U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

28–420 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–491

TO DISCUSS OVERSIGHT OF THE FOREST AND

RANGELAND RESEARCH PROGRAM OF THE

U.S. FOREST SERVICE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTRY, CONSERVATION, 

AND RURAL REVITALIZATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 27, 2005

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.agriculture.senate.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia, Chairman 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

MICHEAL D. CRAPO, Idaho 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

DEBBIE A. STABENOW, Michigan 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado

MARTHA SCOTT POINDEXTER, Majority Staff Director 

DAVID L. JOHNSON, Majority Chief Counsel 

STEVEN MEEKS, Majority Legislative Director 

ROBERT E. STURM, Chief Clerk 

MARK HALVERSON, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

HEARING(S):

To Discuss Oversight of the Forest and Rangeland Research Program of 

the U.S. Forest Service ........................................................................................ 01

Thursday, October 27, 2005

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Crapo, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from Idaho, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry ......................................................................... 01

Lincoln, Hon. Blanche, a U.S. Senator from Arkansas ........................................ 12

Lugar, Hon. Richard, a U.S. Senator from Indiana .............................................. 13

Salazar, Hon. Ken, a U.S. Senator from Colorado ................................................ 05

WITNESSES 

Panel I 

Bartuska, Ann, Deputy Chief, Research & Development, U.S. Forest Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture .......................................................................... 02

Panel II 

Canavera, David, Manager Forest Ecosystem Project, Forest Research, 

Meadwestvaca Corporation, on Behalf of the American Forest & Paper 

Association ............................................................................................................ 20

Daley-Laursen, Steven B., PH.D., Dean, College of Natural Resources, University of Idaho ..................................................................................................... 18

Daniels, Robert A., Extension Professor, Forestry Department, Mississippi 

State University ................................................................................................... 24

Schowalter, Bob, State Forestry of South Carolina, South Carolina Forestry 

Commission, on Behalf of the National Association of State Forestry ............ 22

Simon, Scott, Director, Arkansas Chapter, the Nature Conservancy ................. 26

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Bartuska, Ann ................................................................................................... 40

Canavera, David ............................................................................................... 54

Daley-Laursen, Steven B ................................................................................. 45

Daniels, Robert A ............................................................................................. 64

Schowalter, Bob ................................................................................................ 60

Simon, Scott ...................................................................................................... 68

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Letter of Steven L. Thorson (Business Development Director for Forest 

Concepts, LLC.) ............................................................................................. 76

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: 

Crapo, Hon. Mike ............................................................................................. 80

Coleman, Hon. Norm ........................................................................................ 84

(1)

TO DISCUSS OVERSIGHT OF THE FOREST 

AND RANGELAND RESEARCH PROGRAM OF 

THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2005

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTRY, CONSERVATION, AND RURAL

REVITALIZATION, OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY, 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in room 

328-A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Crapo, [Chairman of the Subcommittee], presiding. 

Present or submitting a statement: Senators Crapo, Lugar, Lincoln, and Salazar. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

IDAHO, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTRY, CONSERVATION, AND RURAL REVITALIZATION, COMMITTEE ON 

AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

Senator CRAPO. Good morning. This hearing will come to order. 

Demands on our forests are increasing, as Americans call for an 

affordable wood supply, a protected environment, enhanced wildlife 

habitat, abundant recreational opportunities and, frankly, living 

space. And these demands are increasing while we also face unfortunate events such as the hurricanes and fire which take their toll 

on our resources. 

We must be able to meet these challenges, and research is important to ensuring that we have the tools necessary to improve forest 

conditions and meet emerging needs. However, more must be done 

than simply conducting research. We must also make certain that 

the technology developed through this research is reaching those 

who manage and rely on our forests and our forest products. 

Additionally, a strong coordination between the U.S. Forest Service, the research community, and the end users is key to making 

limited resources meet on-the-ground needs. I continue to assert 

that enhanced coordinated research will maximize the use of our 

forests. From better harvesting techniques, to more efficient wood 

products, to new and innovative uses, we can find ways for this renewable resource to provide more benefits to more people in an environmentally sustainable manner. 

Besides improving uses, the better and more focused research 

will also allow us to mitigate the impact of damaging events like 

2

fire, windthrow erosion, disease, and invasive species. We can meet 

these challenges, and research can focus our efforts to do so. 

As the Forest Service works to address emerging forest research 

challenges, improvements can always be made. Improved collaboration through joint planning by scientists and administrators of the 

Forest Service and universities will better enable resources to be 

targeted toward the most beneficial vision for our forestry research. 

We must all work together to see that forestry research receives 

the necessary support and coordination. The goal of this hearing is 

to look at the direction, coordination, and long-term plan for forestry research; to examine how we can gain better research coordination; and to review how we conduct technology transfer, coordinate our long-term forestry research focus, and share the workload. 

Our witnesses here today are going to share their insight on 

these issues. And our witnesses today include Ann Bartuska, Deputy Chief for Research at the U.S. Forest Service. And following 

her testimony, we will hear from a second panel of witnesses which 

includes university, industry, state forester, extension forester, and 

environmental interests. I am particularly pleased that the Dean 

of the University of Idaho Forestry School could be here, and I 

want to thank you, Dean Steven Daley-Laursen. 

I look forward to all of the witnesses and their contributions to 

our collective goal of maintaining the health and quality of our Nation’s forests. 

However, what I wanted to do before we turn to the witnesses 

was to turn to the other Senators for their statements. Right now, 

you may have noted the bells going off at the beginning of this 

hearing. That is because we are having a cloture vote on the floor 

of the Senate with regard to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, the 

final appropriations bill for the Senate this year; and so some of 

the Senators are going to be delayed. 

And what I think I will do is to go ahead with your testimony, 

Dr. Bartuska. And then, as other Senators arrive, we will give 

them an opportunity to give an opening statement. 

And with that, let’s go to our first panel. And Ms. Bartuska, you 

may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF ANN BARTUSKA, DEPUTY CHIEF, RESEARCH & 

DEVELOPMENT, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF AGRICULTURE 

Ms. BARTUSKA. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. And I 

appreciate the opportunity to testify before the committee on the 

Forest Service’s Forest and Rangeland Research Program. 

This is the Forest Service’s centennial year, and research has 

been part of the Forest Service since its inception in 1907. Our research programs have a wide geographic extent, an interdisciplinary emphasis, and a steady focus on solving problems and providing science for policymakers and land managers. 

We have programs in all 50 states, U.S. territories, and commonwealths. We have long-term research on 83 experimental forests 

and ranges and 370 research natural areas. We have a cadre of 

about 2,700 employees; of that, 575 are permanent scientists. And 

we work across a large array of different research activities. 

3

From public lands to private forest landowners, our goal is to put 

quality science and information into the hands of the users. And 

I think that is a goal that I understood you were just sharing with 

us. 

I would like to share some examples of the kind of work that we 

do, and to talk a little bit about the array of work we have. One 

of the emphases is science around large-scale disturbances. And the 

ongoing hurricane response serves as a good example of this type 

of research. 

Both Katrina and Rita caused extensive forest damage. Our 

southern station worked with Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and 

Alabama state foresters and the forestry associations to assess the 

extent and volume of timber damaged by the hurricanes. The station also prepared a directory of all of the mills that were in the 

area, so that private landowners could identify who they could sell 

their down and damaged timber to. 

The station has also then developed groups of scientists around 

key areas, helping landowners reestablish the forests, repair damaged streams, restore the urban system, and recycle and dispose of 

damaged lumber and debris; the last with support from the forest 

products lab and their technology units. 

Response to fire is another priority of ours. We have established 

rapid science assessment teams whose job is to get out, get science 

into the hands of the users to guide restoration activities, and to 

provide monitoring following major wildfires. We have also developed numerous different technology tools to get information about 

how to make homes safe from fire and reduce the risk, our 

FIREWISE program; so again, bringing our science into the hands 

of the user community. 

And the other example I just want to touch on is the threat of 

invasive plants and animals. Most notably and most recently, we 

have established two threat risk assessment centers for invasive 

species; one in the east and one in the west, consistent with the 

goals of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act and Title VI, to establish national warning centers. So we really have taken this responsibility fairly diligently. 

Just a few examples of what is a much broader program and I 

think gives a sense of the scope that we are involved in; but I believe Forest Service research is a national asset. 

One of the most critical things that we do is provide—through 

our Forest Inventory Analysis program, or ‘‘FIA’’—the Nation’s forest census. We have been doing this for nearly 75 years. It is the 

only program that delivers continuous and comprehensive assessments of our forests in a nationally consistent manner across all 

landowners, and gets that information in the hands of the users as 

quickly as possible. We are now Internet-ready. In fact, the data 

can be acquired by anyone who goes onsite to really look at that 

information. 

And then finally, one of our core strengths is our network of 83 

experimental forests and ranges. These provide a really broad representation of the forests of the United States. We are actually in 

any forest type in the U.S. It is a national network that has resulted in long-term data sets that are looking at environmental 

4

change over the last century and answering many of today’s pressing questions at landscape and global scales. 

A critical part of our success is partnerships. I think that is part 

of the reason for the hearing today, is to explore all of those different aspects. And I see many of our friends who are here. 

To fully realize the benefits of public investments in research, 

the Forest Service is finding better ways to effectively translate 

science findings and technology advances into on-the-ground accomplishments. This is a priority for me: establishing new working relationships with our university community, with other science organizations, by taking our more than 1,000 cooperative agreements 

that we now have with universities and expanding those, being 

able to give us some flexibility in the types of research we do. I 

think those are really one of the foundational aspects of our organization. 

And then, last, I guess what I would like to close with is really 

to just bring us back to what we are all about. Our Nation depends 

on our forests and rangelands to meet a multitude of needs. And 

our goal is to provide the scientific knowledge and tools necessary 

to manage, restore, conserve, and increase the productive capacity 

of our forests and rangeland systems. 

I am very enthusiastic about the work we are doing, but I know 

we have much more to be doing in the future. So thank you very 

much for this opportunity, and I will be happy to answer any questions, as appropriate. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bartuska can be found in the appendix on page 40.] 

Senator CRAPO. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Bartuska. And 

I know that we all appreciate the work that you do, and look forward to working with you as we address this issue. 

Technology transfer is critical in making the benefits of our research available to end users. And technology transfers enable us 

to get the most out of our research investment. Can you discuss 

that with me a little bit? What steps are being taken, and how is 

the Department approaching the opportunity to promote and improve technology transfer? 

Ms. BARTUSKA. Well, we know we have a lot more to do. And I 

will start from that point, because I think this has been a significant part of my recent tenure with Forest Service Research and 

Development, is to enhance those opportunities. 

One of the things we have done is establish an internal earmark, 

if you will; set aside a certain amount of money within our R&D 

budget for science applications that our stations can use to build 

partnerships, to take their science, and to create new technology 

tools. 

And we also just have a high degree of expectation that when a 

piece of science is developed, that it will come with it a mechanism 

to get it into the next step, the hands of the user community. So 

our fire work is probably one of the best examples. I think it is 

about 20 percent of our entire program is all about fire and fuels 

work. 

As we do some fundamental research in forested ecosystems, we 

are also putting together the tools, the training modules that would 

5

bring that information to the user, whether it be a public land 

manager or somebody from the private landowner community. 

I mentioned FIREWISE. We have a series of different technology 

tools available to get some of the science into modeling, predicting 

fire behavior, and making it accessible through most recent technologies. That is just one example. But we have made it a commitment. It is, I think, something that we have enhanced opportunities to really be pursuing in the future. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, thank you very much. We have been joined 

now by Senator Salazar, from Colorado. I explained to everybody, 

Senator, that we had the vote on cloture that pulled everybody 

away. But I would be glad to turn to you right now for any opening 

statement that you would like to make, and then the two of us can 

continue with questioning. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

COLORADO 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you very much, Chairman Crapo. And 

thank you for holding this important hearing on this very important issue. 

I also would like to thank Dr. Bartuska for appearing here today 

and for the witnesses that have traveled to this hearing from some 

distances away. 

The Forest Service and its programs are extremely important to 

Colorado, and for most of our states in the West where we have 

huge inventories of Forest Service lands. My State of Colorado has 

21.5 million acres of forest land. That is nearly one-third of all the 

land in my home state. 

In addition, Fort Collins is the home to the Rocky Mountain Research Station, one of the Forest Service research and development 

divisions—six research stations around the country. And that research center conducts a research program for the eight states of 

the Interior West region, as well as Wyoming, North Dakota, Kansas, and Nebraska. 

The research that is undertaken in Colorado’s national forests at 

CSU, and at UCD at Denver, and at the Rocky Mountain Research 

Station has an extraordinary value to Colorado and to the Nation. 

The research helps us understand riparian and alpine ecosystems, 

and provides invaluable social science research on natural resource 

planning and sustainable forestry. We are proud of Colorado’s cooperative efforts with the U.S. Forest Service in this regard. 

While all of this research is extremely important, something of 

particular interest to me is the Colorado research that is furthering 

the progress on the national fire plan. Every summer, my state 

faces the threat of wildfires. Only a few short years ago, Colorado 

faced some of the worst wildfires in the whole history of the state. 

I know that the Rocky Mountain Research Station and Fort Collins account for one-third of all fire-related Forest Service research. 

And while the Forest Service, at least at the moment, is hard 

pressed to control the weather, there are some more controllable 

factors that Forest Service Research and Development has already 

been doing the research on in Colorado. 

According to the 2004 Forest Service reports, 7 million trees, covering over 1.5 million acres, were killed by several different types 

6

of bark beetles throughout the State of Colorado. In addition, in 

late September of this year, a wildfire burned a part of the beetlekilled forest in just 2 hours in Summit County between Frisco and 

Breckenridge. Places like Grand County and Eagle County and all 

along the divide are surrounded by the time bomb presented by 

these beetle-killed forests. With the next big fire, Colorado could 

start losing entire towns. 

We cannot allow these towns and forests to burn and endanger 

our citizens and natural heritage. The pine beetle is very serious 

business in my state. In my mind, this insect is Colorado’s forest 

‘‘public enemy No. 1.’’ The Forest Service research on controlling 

and eradicating the pine beetle gains urgency every day, as more 

of these trees are killed and become a fire threat to the communities of Colorado and other places around the West. 

I look forward to working with you to ensure that the forests and 

rangeland research program continues to look into this important 

issue, so that our forests and towns are in fact protected. And I 

thank you, and I will have some questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Senator Salazar. Dr. 

Bartuska has completed her opening statement, so we will just 

have successive rounds of questions until we are finished. 

Dr. Bartuska, another area that I want to talk about is the relationship between the various research partners. And the question 

I have is how the Forest Service is working to make the most out 

of its relationships with universities and colleges, in particular, 

with their tremendous research capacity. 

I, personally, think these relationships can really help the Forest 

Service and the universities both accomplish their missions and 

foster our research in forestry issues. Do you believe we are getting 

the maximum out of that partnership, or can we improve there? 

Ms. BARTUSKA. I am not sure if you know my background. I actually started in the university, and I have also spent time with the 

Nature Conservancy, as well as the Federal Government. So I am 

really committed to the idea that, if we are going to move science 

forward, we have to do it as a partnership in all of those parties. 

I don’t think we are doing enough. I think we have sustained a 

certain level of cooperation with the university and academic community over the years. I believe right now between 12 and 13 percent of our program goes out to universities for extramural projects 

that really enhance our own work. But I think we can start taking 

some more creative approaches. And I know there is an interest 

within the university natural resource deans to be doing that same 

thing, and taking a hard look at how we work together. 

One of the areas that we have talked about is: can we establish 

more ideas of centers of excellence, where you bring the different 

types of scientific capacity into one location? It might be a virtual 

center; it might be a bricks-and-mortar center; but really being able 

to have more real-time cooperation between our different scientists, 

as well as those who are involved in the extension function. 

I think if we have looked at where we have been most successful 

with those partnerships in the past, it is where we have been colocated with other research institutions, mostly universities. So 

places like Boise and Missoula, Montana, where we have a presence right on campus, have really created an environment where 

7

we can have our scientists working with university scientists on a 

more regular basis. 

So I that clearly is an emerging model. There has been a lot of 

discussion about this. A little bit before my role as deputy chief, 

there was a National Academy of Science committee on looking at 

forestry research capacity. It really pointed to the need to have a 

new model of how we work together. 

I guess to me the good news is that, since I have gotten into this 

job, we have had a series of dialogs among all the different partners about, ‘‘How do we do this more proactively, instead of just 

sort of in an ad hoc manner?’’ And I think the conversation has 

really just begun. But it is heartening, actually, that I see the 

kinds of energy going into it. 

And the panel members that you have here have all been talking 

about the same thing, so it will be good to get their ideas later. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, thank you very much. And I don’t know if 

you have had a chance to read the testimony of the other panelists 

that they have submitted, but as a part of our second panel we will 

hear from Dean Daley-Laursen, who is the policy chair of the National Association of University Forest Resource Programs. And he 

believes that a major overhaul of how our forest research entities 

coordinate is needed. I am not sure if you are familiar with the 

ideas he is proposing, but what are your thoughts on that? 

Ms. BARTUSKA. Well, I actually just saw them. 

Senator CRAPO. OK. 

Ms. BARTUSKA. I knew that there were discussions taking place. 

I had the opportunity to meet with the general assembly of the natural resource deans when they were in Fort Worth—I guess it was 

about two weeks ago now. So I know that there has been some conversation about that. 

I don’t disagree with it. I think that the scope and the complexity 

of the issues have gotten so broad, and the resources to do that 

work have continued to be tight, that if we don’t have a new model 

of working together I think we will not accomplish the science goals 

that we have. 

I have not studied their proposal well enough to know what their 

concrete specifics are and what our role might be in that. But I 

know that we have pledged that we would establish a working 

group with the universities; Forest Service research; hopefully, 

CSREES; to talk about this very issue and to really set out the 

next year to be much more proactive about how we have that conversation. 

Senator CRAPO. All right. Thank you very much. 

Senator Salazar, would you like to ask questions? 

Senator SALAZAR. I would have a couple of questions. The first 

relate to the pine beetle issue, and what I would like to ask you, 

Dr. Bartuska, is what kind of research is currently underway with 

respect to how we might be able to bring this infestation under control? 

I understand, for example, that there is a preventive spray out 

there that can in fact address the pine beetle issue. The problem 

is that it is very expensive. And so when you look at the pine beetle 

infestation problem that we have, not only in my state, but other 

places around the West, what is the research telling us at this 

8

point in time that we ought to be doing, and what kind of research 

is going on at the Forest Service? 

Ms. BARTUSKA. OK. Well, it certainly is one of the highest-priority areas of research for our western stations; actually, as well 

as our southern research station, through their southern pine beetle program. And what I have seen in the evolution of that research 

is going from the traditional classic just beetle dynamics and beetle 

population studies to: how does the population interact across the 

large landscape because of environmental factors and vegetation 

structure? 

So many of the same environmental drivers that have been creating the excessive fuel problem in the West are also tied to the 

excessive beetle infestations that we have. The bark beetle research 

that we have in our Rocky Mountain station has continued to be 

a high priority, and it is one of the cornerstones of that station’s 

work. They intend to carry on looking at the bark beetle population 

dynamics; again, across the entire landscape. 

But—and I think you pointed out—we are also looking for what 

kinds of mechanisms are available out there to control the spread. 

Some of it will have to be silva-cultural treatments. There is no 

way that I think any spray treatment or chemical treatment can 

address a problem as big as the bark beetles are throughout the 

West. 

If we do some prudent silva-culture management, managing the 

stands, creating healthier stands, we may be able to protect certain 

watersheds, especially high-value watersheds. And I think we have 

some techniques to really protect certain trees when we have high 

value. 

I know in the South one of the concerns is you have a few really 

old pine trees that you don’t want to lose, because they have become icons in the community. So that kind of targeted tree by tree 

we may be able to do with some chemical treatments and developing that methodology. 

There also seems to be some potential for establishing some trees 

that have greater resistance to bark beetles. I don’t know if you are 

familiar, the mechanism to slow the spread of beetles is they throw 

out the resin—pitch it out—and that slows the beetle, and it actually reduces the extent of mortality. And there seem to be some 

trees, some individual trees, that have greater potential to do that. 

If we could, through our breeding programs, establish more of 

those trees, we might be able to actually have certain forest stands 

that have a greater ability to resist the bark beetle. 

Senator SALAZAR. Let me ask you, is there anything in addition 

to what is already going on that we could be doing in the Department of Agriculture appropriations bill? The Senate included an 

amendment in there asking for a report back from USDA with respect to our efforts on controlling the bark beetle problem. 

Do we have enough resources? Are we doing everything we possibly can? If you were queen for the day and your assignment was 

to go and take care of the bark beetle problem, what additional 

things would you recommend that we be doing as a country to deal 

with this issue? Or are we going everything that we can do? 

Ms. BARTUSKA. Well, my guess is that I am sure we have gaps 

in the knowledge to be able to do everything we could do. And I 

9

haven’t seen the report to see what kind of an assessment has been 

done about what our needs are and where our gaps are. That is one 

thing that Rocky Mountain station has been working through, is 

establishing their strategy and their priorities about what the future research program will look like. 

Not having seen it, I can’t really say, I think, what the opportunities are. Certainly, the expansion of looking at the relationship 

of bark beetle populations, infestations, forest dynamics, and 

silviculture, and our management across the entire landscape, is a 

very high priority for us, and it is one that we will continue to emphasize. 

I guess I would like to just mention one other thing. That is, part 

of the reason why the western threat assessment center that was 

established through the Healthy Forest Restoration Act—this is the 

one in Prineville, Oregon—that is one of the roles they will have; 

is to be able to give us some real centralized look at insect problems in the West, and what we could be doing to address them. 

And they have just established, so I would also like to wait to see 

what their plans are coming forward with. 

Senator SALAZAR. I get asked the question almost every day 

when I am out in about 40 counties of Colorado, about what we are 

doing on the pine beetle and what the status of the research is. 

And I would ask if you could get a letter to me—and perhaps 

Chairman Crapo would like one, as well, because I am sure it is 

an issue in Idaho—but that just outlines the research efforts that 

you have underway to try to control this particular problem. It 

would be something that would be very helpful to me. 

Ms. BARTUSKA. We would be happy to do that. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. Dr. Bartuska, while we 

are on the issue of timber, since the passage of the Healthy Forest 

Initiative, I have been very concerned that we find opportunities to 

deal with the biomass that is generated from the activities that we 

have incentivized under that initiative. And I am curious to know 

what the Forest Service has done to develop new commercial opportunities for the biomass that is generated from our timbering activities. 

Ms. BARTUSKA. That certainly is an area that we have been putting a lot of energy into, both looking at what our role is, as well 

as identifying new research. We have worked with the Department 

of Interior and the Department of Energy, through a team that we 

have, to have an implementation strategy for improving woody biomass utilization. So we are trying to make sure that we work 

across the departments to really reduce the redundancies; also, to 

play to our strengths. 

One of the things that we have done through our forest products 

lab is develop composite structural materials. We have been looking at small, portable energy generation plants that you would be 

able to move to communities, to be able to use the biomass onsite 

and turn it right into energy; possibly plug it into the grid, or have 

it produce the energy for a particular building. The Fuels for 

Schools program is a good example of that. 

And we have been looking at different types of housing materials 

that could be used using different types of forest biomass. We have 

also been looking at how do we use the small-diameter material in 

10

new products, in new innovative products, working in part with 

state and private forestry in our cooperative forestry programs to 

establish new businesses that are all around, these new markets 

and new materials. 

So it is both creating the research to identify that new type of 

material; but then also, the technology transfer approach through 

state and private forestry. And then several different organizations, 

including working the Agenda 2020 partnership with industry and 

universities, are looking at biomass as a fuel, ethanol production, 

biomass as part of a bio-refinery concept. 

So I would say we have a fairly good core set of activities that 

are taking place. Our forest products lab, again, is the leader in 

that. We have got utilization units, though, all around the country. 

And I think we have the platform to really making that work. 

I think we probably could do more. We will continue to do more. 

And that is one of our collaborations with the Department of Energy, is to get them to recognize that woody biomass is as good as 

agricultural biomass in some of the programs that they have. But 

I feel very confident that, through our national strategy, we are 

making the right progress. 

Senator SALAZAR. Mr. Chairman, if I may just for a second? 

Senator CRAPO. Yes. 

Senator SALAZAR. I have an Energy Committee hearing that is 

going on. 

Senator CRAPO. Oh, definitely. Please, go ahead. 

Senator SALAZAR. So I am going to be departing in just a second. 

But following up on your line of questions, it seems to me that with 

the major emphasis that we will be putting into the whole notion 

of renewable energy and energy independence in this country, that 

the concept of how we use these biomasses in a productive way is 

very important. 

And I think that it may be useful for us to also get from the research service an overview of how we can take these dead trees 

that we are finding all over the West and try to put them into some 

kind of productive use. 

I know that in my State of Colorado, up in Walden and Jackson 

Counties, there is a co-generation facility that is using some of the 

pine beetle trees to provide heating and electricity for the school 

building. So it would be useful for me if we could get that kind of 

a report from you. 

Senator CRAPO. I think that would be very helpful, as well. And 

maybe we should clarify a little better than we did, Dr. Bartuska, 

that you are willing to respond to both the pine beetle question and 

this question on the utilization of biomass. 

Ms. BARTUSKA. Yes. We will be happy to do that. 

Senator CRAPO. We would very much appreciate that. I think 

that would be very helpful. 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRAPO. Do you have any other questions that you want 

to ask right now, or do you need to get on to your next hearing? 

Senator SALAZAR. You asked the very question I was going to 

ask. 

11

Senator CRAPO. All right. Well, I truly appreciate working with 

you, Senator Salazar. And we have a lot of common issues, and I 

look forward to working with you on them. 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

Getting back to the question of our utilization of biomass, at the 

end of your response, Dr. Bartuska, you indicated an example of 

trying to get the Department of Energy to be more aware of and 

focused on the potential of utilization of woody biomass. 

One of the things that I have observed is, as we identify new 

uses—and, frankly, new products—that can be commercially implemented utilizing this biomass that is generated from our Healthy 

Forest Initiative, one problem we have is developing markets for 

them. 

And I know that the Administration has looked—I think there is 

an executive order that the agencies look at ways in their purchasing and the implementation of their missions; that they look 

to the utilization of biomass. From what I have observed, however, 

it is not working very well. The other agencies are not doing it as 

well as I think we expected that they would, and had hoped that 

they would. 

And I would just like to ask your thoughts on the issue of: across 

the Administration, are we getting the necessary attention focused 

on how to get these markets generated by utilizing the purchasing 

power of the Government, as we move into trying to utilize these 

biomass products? 

Ms. BARTUSKA. I am not totally familiar with all of the different 

opportunities out there from the other departments. I do know that 

because of this working group on woody biomass utilization there 

has been increased discussion going on by the three departments 

I mentioned—Energy, Interior, and Agriculture. So I think that we 

are now starting to get the ideas into the hands of these other departments; and certainly, a lot of the opportunities there. 

One of the things we recognize is that we have done, in some 

ways, a hit-or-a-miss approach, where we have had maybe one scientist or manager approaching someone else and conveying the opportunity; and not done it systematically. So as part of a response 

to that, we have just established a biomass coordinator position operating out of our national office that will try to bring all of the 

different components together, and to be a principal link to other 

agencies and departments. 

I think we also have hopes that the new energy bill will be a 

platform for us to bring some of those ideas forward at the higher 

levels and at the Secretary-to-Secretary level, to increase that visibility. 

Clearly, it is going to take multiple approaches. And I think at 

every different level of Government we are going to be having to 

have this conversation. We are really in some ways just getting 

started. I don’t think we are there yet. But it seems more and more 

we have got the pieces in place to deliver. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, thank you. I appreciate that. And I would 

encourage you to utilize your position in your department to keep 

the pressure on. 

12

I will just give you one example that I am aware of. We had a 

product developed in Idaho. I don’t know the exact name for this, 

but it would be utilizing some of the small timber for stream 

breaks; which was very helpful both in terms of firefighting and responding to erosion problems, and also environmental improvement 

of habitat in the streams. 

But what seemed to me, at least, was that those in other agencies who could use this were already very comfortable with previous products—which didn’t work as well, in my opinion. But 

those who issued the purchase orders had the relationships with 

the providers and so forth in other contexts, and just were not really that interested in focusing on trying to help develop the markets 

for this new biomass. 

And somehow, we have got to get the message, as you just said, 

all the way through to different levels of the Administration; that 

it really is a policy objective that we are seeking to implement 

here. So I just encourage you to help do that. 

We have been joined by two more here, and I would like to give 

both Senator Lincoln and Senator Lugar the opportunity to make 

an opening statement and ask any questions, if they would like to. 

So we will turn first to you, Senator Lincoln. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BLANCHE LINCOLN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM ARKANSAS 

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is certainly 

a pleasure to share this Subcommittee with you, and continue our 

work to ensure the health of our Nation’s forests. 

I have said it on many occasions: I have been so proud of the 

partnership that Senator Crapo and I have been able to forge; particularly during the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, and in some 

of the other issues that we have been working on. It is a very positive step that I think that we have taken together that has brought 

about some results. I have certainly seen them in my state, and I 

know he has in Idaho, as well. 

And certainly, like the Chairman today, I see today’s topic of today’s hearing a very significant component to the health of our forests. I am once again pleased to join the Chairman in looking at 

how our forest research dollars can best contribute to the manageability and the sustainability of our forests. 

We in Arkansas had a very comprehensive meeting in the last 

2 weeks with a lot of different entities through our forest system, 

to really talk about not only how we could be doing a better job, 

but what other opportunities are out there, and how we need desperately to really use the opportunities of research and the tools of 

research to be able to maximize again the manageability of our forests, the sustainability, and the health and growth of those real 

treasures for us. 

So we are fortunate today to have Miss—It is ‘‘Bartuska’’? 

Ms. BARTUSKA. Bartuska. 

Senator LINCOLN. Bartuska, with USDA’s Forest Service. And we 

want to thank you. Your Department certainly provides our Nation 

with invaluable technical research, and that is important to us as 

we are out in the field. We thank you. 

13

And we are also pleased to have with us today another partner 

in this effort, from Arkansas, one of our very own, Mr. Scott Simon, 

who joins us from the Arkansas Chapter of the Nature Conservancy. We have had in our office and with the Forest Service in 

Arkansas a wonderful working relationship with the Nature Conservancy. They have been invaluable to me and to my office, and 

I think to the Forest Service as well. 

And Mr. Simon plays an integral role in making what we do here 

in Washington work out there in the real world. And we are very, 

very grateful. He is a tremendous resource for our state and, as I 

said, to me, personally. So, pleased that he has joined us today, 

and look forward to his testimony. 

Welcome all of our panelists that will be here today. Mr. Chairman, I will submit my entire written statement for the record. But 

I do want to reiterate my support for the Chairman in taking on 

what I think is a critically important issue. Research is absolutely 

necessary, as we see all kinds of different conditions that are 

changing around us—whether it is weather patterns; certainly, 

multiple other conditions and variables that have an effect on our 

forests. 

It is important for us to utilize the kinds of research that we can 

produce, if we are serious about it, in making sure that we do look 

toward the sustainability of our forests. 

Just on one note, I had my children out in the forest last weekend—took me about 2 days to scrape all the mud and rocks and 

leaves and dirt off of them, after they had spent an entire weekend 

out in the forest and along the riverbed. But it also was unbelievable to see the curiosity, the real respect that it generated in two 

9–year-olds to be able to have a forest to play in. 

And I think that we all share that goal and that really deep devotion to making sure that what we do is preserved, those forests, 

for future generations. And with research, we know we can do it 

correctly, and we can do it for many, many years in the future. 

So thank you so much, Dr. Bartuska. We appreciate your being 

here and what you do. And I certainly will look forward to working 

with the Chairman on such an important issue. And welcome to 

Scott Simon. We are glad he is here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, thank you very much, Senator Lincoln. I, 

too, want to say once more how really important our working relationship is to me. I think we have said this before: we got elected 

to Congress at the same time, and we have worked closely together 

ever since, and done a lot of good things. 

Senator LINCOLN. Yes. 

Senator CRAPO. And I appreciate that working relationship that 

we have. 

Senator Lugar. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD LUGAR, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

INDIANA 

Senator LUGAR. Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to be here today 

with you and Senator Lincoln, and to listen to these distinguished 

panelists and Dr. Bartuska leading off. 

Let me just say that I have two major interests in today’s hearing. First of all, in behalf of the 54,000 people in Indiana who are 

14

employed in the hardwoods industry, we are intensely interested in 

the competitive aspects of those industries and those jobs, and have 

become involved in a log scanning project with Purdue. 

And one of the questions that I will raise, but that you might 

want to cover initially, is whether log scanning research is a part 

of the USDA portfolio now. By log scanning, I mean the ability to 

utilize a hardwood log to obtain more board feet from it than is 

currently the situation. 

It is a competitive advantage in which our technical abilities 

need to be employed. It is not the only one, but it is indicative at 

least of the work that our staff in Indiana is trying to do, along 

with the Purdue Hardwood Regeneration Center and the research 

people there, in practical ways of working with the industry. 

In addition, as you know, the Purdue Center is working out what 

might be called the state-of-the-art: how do you arrive at the best 

walnut, oak, maple, or what-have-you? On my own farm, we have 

some of the Purdue research proceeding with the grafting of trees 

and an attempt really, over the course of time, to find the best 

breed; in part, because our country will be more competitive if we 

have these trees and we know more about them. 

As I revealed in the last comment, I am interested in your testimony as a tree farmer, as somebody who consumes this information. We have about 200 acres in hardwoods, along with 200 acres 

of corn and 200 acres of beans: a good portfolio, and a farm that 

is situated inside the city limits of Indianapolis. So as a result, I 

must say, the beauty of the beans and the corn is evident, but the 

neighborhood likes the trees best. 

And they are beautiful. And I have been planting some of them 

in plantations for the last 25 years, learning from foresters in our 

state and around the country what we are doing right and what 

we are doing wrong; having had foresters from around the world 

come through and, sort of with an ‘‘author meets the critics’’ session, listen to what they think about American forestry practices; 

and then, the opportunity to visit with some of these people in 

their home countries, likewise. 

What is evident is that we have great opportunities in the 

United States, because we do have great forest resources. And 

some of these resources have been chopped down in China, for example, or in other countries. And therefore, issues arise as to 

whether we should export logs to China or other places that don’t 

have them: an interesting reverse protectionism, of sorts. 

And all of these issues may be beyond the testimony today; but 

I raise them because they really are vitally important, not only to 

farmers and to producers, but to the industries that are reliant 

upon these folks. And my guess is that the up-side potential for 

these industries is really unlimited, if we do our homework now, 

if the research efforts are available at USDA or with the resident 

colleges that may be helpful; quite apart from the extraordinary 

input from ingenious American industry involved in this. 

So I appreciate the hearing. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman and 

Senator Lincoln, for making this possible. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, thank you very much, Senator Lugar. I 

didn’t realize until today that your farm was inside the city limits. 

That has got to be an interesting experience. 

15

Senator LUGAR. It poses some unusual problems. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CRAPO. Well, Dr. Bartuska has already given her opening statement, and I have asked a number of questions. And so, 

Senator Lincoln, if you have questions, let’s go to you right now. 

Senator LINCOLN. I think it is a broad question and so, for whatever I may have missed in your comments earlier, I think we start 

next year really looking in great earnest at our Nation’s foreign 

policy, as we prepare for the 2007 farm bill. And I guess whatever 

question I may have is, what are the opportunities that you see in 

that upcoming legislation to further the efforts of forest research? 

Are there some specifics there that you hope to see us focusing 

on in the farm bill that would really further research? I just know 

from the meetings I have had at home, there has been an enormous desire, particularly in our home state, to further the research 

that we have in the forestry industry. 

Ms. BARTUSKA. Well, I can partly, I think, answer that, since in 

the Forest Service we have just begun our discussions of, ‘‘What 

role would we be playing in the farm bill, what information, what 

ideas do we want to send forward?’’ Historically, there have been 

forestry titles in past farm bills, and in fact one of them I know 

was focused on forestry research. So there is certainly an opportunity to be looking at that. 

We were talking quite a bit with the Department, of course, 

about what role a lot of the conservation titles that currently exist 

in this farm bill might have, and expanding it to address forestryrelated issues in a much more comprehensive way. 

So to answer your question, I think those pieces are out there. 

We have not, I think, spent enough time to say, ‘‘This is the platform that the Forest Service and the Department want to bring forward.’’ But I do think it is a rich opportunity that we are talking 

about it now and taking advantage of what we saw in the past 

farm bill. 

Senator LINCOLN. Thank you. I know it is somewhat premature, 

and I am certainly not asking for specifics or details. But I do think 

it is an opportunity—certainly for me, and I think the Chairman 

as well—to let you know that I am definitely thinking of those 

things. And I hope that you will work with us over the coming 

months, as we kind of prepare ourselves for that; because there are 

some, as you said, rich opportunities to engage in those discussions. 

Thank you. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. Senator Lugar? 

Senator LUGAR. Secretary Bartuska, you have mentioned in your 

testimony this science you can use—sort of a user-friendly department. And this may just show my lack of grasp of all that you do, 

but what kind of publications do you put out, that reflect the extraordinary gamut of research that you do, that are available to 

farmers at that level? 

I would gather perhaps people in academic institutions may see 

the product of your efforts, or perhaps some of your efforts are giving grants to the institutions so that their work can come forward. 

But I ask this, once again getting back to my tree farmer role. 

The Walnut Council of Indiana puts out a publication; we have 

some tree farmer publications that are state or national, and they 

16

reflect bits and pieces of the research that is going on in America. 

But I have often thought, as I come to these hearings and I hear 

extraordinary issues that are being brought to the fore, ‘‘Where is 

this research?’’ Do I need to send staff coming through USDA or 

the Library of Congress? 

In other words, can you give us some idea of the availability of 

the findings and the materials in a user-friendly way? 

Ms. BARTUSKA. I can give you sort of a broad-spectrum approach. 

First, I would have to say that, just as any research organization, 

where the performance of a research organization is based on peerreviewed publications, there clearly is a responsibility of our 

science to deliver that. But over the years, we have increasingly 

been focusing on how do you translate that science into a form that 

others can read and use. And it is all across the board. 

In some cases, it is through our National Agroforestry Center, for 

example. It is tips for the landowners. It is, how do you put in a 

stand of trees or a wood lot that actually can maximize the return 

on that piece of ground. 

We do have a ‘‘How do you?’’ and ‘‘What is the value of riparian 

forests to buffer?’’—a very simple, threefold kind of document that 

in very clear English shows with pictures and diagrams the value 

of that riparian tree buffer to reduce land runoff into streams, help 

contribute to water quality. 

So we are trying to do more of those. We have actually a great 

publication—and you mentioned, Senator Lincoln, about your children—a thing called ‘‘The Natural Inquirer,’’ which is translating 

into terms that middle-school and high-school students can use 

complex scientific issues. And in fact, our biggest seller was all 

about planning. 

Now, can you imagine kids wanting to learn about planning? I 

mean, I have a hard time wanting to learn about planning. But 

that was an incredible tool; and bringing educators to help write 

that and get the right visuals and the diagrams. And it really made 

it a captive publication and very popular. So we are trying to create 

more and more of those. 

I wanted to mention again the National Agroforestry Center, 

which was recently moved to the southern research station. It is 

operating out of Huntsville, Alabama. And this is one of their principal roles, is to communicate and work and network with the different farm and forest organizations through the region. And actually, they have a national responsibility to broaden out that connection, so that we are producing tools that those particular landowners can use. 

So I am increasingly proud of what our scientists are doing. And 

we are finding that some judicious hiring of people who are trained 

as technology transfer specialists, as opposed to scientists, is really 

paying off in big dividends for us. 

Senator LUGAR. Well, this is good news. Just as a practical matter, do you publish a bibliography of publications? If I ask a staff 

member to come over there, would you have a list of these things? 

I am trying to reduce this down to the grassroots, where I can 

carry around a piece of paper, or a magazine, or encourage others 

to utilize these publications. And I would not be raising the question if I felt that I was over-supplied now. 

17

Ms. BARTUSKA. Yes, I——

Senator LUGAR. It is the other way around. I need, really, some 

help, and I am trying to figure out how I get it. 

Ms. BARTUSKA. We probably don’t have in one place all the publications that have ever been produced. I think we actually are producing over a thousand a year. 

Senator LUGAR. Well, I wouldn’t need all of those. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. BARTUSKA. No, you wouldn’t. So you probably want by subject. 

Senator LUGAR. Yes. 

Ms. BARTUSKA. And you actually ask a good question. I do not 

think we have in one place a list of all of the most commonly used 

publications around a particular topic. But we might have more 

than I realize; and so something like that. And I can take it back 

to our office, and see what they have. 

Senator LUGAR. If you would, and just in the spirit of the question, see what you have, so that—you know, we might order some. 

We might figure out how to get our hands on them, and make them 

available to people. 

Ms. BARTUSKA. Well, that would be great. And I will take that 

back. 

Senator LUGAR. Great. Thank you. 

Ms. BARTUSKA. And I have staff back here who are making notes 

quickly. 

Senator LUGAR. Very good. 

Senator CRAPO. Senator Lincoln? 

Senator LINCOLN. In all this good conversation, I thought of one 

more question. In the meeting that we had in Arkansas on a university campus, talking with forestry industry folks, Forest Service 

folks, and others, realizing the really integral relationship, or the 

integral part that those relationships play, maybe you might comment on the partnerships. I know that partnerships between universities, the Forest Service, our non-profit groups, as well as interest groups—they have all played a very integral role in getting to 

the ultimate, in terms of both research and making sure that we 

have as much information as possible. 

You might comment on your approach to that, as well as your 

thoughts on how important it is to have good strong partnerships 

among a diversity of groups. 

Ms. BARTUSKA. Well, and as I said earlier in my testimony, it is 

one of the most important things that I think we have to do, is establish those partnerships and really enhance them. For one, the 

questions that we have out there, the science issues, are so complex 

that no one organization can do it all. 

I came into this job in January of 2004, and I think I have now 

had five or six meetings, I think, with the university deans—Steve 

will probably correct me if I am off a little bit—on exactly that 

issue. It is not only what are the major science priorities we should 

be working together on, but how do we enhance that partnership? 

And so I think both myself and my office, as well as our station 

directors, are very committed to making that kind of thing happen. 

I think it is just critically important for all of us because the costs 

of doing science has gotten so high that, if you don’t work together, 

18

you are not going to be able to solve and answer all of the problems 

that we have out there. So it just is good business, too, to do that. 

The actual implementation I think is really variable. It probably 

varies as much as the geographic distribution of our research sites. 

In some cases, it is very robust and active, where our dollars are 

leveraging others’ dollars five- or ten-to-one; in other places, it is 

maybe just one partnership, and they could probably be encouraged. But that is something that the station directors are quite 

aware of and really trying to encourage. 

Senator CRAPO. All right. Well, Dr. Bartuska, we really do appreciate the time and the effort that you have given to not only appear 

here today, but the work that you do on behalf of the research that 

is done. 

Ms. BARTUSKA. Thank you. 

Senator CRAPO. And with that, we will excuse you. And we will 

move on to our next panel. 

While our next panel is coming up, I will introduce them. Our 

next panel consists of Mr. Steven Daley-Laursen, who is the Dean 

of the College of Natural Resources of the University of Idaho; Mr. 

David Canavera, Manager of Research and Development, Ecosystems Project, at MeadWestvaco Corporation; Mr. Bob 

Schowalter, who is with the South Carolina Forestry Commission; 

Mr. Robert Daniels, Extension Professor at the Mississippi State 

University; and Mr. Scott Simon, Director of The Nature Conservancy, the Arkansas Chapter, Little Rock, Arkansas. 

Gentlemen, we appreciate each of you being with us. My staff 

tells me we have reminded you that we would like to ask you to 

try to keep your comments to 5 minutes, so we have an opportunity 

to have more time for some give-and-take during our questioning 

period. So I would encourage each of you to pay attention to that 

clock that is front of you, so we can stay on time here. 

Senator LINCOLN. But you haven’t installed the buzzers, like 

Chairman Grassley. 

Senator CRAPO. On the Finance Committee they have a foghorn 

that goes off. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CRAPO. Oh, we have got that here? All right! 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CRAPO. So anyway, gentlemen, we will proceed in the 

order that I introduced you. Dean Daley-Laursen, please start. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN B. DALEY-LAURSEN, PH.D., DEAN, 

COLLEGE OF NATURAL RESOURCES, UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO 

Mr. DALEY-LAURSEN. Thank you for the opportunity to testify 

with the Committee today. My name is Steve Daley-Laursen. I am 

the Dean in the College of Natural Resources at the University of 

Idaho, and also the Policy Chair for the National Association of 

University Forest Resources Programs. We are 69 universities 

across the country where scientists, educators, and extension specialists advance the health, productivity, sustainability, and competitive status of the Nation’s forests through research and education at the graduate and undergraduate levels, outreach, and 

technology transfer. 

19

I want to express great appreciation, Senator Crapo, for your 

style of bringing partners together to discuss issues and seek solutions. You are well known in the State of Idaho for being a leader 

in that regard. It is a pleasure to be here in the spirit of collaboration. 

Today I am going to try to accomplish two things in the short 

time I have. One of them is share with you the elements of the new 

vision of our university forest resource program association, (a vision for America’s forests); and then offer some thoughts that we 

are kicking around with our partners on the enhancement and redesign of our federally funded forestry research and technology 

transfer system. We foresee a working network of partnerships to 

rebuild research capacity. 

So first, to the vision. Our organization has developed this vision 

with three elements: 

First, forests will be managed and conserved to meet changing 

human needs based on local knowledge plus ever-improving science 

and technology; 

Second our forests will be vibrant, resilient, dynamic ecosystems 

that sustain a full array of forest benefits derived from conservation and management strategies across everything from preservation zones to intensively managed zones; 

And finally, forests will be a constant source for learning about 

relationships between people and natural resources, benefiting people and all other forms of life. 

I would like to spend the rest of my time sharing with you some 

of the thoughts, that we have been ginning up within our organization about the redesign reform, improvement and enhancement of 

our natural research technology transfer system around forestry. 

And again, some of these thoughts are real-time; some have been 

ginning up for the last year and a half or so. 

So why do we need redesign and enhancement? I think it has 

been touched on. I would to stress that there are many changes in 

our working environment. I don’t need to list them. They are in the 

written testimony. But we feel the system of research and technology transfer has not kept up with those realities of our changing 

world. 

Increasing demand for research and outreach with reductions in 

public funding creates a tense situation. 

The once strong cooperative research relationship between the 

Forest Service and universities has become more competitive than 

collaborative. It’s no one’s fault. It’s the working conditions—and it 

is not really efficient or strategic. Fiscal conditions exacerbate this 

situation. And with limited funds and a lack of cooperative strategies, we will continue to diminish the science capability of both the 

Forest Service and the university system, ensuring a failure at addressing the Nation’s greatest issues in forests. 

Significant challenges, but surely also opportunities, as we as 

leaders realize, We can redesign and enhance the system when we 

are all paying attention. And we ought to do reform with the best 

interests of the forests and a variety of end users at heart. 

So it is really a call for coordinated leadership. We will only 

make the system work well again if we work together across the 

partners that the Senators have invited today. 

20

I would like to just tick off for you some of the steps we are taking toward reformation of the system. They are aggressive. I think 

they are leadership steps, and they are in concert with the partners 

at the table here. We can come back for more detail on any of them 

that you would like to ask questions on. 

First, our organization is sponsoring the national forestry summit in early January, titled ‘‘Forest Research for the 21st Century: 

Defining Strategic Directions and Rebuilding Capacity for the Research and Technology Transfer Enterprise.’’ I have included in my 

written testimony a list of objectives for the summit, and I would 

encourage you to take a look at those. 

Action two: a formal strategic planning process for the redesign 

of the McIntire-Stennis program, catalyzed partly by our own selfassesment over the last few years, but also by Congress’ leadership 

in raising important questions about base and competitive funding 

over the past year. Funded by a grant from USDA-CSREES, we are 

conducting a multi-stakeholder process to determine best approaches to research priorities, models for allocating base and competitive dollars, and suggestions for methods of assessment that 

will satisfy all parties involved. 

Early stages in those discussions have led to the following categories: innovations suggested in base funding and competitive 

funding combinations; adopting of collaborative investment models, 

where the Forest Service would invest more in the potential of the 

universities; increasing nimble qualities in the Forest Service system; assessment systems, and so on. 

I also want to stress the importance of regional programs. They 

are burgeoning; they are growing; and if we do our partnerships 

right, we will be able to support some very important regional programs. 

Third and fourth are the RREA strategic planning and assessment, I am sure Professor Daniels will mention; and the Outlook 

Project being led by Deputy Chief Bartuska, getting at decisionmakers’ needs in forestry. 

So our member institutions stand ready to invest our intellectual 

energy in this process of working together. We appreciate the opportunity to be here, and look forward to working with you in the 

development of legislation over the next couple of years. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Daley-Laursen can be found in 

the appendix on page 45.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Canavera. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID CANAVERA, MANAGER, FOREST ECOSYSTEMS PROJECT, FOREST RESEARCH, MEADWESTVACO 

CORPORATION, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN FOREST & 

PAPER ASSOCIATION 

Mr. CANAVERA. Thank you, and good morning, Mr. Chairman. 

My name is David Canavera. I am the Manager of the Forest Ecosystems Project for MeadWestvaco Corporation in Summerville, 

South Carolina. 

My testimony today is on behalf of the American Forest and 

Paper Association, where I serve as chairman of the AF&PA’s forVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:40 Aug 03, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\28450.TXT TOSHD PsN: LAVERN
21

est science and technology committee. This particular committee 

has a long history of reviewing publicly supported forest research 

and working with the forest industry to identify research priorities. 

As you know, and as Senator Lugar alluded to, we are very fortunate to have very vast forest resources in our country. But we also 

stand at a crossroads today, because the ability to maintain 

healthy and sustainable forests is closely linked to the ability of the 

United States forestry sector to compete globally. 

New industrial capacity growth in our industry is now more common in other countries where forestry, labor, and environmental 

practices are often not as responsible as those in the United States, 

and inherent land productivity is higher than in the United States. 

As a result, jobs are being exported; domestic demand for industry’s products is increasingly being met by producers in other nations who do not share our high standards and commitment to sustainability. 

For example, today it takes four times as much land to support 

a pulp mill in the southern U.S. than it does in South America. 

This represents a competitiveness gap in forest productivity that 

should and must be closed. 

The Forest Service and other USDA agencies play a central role 

in advancing forestry research in the United States, and its history 

of doing so is fairly impressive. Enhancements in tree growing, 

milling, and product technologies, and in fostering wildlife habitat, 

water quality, other ecological forest outputs, have been possible in 

large part because of research conducted by the Forest Service, universities, and the private sector. 

However, the past is not necessarily prelude to the future. We 

have substantial challenges ahead of us. The dollars for funding research are fewer; the competitive challenges greater. We have to 

develop national research strategies that will lead to bold and substantive new innovations. The entire forestry research community—and especially the Forest Service—should be positioned to 

make giant leaps in research to meet these economic and environmental challenges. 

If we were to compare the state of forestry research with that of 

other disciplines, like medicine, engineering, and agriculture, forestry research lags far behind. Consider for example, research in 

molecular biology is uncovering innovative ways to treat human 

diseases by targeting and destroying harmful cells. But the field of 

molecular biology with respect to tree species is comparatively underfunded and underdeveloped. 

In my prepared document, eight priorities to research as identified by the forest science and technology committee are listed. 

These areas are aimed at maintaining the sustainability of our Nation’s forests; using the wood produced in them as a renewable 

source of material for energy and for carbon sequestration; and in 

making our industry more globally competitive. 

And within the context of these priorities, there are several activities and focus areas where USDA should place its emphasis. 

These include Agenda 2020, which is a technology-driven research 

partnership involving the Department of Energy, the Forest Service, and the private sector. Through Agenda 2020, research is targeted to those technologies that are most promising for advancing 

22

forest productivity, increasing wood utilization, producing energy 

and chemicals, and improving ecological functions of forests. 

Next are integrated forest biorefineries. The forest biorefinery 

concept will enable production of energy and chemicals, along with 

traditional uses of ligno-cellulosic materials. 

Third is the Forest Inventory and Analysis. The importance of 

the FIA program cannot be overstated. Without the basic metrics 

to track and monitor changes to our forests, we will not understand 

how our forests work and function. 

Fourth is the topic area of biotechnology and tree improvement, 

especially the Loblolly Pine Genome Initiative. The application of 

biotechnology to forestry, especially sequencing the genome of an 

important conifer tree species such as loblolly pine, promises to 

open new frontiers in forestry research; enabling, among other 

things, more efficient breeding programs and ecological restoration. 

Finally is the area of forest products utilization, where more efficient and innovative forest product utilization technologies are 

needed. 

Now, none of the above initiatives or programs is possible without collaborative partnership among stakeholders. For example, the 

industry participates in several research cooperatives or works directly with universities to support a number of organizations that 

support research, such as the Southern Forest Research Partnership. And of course, we have a good working relationship with the 

Forest Service Research and Development Program at the national 

level and the regional levels. 

Within the context of CSREES, in particular, I would like to 

point out that the National Research Initiative—NRI—competitive 

grants program is one in which I recommend that the establishment of a separate NRI panel be done for forestry. This would particularly relate to forestry, forest ecosystems, and including forest 

products. 

So in conclusion, I would like to emphasize that targeted research is needed to support sustainable forestry and healthy forests. Sustainable forests are linked to a healthy and competitive 

forest products sector. Without a viable forest products industry, 

there is no economic incentive for investing in sustainable forests. 

Our challenges are substantial. Thank you. I look forward to 

working with you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Canavera can be found in the appendix on page 54.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Schowalter. 

STATEMENT OF BOB SCHOWALTER, STATE FORESTER OF 

SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH CAROLINA FORESTRY COMMISSION, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 

STATE FORESTERS 

Mr. SCHOWALTER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the Subcommittee. On behalf of the National Association of State 

Foresters, I am pleased to have the opportunity to testify before 

you today on the Forest and Rangeland Research Program of the 

USDA Forest Service. 

23

NASF is a non-profit organization that represents the directors 

of the state forestry agencies from the states, U.S. territories, and 

the District of Columbia. State foresters restore, manage, and protect state and private forests across the U.S., which together encompass two-thirds of our Nation’s forests. 

Forest Service research is integral to the advancement of science 

of professional forestry. With the reality of flat or even decreasing 

Federal funding available to forestry research, it is important that 

the Forest Service focus on the highest research priorities and coordinate activities with states, universities, and the private sector. 

First, I wish to highlight an example of coordination that has led 

to improved success in a research project. The Forest Inventory and 

Analysis Program is a 70–year-old program that has successfully 

incorporated new partners. State agencies now help collect and 

analyze data, as well as publicize results. The program provides 

critical information to decisionmakers, including data on forest 

health and sustainability. We applaud the Forest Service’s efforts 

to seek user input in the program, and the development of a new 

FIA strategic plan. 

Even with this success, state foresters wish to see a more transparent decisionmaking process in selecting and funding research. A 

transparent process would reduce concerns about overlapping and 

conflicting priorities among universities and other research partners. 

Forest Service research has established a successful track record 

of addressing issues focused on the national forest system. The 

focus of the agency has now shifted away from timber production 

on those lands. Forest Service research needs to shift its research 

priorities to growing issues, such as timber production on private 

lands, ecosystem services, non-timber forest products, and conservation of private lands. 

The case for an increased focus on state and private forestry 

issues is compelling. Two-thirds of the Nation’s drinking water 

comes from private lands owned by more than 10 million landowners. These 500 million acres of private forests comprise twothirds of all forest land in the country. 

The southeastern United States is the world’s greatest producer 

of timber, and has a significant impact on the regional, national, 

and international economy. Timber, at $22.5 billion annually, is the 

Nation’s second-largest crop, behind only corn. From ozone reduction and cooling in urban areas, to clean water and recreational opportunities in suburban and rural areas, our Nation’s forests, public and private, provide a variety of benefits to society. 

These benefits, collectively known as ‘‘ecosystem services,’’ are 

outputs that benefit society as a whole. Opportunities exist to develop markets for trading credits for these ecosystem services, and 

to help private landowners enter that marketplace. NASF believes 

Forest Service research must take the lead in developing values for 

these services. 

Extensive damage done to forests by hurricanes, wildfires, and 

other natural disasters has put disaster recovery and restoration 

needs in the national spotlight. Convincing private landowners to 

restore their forests, and not to subdivide and sell their lands for 

development, is a challenge for the forestry community. Research 

24

into landowner attitudes, motivations, and trends in response to 

catastrophic natural disturbances is essential. This research should 

be used to guide outreach, education, and incentive work with private landowners. 

Successful forest management by private landowners requires 

viable markets for timber. Researchers at the Forest Products Lab 

in Madison, Wisconsin, are finding new uses for small-diameter 

timber that is removed in hazardous fuel treatments. This technology is also applicable to material removed from hurricane-damaged forests and those damaged by insects and disease. Without 

markets, many private landowners are simply not able to complete 

restoration work. 

Our Nation’s private forest lands are poised to make a contribution to the Nation’s energy needs. Further research is needed to 

better understand the impact and opportunity of biomass energy 

from private forests. NASF supports the expansion of the forest 

biomass research program at the Forest Products Lab and in other 

Forest Service research programs. 

In summary, the Forest Service Forest Rangeland and Research 

Program has a history of success in supporting on-the-ground forestry through technical research aimed at pressing forestry issues. 

The future success of the program depends on its ability to adapt 

to new societal and forestry issues. We encourage the Forest Service to work with the on-the-ground users of forestry research when 

setting priorities and designing projects. 

We look forward to opportunities to provide additional user input 

into the agency’s research and planning process. With sufficient 

funding and coordination with universities, state agencies, and the 

private sector, this program will continue to lead forestry research 

into the 21st century. 

I thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I will be glad 

to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schowalter can be found on the 

appendix on page 60.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Daniels. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. DANIELS, EXTENSION PROFESSOR, 

FORESTRY DEPARTMENT, MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY 

Mr. DANIELS. Good morning, Senators. I am Bob Daniels, from 

Mississippi State University, Forestry Department. I am an Extension specialist there. I want to thank the Society of American Foresters (SAF) for this opportunity for me to be able to testify this 

morning. 

I feel qualified, I guess you would say, to be on this panel in one 

way, because I started my career in Forest Service research; but 

I have spent a lot of my last 20 years or so, you might say, in the 

‘‘user’’ community, in the Extension service, Extension natural resources. Also, I am a leader within SAF, serving on the national 

council. So I have had a great opportunity to get around and speak 

with a lot of my compatriots, not only in Extension at the universities, but lots of foresters on the ground. 

I have given you a lot of similar statements that have been mentioned here by some of the previous witnesses in my written comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:40 Aug 03, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\28450.TXT TOSHD PsN: LAVERN
25

ments, so I won’t go over some of those. But I guess more than 

ever, our forests today are under increasing pressure. We have 

greater needs than we ever have had from our forests in this country. 

And with regard to forest research within the Forest Service, it 

is extremely important, obviously. Well, all of us have been saying 

that. But today I guess I would say that greater collaboration and 

emphasis on high-quality collaboration is needed more than ever. 

And partnerships that some of us have been talking about—Dr. 

Bartuska earlier—they are important for us to create more efficient 

and effective means for translating research. 

And that is really where I think I bring my greatest emphasis 

to this panel, is talking about the transfer of research information. 

And that has been a question from some of the Senators already. 

Many folks in the user community rely on us in the Extension community, Extension foresters, to find and to translate the information. Senator Lugar was talking about, trying to find some publications earlier. 

Extension, however, or the land-grand university system, is not 

directly connected to the Forest Service; not nearly as well as it 

needs to be, in my opinion. We can talk about that in questions, 

perhaps. 

But I have given you an example of a piece of research that was 

translated recently into some really good user information, I think, 

that can be used by some of the Katrina victims down in Mississippi, having to do with timber price dynamics after a natural 

disaster or catastrophe like this. And we can talk about it perhaps 

later. Time won’t permit me now to go through some of that. 

But interpretation of research and application of that research is 

really what Extension is all about, and what I think is really needed in the system that we have been talking about. The technology 

transfer system that has been mentioned already. 

And I wanted to mention—and I am sorry Senator Lincoln left—

that translation (of research findings) occurs not just to tree farmers and other users like landowners, but also down to youth audiences, as well. And that is something we could talk about. I know 

she would be interested in that. 

But there has been a lack of attention, I would say, given to the 

importance of Extension over the years, and funding has been limited, and linkages have been weak. I think that is a very important 

thing that we can do, is to try to emphasize some strength in some 

of those linkages. And SAF believes that a strong relationship and 

formal linkage between the Extension natural resources groups 

and the Forest Service would be very beneficial and is needed in 

the future. Many times, researchers don’t have the incentives to 

ensure that their research gets passed along and applied, so that 

is something we can look into and strengthen and shore up. 

In summary, I guess I would make a few suggestions. Partnerships between Forest Service research and universities and other 

groups should be more greatly utilized. Consistent funding for research, of course, is urgently needed. When speaking and considering about forestry research, the entire knowledge transfer mechanism, including outreach and Extension, should be discussed in 

that whole equation. 

26

Currently, Forest Service research and other research connections with the user community can be improved by a couple of 

quick things I can tick off. One is, create this formal link between 

Extension and Forest Service research, and particularly state and 

private, also. There are some linkages there already. Create incentives for researchers to think about outreach and Extension when 

projects are first being planned. Include that in your planning from 

the very beginning. And provide funding for outreach of technical 

information in project proposals when they are written, also. 

So these things can, you might say, include some of the technology transfer infrastructure that we already have, when projects 

are being planned. I thank you for your attention, and look forward 

to question time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Daniels can be found in the appendix on page 64.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Simon. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT SIMON, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS 

CHAPTER, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY 

Mr. SIMON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Senator Lugar. My name is Scott Simon. I am the Director of the Conservancy’s chapter in Arkansas. And we appreciate you including 

us in this discussion. 

The Conservancy’s million members also appreciate the work of 

your Committee. You have oversight over a significant number of 

programs, and you have had some major accomplishments, which 

we are seeing benefits of on the ground that I wanted to highlight. 

The Nature Conservancy supports sustained funding for the Forest Service research program. We share the goal with Congress and 

the Forest Service that our national forests are a treasured resource and they are to be used and enjoyed for the variety of benefits that they provide. And we see the research arm of the Forest 

Service as instrumental in ensuring that we receive those benefits. 

We think Forest Service research is most successful when it accomplishes, or has as part of it, three main themes, which I will 

highlight. First is connection to on-the-ground conservation and onthe-ground land management that will reduce the risks to the forests. We think that gives us the best bang for our buck, our tax 

dollars. 

Second is when the research is designed as a long-term investment to solve some problem or challenge that is facing all our forests. And then, third, as many of the other panelists have described 

eloquently, is that the research is conducted collaboratively, with 

other partners, private and public and universities. 

An example of the first one, research conducted on the ground, 

I wanted to use one from Arkansas that is applicable to this Committee. Several years ago, people in Arkansas recognized that there 

were major problems in the forest. Over a million and a half acres 

of oaks were dying from an outbreak of a native insect, because the 

woods were too dense. And this committee helped us highlight the 

problem, and a team was formed immediately afterwards, led by 

the Forest Service. 

27

They came together and, in traditional Forest Service style research, developed desired future conditions on what the forest 

should look like, based on historical data; started implementing 

treatments on about 200,000 acres, which is sizable in Arkansas on 

the ground; and then over the last 3 years, have monitored the 

progress to see if we are actually achieving it, and what is the most 

effective way. 

One of the main benefits of this research, in addition to the sustained health of our forest, is that the local communities and the 

people who live there have an increased trust of the Forest Service 

because they participated in the plan, even helped with the monitoring, and they drive by it every day and see these more open, 

healthier forests. 

A second example of these themes would be the Southern Forest 

Resource Assessment, and the benefits of a long-term project. The 

forests in the South provide a significant amount of our Nation’s 

lumber. They also harbor an incredible array of plants and animals. 

But the assessment identified some major alarming trends. The 

forests are being fragmented and converted at a rapid rate—rapidly than we knew about in each individual state. And that is because much of the land ownership is changing in the south. Timber 

companies are divesting of most of their land, and urban centers 

are rapidly expanding as people move to the South. And what is 

happening is we are losing those values from those forests, and it 

is having an economic impact on the area, as the timber industry 

changes. 

The Southern Forest Resource Assessment was critical in identifying these problems. The solution is really to develop a regional 

or national strategy, to be able to conserve these forests for all the 

values we enjoy. And we look forward to working with the Committee on the upcoming farm bill in ways that we can integrate 

some opportunities with the farm bill. 

And then the third example is collaboration. I mean, we believe 

different partners bring different perspectives, ideas, and resources 

to any research project. An example of this is the LANDFIRE 

Project, which was developed under the National Fire Plan and the 

Healthy Forest Restoration Act. 

It is a cooperative effort between the Department of Agriculture, 

the Department of Interior, and the Nature Conservancy. And its 

purpose is to develop the information, the data, the maps, the models, for us to assess the problems in the forests around the country, 

the altered fire regimes, the threat to communities, and to 

prioritize where we should work best to reduce these threats to the 

forests and to protect the values which we value. And it has been 

very successful. 

So in summary, the research projects that we believe have been 

most successful, they have those three themes: a connection to onthe-ground implementation that allows the managers to use the 

work immediately and the research results; second, projects that 

are long-term, that though the final report may come out years in 

the future, there is still information gathered that managers can 

use; and then third, collaboration with other organizations and 

agencies. 

28

Thank you very much for having the Conservancy testify, and we 

would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Simon can be found in the appendix on page 68.] 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. I would like to thank the 

entire panel. You all stayed very close to your time limits, and that 

gives us the opportunity to have some good interaction with you. 

We also want to thank you for your written testimony and the 

efforts that you have gone to to help this Committee get a better 

handle on making sure that we have the best forest research program that we can possibly design and make it work well. 

Dr. Daley-Laursen, I would like to ask a couple of questions of 

you first. How would you suggest that more flexible dollars could 

be brought into the research system to enhance our capacity to respond to these emerging critical issues? 

Mr. DALEY-LAURSEN. Thank you, Senator. Let me go to some of 

the insights that I said I could expand on a bit, that are beginning 

to emerge from our conversations. First of all, to reiterate that the 

base funding-competitive funding combination is a very important 

one, and the flexible funding generally shows up in the competitive 

category. 

And it has been bandied about a bit over the last several years, 

how might that competitive funding be accumulated. Just a suggestion, that perhaps it could be a pool, or pools, that have the following generative characteristics. These pools come about on an annual or multi-year basis. They come about as allocations from a variety of interested mission agencies, and possibly other partner organizations that might be interested in the issues that are identified as priority; not just one agency. 

So the flexibility draws from a variety of places. For example, 

EPA or others might be involved on energy. Traditional forestry 

and big science stuff might draw from USGS, and so on. So specific 

priority issues. Also, you might have RFP management by an external body, a non-profit organization or something like that, loosening up more flexible resources within the Government for distribution. 

Also, we might suggest that the Forest Service could adopt a collaborative investment model, where investments might be made in 

universities where they have strengths, and then investments be 

made in the Forest Service where they have strengths; and we 

don’t try to cover the entire world, both organizations cover all the 

geography and all the issues. This could also result in some additional efficiencies. 

How much do universities and the Forest Service have of their 

base funding tied up in infrastructure and personnel? It is probably 

around 90 percent, on average, for both organizations. And this is 

a significant issue that both organizations need to undertake, and 

we will in our summit. 

It would be better, we think, if the Forest Service could move, 

with its large research budget, toward being more of a broker of 

flexible resources as a result of making some of those kinds of 

changes. Those are just some initial thoughts. 

Senator CRAPO. All right. Thank you very much. I noted with interest your comment that there seems to be more competition than 

29

collaboration in the process currently, if I understood you correctly. 

Could you elaborate on that a little bit? 

Mr. DALEY-LAURSEN. In the simplest form, Senator, it is the fiscal crisis, No. 1, and No. 2, and maybe equally important—and 

when I say fiscal crisis, I just mean low expectation that we are 

probably going to see large increases in budget with large increases 

in demand for our service. But second, and probably equally important, is our attitude and our behavior. 

Regardless of the structure of a system, if the organizations are 

not, by their own mission, seeing a responsibility to collaborate at 

the conceptual level—in other words, think strategically about 

what the issues are, how they can put their resources together in 

a partnership form to complement each other—if you are not doing 

that in the most fundamental way, you are probably less efficient 

than you might be. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DALEY-LAURSEN. So, the efforts to pursue those things. 

Senator CRAPO. I have got a whole bunch of questions, but, Senator Lugar, why don’t you take a shot for a minute here? 

Senator LUGAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask a question that was stimulated by Mr. Canavera’s testimony, in line with 

Mr. Simon. Currently, in our part of the country the ash borer is 

having an impact, principally on ash trees in Michigan, but nevertheless the ash borer has been spotted in northern Indiana. That 

will not be the end of it. 

And essentially, the strategy has been to chop down large swaths 

of ash trees, with the hope that the borer could not transfer. But 

nevertheless, that has not been successful. In due course, why, we 

are going to have a premature harvest of the entire ash tree population, if something is not found. 

Now, this gets back to the research thing—without parochially 

dwelling on Purdue; but this one I am most familiar with because 

I visit with these people constantly about these problems. Two 

years ago, they began at least a concerted effort to try to find out 

how this wave of destiny is going to be met. As is often the case 

with research projects, people talk in terms of 5 years, 10 years. 

There is no particular hint that it may be successful at all. It is 

much like, in a much more cosmic sense, we are all beginning to 

discuss the avian flu, and so we keep going through all sorts of 

manifestations of that problem. 

The ash borer is not of that variety, but having seen the dutch 

elm disease when I was a boy, or a teenager, completely eliminate 

dutch elm trees in our part of the state, why, I am struck by how 

important this is. 

Now, genetic aspects of this are very important, and this is 

why—I don’t call it a genome project at Purdue—but they are trying to find out really what is the constituency of a hardwood tree. 

It is obviously important, I am told, to try to get to how you would 

effect a change in the genetic part, if that is to be a part of the 

solution to the ash borer or any other sort of problem. 

But I am curious as to what your perceptions are, as we have 

these waves. And you mentioned one, Mr. Simon, in your testimony 

of a disease a while back. It is a problem now in the conservancy 

30

of our resources, but a very practical problem to various people who 

have need of these logs, in terms of our industry. 

And I am just curious about your perceptions of what sort of 

progress we are making on genetic research, and whether, in the 

case, say, of the ash borer, this is the proper course to follow in 

terms of the research and how to meet the dilemma. 

Mr. SIMON. Thank you, Senator Lugar. We believe, like I think 

the rest of the panel, that the non-native pests that invade our forests are a major economic threat, in addition to the other threats 

to recreation and wildlife habitat, and it is a major problem. 

Though APHIS is responsible, with the Department of Agriculture, to try and keep them from entering the country, I think 

when they are here, and we have identified that they are a problem, it is the responsibility—the leadership of the Forest Service 

research arm is most critical and needed, working with the universities, to help combat it. 

I am not very familiar with the ash borer in your state, sir; but 

in similar issues that we have had in the South, we have tried to 

address them in two main ways. The first is by taking a good look 

at our forests themselves, and ensuring that they are in the healthiest condition possible. There is abundant information that indicates that healthier forests are able to withstand both native, but 

also non-native, pests better. So forests that are not too dense, that 

are not competing for nutrients and water, and the trees aren’t 

stressed. And that plays into a lot of other national goals. 

And then, the second—and I don’t know that there is a quick 

fix—but the research is really understanding the biology and the 

natural history of the critter, of the animal and how it responds to 

the trees; and also, understanding the trees, as you described, and 

what their genetic susceptibilities are. And then, once we know 

how it works and how the trees are susceptible and how the insects 

take advantage of them, we can develop some biocontrols. But that 

is the only way I know to address it. 

Senator LUGAR. Do you have a thought, Mr. Canavera? 

Mr. CANAVERA. Yes, I do, particularly along the lines of growing 

better trees, where we could build in genetic resistance to particular insects and diseases. In loblolly pine in particular, we have 

made tremendous progress in this area. We have had devastating 

problems with the fusiform rust, which is a major disease in the 

Southeast. And we have made just tremendous gains in our traditional breeding programs to that disease. 

And certainly, with the advent of molecular biology, with the advent of genes that we know impart resistance to particular insects 

and disease, we now have the ability to use these genes and put 

them into a particular species of interest—for instance, the green 

ash—and very conceivably, develop trees which are resistant to this 

insect. 

You mentioned dutch elm disease. That is another very good example of where we could use this technology. Chestnut blight is a 

very good example of where we could use this technology. 

And I think the biggest help we could get from USDA at this 

time would be in studying these trees in the environment, to see 

how they do; and the whole deregulation process, seeing how these 

trees perform across a broad ecosystem. So we need to study the 

31

impact of these introduced genes in the environment, the impact 

they have on native insects, on native diseases and trees. 

So it is a very good area. I think it is a very fruitful area. I think 

it is one which we should be—for instance, the program at Purdue 

is, I think, being very innovative in applying cutting-edge technology to forestry. Thank you. 

Senator LUGAR. Thank you. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. Let me go to you, Mr. 

Schowalter. With regard to your testimony, you raised the issue of 

the process of gathering user input through the Forest Inventory 

Analysis program. Is the FIA program the best method for engaging users, in your opinion? 

Mr. SCHOWALTER. We have been pleased with the results that 

have been undertaken in the past several years. This is a new approach, a relatively new approach, to hold the user group meetings, 

hold them across—I am particularly familiar with the South—hold 

them particularly across the South, and get all the users—industry, 

private consultants, environmental groups—all those to meet together and have input into the whole process. 

And I think it accomplishes several things. It does have the 

groups. You get a better group dialog going. You get an understanding of what each group is looking for, and sort of the recognition that there are going to have to be some compromises made, 

that everybody can’t have everything they would like. So I think 

that helps the Forest Service a little bit in helping set priorities. 

And then, it just gives them the opportunity to hear from a wide 

variety of people at the same time. They sometimes can tend to be 

focused on their needs, and getting that outside input is very beneficial. 

So it has worked well for that program. I am not going to say 

it is the best vehicle for all their programs, but certainly, I think 

it is something that has worked well there. 

Senator CRAPO. All right. Thank you. And also, in your testimony 

you encouraged the Forest Service to shift its research priorities 

more toward private lands issues. Could you expand a little bit on 

the factors that you are focusing on there that encourage that recommendation? 

Mr. SCHOWALTER. Well, they have done an excellent job on National Forest System lands, of course. But the private landowner 

represents the largest single block of forest land in the U.S., twothirds of it, so it is certainly something that needs some attention 

as well. 

With the decline of timber availability in the West on public 

lands, we have seen a shift to private lands. At the same time, the 

whole forestry community has undergone some significant change 

in industry. Globalization has forced a lot of industry to look overseas. So the private landowner is caught in some quandary: there 

is a demand for timber, on the one hand; but there is an uncertainty that the market is going to be there for it in the future. 

And so the role the Forest Service research can play is in helping 

develop new markets. And that can be markets not just for timber, 

but for these ecosystem services that I mentioned. 

Traditionally, the public has looked at clean water, clean air, aesthetics, those kinds of things, as being a sort of a ‘‘freebie’’ that 

32

they get from forest land. And there are some possibilities with carbon sequestration—I always have trouble with that word—and 

water quality, to develop some trading programs, credits, that 

might work to help get some value back to the landowners. 

So I see several areas of research that could be very beneficial 

to private landowners, that I think would help the Nation’s forests 

overall. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. Dr. Daniels, in your testimony, you 

mentioned the need for a formal connection between the Forest 

Service and CSREES. What specifically do you envision as the components of a stronger relationship and formal linkage between the 

extension service and the Forest Service? 

Mr. DANIELS. Well, I would say that, well, we do have two different divisions, you might say, under USDA here. We have the Cooperative Extension System, what used to be the Cooperative Extension System, CSREES, which has a natural resources division; 

tends to be, you might say, agriculturally dominated, all of the crop 

constituencies. But that is where I sit at the land grant university, 

with cooperative extension. 

But we have no formal connection, you might say, to the Forest 

Service. We have been cooperators traditionally over the years; 

known one another and so forth; but there are no funding linkages 

and there are very, I would say, relatively informal linkages between Forest Service research and we who, in extension, natural 

resources, who see—well, we are a technology transfer organization. And to my mind, we are an under-utilized one. We are sort 

of on the team already, but we sit on the bench a lot, you might 

say. 

So what I envision are greater linkages between the Forest Service in the research division and those of us who can translate that 

research, take that research and run with it, you might say, to the 

users, the user communities out there. 

And if we can be brought into the fold on a larger extent, and 

particularly so that researchers in their own mind think about 

technology transfer from the inception of a research project, rather 

than as an afterthought—the example I gave there attached to my 

testimony has to do with timber price dynamics after a natural catastrophe. This is a paper that I found was written by two of the 

Forest Service Southern Experiment Station scientists, published 

back in 2000. 

But it was published—and I think Dr. Bartuska mentioned earlier today about the importance of peer-reviewed journals to researchers—it was published in the American Journal of Ag Economics. Now, I try to watch research publications, but I don’t see 

that one. A lot of users don’t see those kinds of publications. 

So I was able to find this. These researchers looked at the timber 

price dynamics after a natural catastrophe like this. They wrote a 

little model to try to model how prices would change. And it so happens that, to test their model, they used timber prices after Hurricane Hugo in 1989 in South Carolina. 

What they found is that after a catastrophe like this, of course, 

we have a big supply bulge. The prices go down because so much 

timber is damaged. But after the salvage period is over, the residual timber has an enhanced value. It increases in value, once all 

33

the salvaged timber has been either utilized or is no longer any 

good. 

So what we have been able to do is use that to construct some 

what I think is extremely good advice to forest landowners. If you 

have a damaged stand of timber, maybe you have 40 percent of the 

pine saw timber that is still in good condition. Don’t let anybody 

say to you, ‘‘We need to clear-cut the whole thing and start over,’’ 

because that 40 percent is going to have an increased value in 

about a year’s time, probably. 

So I guess what I am saying is, that is an example of how a piece 

of research has been brought out or developed by the Forest Service; but there is a need for folks who can look at it, understand 

what it means, and put it in common language so that that tree 

farmer out there doesn’t make a decision mistake when something 

like this comes along. 

So I would like to see greater linkages between us. We don’t have 

common meetings at this time, for example. We see one another at 

a Society of American Foresters meeting perhaps, or somewhere 

like that, but there is no formal time for us to come together and 

really compare notes. So I would like to see some of that. 

And as I have mentioned, I would like to see researchers begin 

to think more about that application of the research that they are 

developing, from the very beginning; and have some technology 

transferrers—if that is a word—in on things from the very beginning. I think it would be a benefit to all of us, and it would be a 

real efficiency move, as Dr. Laursen was talking about. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. Senator Lugar? 

Senator LUGAR. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Daniels 

has underlined a point I was attempting to make with the previous 

witness, and that is——

Mr. DANIELS. I caught that. 

Senator LUGAR [continuing]. Somewhere there is a lot of good information out there in America. 

Now, a part of the role of our Government ought to be to make 

that information available to a lot of people. Speaking just from my 

role, again, as a tree farmer, information available to me is very 

small. I don’t want to be difficult about it, but I would say somebody in America may be doing something, but I don’t know about 

it. 

I am intensely interested in it, not only as a member of this 

Committee, but as a tree farmer. So in any event, I am hoping we 

can sort of loosen up and find out where these papers are, and who 

is reading what or who is writing what; because the practical comment that you made there is profoundly important. 

On the basic question in my state, it comes down to this. We 

have these 54,000 jobs and an industry that is threatened but that 

needs hardwood. And so they say it takes 70 years for a black walnut to mature. If somebody doesn’t plant some black walnuts in the 

State of Indiana now, conceivably we may get them from wherever, 

but that is less likely—in fact, unlikely to be economical in terms 

of transportation costs and all the rest of it. 

So why would anybody in Indiana want to plant black walnuts, 

or anything else? Now, essentially, I can say, ‘‘Well, you have got 

10 acres there that you are not doing anything with. You used to 

34

have dairy, but there is nothing there now. Why not try out walnuts?’’ Or various anecdotal situations of this variety. 

Well, when I begin to press, ‘‘What are the economics of this? 

Why should somebody invest money in planting those trees, as opposed to the stock market or something else?’’ Hard pressed; without just simply the good humor of it, or they are beautiful, or you’ll 

love the experience, or so forth. 

And what I am really driving at is the need for the plethora—

and we don’t need all the investment letters we all receive almost 

daily of people who want our money for the stock market, the bond 

market, esoteric projects in South America. There are good reasons, 

I believe, to invest in planting trees. And they are the joy of doing 

so; but they can be, over the course of generations, a very profitable 

thing to do, likewise. 

Now, one of the ways they might be that has been touched upon 

by Mr. Schowalter is the carbon sequestration issue. We have had 

hearings before this Committee for at least 5 years, going through 

this. In Illinois, at least some market was established. We even had 

somebody give us some quotes 1 day. But to say the least, you really have to press awfully hard in America to find anything out about 

this, and this is so important. 

For example, here I am with my 200 acres of trees sitting there. 

They are not going to go anywhere. To the extent that I was able 

to make a contract, because of the carbon that I am sequestering 

through those trees, and here right in the middle—not in the middle of Indianapolis, but inside the city limits—a lot of carbon floating around, as a matter of fact; a power and light company would 

be interested in these sorts of things. 

And yet, the inability, in terms of our research and our elements 

of Government, to get people together on these issues is just profound. It simply is not occurring, even though it is floated often as 

an esoteric idea in hearings like this. 

And I am sort of trying to come to grips with how we tell somebody it is a good investment to plant trees; it is a good investment 

to keep them standing there really for long periods of time, and to 

care for them. 

Now, beyond that, I would just say that it appears to me that 

we are going to have to try to think through what the actual marketing situation is. You mentioned sometimes people are fearful because they are not sure a market will be there. 

Now, before Senator Lincoln left—and she will not feel I am betraying her confidence—but she was anecdotally picking up on one 

of your points, ‘‘One of my factories in Arkansas that was dealing 

with hardwoods went to China. And as a matter of fact, they are 

buying the trees that are in Arkansas to take them to China, right 

along with them.’’

Now, it is conceivable that we may, during some phobic period 

in American history, stop trees from getting outside Indiana, or 

quite apart from the United States; but I doubt it. My guess is, the 

market for the trees is going to be there. It may not be in America. 

And that is the importance of working with industry, to sharpen 

up the niches in which we can have an advantage. I mentioned this 

more careful utilization of every board foot out of a hardwood log—

tremendously important. We can do those kinds of things to get an 

35

edge. We will have to do them. For our furniture people in Indiana 

simply to say, ‘‘Our market is being stolen. What are you going to 

do for us?’’ Well, not very much, unless you shape up your business 

plan. 

But the amount of information—I would just get back to this—

floating around as to how this might be profitable for anybody is 

pretty thin. And I just conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying there are 

some people who spend a lot of time with this—more than the 

Chairman and I can. 

I was reading of the success of the Harvard endowment. Now, 

they have invested in trees as a part of their portfolio. Well, my 

eyes lit up. How in the world would they have come to that conclusion? Well, they have come to the conclusion because they have had 

some time to analyze the long-term value of this kind of investment 

and how it stacks up with all sorts of other things. And this is an 

extraordinarily successful endowment plan; sort of the gold standard, of sorts, in Forbes or what-have-you that rate these situations. 

But trees are a part of this portfolio. 

And so it appears to me that there is some information out there, 

but it is not really getting down to this person I want in Indiana 

to plant 10 acres of trees, or 30 acres; do something that really enhances. Now, thank goodness, some people are doing it anyway, because they simply love forestry; and more power to them. But to 

be serious about this, we will need to do this. 

So my plea is to each of you, in your own way, as advocates within your group, as it was with our Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, to help us disseminate the information that really gins up 

enthusiasm for what we are talking about today. 

That is really not a question. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DANIELS. You needed that to vent. You needed that. Yes. 

Senator LUGAR. I get so carried away by the testimony and by 

the occasion. Do any of you have any comments on all of this? 

Mr. DANIELS. I would make a comment. I spend part of my time 

in extension in Mississippi. See, I teach a little short course for forest landowners, called ‘‘Analyzing Your Forestry Investment.’’

Senator LUGAR. Oh, there you go. 

Mr. DANIELS. And the whole idea is applying, you might say, economic decisionmaking to growing trees. Now, we have an advantage in Mississippi over Indiana, I would say. Our rotations are 

shorter and—well, pine saw timber values are a little bit lower 

than number-one walnut logs, but there is a whole lot more of 

them. So I tell landowners—and it is easy to show, in present value 

analysis—that growing pine saw timber in the South is a good 

place to put your money. 

And I am quick to say that it is not the first place; it is not a 

‘‘get rich quick’’ kind of enterprise. And it is something that you 

shouldn’t put your money there first. If you are a family person, 

you need to have insurance and savings and all those other things. 

But once you do have a little bit of extra money, it certainly is a 

competitive place to invest your money. And I am confident it could 

be shown for walnut in Indiana. But there are other reasons. 

Senator LUGAR. But you have a disciplined course of study——

Mr. DANIELS. Absolutely. 

36

Senator LUGAR [continuing]. In which you are able to impart to 

students this sort of information. 

Mr. DANIELS. Well, for forestry students, natural resource economics or forest economics is a required course. So that is coming 

through in our education system. 

Senator LUGAR. Yes. 

Mr. DANIELS. But it is a case that can be made. 

Senator LUGAR. Pardon me, Mr. Chairman, just one more anecdote. We have a lot of yellow poplar in Indiana. It grows along 

creek beds and rivers and so forth——

Mr. DANIELS. Great tree. 

Senator LUGAR [continuing]. Almost like weeds. That is not comparable to your good logs in Mississippi. But nevertheless, it may 

be the board-foot value of a 10th, or even a 15th, of a veneer walnut log, let’s say. Now, I routinely have harvests of poplar trees on 

my farm, because they grow, as I say, very, very rapidly. 

Mr. DANIELS. They do. 

Senator LUGAR. In the past, the value wasn’t so good. But now 

our forest industry—that is, the furniture people—other people 

have come in, with the benefit of research, and they said, ‘‘If you 

add a particular substance to this poplar—’’ I don’t know whether 

it stiffens up the log, or it changes the—‘‘but you can get a mighty 

good piece of furniture out of this. This is not the same old poplar 

it used to be, the combination.’’

So as a result, what is sort of a short-term situation here can become a long-term business in the manufacture of this thing. And 

it is this combination of these two groups working together—those 

who are the growers, the private owners; and the industries and 

the research community—that can transform even these cycles that 

are not so long for some of our logs. 

Thank you. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, thank you very much, Senator. And we always tend to run out of time in these hearings before we run out 

of questions; although I do want to ask another couple of questions 

before we wrap up here. And certainly, Senator Lugar, if you have 

got any more, we will do that. 

But Mr. Daley-Laursen, I wanted to ask you if you would talk 

for just a moment about the concept of organizing our research at 

the regional level, and what your thoughts are on that, and how 

we can best achieve that type of an objective, if we should. 

Mr. DALEY-LAURSEN. Thank you, Senator Crapo. And if I could, 

Senator Lugar, I will send you a letter with some comments on 

your question on genetics, and also on the last conversation. Very 

good questions, and things that we are all worrying about. 

Senator Crapo and Senator Lugar, the point about regionality 

was, first and foremost, to say that the best and brightest people 

are figuring out that this is a very efficient and effective way to operate. I think it is partly because, for ecological reasons, cultural 

reasons, political reasons, economic reasons, regions have identity, 

and regions have character; and so issues are common in them, and 

so there are efficiencies in people coming together. I want to state 

that that is a simple point, but a profoundly important point. 

So good people are rallying at the regional level. There are examples right now of places where The Nature Conservancy, Forest 

37

Service, state and private forestry, NASF, universities, whatever, 

in various combinations are coming together around policy, law, 

and science, at the regional level. They are coming together around 

watershed cooperatives, paired-study watershed cooperatives that 

can only really be done across massive landscape and, largely, industry-university cooperation. 

Fire management and restoration is another one where there is 

a regionality. 

And the last example I would share with you relates to Senator 

Lugar’s point. Web-based interfaces for landowners, that bring together at that interface people who are scientists who have data information, models, and predictive ability. On the other side of the 

interface is the landowner or the person who is in the business of 

making decisions about whether land should be converted: TNC 

folks like Bill Gann, working investments in nature; industry folks 

wondering, ‘‘Should we convert to a TEAM or a REIT, and who do 

we trade with?’’; small landowners who are like so many millions 

of others—38 percent of the housing starts in this country are in 

the wildland urban interface; landowners who are faced with decisions every day about, ‘‘In my heart and my head, how do I make 

a decision about whether that should become a housing project, or 

whether I should keep it in my family? Can I make money? On 

what?’’ So that is another way that regionally we are beginning to 

see some cooperation. 

Senators I wanted to—and I could go around and around and on 

and on about this, extolling the virtues of various groups that are 

already making this happen. You both probably heard at the White 

House conference many examples of collaborative conservation, as 

it was dubbed by the Administration. I would urge people to look 

at the 150 examples. Almost all of them have a regional flavor to 

them, and can give us some instruction. 

And the last thing I would suggest is that we have some models 

out there that we could play with more: the USGS model of cooperative fisheries and wildlife programs that bring agencies and universities together around regional issues; cost-sharing situations; 

CESUs, cooperative ecosystem study units. These are mechanisms 

that currently exist that we can use to build on the power of regional programs. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, thank you very much. And as I indicated, 

I have a lot more questions than we have time. In fact, we have 

already started to push ourselves a little bit, with regard to other 

obligations. 

So I am going to have to wrap up the hearing; although I do have 

a number of questions for each of the witnesses, and would ask if 

you would mind if we could submit them to you in writing and get 

some responses from you on them. 

And other Senators may want to do the same thing. So we will 

try to collect any of those kinds of questions that others who 

weren’t able to get here, or who didn’t get to ask all their questions, might want to ask you to respond to. 

I again want to thank all of our witnesses for the excellent input 

that you have provided. This is a very critical issue, and one which 

we intend to pay very close attention to. I think you can see that 

there is a real desire to make sure that we get things working even 

38

better than they are now, and to improve our performance here. 

And we look forward to working with you as we seek to achieve 

these objectives. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. And thank you again, all, 

for your support. 

[Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(39)

A P P E N D I X

OCTOBER 27, 2005

40


28450.001
41


28450.002
42


28450.003
43


28450.004
44


28450.005
45


28450.006
46


28450.007
47


28450.008
48


28450.009
49


28450.010
50


28450.011
51


28450.012
52


28450.013
53


28450.014
54


28450.015
55


28450.016
56


28450.017
57


28450.018
58


28450.019
59


28450.020
60


28450.021
61


28450.022
62


28450.023
63


28450.024
64


28450.025
65


28450.026
66


28450.027
67


28450.028
68


28450.029
69


28450.030
70


28450.031
71


28450.032
72


28450.033
73


28450.034
74


28450.035
(75)

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

OCTOBER 27, 2005

76


28450.036
77


28450.037
(79)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

OCTOBER 27, 2005

80


28450.038
81


28450.039
82


28450.040
83


28450.041
84


28450.042
85


28450.043
86


28450.044
87

Æ


28450.045