An Interview with

Ann Bartuska,

The Nature Conservancy

 

By Daina Dravnieks Apple

Vol. 23 Number 1,  2002

 

 

 

Dr. Ann Bartuska was Director of the Forest and Rangeland staffs, U.S. Forest Service, until September 2001.  At that time, she left the Forest Service to take a position with The Nature Conservancy.  As part of the organization's national staff, she heads their new Invasive Species Initiative.  Dr. Bartuska is also the current President-Elect of the Ecological Society of America.  Section Editor Daina Dravnieks Apple interviewed Dr. Bartuska for Women in Natural Resources in July 2001.

 

 

Women in Natural Resources:  As you were the first Director of the newly merged Forest Management and Range Management staffs, could you tell us exactly what the position entailed? 

Ann Bartuska:  While the position was not yet official [in the summer of 2001], we had begun calling the merged Forest Management and Range Management staffs "Forest and Rangelands."   We deliberately kept the word "management" out of the new title, because we believed some of what we would do is not associated with management, but rather with furthering the understanding of those ecosystems. 

WiNR:  Do the title and staff changes reflect any changes in Forest Service resource management policies and practices? 

Bartuska:  I think this merger is a logical evolution.  Personnel in the Washington Office are actually a bit behind the curve, so to speak.  Many of the Forest Service regions have already merged the two to better consider vegetation management.  This merger allows us to look at the continuum of vegetation issues, from the grasslands to the riparian systems to the forested ecosystems.  

And, I think we still have some very clear responsibilities on the product side.  We have forest products, which is the timber piece, as well as special forest products.  We do a lot of work with botanicals, with such things as beargrass collections, as well as grazing administration.  We think this merger will really help us bridge gaps across the vegetation continuum, and it also reflects the trend in management to view things from an ecosystem perspective, rather than from a use perspective.   

WiNR:  There's been a progressive reduction in the amount of timber cut off of National Forests for about the last ten years.  Do you think that this new staff structure is a response to that reduction, and perhaps a response to the increasing demand for other types of forest products, such as mushrooms or other botanicals? 

Bartuska:  While I do think that this is a planned, conscious decision on the part of the agency to move in the direction I've described, I'm not sure that there really is cause and effect between the change in timber harvest and this restructuring of the staff.  However, I think it is probably fair to say that the resources needed to run a 12 billion boardfoot timber harvest program [nationally] required a very large amount of "people effort" focusing on the accountability associated with such a large operation.  And, as the timber program has been reduced, these same people have had more opportunity to use their skills and expertise to look more broadly at the ecosystems under Forest Service management. 

            To me, it has never made sense, for instance, to develop an inventory and monitoring system that is plot-based for vegetation that looks at grasslands in totally different ways than it does forestlands.  We ought to be able to integrate these data, and I think this new approach will really help to facilitate that. 

WiNR:  The Forest Service had a new Chief appointed in April 2001.  Chief Dale Bosworth's background as a professional forester and former Regional Forester seems to be very acceptable, that is, appears moderate, to both the environmental community and more commodity-oriented interests.  Where do you see the agency headed under the leadership of Chief Bosworth? 

Bartuska:  I think the appointment of the new Chief is very exciting.  I think he brings a solid grounding in how natural resource management needs to work to be successful.  He was Regional Forester in Region 1, and that area has both some of the most pristine lands in our nation, as well as some areas that were very actively managed.  Region 1 includes northern Idaho and western Montana, and is a very complex terrain.  There's also intense social interest in this region.  It's a place where we've had some very active timber harvest and grazing programs historically, but also some fantastic wilderness areas are found there.  So, both ends of the spectrum are well-represented in that Region.

            The new Chief brings to his job a solid grounding in how "today's forests work" as well as the views of the American public.  He understands how people at the local level think about  these forests, and how they can benefit from them.  This practicality is really important, especially in a position that will be busy and full of so many tasks, jobs, agendas, and goals.  In my experience with Dale Bosworth in the past, his pragmatism has always helped him to find the way to make things work.

            With that said, though, I don't think he will take the Forest Service back to a time, say 20 to 30 years ago, when the agency had a very different way of doing business.  I think he'll use his pragmatic approach to address today's issues.  For instance, I know he has high respect for what his predecessor, Chief Michael Dombeck, did with highlighting the need for greater consideration of roadless areas.  I think that many people in the Forest Service feel really good about what Chief Bosworth will bring to the agency. 

WiNR:  Let's discuss some of the social issues in forest management that you alluded to.  Can you go into more detail regarding what you see as the important social impacts on natural resource management? 

Bartuska:  We have a large segment of the American public wanting to protect lands, wanting to protect their legacy, even though they never see these lands.  We also have small communities, throughout the western U.S. in particular, but even in the eastern U.S., that are dependent on our federal lands—National Forests included.  If people in these communities don't have the ability to use these federal lands as part of their economic base, we will loose these communities. 

I think it will be a real tragedy to loose this part of the American landscape.  These rural communities are part of our culture.  For instance, it would be a real tragedy if we could not go out west and find cowboys.  And, the public doesn't want cartoon cowboys or TV cowboys, they want real, working cowboys.  There has been an increase in Americans taking vacations where they work the ranch for a week.  So, there is real interest in this way of life, and in preserving it.

This is a real social dilemma, because to keep these kinds of communities, they have to have a way to survive economically, and that can often mean that there needs to be jobs associated with those nearby public lands.  I think that one of the transitions we are going through, though, is that now those jobs don't have to be timber jobs or grazing jobs.  Those kinds of jobs might be included, but there could also be restoration jobs.  We have the opportunity to create a much more dynamic market and to diversify economies at a local level.  There are some tools that the Forest Service has been trying to use through our State and Private program that approach this problem.  For example, the Economic Action program helps give a little jump-start to a community to try something new and to build new businesses.

Another social issue that we will continue to grapple with concerns recreation: how large can recreational use grow on federal lands, before it acquires the same potential destructive force as, in the view of many people, cutting down timber.  I think the potential is there for recreation to become destructive—the idea of overuse to such an extent that we "love a place to death."  In Yellowstone, Yosemite, and other places, that's a reality.  And another issue is global population pressures.  This past year our human population hit 6 billion worldwide . . . there are so many factors and issues that intersect on federal lands and have an impact on resource management.

Another issue of great concern to me is invasive species.  Social and resource policies and actions are impacting the invasion of non-native species into our natural ecosystems.  People move around so much these days, across states, across the country, and in other countries.  Our lifestyle allows extensive travel, and it's so very common for people to vacation overseas.  One day you can be walking in the bush somewhere else on the globe, and the next day be back in your own backyard, but with the same shoes on, and this is just one way that you can bring back "uninvited guests" such as the seeds of non-native plants.

And it is also very common these days for timber to be imported from other countries, such as Canada.  There has been tremendous growth in trade with Asian countries and imports from them, such as China.  So, there is only increasing potential for non-native invasive species to come in and change our landscapes dramatically.  

 WiNR:  You've been heavily involved in the development of a national policy for the containment and eradication of invasive species.  How did you get involved in this? 

Bartuska:  In 1994, I became the Director of the Forest Health Protection Staff of the Forest Service.  I held that position for 4 1/2 years.  We had the responsibility for working with forest insects and diseases, but we also expanded into providing technical support for dealing with non-native weeds.  It was through that experience that I became aware of how widespread the impacts of these invasive species are throughout our country, and around the world.  Because of invasives, we loose production, loose access, or have to pay for treatments—all of this adds up to an impact on our economy that totals in the billions of dollars annually.

            An example is kudzu in our southern forests.  In order to keep these forests viable, we have to keep the kudzu out, and that eradication costs money. 

But besides this clear economic cost, invasive species also impact us and our natural ecosystems through loss of native biodiversity.  Over half of the species present in Hawaii today are non-native invasive species, and these populations are continuing to expand there.  It would be a real shame to loose the native ecosystems of the Hawaiian Islands, and that's true of other native ecosystems that are under threat from invasive species today.  The eastern oak woodlands have been under attack from Gypsy moths now for about a century, and the moths continue to move south.  

WiNR:  One problem is that some of these invasive species are very attractive and people unknowingly spread the problem by choosing to use them.  Can you describe an example of this? 

Bartuska:  Purple loosestrife is a good example—it's a tall, elegant flowering plant that many people like to see in their backyard gardens, but it's a rampant invasive and does spectacularly well in the wild once it spreads from those gardens where it has been intentionally planted.  It continues to be sold in plant nurseries, so we aren't doing very well from an educational standpoint yet, so that everyone understands the impact of these non-native species.  There are plenty of native plants for the backyard gardener to use that are equally as beautiful.  I think that working with nursery growers and retailers will be key to getting control of the spread of many of these invasive non-native species. 

WiNR:  Explain for us why these non-native species are "bad." 

Bartuska:  These species are categorized as "invasive" because, as non-natives, they flourish in the environment and yet have no natural deterrents, such as a predator if the non-native species is an animal or an insect, or some other limiting factor, if the non-native is a plant.  Native species generally do not spread uncontrollably because there are other components of the ecosystem that constrain the population after it reaches a certain point.  This might be disease or it might be a competing species. 

            The non-natives spread, and continue to spread, unchecked by limiting factors.  An example form Hawaii is Miconia.  It's a beautiful plant with wide purple leaves.  It will grow so that it takes over an area completely, and shades the area so that the entire groundcover is lost.  Then the area is very susceptible to erosion, and when heavy rains come a lot of the soil will be washed into streams and the hydrology of the watershed is changed.  The loss of water quality and quantity downstream is an impact that people readily understand.

            If we have to prioritize our "hit list" for invasives, I think we should be going after these types of species that wreak such major havoc on local ecosystems.  

WiNR:  Educating people seems key to success.  Perhaps focusing on nurseries is an excellent place to start. 

Bartuska:  The states have been involved in combating invasives for quite some time.  Weed boards have been focused on invasive species for years, first in agricultural areas but more recently in other areas focused on natural resources.  The work done at the local level by these weed boards is remarkable.  They have been involved in developing educational materials both for schools and for the general public. 

WiNR:  Your professional background is unusually varied, compared to former Directors of both the Timber and Range staffs in the Forest Service.  Will you tell us about your personal history? 

Bartuska:  Let me start at the beginning—well, not all the way back!  When completing my graduate degrees, all of the research that I have done has dealt with disturbed landscapes.  I looked at surface mine impacts during work on all three degrees that I hold.  I conducted an undergraduate research project when studying for my Bachelor's degree in Biology at Wilkes College in 1975, and I also conducted research for my Master's and my doctoral degrees [these degrees were in Botany (M.S., 1977, Ohio University) and Biology (Ph.D., 1981, West Virginia University)].  So, I've been interested in the ecological issues on disturbed landscapes for a long time. 

            As a Ph.D. student, I realized that I didn't want an academic career.  After completing that degree, I moved with my soon-to-be husband, Mark Walbridge, to Chapel Hill, North Carolina, where he went to graduate school to complete his Ph.D.  I spent almost a year in a job that I still believe was the worst of my life—it was in a testing laboratory—and then I got a position at North Carolina State University as a Program Manager.  It was a non-tenured position and I was subject to the vagaries of the annual budget cycle at the university.  There was no guarantee of continued employment, but I was in that job for seven years. 

This was in the 1980's and the NAPAP program—the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program—was starting off.  That program may be unique in the annals of government in that it was designed as a 10-year research program that would culminate by feeding results into the revision of the Clean Air Act in 1990.  The research program got off the ground in 1981.  Using extramural funding, it was designed to look at atmospheric processes, terrestrial effects, aquatic effects, and assessment technology.  I landed a Program Manager at NC State, which was managing the "effects side" of the program.  We started out with about $6 million annually, funded through the Environmental Protection Agency and the Forest Service.  When I left that position seven years later, the terrestrial segment of the program had grown by an order of magnitude, especially concerning some of the issues surrounding the effect of acid precipitation on forests and impacts on agriculture.

So, that position gave me a solid background in science program management.  I changed from an academic to a federal employee in that same job.  I transferred to the Forest Service and continued to manage the program.  That gave me the opportunity to get into Forest Service Research.  I was Assistant Director of the Southeastern Experiment Station for two years, and I managed all the agency research in Georgia and Florida from 1989 to 1991.  

WiNR:  That research unit is now part of the Southern Research Station, as two units were combined in recent years to form the Southern Station. 

Bartuska:  Yes, that's right.  My career with the Forest Service continued when I moved to Washington D.C. in 1991.  And, five positions later, here I am!  Those positions included the first Director of Ecosystem Management in the Washington Office, reporting to two Deputy Chiefs, which was a fascinating situation.  I was also Forest Service liaison at the National Biological Survey in that agency's introductory year.  I was a Special Assistant to the Director, and had some incredible experiences in that position for a year.  After that, I came back to the Forest Service and was the Director of Forest Health Protection, and then I moved into the Forest and Rangelands position.

            So, I had five jobs in ten years, and am very grateful for the wide variety of professional experiences I've had.  I have made many contacts over the years that I continue to really appreciate.  When I was working in the Department of Interior for a year [with the National Biological Survey], we worked a lot with states and with museums around the country, including the Smithsonian—it was a very different job from those I have held in the Forest Service. 

WiNR:  You seem to seek out opportunities that are beyond the confines of any given job, and the broad spectrum of your interests seems to lead you to new things. 

Bartuska:  Well, I think I've been the recipient of a little bit of luck along the way.  Several times, it's happened that a position has opened right about the time that I'm looking, and I'm there.  But clearly one of the things that has helped me is my predilection for collaboration with other people.  I do enjoy "crossing boundaries," and a lot of my jobs have been of that nature.   I believe that my strong ecosystem background has helped me to be flexible.  I've worked in wetlands, ecosystem management, forest pest management, and forest and rangelands.

            One key to my flexibility, a key to my career, is my strong liberal arts background.  My undergraduate program was a biology degree at a liberal arts university, where I was introduced to a whole lot of stuff in lots of disciplines.   

WiNR:  Who would you say has had the greatest influence on your development, both personally and professionally? 

Bartuska:  I can't pick one person!  There have been several.  First of all—and it may be a bit of a cliché, but it's true—as for many of us, my parents really helped set the stage for me.  Both of them are professionals.  My mother is a physician who also taught.  She is an Endocrinologist who specialized in the thyroid gland.  She taught, she mentored students, she had a practice, she was on the lecture circuit—she was involved in an array of things.  She brought a strong science perspective to our household. 

My Dad was very active on his career path as an engineer working in marketing for RCA, but he also shared a lot of the family responsibilities.  Both of my parents made a point of putting work aside when they came home at the end of the day, and focussed on the family.

So, my parents set a strong foundation for me.  I trace my interest in science back to my childhood.  Then, I discovered ecology when I was an undergraduate student.  I didn't focus on it at first—I was attracted to the biological sciences, but knew I wasn't interested in medicine.  I took some courses in animal behavior and a few other things, and then I took an ecology course, and just went, "A ha!"  I found the thing that brought all the pieces together.

There have been a number of important people for me along my career path.  One that stands out, though, is Lamar Beasley, my boss [Station Director] at the Southeastern Station.  He was a mentor, and taught me a lot about how to do a manager's job in the social sense.  He gave me a lot of room to try new things.  He brought me along to Capitol Hill once a year, when we spent a solid week knocking on every door of the congressional delegations from our region.  We met with the members and staff, talking about our Station scientists and the work they did.  That required that I know something about all of those many scientists, for one thing, and something about all the Projects [scientific work units].  I was their "marketer" in those meetings, and a spokesperson for the quality of their work.  I think I was already very technically grounded when I started that job, but working in that important social environment was new to me, and so that experience really made quite an impact on my professional development. 

WiNR:  Plus, you got a great deal of political training with that experience.  I think a lot of natural resource professionals avoid that arena, because they aren't comfortable doing that kind of work.  Many view it as, perhaps, less ethical or less pure, than doing work in a technical field.  

Bartuska:  Yes, I agree.  And yes, it is rather unique to blend science and politics.  I've been asked many times to talk about "scientists as advocates."  In my experiences on Capitol Hill, I learned that you don't have to lobby for funding—you can simply speak to the value of the work to answer a question.  Identifying that question for people is key to explaining the value of the work.

            As an aside, one of the things that I've really enjoyed in recent years is being very active in the Ecological Society of America in public affairs.  I've helped address the issue of assisting academics to become more effective communicators about the really great science they do, but that nobody knows about because nobody is using it.  I focussed on this issue both as Vice President of ESA for Public Affairs, and through a program I'm involved in called the Aldo Leopold Leadership Program.  This program operates through Oregon State University on a grant from the Packard Foundation.  I have worked with the program twice a year for the last three years.  We take mid-career ecologists, 20 at a time, and run them through two one-week programs teaching them how to craft their messages.  We focus on how to talk to the media, to Congress, to the public, even to their peers outside of the typical setting of a scientific meeting.  We teach them all the "small things," such as including a half-page summary that would be appropriate for the general media with each scientific paper they publish. 

If we don't get our science into the public decision-making process, it won't be used.  Our science won't get into that public process if people don't understand our science.  And, people don't understand typical scientific publications!  I think these kind of programs are really, really important.  I think I'm fortunate in that I developed some communication skills early on that have served me well, and I just keep fine-tuning them. 

WiNR:  Your husband, Mark Walbridge, is the newly appointed Chair of the Biology Department at West Virginia University.  As a dual-career couple, how have you worked out the typical issues?  For instance, how have you worked out the issue of job location for the two of you? 

Bartuska:  Well, for us, as for many couples, we have the constant concern over who applies for what, because of the impact on the other person.  We've been fortunate in that we've only had to move a few times in our careers.  The move to West Virginia will be our third move.  I think the way we've worked out the issue of career moves is that I've had some flexibility in career options.  I have been the one to follow along, but I've been able to find great job opportunities for myself with every move.  My flexibility has enabled me to make choices that have resulted in a really positive career path, with no downside.

            We did have a bit of a conflict a few years ago, when my husband was offered a job at George Mason University in Washington D.C. and in the same month—actually it was the same week!—I was offered the Assistant Director job at Southeastern Research Station, and my job was in Asheville, North Carolina.  So, we had a commuting marriage for about two years, out of two households; one in Chapel Hill, North Carolina and one in Arlington, Virginia outside of Washington.  And because of that experience, I'm following my husband within three months in this third move to West Virginia! 

WiNR:  What are your plans? 

Bartuska:  I was looking at different opportunities with the Forest Service since I knew I would be moving to Morgantown, West Virginia.  But, given my current grade level, the opportunities are limited in the agency.  I learned of a position with The Nature Conservancy, though.  They were looking for an Executive Director for their brand new Invasive Species Initiative, and a colleague asked me for some ideas on people they could contact as potential candidates for the position.  When he first asked me, he jokingly asked if I would rather forward my own name, but at the time I wasn't thinking along those lines and declined.  But he recently asked me again, and I thought, well, what if I could do that job out of Morgantown?  The Nature Conservancy (TNC) was looking to fill the position at their headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, but when I approached them with this idea, they said yes.

            I will be telecommuting, with frequent trips to the head office and Washington D.C.  I'll also be traveling quite a bit, as the job has national and international responsibilities.  I can't describe too much more about the job, because as the year continues, I'll actually be helping to craft the position.  It will involve government relations work, and also introducing invasives into the management activities of TNC.  This organization has been at the forefront of work on invasives, identifying the problems.  I'll also be helping with fundraising to support the invasive species efforts that TNC will undertake.  So, there are some new challenges for me, but I am confident I'm up to them. 

I was with the Forest Service for 14 years, and thought I'd continue with the agency, possibly until retirement.  But I'll continue to visit the Forest Service often, I'm sure, because that agency is one of the strongest partners TNC has in the federal government, working on invasive species problems in all three branches—the National Forest System, Research, and State and Private Forestry. 

WiNR:  In the fall of 2001, you will become President-elect of the Ecological Society of America.  Can you tell us about this organization and some of the work you've done with ESA? 

Bartuska:  I've been a member of ESA since 1977.   I was also Vice President for Public Affairs from 1996 to 1999.  When I was approached with the idea of my nomination for President of the Society, I jumped at the chance.  I discussed it with my then-supervisor, and he was very supportive.  I was excited to be the first Forest Service President of the Ecological Society of America—I think that Jerry Franklin had left the agency and moved to his position at the University of Washington when he actually assumed the position.  But regardless of that, it is a fantastic honor to have been elected.

I think the ESA has developed tremendously over the past decades.  When I first started with the Society, presentations that dealt with management issues, such as with the then-current topics of acid mine drainage and restoration techniques, were always combined into one session at the annual meeting, usually held in the last time slot on the last day.  We were always pigeon-holed.  This was symptomatic of the viewpoint of the Society then, and there were many complaints that ESA was too focused on basic science and ignored current ecological problems.  But ESA has evolved and now there is a very strong applied group within the Society.  And, I think my election as President is also evidence that ESA now has a much more balanced approach to ecosystems sciences.

WiNR:  Many federal employees in the Senior Executive Service often find their senior-level management jobs less fulfilling than the types of jobs they often had in the past, say at the GS 13-14 professional level, where they might have been in research or managing projects on the ground.  It's almost as if there's a punishment for going up the ladder, and some get worn down by that.  You sound very enthusiastic about almost everything that you've done, but can you identify any professional situations where you felt really challenged or blocked?  And how did you deal with those? 

Bartuska:  I think part of the reason that I have never felt blocked is because I haven't stayed in any one job too terribly long.  I think I have probably felt the most challenged, felt the roadblocks close by, so to speak, in my job of the last few years.  That's because of the nature of the program—managing the timber program for the U.S. Forest Service is quite a challenge.  The sheer number of lawsuits and claims is often overwhelming, but I especially had difficulty with being tarred with the label of being one of the "devastators of the landscape."  But when you go out into the field and meet the professional resource managers in the agency, you are struck again and again by how concerned these people are about the forest resources.  They want to do the right thing, and they are doing the right thing.  So, that rhetoric can be very wearying. 

            It is important for administrators to get away periodically, to get refreshed.  When I was with the Forest Health Protection program, I had the opportunity to go to Hawaii for a few months.  I crafted a training opportunity for myself, working with the State Forester there on several special projects.  Until very recently, many people, especially in the federal government, seemed to view Hawaii as almost a foreign country!  Yet, it's cheaper to fly from Washington to Hawaii, even in mid-winter, than to Montana!  When I came back from my months in Hawaii, I was so refreshed and rejuvenated, it made all the difference in the world in my outlook and my professional stamina.  So, I think that kind of sabbatical would be very positive for many SES employees in Washington.  And, that need for rejuvenation shouldn't be considered a weakness. 

            These last two years for me, with the pressures of dealing with NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] documentation, appeals—the whole process of getting a project to the ground has gotten so incredibly cumbersome and lengthy that we are grinding people down with no visible signs of success along the way.  I think something is fundamentally wrong.  That doesn't mean I support getting around environmental laws, but rather I think we need to reconsider the documentation process.  We have to ask, "What's the added value of going to this next step?  Why does it take so long?"  For instance, as I recently read an EIS for a project, I got to page 17 and re-read it five times before I surrendered.  I'm an ecologist with a Ph.D., with long years of technical experience, and yet I could not understand what page 17 was trying to say.  And if I couldn't do it, how could anyone expect a member of the public to understand it?  I think we have just gone over the top in terms of documentation, and it’s a fundamental problem. 

WiNR:  Is this only a problem in the Forest Service? 

Bartuska:  I only have anecdotal information, but I do think that there is a great variety of standards regarding required documentation in different agencies, to meet environmental regulations.

            It's just such an overwhelming problem—it's becoming a real obstacle to getting anything meaningful done.  I hope that we can start to introduce some new technologies that might help.  These include modeling, and presenting models in computer form, via CD-ROM.  Each Alternative in an EIS can be modeled and presented in a number of ways.  Being able to visualize the results of different sets of treatments would be a very powerful tool, and would make the entire process so much more accessible. 

WiNR:  Do you think that kind of technology would save a lot of work, in terms of excessive documentation? 

Bartuska:  Yes, I think it would contribute to a solution.  But I also think that the people in charge have to re-evaluate the current situation, and ask, "What difference does all this paper really make?"  The key, of course, will be to preserve the justifications so that the preferred alternative can be upheld, when a decision is made.

            Congress, through the Appeal Reform Act in the early 1990s, created a set of steps for the Forest Service that no other federal agency needs to apply to the NEPA process.  And, what Congress creates, Congress can dissolve!  So, I would like to see Congress repeal the Appeal Reform Act.  I think all federal agencies should have consistency with the environmental impact statement process.  Repealing that law would not take away the public's right to participate, it would just place it differently in the process.  So, the formula for success is management options, technology and tools, and appeals reform. 

WiNR:  Because, of course, the lawsuits and the appeals won't disappear, even if the tons of paper do—nor should they, because they are part of a democratic process.  Is there anything else you'd like to add to this interview? 

Bartuska:  I'd just like to say that I've really had a great time over the last 14 years!  The Forest Service has some of the best people in the world working for them.  Every time I get to go out in the field, I am so impressed by the quality of the work I see and the enthusiasm to do the job that employees convey.  The strength of the Forest Service is truly it's people.

  

 

Daina Dravnieks Apple is a natural resource economist on the U.S. Forest Service Policy Analysis staff, Washington D.C.  She has served as a strategic planner for the National Forest System; as an Assistant Regulatory Officer in the Washington Office; and as regional Land Use Appeals Coordinator and on the Engineering Staff in Region 5, San Francisco.  She began her Forest Service career as an economist at the Pacific Southwest Research Station, Berkeley.

 

She is active in the Society of American Foresters and is Past Chair of the National Capital Society of American Foresters.  She is a member of Sigma Xi Scientific Research Society and was elected President of Phi Beta Kappa Northern California Association, and served as National Secretary.  She is a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley, where she earned a B.Sc. in the Political Economy of Natural Resources and an M.A. in Geography.