Forest Biomass Policies and Regulations in the United States of America

Abstract

Using woody biomass from public lands could attract private investments, increase carbon dioxide emission reductions from sustainably harvested low-grade wood to mitigate climate change, provide benefits for the environment, and support rural community economies. Available for use are about 210 million oven dry tons (in the western U.S. alone) of small-diameter wood and harvest residues that could be removed through hazard-fuel treatments and used for bioenergy and bioproducts; representing an economic value of approximately USD 5.97 billion (10⁹). Reaching that utilization goal requires an assessment of current U.S. policies, regulations and directives influencing the use of forest biomass and identification of barriers, challenges, and potential opportunities associated with the use of woody biomass from public lands. One objective of this review is to support the implementation of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA-FS) new effort called “Confronting the Wildfire Crisis: A Strategy for Protecting Communities and Improving Resilience in America’s Forests”, but greater coordination of public policies (regulatory legislation, government subsidies, support programs) at different government levels could increase adoption of forest biomass for bioenergy and bioproducts while also promoting different supply chains for long-term biomass supplies and industry investments. Harmonizing the definition of key biomass terms used by different programs that support using forest biomass for bioenergy and other bioproducts, including the Renewable Fuel Standard, may increase forest biomass use from public lands.

1. Introduction

In general, biomass is referred to as all organic material produced by plants or any conversion process involving life. Biomass includes water- and land-based organisms, including vegetation, trees, or virgin biomass. Biomass is considered renewable because, in a short period of time, the material used can be replaced. This is the main advantage of using biomass for biofuels as compared to fossil fuel-derived products.

Woody biomass, also known as forest biomass or dendromass, comprises all parts of the tree (i.e., stem, bark, branches, leaves, needles, shavings, chips, stumps, and roots) that are generated from forest management and processing activities. Forest biomass also includes residues that remain after harvesting forest products (Figure 1), fuelwood from forestlands, residues from forest products processing mills, and forest residues from silvicultural treatments aimed to decrease the amount of hazardous fuel to reduce wildfire risk and improve forest health.

Expansion of bioenergy use and bio-based products may contribute to climate change adaptation or mitigation by reducing greenhouse gas emissions or promoting forest health, especially when the cascading principle and waste hierarchy are implemented to achieve resource efficiency of biomass use according to its highest environmental and economic benefit. At present, forest biomass is often underutilized and considered waste material because of the high costs for collection and transportation and because there are few markets for this material. For these reasons, forest biomass is often disposed of by on-site burning, which can cause negative economic and environmental impacts. However, there are considerable advancements in applying new methods and technologies to expand the uses and value of unmerchantable forest biomass. Integrating biomass conversion to bioproducts during forest restoration activities may contribute to the cost-effectiveness of removing trees killed by drought, insects or disease while also reducing wildfire risk [1]. In addition, on-site or near-site forest biomass conversion and utilization can be integrated into thinning and timber harvest operations, producing renewable bioenergy and bioproducts (e.g., nanotechnology, cross laminated timber, biofuels, biochar, and other products).

New markets for burgeoning bioproducts can help achieve a variety of forest management objectives such as wildfire mitigation, forest health, restoration, watershed improvements, wildlife habitat, timber stand improvement, and aesthetics. These objectives are particularly important as climate change and invasive species increasingly stress U.S. forests. Diversifying forest biomass uses could also help offset the high cost of forest management, restoration activities, hazardous fuels treatments, and post-harvest actions. However, there are potential drawbacks such as concerns about air quality, and the potential increase in greenhouse gas emissions from burning feedstocks [2]. Sustainable harvest operations that extend from timber sale to residue utilization needs consistent policies, regulations, and directives at federal and state government levels to streamline the administrative process.

This review assesses current U.S. policies (actions adopted by a government), regulations (rules developed to modify economic behavior), and directives (authoritative instruction), influencing the use of forest biomass, as well as to identify the barriers, challenges and potential next steps to increase the use of forest biomass that also result in (1) improving environmental conditions and decreasing the risk of wildland fire for rural communities, (2) increasing forest management on national forests to be a source of renewable bioenergy and bioproducts; (3) decreasing the impacts of climate change; (4) promoting economic development and environmental justice in rural, forest-dependent communities and (5) supporting the implementation of the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA-FS) Wildland Fire-Strategy for Protecting Communities and Improving Resilience in America’s Forests.

2. Policy Background

Public policy is promulgated by government representatives (legislators, governors, agency administrators, and judges). Natural resource policy is a designed course of action or inaction to be followed by an individual or group to manage the use and protection of natural resources to achieve an explicit or implicit objective [3,4,5]. Because private organizations and NGO’s are now involved in forest management activities, these authors also note that policies may be extended to cover groups in their management and disposition of natural resources.

A policy instrument is the link between policy formulation and policy implementation. Policy instruments are also known as governing tools when they are applied with all associated conditions. The objective of implementing governing tools is to achieve policy targets of resource management that are adjusted to social, political, economic, and administrative concerns. The design of a policy instrument varies according to the following criteria [6]:

• Financial (loan, tax, fee, charge, fine, insurance, and price)
• Promotional (cash grants, loan guarantee, public investment, government provision, public promotion, and kind transfer)
• Motivational (information, demonstration, and government-sponsored enterprise)
• Regulatory (quality control, guideline, prohibition, quota, and ban)
• Administrative (certification, screening, license, permit, lease, and contract)

Four types of policy instruments can be used by state and federal governments to promote the use of woody biomass (

Table 1. Policy instruments to promote the use of woody biomass in the U.S.¹.

Category	Description
Financial Incentives. Cash payments or reduced taxes can be an effective governmental tool to achieve policy objectives.	Tax incentives Sales tax incentives. Establishes reduction or exemption from state sales tax on the purchase of qualifying equipment for harvesting, transportation, and manufacturing or processing of biomass. Corporate/production tax incentives. Deductions or exemptions from taxes paid by businesses for installing certain types of biomass manufacturing systems. They may also include production tax credits paid for the volume of forest biomass used in production or for the amount of energy produced. Personal tax incentives. Provides income tax credits and deductions most commonly related to the installation of certain types of renewable energy systems. Property tax incentives. Exemptions, exclusions, and credits for the use of property (including equipment) used for the sitting of qualifying manufacturing facilities or the transport of biomass. Financing and contracting Business recruitment is used to promote economic development and job creation by offering specific incentives like property tax credits to locate in investment zones or in a business incubator, tax exemptions on equipment purchased or individuals employed, and grants for investing in certain types of technology. Recruitment incentives are generally temporary measures to support emerging industries. Bonds allow state and local governments to raise money by borrowing to support construction of biomass utilization facilities, including the installation of wood boilers to heat schools and industrial facilities. The bonding authority may be reimbursed using the savings resulting from the installation of projects. Loans provide financing for the purchase of qualifying equipment for harvesting biomass, transportation, and processing or remanufacturing. Micro-loans, low-interest, and zero- interest loans may be available to residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, public and nonprofit sectors. Procurement and contracting requires certain types of products be purchases from qualifying sources or that certain types of contractors be used in biomass processing and delivery. By issue of Executive Order, city ordinance, or state legislation, certain biomass products may be required for use in heating, construction, or operating vehicles or equipment. Financial incentives in the form of tax credits, grants, and loans may be used to encourage procurement/contracting practices where it is not mandated. Subsidies and grants Cost share programs. Designed to reduce the purchase price or operations cost of equipment used for biomass harvesting, transportation, or manufacturing. The cost of operations may also be reduced through a waiver of fees, or supplemental resources provided to pay for biomass harvesting or procurement. Grant programs. Encourage the use and development of certain types of technologies or programs aimed at biomass utilization. Grants are typically available to commercial, industrial, community, and government sectors on a competitive basis to purchase equipment, support research, development, or demonstration projects, and to support product commercialization and marketing. Rebate programs. Offered by state or local governments and utilities to promote the purchase or installation of qualifying biomass manufacturing and processing systems.
Rules and regulations. Use of the legal system to regulate behavior is a common policy tool used by governments, possibly requiring that people engage in particular activities.	Renewable energy standards. Require utility companies to use renewable energy to account for a certain percentage of their retail electricity sales or generation. This category includes renewable energy goals that establish nonbinding goals for renewable energy production; interconnection standards governing how energy producers connect to the grid; consumer green power programs offering the option of buying electricity generated from renewable resources; net metering or buy-back of excess power generated from renewable sources; and public benefit funds that set aside utility dollars for renewable energy development. Equipment certification. Establishes standards for the efficiency or quality of equipment used to process or manufacture biomass (e.g., wood pellet burners and biomass boilers).
Provision of services. State governments routinely offer numerous services to landowners. States provide fire control, technical assistance in land management, and market information.	Education and consultation Technical assistance. Establishes local or state programs to coordinate research on biomass utilization, disseminate technical information, and assist with business planning and grant writing. Other activities may include the creation of business planning tools, organize outreach to potential businesses, or to coordinate existing service programs. Training programs. Education courses or certificates offered to businesses, employees, agency personnel, and others involved in biomass harvesting and use in which development of technical expertise is the objective.
Public attitudes Public acceptance of woody biomass used for bioenergy and bioproducts.	Policy implications Perceptions of stakeholders, policy makers, and industry about climate change mitigation, sustainability, biodiversity changes, recreation, bioenergy, and rural economies are critical to increased use of woody biomass. Training programs, increased communication, and education used to involve a wider audience.

¹ From information in: [5,7,8]

): financial incentives, rules and regulations, the provision of services, and public attitudes.

3. Federal Policies and Incentives

Beginning in the 1970s, the U.S. undertook a program to improve national energy security by working todecrease oil dependency. One strategy was to promote and develop alternative and renewable energy sources for electricity production [9]. At the same time, policymakers started to see agriculture as a potential source of energy (e.g., ethanol from corn). To facilitate this, both federal and state legislation was enacted to stimulate renewable fuel production and funding for research [10]. As a result, the U.S. Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) was enacted in 1978 to encourage cogeneration and promote competition for electric generation. PURPA was implemented by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the states. It imposed mandatory purchase obligations on electric utilities for power generated by cogeneration facilities and small power production facilities of 80 megawatts or less using renewable resources to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil [11,12].

After PURPA’s enactment, support for woody biomass utilization was promoted by the U.S. Congress and in 1979 they introduced the term ‘biomass’ to refer to any type of alternative fuel [13]. After this, biomass was further defined in the Energy Security Act of 1980 (P.L. 96–294, Title II), as “any organic matter which is available on a renewable basis, including agricultural crops and agricultural wastes and residues, wood and wood wastes and residues, animal wastes, municipal wastes, and aquatic plants” [13]. Then, in 1992 the U.S. Congress enacted the National Energy Policy Act, which is comprised of several provisions that encourage the use of renewable energy sources. This was followed by Executive Order (EO) 13134 in August 1999 which encouraged the development and promotion of bio-based products and bioenergy [14].

In addition to these early legislation efforts to support renewable resources for energy generation, other policies have been enacted to encourage the use of woody biomass through policy and incentives. The legislative efforts promote energy development and biobased products such as cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel with recent additions of mass timber, biochar, and other innovative woody biomass-based products.

The primary pieces of legislation considered as the over-arching umbrella to promote the increased use of bioenergy and woody biomass are the Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000, the Farm Bill of 2002, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003, the Energy Policy Act of 2005(EPACT), the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISACT), and the Food Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 [14,15,16]. The main characteristics of each of these legislation efforts are presented in the Appendix A.

Timber Sale Regulations

The main set of rules issued by federal agencies is contained in Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (Parks, Forests, and Public Property [17]. In part 223 of Title 36 (Sale and disposal of National Forest System timber) Subpart A states the authorities for the USDA-FS to sell and dispose of timber. Timber sale contracts, including timber disposal, should be consistent with applicable land and resource management plans and environmental quality standards and are listed under Subpart B. Subpart B covers legal aspects of contracting as well as limitations.

One of the main requirements related to woody biomass utilization is that it provides a mechanism for the optimum practical use of wood that can be obtained with currently available technology and when considering opportunities to promote more efficient wood utilization, regional conditions, and species characteristics. However, there is no specific language that addresses the disposal of the forest residues and unmerchantable wood from logging operations. Slash piles and forest residues generated in timber sales could be utilized for bioenergy or used to produce biochar on site and used to improve soil health or used for other ecosystem restoration actions.

Using wood normally burned in slash plies for a higher-value use can reduce slash pile burning impacts on the soil resource while also reducing smoke and particulates generated during open burning. In addition, there is a potential to generate additional revenues by using unmerchantable woody biomass generated from timber sales. However, there is a need to determine the best way residues can be disposed so that they benefit the government, local communities, and forest ecosystem processes. Using unmerchantable residues for biochar production could help the USDA-FS improve forest ecosystem conditions such as soil productivity while also decreasing the risk of wildfire. In addition, this effort could create new markets and create jobs in rural communities. One limitation for the USDA-FS is the requirement for how a timber sale purchaser handles unmerchantable or low-value slash material, but this could be overcome by incentivizing the timber purchaser to use these residues.

4. State Policies Related to Woody Biomass

Federal laws supporting the use of woody biomass are followed and applied by state and local legislation and they include policies and incentives to encourage woody biomass production and utilization depending on local conditions. The enactment of law and policy instruments mostly started in 1990, but the majority have been promulgated since 2005 [18]. During the last 20 years federal and state governments have developed policies and regulatory instruments to support the production of electricity and heat from forest biomass. Several authors have classified these policies according to their different characteristics such as those providing financial incentives, energy mandates, and grants [5,7,19]. Others have grouped state legislation in categories related to rules and regulations, public assistance programs, and financial incentives [18] and in categories related to their effects at different phases of the supply chain (harvesting, transportation, manufacturing, and consumer markets) including building codes and biofuel policies [20]. Additional classifications are in themes like tax incentives, cost-share programs and grants, rules and regulations, financing, procurement, and technical assistance [7,18,21,22]. Often selected policies are analyzed individually for their effectiveness. However, in the long-term it will be important to examine policy mixes at federal and state levels to determine the most complementary characteristics that further the goals of low-value woody biomass use.

Becker and Lee [7] reviewed, classified, and integrated a database of legislation and policy instruments about woody biomass from all U.S. states. This database reports 388 policies, 95 tax incentives, 63 subsidies and grants, 129 rules and regulations, 67 education and consultation, and 33 financing and contracting instruments addressing state and local challenges using woody biomass and they provide support to overcome those challenges and promote forest management and create economic development opportunities.

Policy Effectiveness

During the past 10 years, several studies have assessed the effectiveness of woody biomass and renewable energy policies and policy instruments at the state level. The primary objective was to define the most adopted policy instrument or policy mixes at the state level that promote the use of woody biomass as the main feedstock for renewable energy. All the studies concluded that financial incentives, including tax incentives, subsidies, and grants, are the most widely accepted policy instruments or mixes that overcome the challenge of producing a sustainable feedstock demand and supply for energy production and which lowers the capital costs of investments [18]. Financial incentives were also considered as the best policy instrument to promote price competitiveness of renewable energy feedstocks followed by (1) adoption of education and consultation programs and (2) rules and regulations. Financial assistance helps to diminish risks associated with a large advance in investment costs [19,22,23,24,25].

Becker et al. [20] identified 370 state policies in the U.S. that promote incentives for forest biomass utilization. They broadly assessed these policies to determine if they were motivational or coercive in stimulating biomass utilization and how they were organized within the supply chain. They concluded that the largest number of policies were directed at the manufacturing sector (215 policies), followed by consumer markets (134 policies), with a small number related to harvesting (20 policies) and transportation (1 policy). The policies targeting consumer markets were of various forms. For example, procurement policies were widely used to establish requirements on utilities to buy excess energy produced from consumers who have installed qualifying biomass energy systems (net metering). They also mentioned that some regulations are directed to green building and that tax incentives were frequently used to create consumer demand.

In addition to the policies for biomass utilization, in 2013 there were 494 state laws in the U.S. that supported the use of forest biomass for heat and electricity production [21]. Within these state laws, there were 279 laws based on incentives (Tax incentives: 94 laws, project finance: 97 laws, and production incentives: 88 laws), 115 laws related to regulations (Consumption production standard: 73 laws, and connectivity standard: 42 laws), and 100 laws developed around information policies (dissemination: 85 laws, and research feasibility: 15 laws). The most used incentive policies were in the areas of project finance, tax, and production incentives. In addition, 83% of the policies applied broadly to all renewable energy; 8% addressed biomass energy, and 9% were specifically related to forest bioenergy. Ebers et al. [21] also indicated that the state of Oregon had the highest number of tax incentives and biomass policies. According to their results Oregon had 22 policies, followed by New York, Vermont, and California. Specific state laws and policy instruments in each state can be found at https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/107766 (accessed on 24 August 2022), Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (https://www.dsireusa.org/(accessed on 24 August 2022)), and Energy State Bill Tracking Database (https://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/energy-legislation-tracking-database.aspx (accessed on 24 August 2022)).

Understanding the economics of woody biomass utilization at the state level is difficult because the financial gain of a project from a specific policy depends on the scale of the investment, processing procedures, number of products manufactured, and the quantity produced [26]. According to the database from Becker et al. [20] many of the state policies provide incentives that foster biomass removal or forest product uses, but additional state policies that provide incentives for healthy forests rather than general legislation may be necessary in the future [26].

5. Discussion

The woody biomass potential production from federal and private lands has not been fully explored. The Billion Ton report [27] indicates there is a high-yield potential of 483 million dry metric tons in 2022 and increasing to 1.15 billion dry tons in 2040 which consists of forest wastes and residues that could be sustainably produced each year in the U.S., including about 36% of total biomass in 2040 coming from forest residues and wood energy crops [28]. Forest2Market indicated that in 2016 the harvested timber supply chain economic value contribution of private working forests to the US economy was very important, since total direct, indirect, and induced employment effects were close to 2.5 million jobs, with USD 109.4 billion in annual payroll and USD 288 billion in sales and manufacturing [29]. This contribution could be enhanced when biomass from public lands is used for a variety of products.

For the USDA-FS and other land management agencies the large-scale benefits of using forest biomass is that removal for bioenergy or bioproducts offers an opportunity to potentially monetize unmerchantable or low-value residues outside the efficient transportation radius of existing bioenergy operations, making conversion to bioproducts more economically feasible. If implemented properly, and with adequate marketing, the use of low-value woody residues as a feedstock to produce bioenergy and other biobased forest products may help forest managers more effectively and efficiently accomplish fire management objectives and therefore, help protect communities and human health. However, there are several limiting factors to making use of the full potential of woody biomass. Some limiting factors are technical, but others are related to policies and policy instruments at national and state levels, as well as the challenges associated with local biomass markets. In Denmark, environmental concerns associated with the use of woody biomass are a top priority [8] and this may also be something addressed within the U.S. A full understanding of attitudes about environmental impacts, biodiversity, and climate mitigation associated with bioenergy and bioproduct production will be an important aspect of future policy development or policy mixes. Additional benefits of using low-value forest thinning biomass and residues are a reduction or removal of invasive tree species, decreased insect and disease outbreaks, mitigating climate change impacts, and improved environmental growing conditions for the remaining forest stand. Without markets for this material, it is often not harvested or left as slash piles to decompose, be burned or increase the risk of wildland fire.

Policy Language

Biomass was first defined by Congress in Section 203 of the Energy Security Act of 1980, including wood and wood wastes and residues along other sources of biomass [30]. Other legislation containing biomass definitions are the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, and the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. According to these reports, there are 14 different biomass definitions included in legislation, including tax legislation. The main objective for these varying definitions is to support research and development, technology transfer, and reduce technology costs for landowners and businesses. However, the main impact of all these definitions is that they determine which feedstocks can be used under the various programs, and for the application of biomass used to produce energy.

Why is it important to consider these definitions? Defining biomass type determines the use. For example, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 established the use of cellulosic materials for biofuels production and at the same time established the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) that imposed an upper limit to the amount of forest biomass that could be used for biofuels (no restriction on federal lands in the Energy Policy Act of 2005). However, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 defined renewable biomass in such a way that the RFS imposed restrictions on the use of raw material from federal and Tribal lands in trust of the U.S., but it does not include planted trees, tree residue, or “slash and pre-commercial thinning that are from non-federal forestlands, including forestlands belonging to an Indian tribe or an Indian individual, that are held in trust by the United States or subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States, but not forests or forestlands that are ecological communities with a global or State ranking of critically imperiled”. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (known as 2008 Farm Bill) includes biomass from federal lands as a biofuel feedstock, but it limits the use of forest biomass as a feedstock for and this is still a barrier to increased biomass use. However, there is continuing legislation that has been enacted to support the use of forest biomass for bioenergy, such as the 2018 Farm Bill. This bill provides incentives as provided in Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, 2021 (Appendix A).

According to the Department of Energy [31], the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the RFS program, and it defines slash and precommercial thinning materials that can be used from non-federal lands in the 40 CFR 80.1401 (Figure 2). The EPA established volume requirements for each category of woody residue based on the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 with legislated volumes and fuel availability [32]. The EPA also monitors compliance by issuing a Renewable Identification Number (RIN) to each gallon of renewable fuel. Industries regulated by the RFS include oil refiners and gasoline and diesel importers. The volumes authorized for each obligated party are based on a percent of its petroleum product sales. Obligated parties can meet their renewable volume obligations (RVOs) by either selling required biofuel volumes or purchasing RINs from other industries that exceed their requirements. However, while this is a good option, it is not currently implementable within the forest biomass industry (e.g., producing biofuels for jet fuels). This is the case for Red Rock Biofuels who, under these regulations, has a prohibition on using woody biomass from public lands due to legislation structure. Red Rock Biofuel’s biorefinery under construction (almost finished) in Lakeview, Oregon is a second-generation commercial scale biorefinery that will convert waste woody biomass into renewable jet, diesel, and gasoline blend stock fuels.

6. Increasing the Use of Woody Biomass in the U.S.

The promotion and use of forest biomass for bioenergy and bioproducts is complex. What follows is a list of suggestions to increase the use of woody biomass.

• Multiple definitions are contained within different programs supporting the use of forest biomass for bioenergy and other bioproducts. The restriction for using biomass from public lands discourages private industry investments and it decreases the opportunity to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by producing biofuels from sustainably harvested low-grade wood to mitigate the impacts of climate change, to reap the associated benefits for the environment, and to improve rural community economies. It also implies that the cost of hazardous fuels materials cannot be decreased when managing public lands because the material cannot be used for bioenergy or biofuels production. This limits an agency’s capacity to implement active forest management and successful implementation of the USDA-FS Wildland Fire Strategy for Protecting Communities and Improving Resilience in America’s Forests. This is important because it could leave out the use of about 210 million oven dry tons of small-diameter and harvest residue material that could be removed through hazard-fuel treatments in the western U.S. [33].
  Current U.S. policies direct the federal government, aircraft manufacturers, airlines, fuel producers, airports, and non-governmental organizations to advance the use of cleaner and more sustainable fuels in aviation. These steps make progress toward U.S. climate goals for 2030 and are essential to unlocking the potential for a fully zero-carbon aviation sector by 2050. The aim is to produce three billion gallons of sustainable fuel, reduce aviation emissions by 20% by 2030, and grow good-paying union jobs [34]. Forest biomass could be an important source of raw material for this purpose. However, for the U.S. to be able to accomplish this mandate, all agencies and departments involved need to establish clear definitions of the 42 U.S. Code § 7545(Regulation of fuels (I) Renewable biomass from (v) Biomass obtained from the immediate vicinity of buildings and other areas regularly occupied by people, or of public infrastructure, at risk from wildfire [35]. This work will involve the USDA-FS and EPA to get clarification and guidance on what constitutes qualified renewable biomass and the distance it can be obtained from federal lands surrounding buildings, other areas regularly occupied by people, or public infrastructure in the area at risk for wildfire. Currently, a distance of 200 feet (61 m) has been mentioned but given the current environmental conditions of extreme fire behavior that may occur during intense drought, hot temperatures, and very high winds, this distance may not be sufficient to effectively provide a wildfire fuel break. Additional considerations are defining the forestry terms and concepts included in the RFS code such as slash, pre-commercial thinnings, and wood from plantations. Using standard definitions currently provided in academic literature would assist in bringing consistency to policies and regulations. Soon RIN registrations for woody biomass-derived electricity that displaces liquid fuels in electric and hydrogen vehicles will be needed.
• Forest biomass definitions can be used to limit bioenergy or bioproducts to avoid industry competition for raw materials and promote unsustainable forest management [18,30]. Alignment and consistency of forest biomass and related definitions are an important topic to analyze and propose solutions, so all sectors have the same understanding.
• Lack of alignment between some national and state policies for the use of forest biomass creates increased cost and uncertainty (i.e., Clean Air regulations). Abrams et al. [22] point out that the biomass policy system in the U.S. may not be well designed to support innovation, particularly due to conflicts between forest biomass use promotion policies and other forest, environmental, or energy policies.
• Additional factors that affect how state and federal energy policies impact the forest bioenergy sector are pending or near final court rulings. These bioenergy policies can deter or stall investments and expansion of rural economies. Changes in the legal definition of forest bioenergy and its eligibility in policy (e.g., Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS)) can influence harvesting practices, site sustainability, and feedstock availability (e.g., removal of forest biomass from federal lands) [21].
• RPS are a regulatory mandate to increase production of energy from renewable sources such as wind, solar, biomass, and other alternatives to fossil and nuclear electric generation. It is also known as a renewable electricity standard [12,35]. Currently, 30 States and the District of Columbia have RPSs, 5 states have a Clean Energy Standard, 8 states have renewable portfolio goals, and 5 states have clean energy goals [36]. This is important, because RPS can set limits in the U.S. for forest biomass used for electricity production. The implication of this is that when forest biomass supplies are limited, using wood as an energy feedstock can increase competition for the material between the bioenergy sector and the pulp and paper industry. In addition, there are concerns that burning biomass could reduce air quality by releasing particulate matter [21].
• There are several policies that are not directly linked to, or specifically designed for, dealing with forest biomass. However, they have a high degree of influence on the different programs. This situation creates an imbalance between support for using forest biomass and limits of harvest operations because of a high standard within the regulations. Examples are national environmental policies such as the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and policies regulating USDA-FS National Forest System management. Furthermore, at the state level there are additional forest management policies, such as forest management and climate change action plans. It is important to analyze and create a consistent design or mix of regulations that could have the same standards but aligned with the new reality.
• Other aspects to be considered are high transportation costs. Forest biomass transportation cost is a major concern, and this is where designing policies that consider incentives for transportation costs could help reduce the cost of the supply chain and promote forest biomass use in the western US, where federal lands are located at long hauling distances from the processing facilities.
• Increasing education efforts can create, raise, sustain, and develop public awareness to increase knowledge and build positive attitudes for early and sustained adoption of bioenergy and bioproducts. Current efforts can be intensified to change public behaviors in both rural and urban households, industries, and communities.

7. Future Considerations

There is a need to increase USDA-FS biomass production capacity, but this requires more coordinated and direct policies. The goal would be to use pieces of existing policies (policy mixes) or design new policies that promote forest biomass as a specific source for the creation of biobased products and renewable energy. These could establish direct subsidies that help organizations finance installation of new systems for innovative biomass-based products and support market development. Ultimately, these new policies or policy mixes would strengthen the whole forest industry supply chain. In addition, there are restrictions on raw material from federal and Tribal lands used for bioenergy and biofuels in the RFS, modifying these restrictions could increase forest product markets.

If the goal of policy instruments is to increase the adoption of biomass use for a variety of purposes, then policies could be developed that improve forest health through active management. These policies could also consider promoting a consistent long-term fuel supply for industrial investments. Initially, the effective treatment areas could target the wildland-urban interface and thereby increase biomass use adjacent to federal-, state- or industry-owned lands.

Forest harvest operations will continue to generate slash piles, but a change in contracting language for federal land harvest operations can promote biomass utilization over pile burning. Incentives in timber sale and stewardship contracts that promote woody biomass for bioenergy or bio-based products rather than paying to create slash piles for on-site burning will increase production of bioproducts that benefit society. Furthermore, accomplishing these changes will support increasing forest restoration and active forest management under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and federal strategies to confront the wildfire crisis and plan investments in building resilient forests by targeting wildfire reduction risk and ecosystem restoration.

8. Conclusions

Woody biomass is the only renewable resource that has the potential to supply a significant portion of U.S. liquid transportation fuels, chemicals, and substitutes for fossil fuel intensive products. Furthermore, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110–140) mandates that by 2022 the United States will replace 36 billion gallons/year (bg/yr) of transportation fuels with biofuels, with at least 16 bg/yr coming from cellulosic feedstocks [37]. Our goal of this review was to evaluate current U.S. policies related to biomass use and identify barriers, areas for improvement, and next steps for increasing bioproduct or bioenergy production. We point out that differing definitions of what constitutes woody biomass from federal lands discourages investments in new technologies and, therefore, improving the consistency of language and policy actions will promote greater government coordination and wider adoption of forest biomass supply chains that improve forest sustainability, long-term biomass supplies, and industry investments. This review also highlights that there is potential for increased educational efforts to build community support for increasing use of woody biomass. Slash piles and non-merchantable woody residues should also be considered as viable products for bioenergy, biofuels, or biochar, but current regulations and policies will need updating to incentivize their use. Learning about different policies from state-to-state and across federal agencies will also help achieve improvements in woody biomass utilization.