e.g. watersheds) at a single meeting. Like a FS R&D conference that's open to the public. You're doing some great stuff, and much of it applies to my work, but I don't have the contact--or the time to develop them--across the various stations. [71]

It's really a great organization with researchers that are very accessible. Good scientists that are easier to access than University researchers. [78]

I've had a fantastic experience working with individuals in the Forest Service. They've been incredibly helpful, resourceful, and imaginative in helping our school, Green Street Academy, reach our Forest Service-related goals. [100]

Journalists depend on one-on-one interviews with USFS professionals. My recent experience in getting access to these people has been good. In the past, however, USFS employees were often not available or available only through a handler after first submtting questions. This is not acceptable! Please increase the timely availability of officials and scientists to journalists. We are your megaphones. Throwing information up on the Internet does not meet our needs. We need direct access to USFS profesionals. [45]

Keep a significant portion of Forest Service research focused on the pressing, challenging management questions in each region. With climate change, uncharacteristic fire, and increasing numbers of species at-risk, prioritization of research emphasisis critical. [93]

Keep doing good research on timily issues related to managing our NIPF. Good unbiased research is what many londowner like to see. [63]

Keep doing management-oriented research. [100]

Keep doing what you are doing. The decline of USDA FS RD funding needs to stop so the research that directs future forest management can continue. Much of current forestry practices utilized across the US are being used due to past USDA FS research. Wih the continued changes occurring in our forests of the US, the USDA FS RD is critical to addressing future issues of fire, invasive pests and plants, and changes to forest structure and composition. [86]

Keep the budgets for travel out to see problems in the field. I can't stress how helpful the field visits from the professionals to our area are. We become so focused on individual problems that having someone qualified to back us up and help us see theproblem in a different way has helped greatly. The individual contacts I have made have added to the delivery of services to the public. I know things are tight so thanks for a job well done. [90]

Keep up the good work. [100]

Keep up the good work. [100]

Keep up the great work - it is timely, very useful and has very definite economic, environmental and practical values. [97]



Less fire related R&D and more traditional forestry R&D (if concept exists) [82]

Make all publications available on website [86]

Make current resources and problems, available to the, public and professional guides. In the El Yunque National Forest, such as ( Trails and public facilities, not in service. Make this information easily available on the forest web site. [67]

Make it easier for R&D scientists to travel - increase funding and permissions. [86]

Make it less tedious to form multi-agency partnerships [100]

Make older FS products available on-line. [82]

Make R&D programs to develop cultivars of native trees that are resistant to exotic pests and pathogens more collaborative with partners outside the forest service to reach more of the landscape than the national forests. [67]

Make sure that information and educational resources are kept current [49]

Make their geospatial data accessible to internal forest service personnel so it can be readily utilized by loading it on the Enterprise Data Center (EDC). Also, in publications please include more detailed geospatial analysis methodologies that were usedto generate results. This would facilitate replication of R&D results on the ground and modification for site specific needs. [11]

Making older information available Ensuring that regional needs are met Ensuring proper financing [86]

Monitizing Ecosystem Services [57]

more cooperative research agreements...less fire fighting [80]

More face time. It is always great to be in the same room with our R&D colleagues. I always, for example, appreciate having scientists participate in our annual RCW Translocation meeting. Of course, this is a two-way street. We could do a better job ofextending invitations. [89]

More field time with actual stand practicioners working in actively managed forests under the mandate of harvest operability and economic return. [68]

More funding for applied research especially for wildlife research [68]

More research and timely publications in the area where I am located. [82]

More research on invasive species; and on inv spp and climate change [93]

More research on use of prescribed fire and forest management, and more research on oak management. Some research on timber harvesting on private lands with an eye on how to increase its sustainability. [57]

More social science research [58]

More support at the Hilo, Hawaii Office. Hire Acacia koa research scientists. [86]



More timely release of FIA/TPO data. [93]

More up to date forest inventory data via shorter review cycles. more comprehensive TPO data [86]

More urban research in the west. [53]

More webinars [68]

n/a [100]

Na [82]

Need more research on stand dynamics, silvics, and disturbance regime of Madrean encinal woodlands in southeastern AZ. Should collaborate with Mexican scientists to use research that has already been completed [75]

need to think about that [100]

Needs better funding. [61]

No - I am very happy with the Forest Service R & D service. [100]

No [100]

no [100]

No [100]

No [52]

no [53]

No [56]

No [71]

No [72]

no [77]

No [79]

no [82]

No [89]

No [89]

no [89]

no [90]

no [92]



No [92]

No [93]

No [93]

No [93]

No [93]

No [96]

no [96]

no [97]

No, but I would like to change some of my answers and provide comments. Unfortunately, I cannot go back to previous pages in this survey. [56]

No, but this survey is way too long with no indication as to how close one is to finishing. I almost quit twice. [60]

NO, I use the available websites and publications [86]

No, so far. [100]

No. Excellent support. Thanks [100]

No. [67]

No. [79]

none [74]

none [79]

None [82]

none [82]

None [96]

None at this Time [100]

none at this time [86]

none at this time [89]

None,a great program and staff area [89]

nope [74]

nope [78]

nope! [100]



Not at this time [82]

Not at this time [90]

Not at this time. [60]





Not really. Love FPL's newsletters - provide great range of info that often prompts me to get more in-depth info from them. [82]

Often hard copies of pubications are not avaliable. Access to hard copies of a wider variety would be great. [67]

On line webinars would be a way to reach and transfer information cost effectively - difficult for many departments to travel to conferences [79]

on the previous question, all of the those options are excellent suggestions. the biggest need is to synthesize all of the great research that's been done, not just by USFS, but others. and then provide meaningful findings that can direct management outcoes. I can't keep track of all the research articles on subject matter - but would like a recurring revised synthesis that is categorized by major topics, where a person can enter a 'google' search of term and the result gives me some kind of summary of th state of knowledge on that subject for, the ecoregion of interest. [79]

One stop shopping website is a good idea. [97]

Online access of older publications would be great. [83]

Overall, the USFS does a very good job conducting relevant research and making the results available. [89]

Pay more attention to economics and forest management on non federal lands...as not much really happens on federal lands nowdays anyway. With FIA, clarify to users the changes in protocols over time, changes, and mistakes that need interpretation. [63]

Planning, layout and execution of timber sales to encourage better fuel efficiency in logging or processing equipment. [85]

Please fund the Wildlife Program to conduct research. [52]

Poll land managers on what research they need... [67]

Poll States each year on priority Research Topics. [82]

Previous question I had a tie. The other choice I'd select was making more legacy publications available on the website or TreeSearch [92]

Provide better integration with nongovernment hubs for data/research such as ArcGIS Online. Better link Forest Service products with government-wide data warehousing and increase visibility of FS R&D



results when searching for topics within research experise (Search Engine Optimization). [74]

Provide budgets needed to address current and emerging issues created by invasive insects and diseases, and biocontrol programs for invasive plants. [97]

Provide more applied, resource management based research that can be used on the ground today. Work with land managers more closely to develop research needs. Continue to work close with other branches of the FS such as Forest Health Protection. [60]

Provide more staff time to actively engage and collaborate on high priority natural resources issues, USFS staff is spread too thinly [86]

R&D scientists are generally very good to excellent. R&D administrators are another story. I do not know of one Assistant Director or Director of an Experiment Station that is not a political creature and/or generally untruthful. Project Leaders do hav a few good people, but in genera,l the upper administration of the Experiment Stations get to those positions by virtue of Forest Service "political correctness" and not on their own scientific or administrative capabilities. Upper R&D administrators prrot the WO line. In doing so, they are transforming the mission and responsibilites of their scientists to short term research dependent on soft monies. Through these actions, they are abandoning the long-term research needs of the Regions. [55]

R&D should focus on research questions that are more relevant to the public, if they hope to survive into the future, [47]

Realism and timeliness. Thinsg are NOT going well in Forestry on-the-ground projects (in general). Decades of theory in forestry management has been proven inadequate and has been for the last 15 years. The timeliness of implementing studies and knowlege-based on-the-ground projects is totally inadequate. [14]

Really appreciate the openness leadership has in helping users help from up the agenda for R&D [67]

Reduce administrative tasks researchers need to do - hire some clerks. [68]

Regarding the previous question it would be nice to see more of the legacy publications available on the internet. I've got easy access to the reserachers and so using the Forest Service R&D is easier for me than some others. it is possible that other forsters or landownersdon't know about the facility and so don't develop a relationship with the researchers that allows them better access to the newest studies and publications. Some of the researchers do a good job of going to professional meetings in theregion and presenting their research to fellow forestry professionals. It would be nice if they could do more of this but there are only so many hours in a day or week and so they've got to come up with a balance between presentations and field work. [96]

Remove the buracracy to let researchers do more BUT require them to work with new outreach folks to TRANSFER their work. It's begun but it has a LONG way to go to make them household famous. Clippings of my favorite USFS on the website is a nice start. dtto for playing cards...But the info your researches have can save society..they can't hide in regional research office anymore. [85]

Researchers need to travel and come to meetings. With the latest travel restrictions it seems they are limited in attendance. One of the great things they do is network at meetings and learn what questions we have. [96]

reward researchers that get involved with public land managers and that work with partners on applied science. and give them time to do so, so you need more capacity. [74]



Several of the colleagues in the Forest Service with whom I have worked in the last 15 years or so are nearing retirement or have retired. It seems that some of their positions are left vacant and staff numbers are declining. In my opinion it is importantthat the excellent expertise and capability of the Forest Service R&D branch will be maintained. [97]

Shorten the survey. [89]

Some disscussions as to how to link the different aspects of the research, ecological , products, social, to those in the public which need to understand the how and why of management options. Its not just black and white. [71]

some stations are very effective, others are much less so [65]

Spend the time learning about the challenges face by resource managers and forest decision-makers and engage them (your customers) in dialogue to determine priorities for research. More collaboration is needed! FS R&D has some very talented people andproduces some valuable products. Better alignment with priorities as defined by customers (and transparency about the trade-offs that need to be made among competing interests) would greatly enhance support for this important work. [31]

Stay in touch with resource needs. Often it seems researchers choose to focus their time on whatever they like. [67]

strengthen capacity for social science [74]

Strive to supply website with all forms of forest R&D data, even if researched by other sources. Maybe a list links? [93]

Thank you for all the data/information that is available for public use! [68]

Thank you for being there for us and with us as partners! [88]

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my thoughts [82]

Thank you for the important work you do. [97]

THANK YOU for what you do and for your presence in forest management. You provide an invaluable service to natural resource professionals and without your services there would be a huge void. [83]

Thanks for your good work. We rely on US Forest Service publications to support our field work in urban forestry. [86]

That last question was tough, as I wanted to check many more boxes. USFS needs to regain some lost research capacity and improve its collaboration with other organizations in areas where that capacity has been lost. Also, USFS needs to be more responsiv to needs of managers and not just "shove their science" down the throats of an unaccepting manager pool. [86]

The amount of FS research conducted in urban forestry is obscenely small comparative to its importance and the precentage of people living in urban areas. FS research is still stuck in the 1950s...sadly. Too much of the research focus is on rural forest. These are important of course, but your balance is way out of whack. [55]

The basic research being done is excellent and deserving of renewed commitment on the part of the Forest Service. The research done by federal scientists is an essential underpinning of our government. It is what



makes informed decision making possible. Attempts to weaken this vital activity dissuade good scientists from pursuing careers in government and deal lasting harm to the public interest. [100]

The entire previous list were all good suggestions. It was hard to pick one. I would like more old documents available on the web and more research and more research with collaborators outside the FS. [78]

The forest products laboratory is poorly staffed and underfunded. There are state of the art research faculties there and very little research going on. With the significant increase in interest for renewable materials, now is the time for government suported research programs to work with industry to push toward a sustainable future. From the fact that the lab hasn't had a dedicated director for nearly two years to the steady decrease of scientists and technicians and the rapidly shrinking research suport team (RFE) the lab is slowly dying. It is very sad to see how little future direction is being provided for a once great research institution. [76]

The Forest Service needs to provide more funding to conduct practical field research on novel solutions to control invasive pests. They need to provide a practical and transparent evaluation process for the funding. The majority of funding should be direced towards solutions to stop invasives rather than monitoring and counting invasive pests. [0]

The Forest Service research budget needs to be increased. One important way to do this is for the Forest Service to work with Congress on getting catastrophic wildfire suppression funded in a way that is similar to the way other major natural disasters (eg., hurricanes, floods) are funded. The Forest Service research budget has been reduced considerably because of diversion of funds toward catastrophic wildfire suppression, a practice that needs to end. [74]

The Forest Service should invest more heavily in making research findings accessible to the general public. Specifically, the FS should invest in staffing up the public relations and outreach departments, so that for each completed research project wher new findings are reported, an artile is written for public consumption and provided to the public through general media news sources. [86]

The forests of this country provide a wide range of environmental and economic goods and services. Yet they face many threats that are reducing their ability to continue to provide these goods and services. These threats include invasive species, increasig insect and disease problems, unsustainable harvesting practices, climate change, parcelization and fragmentation and increasing incidence of large and intense fires, just to name a few. In spite of these growing threats, the Forest Service's research buget continues to be cut. The agency does an excellent job with the limited resources it has, but it needs more resources to effectively address these problems. [71]

The majority of R&D scientists & projects in my geographic area provide excellent & useful products & services, and therefore for those that I do "use," I have ranked them very highly. However there is a substantial remainder of projects that I perceive a driven by available external grant funding and not well linked to resource management priorities. I wish R&D had more internal funding that could be strategically allotted for the highest priority work so that scientist time could be thus aligned. I alsowish the reward & promotion system were more weighted by relevance to natural resource managers and less weighted by the peer-reviewed publication record. At the present time it seems that younger scientists have to work on whatever they can get externall funded & published - it is sometimes too esoteric to be relevant to management, or results sometimes elicit an "I knew that already" response from managers. [67]

The one area of FS R&DI am most familiar with, use most often, and rely on (because there is no other source for the info) is Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data, web sites, and publications. One major problem with FIA data for the western US, partiularly the PNW states, is the lack of growth and mortality data on line. My understanding is that this is a reult of the 10-year cycle that western states are on compared to a 5-year FIA cycle for eastern states. I imagine this inequality in data availabiity and cycle



length stems from a lack of sufficient funding for western FIA units to achieve a 5-year cycle length. [59]

The organization has come so far in the last ten years; keep up the good work and don't let your efforts stall in mid-stream! Please worry less about your public acceptance and image; manage your lands utilizing sound management techniques and best managment practices (no shortcuts) and let the chips fall where they may. Be teachers and leaders by your example and demonstrate that by your management practices. Again keep up the good work! [89]

The people are great - better information and organization online would be great. Thanks for all you do! [78]

the R&D organization is very confusing and seems to be continually changing. although i indicated soil/water/air as my 'alignment' i find that i work most closely with research fish bio lately. response and collaboration with R&D is great when it happens,but i find that it is highly variable from one individual to another. current emphasis in PNW (Juneau, Alaska) on new experimental forest is not well aligned with management needs, and I'm uncertain how to promote stronger collaboration. i do have great espect for the personnel stationed there. [57]

The research side needs more resources! New investments in the types of research and public engagement that occurs on USFS Experimental forests is minimal to poor at best. These are gems in the USFS research portfolio and grossly under utilized and resoured. I should know as I cooperatively and collaboratively work with two. [68]

The search engine on Treesearch is horrible. Users should be able to focus on individual authors, not all named "Smith". Additional search capabilities would really help. [42]

The service is very helpful, but the availability of TPO data should be reinstated. Presently, I can't find any working database for my state. (Only SRS data is available.) I use TPO data with regularity and there is no where else to get it! [64]

The temporal and spatial scale of USFS research is often not well aligned with management needs. New technical issues are often raised internally (within the NFS side) or through interactions with the public, and it would be very helpful if FS R&D had inreased capacity to provide rapid, unbiased, high-quality information relevant to district or forest-level scientific questions. This could take the form of a short review of the issue or a basic field investigation provided within the time frame of a forst management project. The NFS staff often do not have the ability to credibly address some scientific questions (e.g., about the effects of a proposed action on a specific resource), and research could help increase our capacity in these areas. [64]

The work that FS R&D does is excellent and the services provided are also excellent. The main need is to do MORE research, this would help it be more comprehensive and continue to address the needs of resource managers. The need is much greater than the urrent capacity. [71]

There is a need for more research on building/wood durability and building science issues -- moisture dynamics in various assemblies, eco friendly treatments, non-chemical termite protections, etc. [71]

There is a political bias that constrains forest service research. It is not effectively used. The habitat vs restoration vs economic impact issues need to be worked more openly. The strict ecostem protection does not consider the history that all forets are different than they were and we need to manage them for whatever objective but not do nothing. [57]

They do everything I would expect given the human and monetary resources they have [86]

They should get the word out to the general public, NGOs and even the state forestry staff, just let everyone know who they are and what they can do for them. They have smart people working for the them and others need to know they are out there, and the will



help you if they can. [93]

This may be outside the Forest Service R&D area, but it would be great if they could work in coordination with US Fish and Wildlife in order to: - Construct a baseland wetland map for Puerto Rico to show where historical wetlands have resided - Update t the 1983 wetland map available from the National Wetland Inventory Mapper - Once the PR Department of Natural and Environmental Resources publishes its inventory of wetlands for 2012, have it available in the Caribbean Landscape Conservation Cooperativewebsite - Maybe studying discrepancies betwen NWI data and PR GAP data. Also, there seems to be a lot of research regarding El Yunque National Forest, it is time more attention is given to the other parts of the watershed in northeast Puerto Rico thatconnect to El Yunque, such as the Mameyes River, the Northeast Ecological Corridor, Cabezas de San Juan and Ceiba State Forest. [86]

This survey is too long, asks too many questions that are difficult for me to answer with specifics in mind, and the survey has no back button, and does not indicate how many more questions I have to answer. [72]

This survey should allow multiple choices in most cases. I find the research portfolio in air quality issues to be high quality and very helpful to my own university program. I would like to see more cooperative agreements with university researchers. [74]

this was difficult to complete because I utilize research and expertise of researchers from multiple areas. In fire, I would tend to rate them as ok. But in the area of biodiversity, I would rate them as poor. Because many of the land management issues weface (in my case land management planning and ecological restoration) are on the interface between fire and biodiversity, a lack of one means that the other is a poor. If research cannot address better the immediate needs to figure out how to move forwardwith ecological restoration on a much more extensive and rapid pace to ammeliorate the impacts of uncharacteristic fire and have scientifically based knowledge of likely impacts to biodiversity--then they are of no use. If fire cannot provide models or inight into contributing factors related to uncharacteristic fire (i.e. fire-atmospheric interaction driven fires, resulting from extensive dense fuels and very dry fuels), then what is the use of the models? All we get is...we need more research and hand winging on the part of biodiversity researchers. There is an urgent need for a different model of rapid research. We can wait for more Rim or King Fires to happen and then we won't need research--we will just react. Obviously, I have a very jaded view at tis time. Some of the biodiversity researchers are more willing to share preliminary results with environmentalists than with internal agency employees that could use the insight. This is very disappointing. Transparency should be a mode of operation. [19]

Trails [38]

Travel restrictions have reduced the effectiveness of USFS out-reach operations. If possible within the current budget limitations, travel by USFS scientists and technicians could be improved. [82]

try to stay current with emerging issues [74]

up to date on new projects and materials [82]

Update silviculture management guides to include a wider array of management objectives such as ecological restoration, climate change, utilization of prescribed fire, etc. [82]

USFS carbon and other environmental models and the data behind should be more readily available, much as the forest production models and data already are. [83]

USFS research is not well funded. [80]

We as Federal employees, are flooded by emails. One email a month that highlights the new research would be helpful (this may already be happening through the Joint Fire Science folks). Too many emails



means they are less likely to get read. So please cnsider this when trying to decide how to get the info out to us technical/professionals in the field. [89]

We have a close relationship with SRS. They assist us with a lot of monitoring. However, I rarely see research publications they produce unless I come across them by chance. Also, there are key research questions we would like investigated, such as theeffects of prescribed fire on wild turkey and the effects of feral hogs, but have not had much engagement with SRS regarding these issues. [36]

We must create a collaborative R&D model that meets forest and forest product needs of the 21st Century. [71]

We need a comprehensive, online library of all publications/information that can be searched by category. There is a lot of imformation that is older that is unavailable due to only paper copies. Need some sort of synthesis of scientific research and ata presentation (lots of it is hard to read and get the "point" of the document. [42]

We need to look strategically at research projects, and keep funding them over the long-term. In fire, in particular, we need 5-, 10-, and 15-year results, not 1- and 2-year results. [97]

We've been asked to fund their attendance at conferences--which we've declined. R&D needs to learn how to compete for funds---they wanted the freedom to choose their topics like the university academics, but now that they aren't given a research budget, hey don't know how to find money. [31]

While I think increasing capacity is most important, a close second is making older publications publically available (although you guys already do a pretty decent job at that). Thanks for all R & D does! [93]

While the quality of research and research products is typically quite good, there is a need to improve upon R&D's ability to better deliver science application and integration products. Often or usually, resource managers have to do a lot of work to traslate the research products into directly useful entry points for resource management. Perhaps this is really an agency challenge, not just a R&D challenge. Perhaps the agency needs to make a sincere and effective commitment to increasing "boundary spaner" or "science application" capacity. The interior agencies are much better at having science application organizations well staffed and supported. Also...hard to fill out the survey. I find really great collaborations with a number of individual reserchers at RMRS. I highly value those collaborations and they result in useful products to support my work. However, there are constraints that may be organizational or just fall at the leadership level with respect to positive, productive collaborationsand useful outcomes. Leadership sometimes seems to be more concerned with optics and "check offs" on accomplishments and potentially less concerned with content, substance, and utility. I understand that research is limited by funding and researchers ted to go where they find the money. This presents problems in terms of the relevance of the research to resource managers, especially if those resource managers don't have a lot of money available to fund the researchers. Agency research should realize ad focus on a different role than academic research. Finally, I encounter instances where it seems that politics or agency policy agendas may result in biasing the research agenda and potentially the products. This is problematic and runs the risk of lmiting the relevance of the research if users are not able to trust that it is free of bias and is of rigorous scientific quality. [44]

While we have done cooperative research with the Forest Health Protection division, it has not been easy to develop research collaborations with the other divisions, especially in California and the Southwest. Cooperative research opportunities should be ade more available, particularly concerning wildfire-related vegetation treatments. [41]

Work more closely with land management side of the agency.



Pursue social science research that is more directly related to our management and activities (e.g. survey general population about relationship to national forests, our work, our agency; examne how our decisions affect social and economic sustainability). [53]

Work on invasive forest pests should be increased in the NE region, not abandoned. The lack of attention and funding to invasive pests is disturbing, given their impacts and the clear need for broad, strategic managment. I am not aware of any new or incresed funding being made available to NRS staff or collaborators to work on invasive forest pest issues. [30]

Work with NFS and SPF as collaborators to teach people how to use the new tools and information created. Some areas of R&D do a great job with tech transfer - offering webinars, newletters, field visits, etc. Other areas could emulate that direct contact ith users. It doesn't always need to be the Principle Investigator that provides training or presents the information - it really needs to be someone with good teaching skills, people skills, etc. NFS and SPF may have some people who could help be the inf diffusers in the network to effectively market and translate new info for partners and stakeholders. [60]

Write for an audience of Rangers and Forest Supervisors, not fellow scientists if you want you information to be useful to the majority of the agency! [57]

Yes, please ease access to Forest Inventory and Analysis data by working with a third-party provider. I would love to see FIA data released through WolframAlpha. [68]

Yes. More appropriated funding for research and researchers. But I know that will never happen, as research is on a near-sunset trajectory. I've seen the slashing and reduction in funding and personnel. Research is pretty much run by a skeleton crew tese days, and the current wave of anti-science conservative politicians will make sure that crew will be reduced even further. It's pathetic. The few researchers that are left in my line work, I swear, don't eat or sleep. Their dedication and productivty is phenomenal. They do the best they can with what they have. But they could use more help, and I don't see that on the horizon at all. Morale is low but for the most part they can still provide us with a fair portion of what we need. So my suggeston is if you can't increase funding or hiring, at least don't cut the positions that are currently on the books. [85]

YES.....the FIA data is extremely under utilized due to inflexibility in nesting additional inquiries around FIA plots (not on them....but knowing their location is key to pairing other measurements). FIA is shooting itself in the foot by not collaboratig more broadly via additional inquiries and measurements that could supplement their analyses. Access to these plots should be easier for other researchers [89]

You are doing a good job given the limited resources allocated to you. [93]

You need a survey on how the FS on the ground is working and how it meets the needs of the people. [4]

You need to increase the capacity of social science research especially in the area of fire. Most problems are human problems and that framing is extremely important in solving challenges at the necessary pace and scale. [63]

u.s. department of agriculture · 2015. 2. 26. · usda forest service r&d customer...

Documents