Wood Utilization: Federal Research and Product Development Activities, Support, and Technology Transfer
Published: 2006-06-15T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: More wood is consumed every year in the United States than all metals, plastics, and masonry cement combined. To maximize their use of wood, forest product companies rely on research into new methods for using wood. At least 12 federal agencies have provided support to wood utilization research and product development activities, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service and Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES)-funded wood utilization research centers, which historically have specifically targeted support to these activities. GAO was asked to identify (1) the types of wood utilization research and product development activities federal agencies support and how these activities are coordinated; (2) the level of support federal agencies made available for these activities in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, and changes in the level of support at the Forest Service and at the CSREES-funded wood utilization research centers for fiscal years 1995 through 2005; and (3) how the federal government transfers the technologies and products from its wood utilization research and product development activities to industry. GAO provided a draft of this report to the 12 federal agencies for review and comment. Some of the agencies provided technical comments, which were incorporated as appropriate.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Federal wood utilization research and product development span a broad spectrum of activities. These activities fall into five categories: harvesting, wood properties, manufacturing and processing, products and testing, and economics and marketing. Of the 12 federal agencies that provided support to wood utilization research and product development, only the Forest Service and the CSREES-funded wood utilization centers had activities in all five categories; although all the agencies had activities in manufacturing and processing. Coordination of these activities is both informal and formal. Scientists informally coordinate their activities by conferring with each other and sharing information at conferences and professional meetings and through publications. In some cases, coordination occurs through more formal mechanisms, such as cooperative arrangements and other joint ventures. During fiscal years 2004 and 2005, the 12 federal agencies made available at least $54 million annually for wood utilization research and product development activities, measured either in budget authority or expenditures. (Dollars are reported in either budget authority or expenditure data, depending on the availability of agency data.) The Forest Service made available about half of these funds. In addition, the Forest Service--the only agency that directly employs scientists and support staff to conduct wood utilization research and product development--reported having almost 175 full-time equivalent scientists and support staff in each of these years. For fiscal years 1995 through 2005, the Forest Service's budget authority for wood utilization research and product development activities fluctuated moderately from year-to-year (in inflationadjusted dollars). In contrast, overall, CSREES' budget authority for the wood utilization research centers increased over the period (in inflation-adjusted dollars), in part because of the addition of four new wood utilization research centers between fiscal years 1999 and 2004. To transfer technologies and products to industry, federal agencies generally rely on scientists and technology transfer specialists, who use methods such as information sharing, technical assistance, and demonstration projects. For example, applying research from the Forest Products Laboratory, Forest Service technology transfer specialists assisted a small forest products company in producing flooring from small trees by, among other things, providing solutions to product imperfections like warping and discoloration.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: More wood is consumed every year in the United States than all metals,  More wood is consumed every year in the United States than all metals,  plastics, and masonry cement combined. In residential construction, for  plastics, and masonry cement combined. In residential construction, for  instance, wood accounts for about 90 percent of structural framing and  instance, wood accounts for about 90 percent of structural framing and  sheathing, as well as large portions of other wood products, including  sheathing, as well as large portions of other wood products, including  cabinets, doors, windows, moldings, millwork, sub-flooring, and finished  cabinets, doors, windows, moldings, millwork, sub-flooring, and finished  flooring. Despite the nation’s significant use of wood products, some  flooring. Despite the nation’s significant use of wood products, some  segments of the U.S. forest products industry, such as furniture  segments of the U.S. forest products industry, such as furniture  manufacturing, have declined. Over the past 10 years, forest products  manufacturing, have declined. Over the past 10 years, forest products  companies have consolidated, in part by closing or idling mills, to reduce  companies have consolidated, in part by closing or idling mills, to reduce  costs and remain competitive with foreign companies.  costs and remain competitive with foreign companies.
The forest products industry is made up of a few large multinational  The forest products industry is made up of a few large multinational  companies and many medium and small companies. To remain  companies and many medium and small companies.
Environmental Protection Agency, Profile of the Pulp and Paper Industry, 2nd edition,  EPA/310-R-02-002 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 2002), and Environmental Protection Agency,  Profile of the Lumber and Wood Products Industry, EPA/ 310-R-95-006 (Washington, D.C.:  Sept. 1995).
Federal research and product development in wood utilization helps  provide the science and technology needed to conserve the nation’s forest  resources, supply the demand for wood products, and support forest  management and restoration activities. At least 12 federal agencies  support wood utilization research and product development. These  include the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Cooperative State  Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), Forest Service,  and Natural Resources Conservation Service; the Department of Defense’s  (Defense) Army, Army Corps of Engineers, and Office of Naval Research;  the Department of Energy; the Department of Homeland Security’s Coast  Guard; the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); the  Department of the Interior’s (Interior) Bureau of Indian Affairs; the  National Science Foundation; and the Department of Transportation.  However, historically, only two of these agencies—the Forest Service and  CSREES—have had significant funds specifically targeted to wood  utilization research and product development. The other agencies do not  have defined programs for wood utilization research and product  development but provided support through various mechanisms, such as  grants.
Most of the Forest Service’s wood utilization research and product  development is conducted at its Forest Products Laboratory in Madison,  Wisconsin, which is the agency’s national laboratory for these activities;  five of its regional research stations also conduct wood utilization  research and product development. CSREES focuses on wood utilization  research and product development through a grant directed by  congressional committee (committee-directed grant) to 10 wood  utilization research centers in 12 universities around the country.
Although many agencies have provided support for wood utilization  research and product development, the Forest Service has the most  experience in this area—it has been conducting wood utilization research  and product development since 1910 and is a key player in carrying out  these research and product development activities. However, a 2002  National Academy of Sciences report showed a nearly 30-percent decline  in the Forest Service’s budget authority for forest products research since  1980 (in inflation- adjusted dollars), and a loss of about 46 percent in  Forest Service research scientists from 1985 to 1999.
In this context, you asked us to review the status of federal agencies’  support for wood utilization research and product development. For this  report, we identified (1) the types of wood utilization research and  product development activities supported by federal agencies and how  these activities are coordinated; (2) the level of support federal agencies  made available for these activities in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, and the  changes in the level of support at the Forest Service and at the CSREES- funded wood utilization research centers from fiscal years 1995 through  2005; and (3) how the federal government transfers the technologies and  products from its wood utilization research and product development  activities to industry.
To collect and catalogue the types of wood utilization research and  product development activities federal agencies conduct and the amount  of financial and personnel support they provide for these activities, we  collected and analyzed activity, budget authority, and expenditure data in  agency databases and files. For purposes of our review, wood utilization  research and product development refers to the activities that occur from  harvesting wood through recycling wood and paper products. We  collected financial data for fiscal year 2004 for each agency and for fiscal  year 2005, if available. In some cases, these data were expenditure data,  and in other cases, they were budget authority data. In addition, we  collected data for 11 fiscal years, 1995 through 2005, for the two agencies  that historically have had funds dedicated to wood utilization research and  product development—the Forest Service and CSREES’ wood utilization  research centers. We analyzed these data in both nominal dollars and  dollars adjusted for inflation. CSREES also provides funding for wood  utilization research and product development as part of other research  and development grant programs; we collected these data only for fiscal  year 2004 because 2005 data were not available for these grant programs.  We collected information on full-time equivalent (FTE) staff from the  Forest Service for fiscal years 1995 through 2005; the Forest Service is the  only agency that employs full-time scientists and support staff to conduct  wood utilization research and product development. We reviewed the  reliability of agencies’ budget and expenditure data and determined that  the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this review. We also  interviewed scientists, university researchers, technology transfer  specialists, and industry officials around the nation to obtain information  on wood utilization research and product development activities, financial  and personnel support, and technology transfer efforts. In addition, we  conducted site visits at a limited number of federal, university, and  industrial facilities that focus on wood utilization research and product  development—the Forest Products Laboratory; Forest Service facilities in  Virginia, West Virginia, and Oregon; the wood utilization center at Oregon  State University; and a Weyerhaeuser Company research laboratory in  Washington State. Among other things, we asked these officials how  federal agencies transfer technologies and products to industry and asked  them for examples of successful federal technology transfer efforts. We  performed our work between February 2005 and May 2006, in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I  provides a more detailed description of our scope and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The unique characteristics and relative abundance of wood have made it a  natural material for a variety of uses, including homes and other  structures, furniture, tools, vehicles, and decorative objects. Because  wood varies in characteristics and volume by species, it may be heavy or  light, stiff or flexible, and hard or soft. Federal agencies conduct research  on the range of processes that occur between the time a tree is grown in  the forest to the time it becomes a wood product and then is recycled. For  purposes of our review, wood utilization research and product  development refers to the activities that occur from harvesting the wood  through the recycling of wood and paper products. (See fig. 1.)
subsections: section_title: The Forest Products Industry
paragraphs: According to the North American Industry Classification System, the U.S.  forest products industry is divided into two sectors: wood product  manufacturing and pulp and paper manufacturing. The wood product  manufacturing sector comprises small companies, while the pulp and  paper manufacturing sector tends to have fewer, larger companies.
The wood product manufacturing sector can be broken into three sub- sectors: (1) primary producers—sawmills and plywood mills; (2)  secondary producers—millwork, cabinet, and furniture manufacturers;  and (3) structural and reconstituted products producers—oriented  strandboard (OSB), I-Joist, laminated veneer lumber, medium density  fiberboard, and particleboard. The United States is the world’s leading  producer of lumber and wood products used in residential construction  and in commercial wood products. According to 2004 data (the most  recent data available), the wood product sector employed 535,000 workers  nationwide and produced shipments valued at $103 billion.
The pulp and paper manufacturing sector includes two industry groups:  (1) manufacturers of pulp and paper and (2) manufacturers of products  made from purchased paper and other materials, such as paper bags or  tissues. The vast majority of the raw material for making paper is the  residue from other mills—primarily chips from sawmills. The United  States is also a leader in the pulp and paper business, producing about 28  percent of the world’s pulp and 25 percent of the total world output of  paper and paperboard. In 2004 (the most recent data available), the paper  manufacturing sector employed 440,000 workers nationwide and produced  shipments valued at $154 billion.
According to a federal government report, the U.S. forest products  industry faces increasing competition from its traditional competitors  (Canada, the Scandinavian countries, and Japan), as well as from emerging  competitors (Brazil, Chile, and Indonesia). Domestic purchases of paper  and paperboard declined from 2000 to 2002, but have begun to rebound  since then. Approximately 120,000 jobs were lost in the paper  manufacturing sector from 1999 to 2004, representing a 21.5-percent loss.  Sectors of the wood product manufacturing industry have also declined.  According to a 2003 Forest Service report, during the last decade, the  wood household furniture industry lost approximately one-third of its  market share to imports. China now accounts for one-third of U.S.  imports, up from none a decade ago.
section_title: Federal Agencies Support Wood Utilization Research and Product Development
paragraphs: Federal research and product development in wood utilization helps  provide the science and technology needed to conserve the nation’s forest  resources, supply the demand for wood products, and support forest  management and restoration activities. At least 12 federal agencies  support wood utilization research and product development activities, but  only 2 of these agencies—the Forest Service and CSREES—have programs  targeted for these activities.
subsections: section_title: Primary Agencies—Forest Service and CSREES’ Wood Utilization Research Centers
paragraphs: For the Forest Service, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources  Act of 1978 is the primary legislation authorizing the Secretary of  Agriculture to implement a comprehensive research program for forest  and rangeland renewable resources, including wood utilization, and to  disseminate the results. Other relevant legislation includes the following:    The Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000, which requires the  secretaries of Agriculture and of Energy to cooperate on policies and  procedures that promote research and development leading to the  production of fuels and biobased products; the act also established the  Biomass Research and Development Initiative.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 established technical areas for focusing  research under the Biomass Research and Development Initiative.
The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 established a grant program  to encourage the commercialization of woody biomass.
The Forest Service’s research and development organization establishes  research work units in the field by developing formal mission statements,  which must be approved by the Deputy Chief for Research and other  senior managers. A team from the Deputy Chief’s Office and station  directors’ office formally reviews these mission statements and the unit’s  work at least every 5 years, and the review often includes input from the  public and private sectors.
The Forest Service’s wood utilization research and product development is  carried out by scientists and professional support staff in 27 research work  units around the country that were operating at the time of our review.  Most of the Forest Service’s wood utilization research and product  development takes place at 16 research work units in the Forest Products  Laboratory, which conducts research of national and international scope.  The other 11 research work units are located in the Forest Service’s  Northeastern, Southern, Pacific Northwest, Pacific Southwest, and Rocky  Mountain Research Stations, and these units mostly focus on regional  wood utilization issues. For example, research work unit 4104 of the  Southern station focuses on managing Southern pine ecosystems, whereas  research work unit 4701 of the Northeastern station focuses on efficiently  using northern forest resources. These research work units produce 5-year  research work plans that identify the mission, the problem to be solved  through research, the proposed research approach, planned  accomplishments, and staffing needs.
CSREES provides support for wood utilization research and product  development through several grant programs. CSREES awards committee- directed grants to 10 designated wood utilization research centers at 12  universities. The first three centers were established in fiscal year 1985 at  Oregon State University, Mississippi State University, and Michigan State  University. These three centers were established to support wood  utilization and harvesting research on western conifers, southern pine, and  eastern hardwoods, respectively. In fiscal year 1993, three centers with  specific research focuses were added at the University of Maine, the  University of Minnesota at Duluth, and North Carolina State University. In  fiscal year 1999, the University of Tennessee and the Inland Northwest  Forest Products Research Consortium were added. The consortium  consists of the universities of Idaho and of Montana, and Washington State  University. The most recent additions are the University of Alaska  Southeast, in fiscal year 2000, and West Virginia University, in fiscal year  2004. Every year each center submits a grant proposal, reviewed by  CSREES staff, containing information on proposed research activities,  budgets, and progress to date. Funding supports scientists and graduate  students and helps to pay for new equipment, supplies, and travel.
In addition, CSREES provides grants to state-supported colleges and  universities that can be used for, but are not specifically focused on, wood  utilization research and product development through the following:    The McIntyre–Stennis Act, a formula grant program, for forestry research,  including two of eight potential funding areas focused on wood utilization  and product development.
The Hatch Act, a formula grant program, designed to fund a number of  broad agricultural research areas.
The National Research Initiative, a competitive grant program with  several research areas, including biobased products and energy. Wood  utilization research and product development grants have been awarded  under this initiative, as well as under CSREES’ Small Business Innovation  and Research grants and other small grants programs.
section_title: Other Agencies That Support Wood Utilization Research and Product Development
paragraphs: Ten other agencies also support wood utilization research and product  development. Table 1 provides information on these agencies’ principal  authorizing legislation and a description of the programs that have  supported wood utilization research and product development, and the  mechanisms used for program delivery.
section_title: Technology Transfer
paragraphs: The Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer defines  technology transfer as “the process by which existing knowledge, facilities  or capabilities developed under federal research and development funding  are utilized to fulfill public and private needs.” Since 1978, Congress has  enacted a series of laws to promote technology transfer and to provide  technology transfer mechanisms and incentives. Table 2 presents selected  laws that support technology transfer for wood utilization research and  product development.
In addition to these laws, Executive Order 12591 (“Facilitating Access to  Science and Technology”) directs federal agencies to encourage and  facilitate collaboration among federal laboratories, state and local  governments, universities, and the private sector—particularly small  business—in order to assist in the transfer of technology to the  marketplace.
Technology transfer is also carried out through the nation’s extension  system, established by the Smith-Lever Act in 1914, to assist in the  development of practical applications of research knowledge in  agriculture, including wood utilization. Under this system, thousands of  county and regional extension specialists bring university expertise to the  local level. Funding is provided by CSREES through annual formula grants  to supplement state and county funds for extension services. The funds  can be used for natural resources, including forestry or wood utilization,  depending upon the priorities of the university.
The Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978 created the Renewable  Resources Extension Program. Under this program, CSREES provides  funds to 72 universities, which use these funds, along with state, local, and  institutional funds, to deliver educational programs to forest and  rangeland owners and managers. The program also provides guidance to  states in developing their general extension programs for, among other  things, timber utilization, harvesting, and marketing; wood utilization; and  wood products marketing. These efforts have included wood utilization  extension services, usually through extension specialists.
section_title: Federal Wood Utilization Research and Product Development Activities Fall into Five Categories and Are Coordinated Both Informally and Formally
paragraphs: Wood utilization research and product development conducted by 12  federal agencies span a broad spectrum of activities, and coordination of  these activities is both formal and informal. These activities fall into five  broad categories: (1) harvesting, (2) wood properties, (3) manufacturing  and processing, (4) products and testing, and (5) economics and  marketing.
subsections: section_title: Federal Wood Utilization Research and Product Development Activities Can Be Grouped into Five Broad Categories
paragraphs: We grouped the wood utilization research and product development  activities that the 12 agencies conduct into five broad categories:  harvesting, wood properties, manufacturing and processing, products and  testing, and economics and marketing. Table 3 shows the definitions we  used for the five categories and provides examples of the types of the  research and product development activities that fall into each of these  categories.
Table 4 shows the types of research and product development activities  and examples of these activities by agency. All 12 agencies had activities in  the manufacturing and processing category.
The Forest Service and CSREES were the only two agencies that had  wood utilization research and product development activities in all five  categories. According to our analysis of the Forest Service’s 27 research  work units’ plans covering fiscal years 1995 through 2005, over 80 percent  of wood utilization research and product development occurred in three  categories: wood properties, products and testing, and manufacturing and  processing. In addition, CSREES wood utilization research centers’ annual  research proposals for the same period showed that about 70 percent of  their activities occurred in the following three categories: wood  properties, manufacturing and processing, and economics and marketing.  According to a CSREES official, the CSREES wood utilization research  centers are allowed by law to use the funding to conduct technology  transfer activities, which are reflected in the economics and marketing  category.
Appendixes II and III, respectively, provide detailed information on wood  utilization research and product development activities for the Forest  Service, for multiyear periods (beginning in the late 1980s) to the present;  and CSREES, for fiscal years 1995 through 2005.
section_title: Federal Wood Utilization Research and Product Development Activities Are Coordinated Both Informally and Formally
paragraphs: We found instances of both informal and formal coordination of federal  activities for wood utilization and product development. According to  many scientists at the Forest Service, informal coordination occurs among  the relatively small wood utilization research and product development  community of scientists, and these scientists are often aware of related  scientific research. Scientists share information at scientific and industry  conferences and professional meetings and through publications, and in  some cases work informally to share staff and equipment. Specific  examples include the following:    One Forest Service scientist associated with the Southern Research  Station—with 30 years of experience in wood utilization research on  Douglas Fir—shares resources and expertise with the Pacific Northwest  Research Station on the plantation growth of this species.
Forest Service scientists in the Southern Research Station have  collaborated with colleagues in Australia, Denmark, Japan, and New  Zealand on using wood from southern forests to develop wood composite  products. These collaborative efforts were established primarily through  professional relationships.
A Forest Service scientist at the Pacific Northwest Research Station told  us that scientists use annual professional meetings, such as those held by  the Forest Products Society and the Society of Wood Science and  Technology, as important mechanisms for coordinating their work and  broadening the scope of their research area.
The CSREES wood utilization research centers reported that they have  more informal than formal coordination mechanisms with other wood  utilization research centers and federal agencies. Like the Forest Service,  these informal mechanisms include sharing information with their  colleagues through professional meetings, publications, and newsletters.
We also identified some formal mechanisms to coordinate wood utilization  research and product development that are set up through legislative  provisions, agency rulemaking, memorandums of understanding,  cooperative arrangements, and other joint ventures. Specific examples  include the following:    The Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000 requires USDA and  the Department of Energy to carry out a Biomass Research and  Development Initiative under which competitively awarded grants,  contracts, and financial assistance are provided to eligible entities to carry  out research on fuels and products derived from biomass, including woody  biomass. The agencies work together on developing grant solicitations,  reviewing grant proposals, and selecting recipients. The act also created a  Biomass Research and Development Board, co-chaired by the Department  of Energy and USDA, to coordinate programs within the federal  government for promoting the use of biobased fuels and products. The  board’s mission is to maximize the benefits from federal grants and  assistance by promoting collaboration and avoiding duplication of effort  through strategic planning on biomass research. The board has approved  the formation of a federal Woody Biomass Working Group to coordinate  and focus federal efforts on woody biomass utilization.
For 40 years, Forest Service wood utilization scientists have had standing  annual meetings with representatives from both the paper and pulp and  solid wood industries to present research results and obtain input and  review from industry. When updating their research work unit plans every  5 years, these scientists also seek advice from outside sources, including  industry representatives, academics, and environmental groups.
Scientists also participate in research consortiums or cooperative  arrangements with industry. For example, scientists in the Forest Service’s  Southern Research Station participate in a consortium studying wood  quality that has members from nine companies, including Weyerhaeuser  and Georgia Pacific. CSREES wood utilization research centers also form  cooperative arrangements. According to an Oregon scientist, these  research cooperatives typically consist of 10 to 12 partners. The  cooperatives set a research agenda and formally coordinate research  through annual meetings and reports; each university, as well as  government agencies, are asked to contribute funding annually. For  example, scientists at the University of Minnesota wood utilization  research center formed a productivity cooperative that includes state,  county, university, and industry members (such as International Paper) to  continue to strengthen applied forestry concepts and ensure the  sustainability of Minnesota’s forest products industry.
The Forest Service’s Northeastern Research Station formed the Furniture  Steering Committee, which is composed of furniture manufacturers,  consultants, equipment manufacturers, state economic development  agencies, and universities to provide guidance on furniture research  programs at the station and elsewhere. The steering committee  recommended research on more efficient manufacturing and “just-in-time”  training, which has been integrated into the research work unit’s plan.
HUD’s Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing is a voluntary  partnership between leaders of the home building, product manufacturing,  insurance, and financial industries; and representatives of six federal  agencies concerned with housing. These six agencies work with HUD to  develop technologies to improve the quality, durability, energy efficiency,  and affordability of residential building materials; these materials could  include wood. For example, with the partnership’s support, the Forest  Service’s wood chemistry research work unit has been able to work  cooperatively with laboratories in Japan, Sweden, and Finland on  developing coatings to protect wood from the effects of weathering.
Forest Service scientists at the Southern Research Station’s Utilization of  Southern Forest Resources work unit have a memorandum of  understanding with the Chinese government to host post-doctoral students  from China; the station has hosted 25 students in the past 5 years. These  students serve as additional staff resources to help the research work unit  carry out its research activities.
To construct a forest biomass life cycle assessment model, several  partners established a joint venture: the Forest Service’s Pacific Southwest  Research Station; the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest  Energy Research Program; the University of California at Davis; several  state and federal agencies; and energy, forestry, and environmental  consultants. Partners will use the model to identify and analyze the social,  economic, and environmental costs and benefits of using forest biomass to  generate electrical power. This research project is planned in three phases  over a 3- to 5-year period. Each participant shares in the cost of the  venture.
section_title: Federal Agencies Made Available at Least $54 Million Annually for Wood Utilization Research and Product Development in Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005; Forest Service Support Fluctuated Moderately, and CSREES Support Increased Over 10 Years
paragraphs: The 12 federal agencies we reviewed made available at least $54 million  annually in financial support for wood utilization research and product  development activities in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, measured either in  budget authority or expenditures. Furthermore, the Forest Service  employed almost 175 scientists and support staff in each of these two  fiscal years. From fiscal years 1995 through 2005, the Forest Service  received total budget authority of $268 million for wood utilization  research and product development (or $289 million in 2004 inflation- adjusted dollars) while CSREES’ budget authority for the wood utilization  research centers was about $51 million (or $55 million in 2004 inflation- adjusted dollars). For fiscal years 1995 through 2005, the Forest Service’s  budget authority for wood utilization research and product development  activities fluctuated moderately from year-to-year (in 2004 inflation- adjusted dollars). Over the same period, overall, CSREES’ budget  authority for the wood utilization research centers increased (in 2004  inflation-adjusted dollars), in part because four new wood utilization  research centers were added during fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2004.
subsections: section_title: The Forest Service Provided Most of the Support for Wood Utilization Research and Product Development in Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005
paragraphs: The 12 federal agencies we identified as supporting wood utilization  research and product development made available at least $54.4 million in  financial support for this work, measured in either budget authority or  expenditures, in fiscal year 2004, the year with the most complete data  available. For fiscal year 2005, the agencies made available at least $54.3  million. Our data for fiscal year 2005 are complete except for data for the  CSREES grants funded under the McIntyre-Stennis Act and the Hatch Act;  the National Research Initiative; Small Business Innovation Research  grants; and other small grants. See table 5.
As table 5 shows, the Forest Service made available about half of the  financial support for conducting wood utilization research and product  development. In fiscal year 2004, the Forest Service made available about  52 percent of the $54.4 million, while four other agencies—CSREES, the  Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and the Natural  Resources Conservation Service—made available about 44 percent of the  support; the remaining seven agencies together made available about 5  percent of the $54.4 million.
Of the $54.4 million made available in fiscal year 2004, about $34 million  ($28.3 million for the Forest Service and $5.7 million for the CSREES  wood utilization research centers) was directly targeted to wood  utilization research and product development. In addition, $1.9 million of  other support targeted for wood utilization research and product  development was made available by the Army, the Coast Guard, and the  Office of Naval Research through committee-directed funding to specific  universities to conduct research on wood composites.
The remaining $18.5 million of the $54.4 million was made available in  fiscal year 2004 from grant programs not targeted to wood utilization  research and product development. That is, wood utilization research and  product development was not the sole purpose of the grant or program.  The Department of Energy made available the largest amount of this  nontargeted support—$7.4 million. CSREES provided $3.0 million in fiscal  year 2004 to support other wood utilization research and product  development through grant programs authorized under the McIntyre- Stennis Act and the Hatch Act; the National Research Initiative; Small  Business Innovation Research grants; and other small grants. The Natural  Resources Conservation Service made available grant funding to promote  greater innovation and development in all forms of biomass—including  agricultural and woody biomass—with $5.3 million targeted to woody  biomass research, under the Biomass Research Development Act of 2000.  The other agencies made available the remaining $2.8 million.
Of the 12 agencies, only the Forest Service directly employs full-time  scientists and support staff to conduct wood utilization research and  product development. Most of these employees work at the Forest  Products Laboratory, as shown in table 6.
The other 11 agencies we reviewed do not have full-time federal scientists  dedicated to wood utilization research and product development, and  were unable to provide information on scientists and support staff  working on federal wood utilization research and product development  activities.
section_title: From Fiscal Years 1995 through 2005, Forest Service Budget Authority for Wood Utilization Research and Product Development Fluctuated Moderately from Year-to- Year
paragraphs: For fiscal years 1995 through 2005, the Forest Service received total  budget authority for wood utilization research and product development  of $268 million (which is equivalent to $289 million in 2004 inflation- adjusted dollars). As table 7 shows, during this 11-year period, the annual  budget authority ranged between $24.2 million and $28.2 million (in 2004  inflation-adjusted dollars), with moderate fluctuations from year-to-year.
Table 8 shows the total FTE scientists and support staff for the Forest  Service’s wood utilization research work units, from fiscal years 1995  through 2005.
As figure 2 shows, over the period, the levels of budget authority (adjusted  for inflation) and FTE staff for wood utilization research and product  development at the Forest Service fluctuated moderately. From fiscal year  1995 to fiscal year 1996, both budget authority (in 2004 inflation-adjusted  dollars) and FTE staff at the Forest Service decreased by 14 percent and 4  percent, respectively. After 1996, budget authority for the most part  increased through 2004 and then decreased in 2005.
FTE staff continued to decrease through 1999, increased in 2000, and  thereafter remained relatively stable. (See app. IV for information on  changes in FTE Forest Service scientists and support staff for wood  utilization research work units for each year from fiscal year 1995 through  2005.)
During the 11-year period, the Forest Products Laboratory’s budget  authority also fluctuated moderately. Between fiscal years 1995 and 2000,  the budget authority declined by 17 percent (in 2004 inflation-adjusted  dollars), from $20.8 million to $17.3 million; it increased again from fiscal  years 2001 through 2004, but was still lower in 2005 than in 1995. (See  table 9.)
Table 10 shows the total FTE scientists and support staff for the Forest  Products Laboratory’s wood utilization research work units, from fiscal  years 1995 through 2005.
The number of FTE Forest Products Laboratory scientists and support  staff generally declined from fiscal years 1995 through 2000; then it  fluctuated moderately. Figure 3 shows the changes in budget authority and  FTE scientists and support staff at the Forest Products Laboratory. See  appendix IV for funding and FTE staff, by research work unit, at the Forest  Products Laboratory and at the research stations for fiscal years 1995  through 2005.
While financial support for wood utilization research and product  development at the Forest Service has fluctuated moderately during the  past 11 years, Forest Service scientists and managers expressed concerns  about resource constraints. They noted that increases in budget authority  cover salary increases and other fixed costs, but that these increases may  not be enough to cover increases in the costs of other operating  expenses—such as purchasing or calibrating equipment, obtaining  laboratory supplies, and traveling for research. The Forest Products  Laboratory’s operating budget authority declined by about 67 percent  between fiscal years 1995 and 1998 (in 2004 inflation-adjusted dollars),  from about $1.95 million to $650,000; it also fluctuated within a narrow  range from fiscal years 1999 to 2005, ending with $630,000. (See table 11.)
Figure 4 shows changes in the dollars available for operating expenses  (adjusted to 2004 dollars) in fiscal years 1995 through 2005 at the Forest  Products Laboratory.
Many of the scientists with whom we spoke cited instances in which fewer  resources had diminished their ability to conduct research. For example,  according to one scientist, he is spending less time in the laboratory  because he is devoting more time to obtaining outside funding for his  research work unit. Another scientist told us that his research work unit  must now limit the number of wood samples from private sources that the  unit has time to analyze, which it did not need to do in the past. According  to Forest Service officials, due in part to funding constraints, as well as to  better serve the scientific community, the Forest Products Laboratory has  developed a strategic plan, and is in the process of reorganizing and  consolidating its research work units and reducing the number of  scientists and support staff.
section_title: From Fiscal Years 1995 through 2005, CSREES’ Wood Utilization Research Centers’ Budget Authority and the Number of Centers Increased
paragraphs: Table 12 shows that the total budget authority for fiscal years 1995 through  2005 for CSREES’ wood utilization research centers was about $51.2  million (which is equivalent to $54.8 million in 2004 inflation-adjusted  dollars), and figure 5 illustrates that, overall, CSREES’ budget authority  (adjusted for inflation) for the wood utilization research centers increased  over the period. The increase in budget authority was due in part to the  addition of four new wood utilization research centers, particularly when  two new centers were added in fiscal year 1999; new centers were added  again in fiscal years 2000 and 2004.
While the increase in the number of wood utilization research centers  would suggest an increased commitment to wood utilization research and  product development, after adjusting for inflation, most of the centers,  individually, experienced a downward trend in budget authority, as table  13 shows. (See app. IV for wood utilization research centers’ budget  authority in nominal dollars over the period.)
section_title: Federal Agencies Rely on Scientists and Specialists to Transfer Technology Through a Variety of Methods
paragraphs: The 12 federal agencies generally rely on scientists and technology  transfer specialists to transfer technologies to industry through a variety of  methods, such as information dissemination, technical assistance,  demonstration projects, and patents and licensing. While federal scientists  are involved in some technology transfer, their primary responsibility is  research; in contrast, specialists are responsible solely for technology  transfer. In addition, the Forest Service has a unit dedicated to transferring  the results of wood utilization research and product development: the  Forest Service’s TMU. We identified a number of examples of activities  that have occurred using each of the technology transfer methods, mostly  from the Forest Service and CSREES wood utilization research centers.
subsections: section_title: Scientists and Technology Transfer Specialists Disseminate Information
paragraphs: Scientists are expected to transfer the results of their work and primarily  disseminate information through publications—particularly those in peer- reviewed journals—which help establish the validity of their research  results. The Forest Service counts the number of articles published in  these journals to assess scientists’ performance and reports this  information as a performance measure for research in its annual report to  Congress. Furthermore, according to Forest Service scientists, some  industry officials may also read and use these journals. For example, a  window and door manufacturer used the information from a journal  article on the characteristics of wood from smaller trees for use in  composites to develop a new and higher-value use for this wood. Instead  of burning the wood as waste, the manufacturer now uses it in his  products.
Scientists also disseminate research results to industry through a variety  of other methods, including publications that are not peer reviewed, Web  sites, presentations of their work at professional meetings, and  workshops. Specific examples include the following:    Publications that are not peer reviewed include the Forest Service’s one- page information sheets, TechLines; technical reports; industry magazines;  trade journals; and training manuals. For example, one training manual  was developed after industry representatives asked a Forest Service  scientist to create a publication on avoiding accidents caused by  improperly constructed logging trails. Scientists also contribute to user  manuals that are important to the building industry and homeowners, such  as Finishes for Exterior Wood—20,000 copies sold in the past 10 years;  and the Wood Mold Maintenance Manual—10,000 copies in circulation.
Most of the Forest Service’s wood utilization research work units maintain  Web sites that list articles or provide links to articles and contact  information. For example, a research work unit in the Southern Research  Station reported that 18,335 distinct users—approximately 1,528 per  month—accessed its Web site in 2004, downloading 37,376 publications.  Some of CSREES’ wood utilization centers also have Web sites, and some  scientists have their own Web sites devoted to their wood utilization  research and product development.
The Forest Service’s State and Private Forestry’s Wood Education and  Resource Center in West Virginia offers a grant program to transfer  research results. In one instance, grant funds helped support the issuance  of three newsletters informing pallet producers, shippers, and technical  assistance personnel of the latest developments in implementing new  international regulations. These regulations require that all pallets crossing  international boundaries be treated to prevent the spread of invasive  species. Additionally, three technical bulletins summarizing the results of  the center’s applied research in this area were developed and distributed  to an international audience.
Workshops conducted by scientists for industry include the University of  Minnesota’s industry-specific training on streamlined manufacturing  procedures to over 75 companies, which has resulted in partnerships with  15 of them. University of Minnesota scientists reported that these  partnerships have led to productivity improvements of 50 to 75 percent  and cost reductions of 25 to 50 percent, with estimated financial impacts  of over $750,000.
Forest Service scientists have shared information through broadcasts. A  radio host in Arkansas has a weekly show on forestry issues, and scientists  from the Southern Research Station have discussed their research.
The Forest Products Laboratory conducts “Entrepreneur Tours” in which  small- to medium-size mill operators from western states tour the Forest  Products Laboratory to learn about current research and how they can use  it.
Technology transfer specialists—at the Forest Service’s State and Private  Forestry program and extension specialists and programs at universities— also play a key role in disseminating information to industry. As of  February 2006, the Forest Service employed nine technology transfer  specialists, who also provide other types of assistance to small businesses.  Like scientists, specialists reach industry and other users through Web  sites and publications—particularly those that are not peer reviewed, like  trade journals, newsletters, and industry magazines. Specialists sometimes  work directly with scientists to disseminate research to targeted users. For  example, technology transfer specialists at Louisiana State University’s  extension program publish the Dry Kiln Club newsletter, which provides  updated research results from the university’s scientists on wood-drying  and moisture-related wood decay to an audience of over 1,000.
Extension specialists also disseminate information through targeted group  education to industry and other users. This education includes short  courses, continuing education courses, and workshops. Specialists often  develop these courses using the results of research conducted at their  university and other universities, the Forest Service, and other federal and  state agencies. Specific examples include the following:    Extension specialists at Virginia Tech University offered 27 short courses  to industry in calendar year 2004. In one of these courses, they combined  research from the College of Business with their own knowledge of wood  science to teach methods for selling wood products.
Extension specialists in Ohio taught a multiweek course to landowners on  how to prune and manage their trees and market their products. The  course was designed to help the landowners take advantage of a new  pallet plant soon to be opening in their area.
Extension specialists at Mississippi State’s wood utilization research  center have provided logger education to over 3,000 logger firms during  the past 10 years.
Extension specialists at West Virginia University’s Appalachian Hardwood  Center have conducted technology transfer and outreach efforts for the  past 15 years. For example, in October 2004, the center hosted a log- sawing and grading workshop that focused on the efficient grading and  recovery of lumber for low-grade logs.
To enhance competitiveness in the region’s forest products industry, the  University of Tennessee’s Forest Products Center has a wood products  extension specialist who conducts workshops, issues newsletters, and  takes other actions to transfer information from the CSREES wood  utilization research center to industry.
Technology transfer specialists also attend industry and professional  conferences and meetings, where they present information and meet with  industry representatives to build their networks. In addition, they  disseminate information by creating directories that provide contact  information for wood industries in their state.
section_title: Technical Assistance Is an Important Tool for Transferring Technology to Industry
paragraphs: Both scientists and technology transfer specialists provide technical  assistance through (1) telephone calls; (2) hands-on technical assistance;  and (3) software development.
Both scientists and technology transfer specialists respond to telephone  calls requesting assistance from industry, consumers, and homeowners.
For example, one scientist at Oregon State University estimated receiving  over 200 calls per year; another scientist estimated receiving over 400.  Forest Products Laboratory managers estimated that they receive 4,000  such calls per year.
Scientists and technology transfer specialists also provide industry and  others with hands-on technical assistance. Examples include the  following:    Forest Products Laboratory scientists provided technical assistance to  help a small company improve its manufacturing efficiency by applying  research on the fasteners and connectors used to assemble and  disassemble portable flooring. This company produces flooring for the  National Collegiate Athletic Association.
Forest Products Laboratory scientists helped a large drumstick  manufacturer solve a durability problem by developing a way to inject  drumsticks with a polymer to strengthen them.
Forest Products Laboratory scientists provide technical assistance by  identifying wood samples for companies, as well as for private citizens. As  part of this wood identification, they assist manufacturers in resolving  problems they have in using different types of woods with different  finishes. In 2004, they identified 600 specimens for industry, 350 specimens  for government agencies, and 370 specimens of wood for the general  public.
For 12 years, the University of Minnesota has worked with a company to  provide support in material selection, prototyping, performance testing,  and market assessment and development. These efforts have helped the  company introduce several new product lines in office furniture, store  fixtures, and cabinet components; expand from 30 to 450 employees; and  increase the company’s sales from $5 million to $50 million annually over  the period.
The Department of Energy offers energy assessments of facilities that  manufacture wood products or produce pulp and paper, although the  department requires a substantial cost investment from the company.  According to the Department of Energy, these assessments have resulted  in an annual savings of up to $9 million for some companies.
Agencies also develop software and make it available, often for free, on  Web sites. For example, a Forest Service computer program developed by  researchers at the Forest Service’s Northeastern Research Station  provides a realistic simulation model that allows industry to identify more  efficient strategies to reduce waste in the manufacturing process. More  than 700 computer program packages have been sent to industry, and  follow-up telephone calls by Forest Service scientists indicate that the  program is being used in planning and optimization activities by many of  the recipients. Similarly, the Department of Energy’s Industrial  Technologies Program provides free software tools to the forest products  industry to improve energy efficiency in industry processes.
section_title: Demonstration Projects Can Highlight the Application of Wood Utilization Research and Product Development
paragraphs: Agencies also transfer research results through demonstration or pilot  projects in mills, plants, and on-site at research locations. Specific  examples include the following:    The Forest Products Laboratory built a research demonstration house in  2001 on-site. The research in the demonstration house focuses on  improving the use of traditional wood products, recycled and engineered  wood composites, natural disaster resistance, energy efficiency, and  indoor air quality. Features include a permanent wood foundation and  engineered wood composites in the roof.
In cooperation with the homebuilding and forest products industries, the  Forest Products Laboratory constructed a house on the Washington, D.C.,  mall as part of the 2005 annual Smithsonian festival. The house showcases  new technologies developed by the Forest Products Laboratory and  cooperators, such as manufacturers of structural insulated panels. The  house was visited by several thousand people over the course of the 10- day festival.
Forest Products Laboratory scientists helped a company implement a  demonstration project in its saw mill. The project showed that, with  improvements to the company’s machinery for determining lumber quality,  the company could increase efficiency by as much as 12 percent—thus  adding an estimated $1.2 million annually in profit.
Scientists at West Virginia University’s wood utilization research center  have developed a new technology for using oak as a raw material in the  manufacture of OSB. The Weyerhaeuser Company and other industry  partners are testing the process and the produced strands in test runs to  verify the results. If successful, the research work unit anticipates lower  raw material costs and increased use of oak as an engineered wood  product component. Success could lead to new or expanded OSB  manufacturing facilities, and new jobs, in the Appalachian region.
Forest Service scientists at the Southwest Wildland/Urban Interface and  Forest Health Restoration research work unit, in Flagstaff, Arizona, have  joined with Northern Arizona University on framing techniques using  small-diameter logs. This partnership has led to a demonstration project  with the Navajo Nation to develop hogans using small-diameter wood.  Hogans are traditional housing structures tribes still use, and are typically  built with more costly wood from larger trees.
HUD, through its Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing  program, helped a builder in North Carolina to demonstrate the durability  and cost of various building materials (including insulated composite  wood panels) in four residential duplex units. The builder agreed to build  each duplex out of a different building material, and HUD is evaluating the  materials’ performance at this site.
The Office of Naval Research has several demonstration projects in place  using wood-plastic composite materials to replace wooden pier  components, such as deck boards and fendering components. Such  demonstrations help Navy engineers become familiar with new  technologies and their benefits before the technologies are widely  available.
The Coast Guard, in a contract with the University of Maine for composite  wood research, requires the university to demonstrate that the composite  structures it developed could be used in a marine environment and be  more durable than traditional structures. The university will build a dock  for the Coast Guard to demonstrate the use of the composite material it  has developed.
section_title: Results of Wood Utilization Research and Product Development Can Be Patented and Then Licensed to Industry
paragraphs: Technology can also be transferred to industry through licensing and  patenting. The Forest Service employs one full-time patent attorney,  stationed at the Forest Products Laboratory, to assist scientists in  patenting inventions they create as part of federally sponsored research  projects; industry can then license these patents. The Forest Service  Patent and Licensing Program handles all aspects of patents and licensing,  including reviewing invention disclosures, filing and prosecuting patent  applications, negotiating patent licenses and other technology transfer- related agreements. Between January 1, 1995, and December 3, 2005, a  total of 58 patents were issued, and 12 applications related to wood  utilization are currently pending, according to the Forest Service.
Scientists at the CSREES wood utilization centers also obtain patents on  processes and products they have developed. For example, scientists at  the University of Minnesota’s wood utilization research center have  obtained over 20 patents that they have then licensed to private industry.  These patents include those for extracting chemicals from birch bark that  can be used in medicine, in manufacturing absorbent panels, and in a  foam-and-wood composite log used for siding. They also reported having a  number of pending patent applications in the areas of housing systems and  the extraction of natural chemicals from birch bark waste products.
section_title: The Forest Service Has a Unit Dedicated to Transferring Wood Utilization Research and Product Development
paragraphs: The Forest Service has a unit dedicated to transferring the results of wood  utilization research and product development activities—the TMU, part of  the State and Private Forestry Program, located at the Forest Products  Laboratory. TMU’s mission is to improve wood utilization by transferring  technologies developed primarily by the Forest Products Laboratory and  other Forest Service research units. As of February 2006, TMU employed  four technology transfer specialists with expertise in wood utilization and  product development. These specialists collaborate with Forest Service  scientists, primarily at the Forest Products Laboratory, to provide  technical assistance to local governments, private landowners, rural  communities, and forest industries to ensure the ready adoption of  technologies based on forest materials.
Like scientists and other technology transfer specialists, TMU’s specialists  disseminate research results through publications, conferences, and  workshops. Specific examples include the following:  In fiscal years 2004 and 2005, TMU reported distributing 40,000 and 6,900  publications, respectively. For example, TMU’s newsletter, the Forest  Products Conservation and Recycling Review, has a circulation of over  800. In fiscal year 2005, it published 19 issues of TechLines on topics  ranging from the outdoor performance of wood-plastic composites; to  wood flooring and roofing; to using waste wood for filtering water.
TMU participated in 45 workshops, conferences, presentations, training  sessions, and exhibits in fiscal year 2004 that were attended, in total, by  over 5,000.
In 2004, TMU cosponsored the SmallWood conference in Sacramento,  California, that was attended by over 350, including harvesting  contractors, rural development officials, community leaders, forest  products business owners, environmental groups, and tribes.
TMU provided an updated software tool that allows users to compare the  unit costs of various heating fuels—the Fuel Value Calculator—allowing  wood to be compared to conventional fossil fuels, such as natural gas or  fuel oil. The calculator is available on TMU’s Web site.
In addition, since TMU’s technology transfer specialists are located on-site  with Forest Products Laboratory scientists, they have an opportunity to  learn about the research from its early stages. Furthermore, when a  technology is developed, the specialists can work with the scientists to  conduct a market analysis to determine potential applications. For  example, in 2004, TMU published Assessing the Market Potential of  Roundwood Recreational Buildings, which provides information on the  applicability of the Forest Products Laboratory’s research on roundwood.
TMU also transfers technology to users by providing technical assistance  directly to industry, communities, and individuals nationwide, as well  conducting demonstration projects. Specifically, TMU specialists perform  the following activities:    Answer numerous phone inquiries and letters, and host visitors—over  2,000 in both fiscal years 2004 and 2005. Specialists provide answers to  technical questions, point a user to key information sources, or provide a  link and contact information to researchers working in a user’s area of  interest.
Travel to facilities to provide hands-on advice and answer questions.
For example, TMU assisted a remote California logging community hard- hit by mill closures to create over 100 new jobs through a small forest  products company and a nonprofit training center. Applying Forest  Products Laboratory research, TMU specialists helped the company  specialize in producing flooring from small-diameter trees by, among other  things, providing solutions to product imperfections like warping and  discoloration.
Work with companies and communities in implementing research  results or new technology through pilot and demonstration projects. For  example, TMU staff are working with the Department of Energy’s National  Renewable Energy Laboratory on a project testing small-scale biomass  modular units, called “BioMax 15s,” that use wood chips to create  electricity. The technology is still in the pre-commercial phase, so the  department and the TMU are using a demonstration program at several  sites around the country, including a high school in Walden, Colorado, and  a furniture-making business at the Zuni Pueblo in New Mexico.
In addition to its technology transfer responsibilities, in fiscal year 2005,  the unit led the evaluation of proposals for USDA’s Woody Biomass Grant  Program. This program made available over $4 million in grants designed  to increase the utilization of woody biomass from or near National Forest  System lands. The program is designed to improve forest restoration  activities by using and creating markets for small-diameter material and  low-valued trees that were removed during activities to reduce hazardous  fuels. Grants could range in value from $50,000 to $250,000.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to USDA’s  CSREES, Forest Service, and Natural Resources and Conservation Service;  Defense; Department of Energy; Department of Homeland Security; HUD;  Interior; Department of Transportation; and the National Science  Foundation. The Forest Service, DOT, Energy, and Interior provided  technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. CSREES,  Natural Resources and Conservation Service, Defense, Department of  Homeland Security, HUD, and the National Science Foundation did not  have comments on the draft report.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 7 days after the  date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to  interested congressional committees; the Secretaries of Agriculture,  Defense, Energy, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development,  Interior, and Transportation; the Director of the National Science  Foundation; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; and  other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon  request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO  Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512- 3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional  Relations and of Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this  report. GAO staff who made major contributors to this report are listed in  appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This report describes (1) the types of wood utilization research and  product development activities supported by federal agencies and how  these efforts are coordinated; (2) the level of support federal agencies  made available for these activities in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, and  changes in the level of support at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s  Forest Service and at the Cooperative State Research, Education, and  Extension Service (CSREES)-funded wood utilization research centers  from fiscal years 1995 through 2005; and (3) how the federal government  transfers technologies and products from its wood utilization research and  product development activities to industry.
For this review, we defined wood utilization research and product  development as those activities that occur from harvesting the wood  through the recycling of wood and paper products. To better understand  the focus of the federal research and development efforts in wood  utilization, we worked with Forest Service and CSREES program officials  to develop the following five broad categories: (1) harvesting—using  scientific and engineering principles to ensure cost-effective,  environmentally acceptable, and safe forest operations, including  planning, road building, harvesting, handling and processing, and  transportation; (2) wood properties—studying the basic and applied  physical, chemical, and mechanical properties of wood and wood fiber to  determine the suitability of this material for various uses, from pulp to  structural beams to recycled composite products; (3) manufacturing and  processing—new and better manufacturing ways to extract, reduce, and  convert virgin wood raw materials to useful products and the development  of technology to allow the re-use of materials and products to the  maximum extent possible; (4) products and testing—developing test  methods and gathering and evaluating data on the differing uses of wood  and wood fiber products; and (5) economics and marketing. This final  category includes evaluating and tracking domestic and international  supply and demand trends, and trade policies, and markets, including  market opportunities; and harvesting and production costs for alternative  material and energy inputs and processing options.
We performed our work at 12 federal agencies that support wood  utilization research and product development activities. These include  CSREES, the Forest Service, and the Natural Resources Conservation  Service; the Department of Defense’s (Defense) Army, Army Corps of  Engineers, and the Office of Naval Research; the Department of Energy;  the Department of Homeland Security’s Coast Guard; the Department of  Housing and Urban Development (HUD); the Department of the Interior’s  (Interior) Bureau of Indian Affairs; the National Science Foundation; and  the Department of Transportation.
To answer the first objective—describing the types of wood utilization  research and product development activities supported by federal  agencies and how these efforts are coordinated—we collected information  on research and product development activities at the 12 agencies for  fiscal years 2004 and 2005 and worked with the Forest Service and  CSREES to place these activities into one of the five categories we had  developed. Because certain Forest Service research work units and  CSREES-funded wood utilization research centers are specifically  dedicated to wood utilization research and product development, we  collected data on research activities for fiscal years 1995 through 2005 to  understand how these activities changed over time. At the Forest Service,  we used a data collection instrument to systematically gather data on the  27 research work units’ plans for wood utilization research and product  development, covering fiscal years 1995 through 2005. Because these plans  span multiple years, some dated back as far as 1988. In total, we examined  the 71 plans for the 16 research work units at the Forest Products  Laboratory and 11 research work units that were associated with other  research stations within the Forest Service—4 in the Northeast, 4 in the  South, 1 in the Pacific Northwest, 1 in the Pacific Southwest, and 1 in the  Rocky Mountains. From these plans, we collected information on each  research work unit’s mission, research problems, and selected research  activities. (See app. II.) We also interviewed each research work unit’s  project leader on the unit’s wood utilization research and product  development activities.
For CSREES, we examined the 10 wood utilization research centers at 12  universities that receive congressional committee-directed grants for  wood utilization research and product development. Nine of these centers  are at the universities of Alaska Southeast, Minnesota-Duluth, Maine, and  Tennessee; Michigan State University, Mississippi State University, North  Carolina State University, Oregon State University, and West Virginia  University; and the tenth center is divided among three universities— Idaho State, Montana State, and Washington State—that participate in the  Inland Northwest Forest Products Research Consortium. To identify these  centers’ wood utilization research and product development activities, we  obtained copies of the research proposals that the centers submit annually  to CSREES. We used a data collection instrument to (1) systematically  review the 88 proposals for fiscal years 1995 through 2005; (2) obtain  information on the research objectives, approach, and description of wood  utilization research and product development activities; and (3)  summarize selected activities for reporting purposes. We also obtained  information on the centers’ research activities from CSREES’ Current  Research Information System (CRIS) to obtain concise, nontechnical  descriptions of selected activities and to ensure that the CRIS summary  reflected the information in the CSREES proposals. We interviewed  knowledgeable agency officials regarding the reliability of data we used  from CSREES’ CRIS database and compared selected CRIS data with grant  files. We used the data from CSREES for descriptive purposes only, and  determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for these purposes. For  reporting purposes, we primarily relied on the CRIS summary information  to describe the selected research activities presented in appendix III.
To identify other CSREES wood utilization research and product  development activities in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, CSREES officials  queried the CRIS database using key search codes to identify the wood  utilization research and product development activities being conducted  under other CSREES-funded grant programs. At the time of our review,  the CRIS database did not contain complete information for fiscal year  2005. We reviewed the grant projects—104—that fell within our definition  of wood utilization research and product development.
To collect information on wood utilization research and product  development from the remaining 10 agencies, we interviewed agency  officials and reviewed and summarized available information on the  research activities for fiscal years 2004 and 2005.
To obtain information on the coordination of wood utilization and product  development activities among the 12 federal agencies, we interviewed  agency officials to obtain their views on the use of informal and formal  coordination mechanisms. For all agencies, we obtained this information  through interviews with program officials and scientists. In the case of  CSREES wood utilization research centers, we obtained this information  through a data collection instrument sent to the program leader at each  center. In addition, we obtained documents on selected formal  coordinating mechanisms, such as interagency agreements. We also  attended the “Agenda 2020” meeting sponsored by the Forest Service in  2005, which is held annually to exchange information between industry  and Forest Service scientists performing wood utilization research and  product development activities. The Forest Service uses these meetings to  seek industry views on research results and future research needs. We also  examined relevant laws, regulations, and agency polices related to  coordination for wood utilization research and product development.
To address the second objective—describe the level of support federal  agencies made available for wood utilization research and product  development activities in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, and changes in the  level of support at the Forest Service and CSREES wood utilization  research centers from fiscal years 1995 through 2005—we collected  budget authority or expenditure information from the 12 agencies for  fiscal years 2004 and 2005, and from the Forest Service and CSREES’  wood utilization centers for fiscal years 1995 through 2005. We reported  dollars in either budget authority or expenditure data, depending on the  availability of agency data. We analyzed these data in both nominal  (actual) dollars and dollars adjusted for inflation (real). Most agencies  and programs received congressional committee-directed budget authority  for wood utilization research and product development or allocated a  portion of their budget authority for these activities. Those budget  authority amounts are reported when available. However, the only data  available for the other CSREES grants and for the National Science  Foundation were expenditure data.
For information on CSREES’ budget authority for the wood utilization  research centers for fiscal years 1995 to 2005 for the grants awarded to the  wood utilization research centers, the CSREES official explained how the  funds were allocated across the 10 wood utilization research centers over  the 11-year period. These data were used to show the historical trends of  investment dollars for wood utilization research and product development  over the past 11 years. (See app. IV.)
In addition to the budget authority for the CSREES wood utilization  research centers, we obtained expenditure data for the wood utilization  research and product development activities conducted under the  authority of the McIntyre–Stennis Act, the Hatch Act, the National  Research Initiative, the Small Business Innovation Research Grants, and  other small grants, which can fund wood utilization research and product  development. We obtained specific expenditure amounts for these  activities for fiscal year 2004 from the CRIS database system. Fiscal year  2005 data were not available for these CSREES activities.
For the Forest Service, we obtained information on budget authority from  an internal agency review of research stations and research work units.  We used this information to provide an overview of the changes in budget  authority for wood utilization research and product development for fiscal  years 1995 through 2005. See appendix IV for the budget authority for each  research work unit over this period. In addition, we interviewed Forest  Service budget officials in headquarters, the Forest Products Laboratory,  and the State and Private Forestry Program on budget and other funding  issues, such as the allocation of funds and setting of research funding  priorities. We concluded that the data provided in the agency survey were  sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review.
We also reviewed and summarized information from Forest Service  documents on the number of scientists and research support staff at the  Forest Service—the only agency that has full-time federal employees who  directly conduct wood utilization research and product development  activities. We reported the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff at  each of the 27 research work units that conducted research on wood  utilization and product development for fiscal years 1995 through 2005.  (See app. IV.)
To collect funding information from the remaining agencies, we asked  budget and program officials for budget authority or expenditure  information for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 for wood utilization research  and product development. Specifically, the National Science Foundation  provided us with expenditure information from its Project Reports  Summary and Search and Awards databases because that is the only way it  could identify the amounts devoted to wood utilization research and  product development. We interviewed knowledgeable agency officials  regarding the reliability of these data. We used the data for descriptive  purposes only, and determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for  these purposes.
The funding for Defense’s Army, Corps of Engineers, and Office of Naval  Research; and the Department of Homeland Security’s Coast Guard were  congressional committee-directed funds or budget authority. However, for  the Office of Naval Research and the Coast Guard, we reported  expenditures because those amounts were applicable to our time period— fiscal years 2004 and 2005.
To respond to objective three—how the federal government transfers  technologies and products from its wood utilization research and product  development activities to industry—we obtained and reviewed relevant  legislation and policies and procedures on federal technology transfer  activities. At the Forest Service, we interviewed and obtained examples of  successful technology transfer from project leaders at the 27 research  work units that are responsible for wood utilization research and product  development; a patent attorney; technology transfer program managers at  the Technology Marketing Unit located at the Forest Products Laboratory;  and technology transfer specialists in the State and Private Forestry  Program. At CSREES, we had discussions with program research officials  and extension specialists. In addition, we sent a short data collection  instrument to the 10 wood utilization research centers to obtain  information on how they transfer the results of their research to industry,  as well as to obtain examples of successful transfer efforts. We did not  assess the success of these agencies’ reported efforts, nor did we try to  quantify the results of these efforts.
We also conducted site visits at a limited number of federal, university,  and industrial facilities—the Forest Products Laboratory; Forest Service  facilities in Virginia, West Virginia, and Oregon; the wood utilization  research center at Oregon State University; the Western Wood Producers  Association; the APA Engineered Wood Association; and a Weyerhaeuser  Company research laboratory in Washington State. We also visited a  sawmill, a manufacturer of wooden steps and stair posts, a manufacturer  of engineered products, and a cabinet maker, and attended the 2005  Northeast Utilization and Marketing Council’s conference. We performed  our work between February 2005 and May 2006, in accordance with  generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Appendix II: Forest Service’s Conducted and Planned Wood Utilization Research and Product Development
paragraphs: This appendix presents examples of work conducted and planned for the  Forest Service’s research work units at the Forest Products Laboratory  (table 14), and in work units associated with five research stations:  Northeastern, Pacific Northwest, Pacific Southwest, Rocky Mountain, and  Southern (table 15).
section_title: Appendix III: CSREES Wood Utilization Research Centers, Fiscal Years 1995-2005
paragraphs: This appendix presents information on CSREES’ wood utilization research  centers, including some of their objectives, specialty areas, and research  activities over 11 years—fiscal years 1995 through 2005.
subsections: section_title: University of Alaska Wood Utilization Research Center
paragraphs: This center specializes in assisting the Alaska Forest Products industry  through research, extension, and education activities.
section_title: Inland Northwest Forest Products Research Consortium
paragraphs: The consortium uses a multidisciplinary, multi-institutional approach to  solving forest operations and wood utilization problems unique to the  Inland Northwest region.  The consortium consists of the universities of  Idaho and of Montana, and Washington State University.
section_title: University of Maine Wood Utilization Research Center
paragraphs: This center specializes in all aspects of utilization concerning species  indigenous to the New England area.
section_title: Michigan State University Wood Utilization Research Center
paragraphs: The center specializes in sustainable hardwood utilization, with a focus on  wood preservation, wood composite materials, and genetic engineering of  necessary wood properties for specific product development.
section_title: University of Minnesota, Duluth, Wood Utilization Research Center
section_title: Mississippi State University Wood Utilization Research Center
paragraphs: This center specializes in timber harvesting, transportation, and  economics; lumber manufacturing and processing; wood-based composite  materials; protection and preservation of wood; wood chemistry;  economic evaluation; and technology transfer.
section_title: North Carolina State University Wood Utilization Research Center
paragraphs: This center specializes in wood machining and tooling technology.
section_title: Oregon State University Wood Utilization Research Center
paragraphs: This center specializes in science, technology, and business practices that  will enhance the domestic and global competitiveness of the U.S. wood  products industry, especially in the western United States; this will ensure  more efficient use of available wood resources. A special emphasis is  placed on training future scientists, researchers, and practitioners.
section_title: University of Tennessee Wood Utilization Research Center
paragraphs: This center specializes in southern Appalachian hardwood utilization and  manufacturing of composite materials.
section_title: University of West Virginia Wood Utilization Research Center
paragraphs: This center specializes in improving the utilization of upland hardwoods in  Appalachian forests.
section_title: Appendix IV: Budget Authority for the Forest Service’s Research Work Units and for the CSREES Wood Utilization Research Centers
paragraphs: This appendix presents budget authority information for the Forest  Service, information on FTE scientists and support staff for the Forest  Service, and budget authority information for CSREES wood utilization  research centers, from fiscal years 1995 through 2005.
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Andrea Wamstad Brown,  Jacqueline Adams Cook, Richard Johnson, Rebecca Shea, Jay Cherlow,  Carol Herrnstadt Shulman, Jeremy Ames, and Jaelith Hall-Rivera, made  key contributions to this report.